wadman
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
1 Follower
-
Great - but they keep saying refund which seems to be a lie if it’s actually a store credit. Words matter and it’s not that hard to use the correct one instead of being a bit misleading…
-
Is it a refund or a store credit? Huge difference between those 2 things - you should be transparent on what you mean. A credit is worthless to me as I have no desire to buy any new modules from ED until they sort this stuff out and fix the many incomplete things like super carrier (F14 still not properly recognized for traps, etc.,) and get a real dynamic campaign mode to make single player more engaging (I have no desire to play the MP air quake thing).
-
Yup - same here. Has Heatblur acknowledged this bug???
-
Some people like to get what they paid for - an unfinished module pretty much abandoned since April with no signs of resolution AND the possibility it will never get the planned updates and expansions doesn’t cut it for many people.
-
Game developers (as much as you claim otherwise, this is still game - very detailed, but still a computer game) would go bankrupt if they made products targeted to people like you. Gamers might have a hotas, pedals and VR - but even with all of the other things that you mention that you have, you are not even remotely getting the experience that a real pilot has. That said, I’d be OK to allow the unrealistic things to be tuned off for folks like you - but don’t make the rest of us suffer in the name of ”fidelity” when these “sims” can never deliver an experience that is close to real life.
-
It’s actually a game. Regardless, these “sims” will always lack the physical feedback/cues that a pilot would experience in the real world. So… having things like audible cues that might not be exactly realistic can be a good thing to help make up for the gaps!
-
Odd - it's working fine for me.
-
... and nobody has said it WILL be completed if Razbam drops the module and that is the reason why a disclaimer would be in good faith. However, I get it: it’s with lawyers (who never really don’t care about end consumers - just $ in my experience), so enough said as a disclaimer is obviously not happening - but that fact has changed my view of both Razbam and ED for now.
-
I did read the first page but that doesn’t mean I can’t voice an opinion that both parties are not doing right by consumers - which does not at mean I’m riled up at all: just voicing an opinion. Just like you, I’m participating in a thread on a serious issue affecting a significant and much hyped module/studio in DCS - but, unlike you, I’m not trying to suppress others expressing their voice and opinion on the topic (respect to @NineLine for letting folks voice their opinions here).
-
Oh, but I did ask a question - you just chose to ignore it in your responses. No problem as I didn’t expect an answer from you anyhow. I also didn’t resort to calling folks self-entitled just for voicing opinions that differ from mine. Have a nice life!
-
So, in your twisted world, it’s self-entitled to to post a point of view that it seems ethically wrong to continue to sell a module that has serious support issues and an unsure future without adding a disclaimer? I have not demanded anything - just suggested what I think would be fair to consumers. So… go ahead and keep giving poor customer service a pass as you appear to want to do. I choose to point it out when I see it. Oh… and I assumed that you would not answer my question and, as expected, you’ve lived up to my low expectations.
-
Based on what I read here, $80 is a lot for many people who buy DCS modules so why not ensure folks who are buying a module that has a serious support issue (may not ever be finished) are aware of that fact before they decide to purchase. Rather than blindly defend ED/RB, please explain why you think the lack of transparency for new users is OK given THIS ISSUE HAS EXISTED AND IS UNRESOLVED FOR OVER 3 MONTHS now? ED has not provided a response that justifies this situation in my opinion. Your comments on the free base product and not being forced to buy add-ons is silly at best. While technically true, DCS would cease to exist if no one bought add-ons. You must realize that the free base module can’t exist for very long without the revenue stream from paid modules - it’s the way to hook you into buying the other stuff! I’m also not putting a gun to anybody’s head - just pointing out what I believe to be a somewhat unethical situation that is being allowed to continue. Hopefully new users might see these threads and be able to better understand the situation before they potentially waste their money!
-
That still doesn’t make it right - beyond greed for dollars, I just don’t at all get why a disclaimer on a known/public dispute can’t be added so there is transparency at the time of purchase. Regardless of the damn lawyers, it’s a bad look and a massive disservice for new customers - there is no changing that sad truth.
-
Actually, the real question is why is there not a disclaimer on the store to let folks new to DCS that the Razbam modules they are purchasing are currently not supported and, in the case of the F-15E in particular, may never actually be finished? Im my opinion, that is just flat-out wrong and there is no valid reason I can think of as to why that could not be added - unless Razbam does not want that disclaimer added (which seems unlikely). As it stands now, it’s the new consumers that get the short end of the stick here and may lose some of their hard earned money (as they might not want a store credit after this type of introduction to DCS). It’s not a good look for DCS at all - what a shame.
-
But that means they won’t make money on future sales where folks will use the credit - so I’d bet they are not thrilled with the financial implications of all of these credits!
