July 2014 Update #1

[NineLine]

This has to be the fastest growing thread on the forums ever...

 

Yeah, I have gone through 2 keyboards all ready... :)

[Dogz]

Ok then, let's change my analogy. My mate promises something to someone for $10 which is incredibly unrealistic. He realises he can't make it and disappears but before he goes he gives me the money and tells me to make it happen. I'd tell him to go away (out of respect for Sith here I won't use my original words!). I'm now left with a pissed off customer demanding his product so I tell him I can't manage that. He then goes onto the internet and complains about me because he expects me to summon a magic wish fairy.

 

 

The analogy is more like follows.

Your friend comes together with to ask for money, because you have this nice project in mind that would bring you lots of profits in the future. As a reward for my investment you are promising something that sounds really nice to me. So I agree to give the money to your friend that is the leading organizer for this project. Okay, this friend of yours disappers at some point and leaves the half-done project to you. You are still going to complete this project, because it still will be bringing lots of money to you. But now you tell me that I am crazy to expect anything in return that your friend and you promised me at first, because your friend has left the project ... even thouth you got to keep all the work he had put into it, using the money that I had given to him?

[NineLine]

The analogy is more like follows.

Your friend comes together with to ask for money, because you have this nice project in mind that would bring you lots of profits in the future. As a reward for my investment you are promising something that sounds really nice to me. So I agree to give the money to your friend that is the leading organizer for this project. Okay, this friend of yours disappers at some point and leaves the half-done project to you. You are still going to complete this project, because it still will be bringing lots of money to you. But now you tell me that I am crazy to expect anything in return that your friend and you promised me at first, because your friend has left the project ... even thouth you got to keep all the work he had put into it, using the money that I had given to him?

 

Which is about 10% of the work needed for the entire project and all the money is gone.

[blackgold]

ED should reimburse those people then. 200 people get 1 USD back and the other 120 get 10 USD. About 1400 USD for customer satisfaction - could not get any better.

 

If these people get this upset over wasting one or ten dollars, they better not ever go to a fast food place.

[upupandaway]

Yeah, I have gone through 2 keyboards all ready... :)

 

...and a lot of this I take it? ;)

 

[tomqw]

Would be nice have chance choose plane. For example I paid 40$ I would likeP-51D Mustang+ Spitfire instead Fw 190 D-9 Dora.

[chaos]

Again... Backing a Kickstarter project is -not- an investment. It's putting up funds in the -hope- that project takes off.

 

It's a bit like Facebooks acquisition of Oculus and people wanting their money back because that was not what was promised (a VR project devoid of all big-business politics).

[NineLine]

...and a lot of this I take it? ;)

 

 

Ah, its not so bad, you guys should know I am one of you, I have invested time and money of my own as well... I feel pretty passionate about wanting ED and the project to succeed...

[outlawal2]

[Flagrum]

The analogy is more like follows.

Your friend comes together with to ask for money, because you have this nice project in mind that would bring you lots of profits in the future. As a reward for my investment you are promising something that sounds really nice to me. So I agree to give the money to your friend that is the leading organizer for this project. Okay, this friend of yours disappers at some point and leaves the half-done project to you. You are still going to complete this project, because it still will be bringing lots of money to you. But now you tell me that I am crazy to expect anything in return that your friend and you promised me at first, because your friend has left the project ... even thouth you got to keep all the work he had put into it, using the money that I had given to him?

If I give you your dollar back, would you then stop with these silly "analogies"? :huh:

[flare2000x]

What I don't understand is why ED can not give backers a choice of their aircraft. They think they can make more money if they give out the P-51 which most people already have, or just aren't interested in it (me) that means they can make more money from us buying all the other modules at full price. One thing is for sure, if ED doesn't change the reward system, they've lost a valued customer in me. The infrastructure to make the selections is there, at this page now just let us use this page (reworked to have the correct number of aircraft, 1 for $20, 2 for $40, etc . . .) to CHOOSE which aircraft we would like to select, even if it means waitng for a while. If ED did this, I'd be able to wait for the Spitfire, which is what I really backed for, easily because I'd have purchased the other modules as they come out. (Dora, 109)

 

Please give this a thought ED. You will LOSE valuable customers if you keep this system, so please give us a choice in our aircraft.

 

Thanks

flare

[*Rage*]

Please elaborate how this would be too great of a financial impact?

 

1. The infrastructure for selecting rewards on the website is already made. Tweak it to correspond with the new reward tiers. An hour work at the most.

 

2. Modules are priced the same: $50 full price (or $40 reduced prepurchase price, as for the Dora right now).

The only exception is the Mustang at $30 (a $10 difference), which would accumulate to 25.000 dollars total 'impact'. Considering the price of development of a full DCS module (200.000+ dollars), this is peanuts. And considering how many backers would be happy and would forever remain loyal customers, ED would be nuts NOT to give us a choice.

 

3. There are only 2500 backers that need to have this choice. This is peanuts. The actual sales that ED needs to make these modules financially viable is 10.000+ PER AIRPLANE.

 

4. The only financial impact that COULD happen is if ED assumes everyone would buy all the modules, if we can't get them as pledge rewards. That's quite an assumption.

 

NOT EDs problem. RRGs

 

Let's do some math, shall we?

 

Let's say a person backed 30$, he was promised 5 planes but he really wanted a Spitfire and a P-47.

Now all he gets is a P-51, which he has no interest in having, and a map he was promised would be free any way.

 

He's pissed off, and wants nothing to do with ED. He sells his 30$ reward (which is identical to the 20$ one, go figure...) for 30$, and never buys another thing from ED ever again. ED has now lost 1 customer who will never buy anything from them, and 1 customer who has bought the map and the P-51 from him (assuming full prices, a total loss of profit in the range of 60 to 80$, minus the backer's pledge money). As we can see, EDs greed in this case did not save them any money, but in fact cost them some future profits.

 

NOT EDs fault. RRGs

 

Cost of development of one module has been estimated at 200.000 dollars and more. This is a low estimate (I'd say 300.000 is more realistic).

 

This means that ED needs to sell AT LEAST 5.000 copies of one single plane to break even. Since the 200k estimate was low, ED actually needs to sell AT LEAST 10.000 copies of a single plane to make it work.

 

There are only 2.500 backers of DCS:WW2. Our impact on the financial viability of this project is minimal. The bulk of income from these planes will come from full price sales.

Even more than that, we're only talking about a $10 price difference ($30 P51D versus $40 Dora), which means the 'loss' is only 25.000 dollars (but you can't call it a loss, because you can't assume that people will buy the new modules if ED sticks them with the P51D). So, the 'loss' is less than 1/10th of the cost of developing a full module.

 

Minimal 'loss', but the gain of loyal customers is priceless. I don't understand why you don't see that.

 

 

Instead, you're proposing that ED sticks it to us, and gives us a serial for a module we already own. How many of the 2500 backers will they piss off that way? How many loyal customers will they lose? How much future income will be lost because of that?

 

 

25.000 dollars lost now is 100.000 dollars gained over the next two years.

 

You dont think ED has already done the math on this? They have, and chosen to offer only what they have offered. They are under no obligation to you or I or anyone else to do so. You are barking up the wrong tree. Literally.

 

And consumers have to do what's best for them. You know, there's such a thing as consumer rights.

 

ED knew what they were doing when they entered into this. They gambled and they lost. But apparently, we have to pay for it. Apparently, it's the consumer that's at fault here. We were stupid to trust RRG and ED. It's all our fault. Of course, we have to look out for poor ED's profits. We should all just bend over and take it, huh?

 

Again. Your consumer rights are with RRG, not ED.

 

ED should reimburse those people then. 200 people get 1 USD back and the other 120 get 10 USD. About 1400 USD for customer satisfaction - could not get any better.

 

RRG NOT ED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gooseneck]

Just one question;

 

When I backed, I had to pay an additional $12 for 'postage'. Now that the amount I pledged doesn't include any 'postable rewards', will the $12 be included in the total pledge? It takes me into a higher pledge bracket if so, you see.

 

Otherwise I'm cool with this and in spite of previous rantings, agree with Jaydee.

 

Cheers. :thumbup:

[Dogz]

Again... Backing a Kickstarter project is -not- an investment. It's putting up funds in the -hope- that project takes off.

 

It's a bit like Facebooks acquisition of Oculus and people wanting their money back because that was not what was promised (a VR project devoid of all big-business politics).

 

Maybe investment is not fully the correct term, but it is a funding method, with quite clear terms. You put funds in, hoping that the project takes off. if the project does not launch, you are not charged. If the project does launch, you are entitled to get the promised rewards or the money back.

 

Anyway, this discussion is getting off the track from the main point. Why would ED even want to get this kind of bad PR and lose their customers and lots of potential sales in the future, for the same of so little financial gain. This is what I don't really understand.

[Marmusman]

I have stopped reading all posts and only follow Sith ' s responses. Much respect to your patience!

[tobaschi]

thats my last word in this thread as customer if we don't get at least the choice to choose which plane we get, i'am done with ED and DCS.

 

I have bought in the last years nearly each DCS product, the most of them fullprice, but that kind of treatment is totaly inacceptable.

[ishtmail]

NOT EDs problem. RRGs

 

It's ED's problem now, because they:

1. supported and actively advertised the project during Kickstarter

2. they took over the project from RRG

3. they PROMISED to fulfill the pledge rewards to the best of their ability.

 

Last I checked, ED is fully capable in allowing us to choose which planes we want. If they decide not to do that, they are going against their own promise.

[ami7b5]

Its not perfect... there was no perfect solution. Its not to say ED cant make adjustments.

 

There was a much better solution: Dora instead of Mustang - many backers have Mustang already as you can see also from this discussion.

Or even better: let us choose Dora if we already have Mustang.

 

Edit: I mention just Dora, because it's about to be released; I'm afraid other WWII planes are too far away ATM.

Edited July 8, 2014 by ami7b5

[ff4life4]

All I can say here is that this is really unfortunate what happened.

 

I'm not taking any sides but all I will say is that if ED didn't take on the project, I feel there will be a similar thread about that as well.

 

I don't agree with how they spaced out the rewards tiers, and how everything is handled. I feel it is very unfair, and I understand the points about ED making money on partial work done paid for by the KS.

 

The number one lesson I think we learned is to never fund a kickstarter (or beta product) ever again. They never seem to go right, and in the end everyone is upset.

 

Lets hope ED tries to make it more fair, and that people can finally be at rest. This situation really sucks, and I'm right there with everyones pain.

[Flagrum]

RRG NOT ED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lol, dude, chill. I made that suggestion to show how silly it is to get so involved over those 1.00 or 10.00 USD. If these people are really so upset, then why not make them happy - and reimburse them. If they get their Dollar back, they certainly will be happier, won't they? ;o)

[Raven68]

Sith is it possible to post a poll (with ED's approval of course) of some sort with some of the ideas that ED would possibly want to consider from these forums. A vague thought, but some sort of tally that ED could look at in addition or change to the restructure?

 

The 2 ideas that really stand out to me is...being able to pick which aircraft you want depending on your their and this one...

 

Can you think about this scenario? Everything which is NOT in your tier now could be purchased with 50% discount so $25 per plane for backers.

 

or some sort of discount.

[eekz]

It's ED's problem now, because they:

1. supported and actively advertised the project during Kickstarter

 

I supported and advertised the project during KS on different forums too. Should I fulfil RRG's broken promises? Why ED should do it?

[cichlidfan]

The number one lesson I think we learned is to never fund a kickstarter (or beta product) ever again. They never seem to go right, and in the end everyone is upset.

 

You mean KS associated with ED. I see many software projects doing just fine, though the three associated with ED do seem to have something in common.

[ff4life4]

You mean KS associated with ED. I see many software projects doing just fine, though the three associated with ED do seem to have something in common.

 

Yes! I meant KS and DCS dont mix!

[ishtmail]

I supported and advertised the project during KS on different forums too. Should I fulfil RRG's broken promises? Why ED should do it?

 

Have you shared the graphic and physics engine with RRG?

Have you promised WW2 backers access to the SDK?

Have you given RRG use of the P51D and Dora, to include in the WW2 sim?

Have you prepared a backer section on your website, letting people choose their rewards?

Have you set up a Paypal page on your website, accepting pledges outside of Kickstarter?

 

This isn't as simple as saying "this is a cool thing, check it out", this is much deeper. No other 3rd party project for DCS has received this kind of treatment.

 

 

 

I also wanted to add one more thing:

 

Eagle Dynamics did not pick this project up from RRG from the sheer kindness of their hearts, in order to give backers something in return for the pledges.

ED has predicted that it will be profitable for them to make this product (or products), and they intend to sell far more than just the measly 2500 copies of each airplane (there are only 2500 backers of WW2).

 

So while I am grateful to ED for continuing the development (even though technically they had no obligation), I realize that they're not doing it for me or any of the 2500 backers - they are in fact doing it for the tens of thousands of purchases of full priced modules, once the planes are developed and sold.