VEAO & Hawk discussion (please mind the forum rules)

[Mars Exulte]

It's retired from DCS. However, the decent thing would have been to share their code and assets but hey declined ! I believe if VEAO shared their code ED would have true insight into how bad VEAO were in developing for DCS. Possibly unsolvable to do anything economically viable code wise. Any computer programmer worth his/her salt will tell you, it's harder to work with 'crap' code than to start from scratch. My partner will tell you that and he really knows his stuff !!

 

Mizzy

 

Agree on all points.

[Hammer1-1]

When it comes to a business or service getting shuttered it doesn't. A limited exception is when people lobby in great numbers or conduct fundraisers to sustain a series or product. There is not sufficient support here for either of those options ergo 'what you or I think' absolutely doesn't matter except as academic debate, which is really all we're doing at this point.

 

The options people are asking for amount to things that are

'Impossible' 'severe financial hit' or 'moderate financial hit'. None of those are going to be feasible options from ED's standpoint. All we're really doing is rabbling to no real purpose except venting.

I hate to say it, but losing an engineer who took all of his work with him when he left can be considered a serious financial hit. And if I remember right, the P40 campaign came on well before that. Correct me on this if I am wrong.

I am NOT defending them at the least, and yes this is beating a dead horse. I am not saying we're entitled to a refund; all I am stating is that that refund should be granted to all who have purchased the Hawk and not just those who bought it in the last 2 months. A great analogy would be those who bought Google Glass and who lost all of their money on those wonderful pieces of hardware. Most of those people got their asses kicked in public everywhere they went and they lost out of almost 1500$ a piece. This isnt Google Glass, the module didnt cost $1500, nobody is getting their asses kicked (except those who were stupid enough to fly them in missions online), and ED isnt as big as Google. Even still, would it really have killed them to credit us "something"? Thats what burns my ass. Im sorry, but even a Wal Mart coupon book sent to me by anyone from ED would be more welcome than nothing. Some bonus points to take a small chunk of change off of the cost of a 3rd party campaign here and there, a cheap module, or maybe even early access to something thats coming on down the wire thats minor at best. Something. Even if it only took $2-3 off the asking price of one module - something.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Hammer1-1

[SmokeFan]

I wonder if the guys that flamed VEAO in the past and were banned are going to come back lol. Turns out, they were right and VEAO had a horrible design as a business. Hawk was their only product and never left EA. Just shameful, I would be pretty embarrassed to call that a company. Remember their road map? They had all those "Dreams" of modules? Bunch of liars! Just imagine that if they really did try to make a typhoon?

Edited December 29, 2018 by SmokeFan

[hansangb]

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Stuff happens in small (read niche) business. I don't think they came here thinking "we'll defraud them...hahahaha" I mean if you're going to defraud people to make money, I can think of a lot of other endeavors than a combat flight sim.

 

 

How they exited sucks, no doubt. But I think they had good intentions. It just didn't work out for them.

[Mizzy]

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Stuff happens in small (read niche) business. I don't think they came here thinking "we'll defraud them...hahahaha" I mean if you're going to defraud people to make money, I can think of a lot of other endeavors than a combat flight sim.

 

 

How they exited sucks, no doubt. But I think they had good intentions. It just didn't work out for them.

 

I think there is element of truth in what you speak. However the evidence is overwhelming in that the personnel (Ellis) did not have any control over the technical aspects of his product. For example, he was not a programmer/graphic artist etc for the product, it was produced by sub contractors and 'they' withdrew their support leaving the product high and dry. This was obvious from the start to me but ..hey ho, who am I to say anything, I'm a retired teacher ! but my partner saw through it, I am stunned ED didn't !

 

Mizzy

[3WA]

I believe if VEAO shared their code ED would have true insight into how bad VEAO were in developing for DCS.

 

 

Yeah, after all their excuses and bluffs, I'm thinking this as well.

[fl0w]

Vaguely written in my eyes. Let's remind those that before they grab their pitchforks and reach to the skies, VEAO has been the only 3rd party in DCS successful of getting RAF/BAE contracts. Others have tried and failed. I'm more than positive they refused was because of laws constricting bankruptcy of companies, not being of some middle finger move. Plus if a British company were ever to give classified information that they're bound to not give w/out permission in a contract, they would likely be arrested for treason and violating government law.

 

Say I am a maniac if you will, but I would rather wait for VEAO's final statement on this matter before calling them the thieves many see them as.

[fl0w]

What kind of contracts where they getting, where the companies CEO didn't even feel comfortable enough leaving his day job? When I think of a contract with the RAF/BAE, I think big money. Which obviously must have not been the case, since the company is out of business.

 

I'm not sure, I never asked while I was around. But I can certainly tell you this, just because you get a contract by the federal government doesn't mean you automatically make 6 figures instantly. AFAIK they were not employed by RAF/BAe but had asked them like any other 3rd party would for getting a module status. In either way, the module is dead and useless now in its state. It's got too many problems and bugs to fix that many people have pointed out, it's just better to drop it than try and continue even if ED did receive permission.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

$2-3 off the asking price of one module - something.

 

That would run into the thousands of $, so why would they? Some people may be so disgruntled that they turn their backs on DCS entirely, but I imagine that will be so few people as to not warrant any concern. In all likelyhood most affected will grumble for a bit then forget about this when the next module comes out, and buy it anyway.

 

I (and I believe zhukov032186 sees this the same as me) am not voicing an opinion on whether that's right or wrong, just simply commenting on what appears to be the reality of situation we find ourselves in.

[drPhibes]

VEAO has been the only 3rd party in DCS successful of getting RAF/BAE contracts. Others have tried and failed.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, which dev would that be?

[Bullant]

I paid $10 back in 2015. I worked on the Aussie hawk in real life and was really looking forward to this module, but it was pretty poor and I only flew it a couple of times.

 

Do I want a refund? Nope.

 

I think it's good that ED are offering people a refund if they only purchased it recently.

 

Seriously guys, ED seem to be doing the right thing to stop this from happening in the future. Do we want them to take a financial hit to give everyone a refund, which let's just be honest they have to make up for by upping future module prices, because the 3rd party dev did a bad thing?

[bart]

Agree with SmokeFan there....

 

However what I find admirable here is ED stepping up and offering a refund to folks that purchased the Hawk from 1st Oct 18. They didn't have to do that, but this springs to me of good customer care on their behalf. I picked up the module when it first came out so I'm not entitled to the refund anyway, BUT even if I was, I don't think I would take them up on their fine offer. For me it's not the refund that matters most but the offer of it in the first place....well done ED. I would just be happy if they spend my refund money on their own future development of the sim.

 

Maybe just a fix for the Spitfire canopy bug please......pretty please :D

[bart]

I paid $10 back in 2015. I worked on the Aussie hawk in real life and was really looking forward to this module, but it was pretty poor and I only flew it a couple of times.

 

Do I want a refund? Nope.

 

I think it's good that ED are offering people a refund if they only purchased it recently.

 

Seriously guys, ED seem to be doing the right thing to stop this from happening in the future. Do we want them to take a financial hit to give everyone a refund, which let's just be honest they have to make up for by upping future module prices, because the 3rd party dev did a bad thing?

 

Bang on.

 

I bought the Hawk when it first came out too, so I'm not entitled to any refund. However even if I was I wouldn't take it. I would rather ED save their own money and spend it on the future of the sim (which is the most important thing to most of us right?) rather than what is essentially the past.

 

It's enough for me that ED have stepped up and offered a refund at all, they didn't have to do that but they did. They get an awful LOT of credit in my book for that....

Edited December 29, 2018 by bart

[Birko]

The people who bought the Hawk recently, the ones with eligibility to refund, had the means to find out the Hawk was going south.

 

The people who bought it new in 2015 didn't.

 

ED should've had a safety net prepared to protect the customers against beung stuck with an unfinished product. They do now onwards, and that is great news and the only good thing that's come from this.

 

I would've wanted continued development, but that isn't happening because VEAO let us down. VEAO are the guys who owe us the money, or the finished product.

 

But I bought their product from ED, and it runs on ED's software, and it was greenlit by ED. Of course they're responsible too.

 

For ED to say only recent buyers deserve a refund, it isn't good enough.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Birko

[Seb71]

There are other options besides "no refund" and "refund".

 

They could give another module instead. Or a voucher for a future purchase. Things which would not directly cost them money.

 

I don't have a Hawk, but I do have other third party modules, so I am interested to see the outcome of this bad situation a third party put ED in.

 

For me something else is more important.

 

From the latest newsletter:

 

 

To avoid such issues in the future, all future 3rd party agreements are now required to make the game files available in case they are no longer able to support their product.

 

 

It's good that they will avoid this for future third party modules, by mandating access to the source code (and it is something they should have thought about from the beginning).

 

 

But in the meantime, there are other third party modules already sold. I would like to hear if something can also be done as a preventive measure in those cases.

[Birko]

That is very true, there are other options besides refunds.

 

Bonus points equivalent to what players spent, or a free L-39 if they don't have one, I'd say that'd be beyond what's fair and it would show ED would stick their neck out for their community.

 

I too am glad of the new clause in future agreements, that is a great thing that's come from this.

[ikonane]

You don't get a refund if you've bought it through Steam:

https://imgur.com/EKqDic5

[FZG_Immel]

Firstly I do feel that ED heart was in the right place and it has done everything in their power to continue supporting the hawk. Things don't always work out for the best even if everybody has good faith, it is called life...

 

Keep in mind that software product makes most it money if the first month or two after release... so in a way, I am glad that ED wasn't burdened by an additional load of supporting Hawk and losing limited engineering and financial resources on it. And I think most of us agree that they are better spent else were...

 

to conclude if a few toxic people walk away from the community since they feel "cheated" by ED after this, I think we will just end up with a more healthy and positive community.

 

In the end, NineLine, Wags, and ED thank you for the great products and keep up the good work, we really appreciate it.

 

'Keep your toxic comments for yourself, No ?

[ivo]

I nave purchased it 234905

04/09/2015

Hawk T.1A for DCS World by VEAO Simulations (download beta version) 1

$19.99 Completed

 

Van I nave refund?

[Birko]

I nave purchased it 234905

04/09/2015

Hawk T.1A for DCS World by VEAO Simulations (download beta version) 1

$19.99 Completed

 

Van I nave refund?

 

I'm afraid they are currently only giving refunds if you bought the Hawk on or after October 1st 2018.

 

Hopefully there will be amendments made in regards to this in the future.

[TomCatMucDe]

Yes. Confirmed. Bought it on ED page at a 60% discount for an amount of 15.99$, may 29th 2015.

 

I'm wondering why if that plane gets removed from the current version of the game and future ones, why all hawk customers don't get a refund. Or at least a bonus of that value on future purchases ?

 

Expecting people to run an older version of the game for just that plane, cut out from the community, just to use their product is kind of a farce.

 

And I say this as a customer having bought ALL D.C.S modules, some of them more than once..

You told me in the other thread that you didn't want a refund. That's dishonest.

 

You bought it in 2015, you flew it for 3 tears even if it's buggy. You will NOT get a refund. If you want to fly it now, leave a 2.5.3 version.

 

ED doesn't have a chick that ponds golden eggs to refund all customers because a third party decided to not give their code.

 

No company on Earth would refund you in those conditions. You wouldn't get a refund from Steam, way richer than ED. Why would ED give you a refund?

 

I would say, grow up, take responsibility of your action. You placed a bet on an alpha product and it didn't work out. That's life.

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk

[onefox]

I agree with some people saying that ED should offer a one off discount or bonus on another module to 'anyone' that has purchased the Hawk. Even if it's only a few dollars, it would make for good customer support and retention.

[TomCatMucDe]

I agree with some people saying that ED should offer a one off discount or bonus on another module to 'anyone' that has purchased the Hawk. Even if it's only a few dollars, it would make for good customer support and retention.

Discounts are also money that go to the cost of ED. Not fair.

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk

[onefox]

The Hawk was never up to scratch and a poor module since day one and everyone knows it.

ED should never have let it out in the first place, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect something from them. As I said even if it's just a small discount.

[TomCatMucDe]

The Hawk was never up to scratch and a poor module since day one and everyone knows it.

 

ED should never have let it out in the first place, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect something from them. As I said even if it's just a small discount.

So if you knew it was a very bad module, why did you buy it? Can't people get responsible about their purchases?

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk