159th_Viper

Precisely the reason why the interests of the many will always outweigh the interests of the few. All the Developer can do is mitigate the infringement of the few's rights as far and as reasonable in the circumstances as possible. Impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

Your rights are not absolute. You have limited rights of use and enjoyment.

Are you stating that your concern is that they should have announced this earlier? It might not have been ready to announce any earlier than what it was for whatever reason. Or have I misunderstood?

Apart from your earlier statement about it 'Not being fair', is there any other genuine concerns that you have that will better aid TFC/ED in arriving at a decision that will benefit the majority of their consumer base and indeed themselves? We need to adequately list our concerns for discussions.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3304775&postcount=1 I'm sure TFC/ED will elaborate further if asked politely. Common sense, coupled with the advantages already mentioned as above. Why would someone do something that would be worse in the long-run? I certainly would not.

Your purchases have always been rentals. That's been the case for years and years and years. You never own the software - you merely purchase limited rights of use and enjoyment.

If the village has cellular coverage and you have a cellular phone then you'll be fine. If not then you might have an issue.

They already listed the benefits to the consumers. So yes, at present it benefits both themselves and their consumers better than the present system, obviously. Why else change? One does not change for the worse. As far as the long run is concerned, well, yes, one can only make a judgement call on information that is currently on hand. If it turns out to not be in their best interests in the long run then it will obviously be revisited and changed for the better.

Developers are obviously loath to engage in public discussions regarding DRM software. In any event, why would they contemplate something if it does not directly benefit them? We can all be sure that they would not have implemented this new system if it was not in their best interest doing so. Would be shooting themselves in the foot otherwise and I am certain that they are wiser than that. Would you intentionally shoot yourself in the foot?

And I would have agreed with you had they not explained why the rules are being changed. They provided me with an explanation. I found said explanation, after having weighed up the necessary information, to be reasonable in the circumstances insofar as I am concerned. My rights as consumer will not be infringed upon in any way other than what they are already been infringed upon with the added benefit of accruing more advantages. Goodwill is intact. Now everyone's circumstances are different as your case aptly portrays. It is as mentioned a balancing act. You know what they say - sometimes the rights of the few have to be sacrificed to a certain extent to better protect the rights of the many. The best that we can hope for is that the sacrifice of the few is mitigated as far as possible, which is why we are all having this discussion.

One can imagine just how difficult it is for TFC/ED. They need to balance their interests in keeping afloat and not being pirated out of existence with the rights of their consumers, us. Which is where we find ourselves right now, discussing the matter. I somehow think that we are fortunate in being afforded the opportunity in having a say. Other developers might very well just have a 'take-it-or-leave-it' approach to the entire thing, sacrificing their consumer's rights to better protect their own rights at the end of the day. It's a balancing act for sure.

Do you have a phone? If you read the thread properly you would know that it is only a phone that is required for authentication and not an internet connection. If you have a cellular phone then you have the ability to have a connection required for authentication.

In this instance then it obviously will be a valid concern, one that can only be addressed by lengthening the prescribed time period between logins to one that is more reasonable in the circumstances than the current 3-day period.

ROFL that's an impressive leap :D If one system is working very well and another system comes along that would work even better, guess what the majority of us will do? Yep, quite correct. Move onto the better one.

It's important to note that you do not need internet per se for activation. All you need is a phone line (mobile wi-fi hotspot) for a quick activation call. Do you not have access to a cellular telephone at all either on said trips?

Fact is, if you are here posting on an internet forum then you are squared away insofar as the new system is concerned. Internet = check. And that would only be every three or so days.

Yep - that's why I have a 14 year old daughter. She's my tech-support-Goblin :D

You will be able to do so. Set up your phone as a wi-fi hotspot.

I think that the point is that the original post will be better off with an edit so as to remove any ambiguity.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3307037#post3307037

Myself as well. That is information that only the Developers can share with us if they so wish. On the other hand, do we have sufficient reason not to take them at face value and believe that it will indeed better protect their work? Common sense dictates that you would not change something that is working 100% correctly for the worse. There will always be an advantage that triggers the change as one obviously wants change for the better. We are further fortunate enough in that the Developer is actively seeking our opinions/constructive criticism in the matter before affecting said change. At the moment we have been told that the advantages are. amongst others, no constant internet connection, advantages for Steam users and Gifting as well as better IP protection. Are there any substantive consumer rights that outweigh the proffered advantages?

And yet they will drag their computer capable of running DCS around to said places with absolutely no connectivity, either mobile or landline? Yeah OK, while I can agree that there will probably be one or two users that fit that description and are doing so for reasons known only to them as said reasons have not been mentioned, as I said previously, the rights of the consumers have to be balanced with the rights of developers in protecting their IP - that's common sense. Now when it comes to balancing said rights, it's impossible to cater to everyone's rights equally. As such it becomes necessary to infringe on one users rights who has elected to pitch a tent in the boondocks without any access to the internet at all that would allow him to make a single two-second phone-call in order to protect the rights of the developer and other 100 users who do indeed have the facilities to make that two second phone-call. It's eminently reasonable.

Only once every three days said time subject to change/under discussion in another thread.

No doubt yes but without concrete numbers I'd hesitate to say that the vast majority of users are not inconvenienced in this way at all. There has to be a balance. Will never be able to cater for everyone to their satisfaction all of the time.

Changed for the better. No ongoing connection is required anymore. It's not actually a sale. It's more a lease of the rights to use and enjoy the software. That's the thing. The disadvantage of introducing a new requirement (phone-home) is mitigated by the new advantages introduced (no constant internet connection/Steam benefits/Gifting). Some rights are infringed, yes, but are mitigated by the advantages provided. It's a give-and-take. The only disadvantage I can see that would seriously infringe on a consumer's rights is the instance where a consumer plays DCS with absolutely no access to the internet. Are there cases such as this?