0x55

One thing that I don't like about LiveGuard is that it seems to send every new file created on the device to LiveGuard upon execution. Even if it's an old, trusted and safe file. As you soon as I try to execute a new file that wasn't on my device before, ESET sends that to LiveGuard. Eg: If I just extract a newly downloaded 7zip installer from a zip file where the installer exe is trusted by literally every AV, as soon as I execute it, it gets blocked and submitted to LiveGuard for analysis. What's the point of this? A ESET's reputation check shows that the file is old with reputation status being Fine & green and the number of users is also high with a green mark. 
ESET should feed from this LiveGrid status and determine that the file is trusted, whitelisted and not necessary to submit it to LiveGuard for analysis. This alone would massively reduce the load on LiveGuard's server. This type of unnecessary submission needs to be avoided. Kaspersky and Norton makes use of their cloud reputation appropriately, which is something ESET is not doing here. The LiveGrid reputation should mean something. The LiveGrid and the LiveGuard combo should communicate with each other to determine what needs to be submitted and what not. Otherwise, LiveGuard servers are going to be bombarded with excessive unnecessary submission. 
Unnecessary submission is going to annoy even expert users.

As a long time client of ESET (more than 10 years), and EIS license owner ATM, I honestly think this feature should be integrated in, at least, the EIS version of the product, even if with some limitations when compared to the premium version. The EIS price is already high compared to other products in the market, and in my case, upgrading to the premium version is unacceptable, since the price is 2 times what I pay right now for the EIS license, just for a somehow "core" feature of the anti malware protection. Also, I don't want all the other additional features of the premium version (password manager, encryption, etc), since I don't need them at all.
In addition to the limitations suggested here by other users, I honestly think that this feature should be disabled by default. This will avoid issues with people that not like this feature, and also will ease the cloud usage. I'm sure that more than half % of the home user client base will not enable this feature, either because of lack of knowledge about it, or because they don't want something so intrusive.
I already deal with another product (daily basis), that does something similar to this for quite some years now (enterprise product), and I know how upset people can be to see the execution of new software being blocked, especially those who work in software development, or QA. I know that in this case we are talking about home users, so supposedly, this will happen less often, but still sometimes people don't have the slightest patience and understanding.
Of course, this is just my 2cents as a client of ESET products 😉

In my opinion LG/EDTD should be implemented also in the EIS version. Only as addons or implemented in ESSP would not increase your sales since the price is higher than your other products but especially compared to your competitors on the market. Implementing it in EIS would certainly increase the load on your servers but you would also have a better and more updated cloud network to defeat new malware since the result of the sandbox process is then transmitted to all devices that have enabled the feedback system. Also because LiveGrid in its current state takes a long time, LG/EDTD 5 minutes and spreads the result to everyone.
 

Let's "cut to the chase" in regards to Eset's cloud scanning.
As shown in the diagram in this article: https://help.eset.com/edtd/en-US/overview.html , Eset is using Microsoft's Azure AI servers. Microsoft will gladly allow anyone who so desires use of those servers. Obviously, this use is not for free.
The question however is just how expensive is their use? There is a low budget developer who markets a security product add-on named VoodooShield: https://voodooshield.com/ which is popular with participants of the security forums; e.g. wilderssecurity.com. This product also uses the Azure AI servers. There is both a free and a paid version of this product. As far as I am aware of, both the free and paid versions use the Azure AI cloud servers.

Totally agree with this point. Here for example, the price of ESSP is 44% more expensive than EIS. I personally don't really need extra features in ESSP, paying that much extra price for something i don't really need, sorry i didn't. Its even more ridiculous that the now added feature is actually available on a competitors free product.

I have very similar feelings to "itman". I see ESET's core mission as "Bringing people the best anti-malware protection we can create". And a feature like LiveGuard in my opinion is one of the "core" features of an antimalware product, just like samples, heuristics, etc. That's why I think it should have been available in the basic (and legendary) NOD32 antivirus. I understand that it's not easy to move in a global market, but you need to be fair to your customers.
Originally, the Premium version offered extra features. That is, extensions beyond the basic antimalware protection. (For example: "Do you want a password manager too? Do you want encryption on top? These things degrade cybersecurity, but are not DIRECTLY related to antimalware protection.) But in this case, the primary protection feature is offered in the "premium" package. This approach creates bad feelings with me.
Unfortunately, it's similar with the cancellation of the custom version of NOD32 for Linux. Again, I understand cost optimization, developer utilization, etc. But would a truncated version of Enterprise v8 for Linux, really cause ESET to move into the red numbers? Especially when it doesn't even offer a basic antivirus for free like most other vendors?
Sorry for the long entry.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

I just checked U.S. prices for Eset. ESSP costs $10 more per year than EIS. As such and for me personally, the increased price is not a major factor.
This important LiveGuard feature being included only for ESSP does "leave a bad taste in my mouth." For starters, Eset should have had LiveGuard capability in its consumer product versions long ago. Like feature capability has existed for some time in Eset competitor consumer products as you noted. This includes Microsoft Defender that doesn't cost anything. I also have no need for the extra features ESSP provides and feel upgrading to it for LiveGuard capability is shady marketing tactic.
It also should be noted that EIS costs on the average, significantly more than its competitor's equivalent products.
Bottom line to Eset - include LiveGuard in EIS or be prepared for a significant loss of your existing EIS product base.

This is similar to Avast's (and AVG) CyberCapture feature, which is available even in the free version. The difference is that cybercapture is dependent on the Mark of the Web similar to Microsoft's Block at First Sight feature, while it seems with ESET it's for every file that is not known to ESET. So this is a nice feature and a good addition. But I can't really justify the decision to not include it in the Internet Security version. ESSP is ridiculously expensive. LiveGuard should've been made available to both EIS and ESSP. 

Tip - if you delete your credit card info in your US eStore account, there is no way for Eset to perform an auto-renewal.

Let's talk about Eset's Network Inspection Inspector processing since there is zip technical details on it.
To begin, Eset's network inspection processing  is not new and has existed on every EIS version I used dating to 2014. Past versions were relatively benign and non-troublesome. Once I configured Eset's network connection to accommodate my router, the settings remained stable. All this changed when Eset decided to get "cute" and expand network Inspection to examine router settings for the purpose of detecting suspected hacking activities. Great idea for off-the-self routers and the like that perform standard network initializing activities. A very bad idea for ISP provided routers with customized firmware settings.
The only positive thing in recent Eset versions is that now Network Inspection Inspector can be disabled via GUI setting which was not possible in the past.
For those who like technical details, let's get into those. Using a networking connection monitor such as TCPView, open it immediately after system startup time. Look for an ekrn.exe connection monitoring UDP port 138. Eset is examining network connections via proxy using this port. This is also where the problems start. My router is using NetBIOS which also uses that port to initialize it's router connectivity to my device. It then goes downhill network-wise from here.

Well, there was one last thing I had to perform to get the router, Win 10, and Eset networking to play together nicely.
I have long suspected that Win 10 Smart multiple-homed DNS name resolution was the source of most of my network issues. This was further amplified by Eset networking initialization. But since this feature was using my ISP DNS servers combined with the way the router establishes Win 10 network connectivity, I could never definitively nail it down.
You can read about what Win 10 Smart multiple-homed DNS name resolution does here: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/08/14/turn-off-smart-multi-homed-name-resolution-in-windows/ . The gist of the what is does is:
What I have been observing after my Win 10 networking "from hell" reconfiguration activities described previously is at Win 10 fast startup and/or startup from sleep mode predominately is multiple connections to IPv4 address 1.1.1 to port domain. Err what? Port domain turns out to be port 53 and of course, 1.1.1.1 is Cloudflare's IPv4 DNS address. First, I have never ever seen these domain connections before. Next is I shouldn't be using Cloudflare's IPv4 DNS server on an IPv6 network. Bottom line is here is a graphic example of my Win 10 network connection being borked by Smart multiple-homed DNS name resolution processing. As far as what this did to Eset's network connectivity processing can best described as a double-whammy bork from the deepest depths of networking hell.
Anyway, I have disabled Win 10 Smart multiple-homed DNS name resolution and finally, all is well networking-wise.

I'm split. I wouldn't mind if Eset introduced it but there's the debate if AVs should basically focus on being AVs and leave the other stuff to other users.

Why did I anticipate this was going to be the answer?
So let's analyze this. I have been an Eset customer since 2014. Not only do I pay a full license renew price, but the renewal price is considerable higher that a new license price. So it appears Eset's sales strategy is "to sock it to" their existing customers so they can lower the price to entice new customers.
This might be for me "the last straw that permanently broke the Eset use back."
Also considering the amount of time I spend on the Eset forum helping others, I should receive a free Eset license each year!

Work around for everybody who doesn't want to read the whole thread! 
Please also upvote it! (On page 4)
All credits go to Lamar!