Jump to content

VEAO & Hawk discussion (please mind the forum rules)


Recommended Posts

I think in your own mind you are posting positive things, in reality it's just bitter bile. I have been on this forum a lot longer than you so I take offence at being called a troll. Is that not also breaking the forum rules Nineline as this person has been offensive to me more than once ? I think I will put an official complaint in about him!

Happy new year :)

 

Mizzy

 

funny !

 

Happy new year to you too !

[sIGPIC]https://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic70550_3.gif[/sIGPIC]

Asus Z390-H - SSD M.2 EVO 970 - Intel I9 @5.0ghz - 32gb DDR4 4000 - EVGA 3090 - Cougar FSSB + Virpil WRBRD + Hornet Stick - Thrustmaster TPR Pedal + WinWing MIP + Orion + TO and CO pannels - Track IR5

Link to comment
  • Replies 460
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok guys & gals, all these issues happened last year, time to put them behind us ;)

Moving forward, I think ED should develop the Hawk Mk 127 LIF :music_whistling: It would be a great replacement


Edited by Eazzy

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]| ARMA 3 | DCS MODULES : M2000C | HUEY | A10C | F/A 18 C | Ka-50 | Hawk T1A | Yak 52 | AV-8B | Su 27 | F15C | Persian Gulf | NTTR | Viper( loading:):):) )

Link to comment

Not having been affected directly by the issue at hand I just thought I'd contribute some input that seems fair.

 

We can all agree that although the early access model has its perks it also has its risks. People should accept this when buying into early access products of any kind, be it kickstarters, a 2£ rogue-like on steam, a 60£ DCS module or a multi-million investment into a startup as a business angel.

 

Sometimes it happens that the development cycle collapses, either by dev/management inexperience or a myriad of other possibilities. This is exactly what happened here. People that back these projects early on are at more of a risk because they're buying early and they are given access to its perks earlier than everyone else, on the other hand they will have no security net if the proverbial excrement hits the spinney thingy.

 

It is a given of this business model and it has to be accepted as such. Early backers are literally cannon fodder for capital injection. Such is the harsh reality of the venture capital model where early access gets its workings from. This is what "this product is sold as is" means.

 

Eagle Dynamics although not being directly responsible for VEAO's cock-up has to still keep its face as they are an ongoing business with a very demanding client base. In allowing late backers to get their money back they are doing what they can with what resources they have available.

 

Now let's imagine (merely hypothetical) they fold and the F18 is no more as they have to divert resources to something else. I personally have opted in to that early access module. I have a few hundred hours in with it and have enjoyed it thoroughly even in its unfinished state. I have reaped the perks of the early access backing. Honestly if - as it has been suggested - I was offered a symbolic value for it I would give it back knowing that ED would put it to better use somewhere else.

 

Hypothetically as well let's suppose the F14 by Heatblur dies on its tracks. Without even having come out to the public. Then this type of complaint might make more sense as it was just vapour ware, but even then if they did a runner with the money there wouldn't be much anyone who bought in early could do about it. That's why you have to measure up the credibility of whoever you are giving your money away to. That's why you have to treat early access as investment.

 

I think this is just a matter of adjusting mentalities; you can't expect to have early access to experimental stuff, knowing the risks associated with the model, reaping the profits of it and then complain when things don't work out that you want your money back. The moment you press that pay button the money is no longer yours.

 

In a suggestive tone since I've seen that NineLine is following this thread maybe it's time ED review their third party/early access partnerships further to avoid further disappointment down the line. Maybe introduce mandatory code share in the case of failure to deliver to at least avoid the same thing?


Edited by Tenebrae666
Link to comment
Not having been affected directly by the issue at hand I just thought I'd contribute some input that seems fair.

 

We can all agree that although the early access model has its perks it also has its risks. People should accept this when buying into early access products of any kind, be it kickstarters, a 2£ rogue-like on steam, a 60£ DCS module or a multi-million investment into a startup as a business angel.

 

Sometimes it happens that the development cycle collapses, either by dev/management inexperience or a myriad of other possibilities. This is exactly what happened here. People that back these projects early on are at more of a risk because they're buying early and they are given access to its perks earlier than everyone else, on the other hand they will have no security net if the proverbial excrement hits the spinney thingy.

 

It is a given of this business model and it has to be accepted as such. Early backers are literally cannon fodder for capital injection. Such is the harsh reality of the venture capital model where early access gets its workings from. This is what "this product is sold as is" means.

 

Eagle Dynamics although not being directly responsible for VEAO's cock-up has to still keep its face as they are an ongoing business with a very demanding client base. In allowing late backers to get their money back they are doing what they can with what resources they have available.

 

Now let's imagine (merely hypothetical) they fold and the F18 is no more as they have to divert resources to something else. I personally have opted in to that early access module. I have a few hundred hours in with it and have enjoyed it thoroughly even in its unfinished state. I have reaped the perks of the early access backing. Honestly if - as it has been suggested - I was offered a symbolic value for it I would give it back knowing that ED would put it to better use somewhere else.

 

Hypothetically as well let's suppose the F14 by Heatblur dies on its tracks. Without even having come out to the public. Then this type of complaint might make more sense as it was just vapour ware, but even then if they did a runner with the money there wouldn't be much anyone who bought in early could do about it. That's why you have to measure up the credibility of whoever you are giving your money away to. That's why you have to treat early access as investment.

 

I think this is just a matter of adjusting mentalities; you can't expect to have early access to experimental stuff, knowing the risks associated with the model, reaping the profits of it and then complain when things don't work out that you want your money back. The moment you press that pay button the money is no longer yours.

 

In a suggestive tone since I've seen that NineLine is following this thread maybe it's time ED review their third party/early access partnerships further to avoid further disappointment down the line.

 

This is totally and utterly untrue. We are CUSTOMERS, not investors.

 

Traditionally companies requiring the involvement of venture capilalists would approach investors who would use their experience to decide whether to accept the risk based on an understanding of a (potentially large) reward from owning part of the company.

 

The kickstarter model allows startups to offload the financial risk without giving up any of their ownership of their company onto people who may have no idea what they're getting into and will enjoy none of the benefits of the 'investment' that they made.

 

I would not be at all surprised to see the kickstarter business model come under increasing scrutiny by the authorities, if it hasn't already.

 

The only 'risk' regarding early access is undefined time scales for product completion. Arguably until a product is complete then it's still a pre-purchase, and even that (undefined time scales) has been banned in Germany by the looks of it.

Link to comment
This is totally and utterly untrue. We are CUSTOMERS, not investors.

 

Traditionally companies requiring the involvement of venture capilalists would approach investors who would use their experience to decide whether to accept the risk based on an understanding of a (potentially large) reward from owning part of the company.

 

The kickstarter model allows startups to offload the financial risk without giving up any of their ownership of their company onto people who may have no idea what they're getting into and will enjoy none of the benefits of the 'investment' that they made.

 

I would not be at all surprised to see the kickstarter business model come under increasing scrutiny by the authorities, if it hasn't already.

 

The only 'risk' regarding early access is undefined time scales for product completion. Arguably until a product is complete then it's still a pre-purchase, and even that (undefined time scales) has been banned in Germany by the looks of it.

 

+1000000000

cpu:I7-6700k Z170 16GB Ram DDR4 Gtx 1080 8Gb DDR5 11GBs SSD 500 Gb 2 HDD 1Tb Evga supernova G2 850w Case Bequiet series 800 Silent base Win 10 pro 64 bit

 

My wishlist: F-35/B-17G/F4U Corsair/Yak-3/P-40B Tomahawk

Link to comment

I know that I'm a lot more careful with pre-orders and early access than I was 3 years ago. I trust ED and Heatblur so I got the F-18 and I've pre-ordered the Tomcat, and I trust Razbam (to admittedly a slightly lesser degree) so picked up the Harrier in the sale.

 

But agree, there shouldn't be risk with a purchase just because something is in early access, but it's the way things are and of course I don't like it in most (but not entirely all) cases. Surprised so little has been done about this culture to protect customers.

 

Belated happy new year everyone!

Link to comment

After reading all 311 posts, I have come to the realization that some people just have never had any business schooling. In order to convey ED's decision a little better, maybe it is helpful to illustrate it with numbers. With that in mind, it is worth noting that VEAO using ED's store to sell their product is like consignment. ED allows VEAO to use their sales medium for a small cut, for my purpose I will use 10% as I do not have access to actual numbers, but it isn't going to be a lot and VEAO is still 100% responsible for their product and quality of it.

 

Ok, so lets say that over the course of the Hawk being available for purchase, 10,000 people in total purchased it. I don't know what the numbers were for full price and all of the sales, but I will use $22 usd as a base average. Again, please remember these numbers are not indicative of the actual numbers, this is just to illustrate a point. So, 10,000 people at $22 is $220,000. Now, ED gets 10% of that, so they claim $22,000 for the total sales.

 

Now that those numbers are out of the way, lets look at the last few months. Lets say 5% of all of those people bought it in the last few months. That is 500 sales for a total of $11,000, of which ED collects $1,100. Now, VEAO flops and disappears and ED steps in and says, "Ok, we will give a full refund for anyone who bought the module after Oct. 1st. Well, they only made $1,100 in profit, but now they are paying out $11,000 for a loss of $9,900 for the last few months, and decreasing their total profits from $22,000 to $11,000.

 

Now, people want just a "small" compensation. Ok, lets say they give everyone who bought the Hawk $3. That's $30,000. Ok, now they are -$19,000 on a module that they don't even own or have rights to nor are they responsible for. You ask for a "symbolic gesture", but completely ignore the fact that they HAVE given a gesture which cuts into their profits.

 

As a final word, Early Access IS NOT a new thing. It's been around for a long time and the consequences of such are known by just about everyone. Even before computers and digital content, EA was around in the form of investing in a business just starting up. If it took off, great. If it flopped, you were out money. It is ALWAYS a chance you take when investing in a product or business that doesn't have a finished product, but that decision to take that risk lies SOLEY on the invester, in this case, the consumers who paid for the Hawk. It is not EDs responsibility to compensate or do anything other than say sorry for what happened becuase you decided to spend YOUR money on an unfinished product instead of waiting. ED learned that they need to have a clause in their contracts that give them rights to the code should something like this happen again, and you as a consumer learned that you need to be more responsible with your money, and if you can't afford to take risks with it, don't. This isn't about refunds, this is about the fact that ED is already paying out of pocket for VEAO. They ABSOLUTELY have no responsibility to do anymore, nor do they have a responsibility to do what they are doing.

Link to comment

LMAO!!! Pillow induced Faceplant!!!

 

Cooler Master HAF XB EVO , ASUS P8Z77-V, i7-3770K @ 4.6GHz, Noctua AC, 32GB Corsair Vengeance Pro, EVGA 1080TI 11GB, 2 Samsung 840 Pro 540GB SSDs Raid 0, 1TB HDD, EVGA SuperNOVA 1300W PS, G930 Wireless SS Headset, TrackIR5/Wireless Proclip, TM Warthog, Saitek Pro Combat Pedals, 75" Samsung 4K QLED, HP Reverb G2, Win 10

Link to comment
You haven't read all 311 posts, because as I've already said, we are NOT INVESTORS, we're CUSTOMERS.

 

While that doesn't mean I believe ED should refund everyone (I agree with your assessment) all this victim blaming is complete rubbish.

 

 

I most certainly did read your post, but your OPINION that you are not an investor does not make it true. I suggest you do some research on what Early Access means. Google is your friend. A nice quote to help understand it is "These players help fund the game to completion, but take a risk that the game may never reach a final release." If you don't think that is investing, then perhaps you should read up on what investing is as well.

Link to comment

Before patronising me, perhaps you should read up on the definition of a purchase:

 

purchase

/ˈpəːtʃɪs/Submit

verb

1.

acquire (something) by paying for it; buy.

 

If we'd handed over money for the Hawk with the expectation we could sell it for a profit later then that would be an investment. We didn't, so it isn't. The fact that something might be early access is irrelevant.

Link to comment

I think people are missing the point that at any time one of these companies could go under for any reason and poof, your module is gone real soon. It is not a threat in early access only.

 

Even if third parties sign an agreement to share the code with ED if they go under, that might not be in the cards for a few reasons. This is not a cut and dry thing.

 

It makes me think that possibly ED needs to make the equivalent of Linux's compat shared libraries so that older modules could still work without a recompile. They simply keep using the compat dlls by their extension 2.5.3.xx.dll. When DCS World moves on they keep those libraries around for that one bird and everyone else uses the newer 2.5.4, 3.x, 4.x, etc... libraries. I'm sure thats a tough nut to attempt so its a pipe dream at best. But its the first thing that comes to mind.

 

Its possible that 2.5.4 point release is when Vaeo was expected to recompile (I would think its on major point releases that such a thing has to happen) and thats when they called it quits because there was no one around to re-compile anymore. Who knows.

 

It appears the libraries are moving under the developers feet. Considering DCS World is in beta that makes sense but is difficult for the survivability of third party modules if a dev goes under.


Edited by aileron
Link to comment
You conveniently left out "material result", in this case, a finished Hawk. An investment doesn't have to be for profit, though usually it is.

 

I left it out because I couldn't be bothered to argue about whether the value of "material result" itself should exceed the investment or not; and, despite searching, I also couldn't find a single definition that contained that phrase or similar. They ALL refer to the reward being financial.

 

You've also conveniently ignored my defining of purchase. You're telling me I'm wrong, so the burden of proof is on you to explain why 'investment' is a more appropriate description than 'purchase' in this instance.

Link to comment
Material as in "can touch with your hands", so you are legally in possession.

In software terms we talk about a license to use a program code aka software...

 

Right, but as times evolve, so do definitions. Even if you want to go that route, you still are putting money down on a product that is unfinished and may never be finished, and are knowingly taking that risk. Maybe you get it, maybe you don't. But you are still responsible for your decision, not ED. That is the nature of early access. Always has been even before Hawk was released. And there are no laws saying they have to pay. Sure, some countries are enacting laws to protect consumers from digital product scams, but let's say a lawsuit is filed in the UK against ED, a Russian company, they can't enforce it unless Russia agrees to it. And news flash for everyone who buys modules here, it specifically states, before you confirm your purchase, that due to the nature of digital content you can not get a refund. If you don't read that part, then again, it is on you. It has been on EVERY SINGLE ONE of my purchases. The fact that they are giving some refunds speaks VOLUMES to their business model.

Link to comment
I left it out because I couldn't be bothered to argue about whether the value of "material result" itself should exceed the investment or not; and, despite searching, I also couldn't find a single definition that contained that phrase or similar. They ALL refer to the reward being financial.

 

You've also conveniently ignored my defining of purchase. You're telling me I'm wrong, so the burden of proof is on you to explain why 'investment' is a more appropriate description than 'purchase' in this instance.

 

Look, I can't show you how to use Google. I suggest taking business management courses and when you get to investments, tell your instructor your definition of investment. I will agree, most point to profit, but I will reiterate, it DOES NOT have to be for financial profit. Personal profit in this case would be years of flight time with a finished module. Pretty sure that would be worth more than what you put into it. That is what early access is.

Screenshot_20190104-144717_Chrome.thumb.jpg.c5418648b3f05098ef7175b5e7762bca.jpg

Link to comment
Absolutely agree, just wanted to point out that material here meant something tangible...

 

Indeed. The thing that gets me is that the entire concept of early access and kickstarters follows the exact same perimeters as when you go to investors to start a business. You don't have the funds to complete the project on your own, so you look for help. In the business world this usually does equate to money back, but in the gaming world, it equates to being able to test the game/module well before it is released and then continue to enjoy that game/module for years to come when it is finished. Not sure how that is so hard to comprehend.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...