Refund on the F-15E

[MAXsenna]

Ditto, I want my money back!
If we have to be "grown up" then we have to expect the same of the companies that take our money, they need to either provide the product they made a contract with us to provide, or they need to give us back our money.

Demanding one or the other isn't "childish", childish is taking someone's money for a job, and then not delivering.

When you never bothered to read the EULA, do not cool down a couple of days while this plays out? Seriously?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

In the interim, we see what does or does not happen.

Wise words Mike!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

This is the most interesting post I've seen in a long time.
You've formed a rock-solid conclusion based on comments some people have made on different forums over just a couple of days. Meanwhile, you call others "flat-earthers" who are reminding us we don't have any real facts and advising people to wait for more official before jumping to conclusions.

Well, currently. DCS is pretty flat earthed. Maybe that's what he means?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

And where is the Hawk now?

You might want to re-read that.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Beirut]

26 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Well, it does illustrate the problems of the "Early Access" business model, and the IMHO not sustainable trend of shifting responsibility to the buyer for one-off purchases. My Steam Library is filled to the brim with broken promises a.k.a. "Early Access", so I'm part of the problem, I know. 

 

 

Reminds me of that cartoon from Pogo:

[MAXsenna]

It‘s hopeless.
People just want to wallow in misery.
I give up.

Lots of people have half empty glasses!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Capn kamikaze]

39 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

There are a whole host of things that can happen to "unfinalize" your product. This could range from the company you bought it from running out of a money to an asteroid destroying the Earth tomorrow. There is always risk. It's unfortunate but true. At least in this case the risk was labeled on the package that you would be spending money on something that was not in a finished form.

I'm not saying that you have to be happy about things going wrong, or that we shouldn't try to come up with a better system. But thinking that you should get the final product no matter what and never have to think of things that might get in the way of that is extremely unrealistic.

When I say final, I mean in what ever state it ends up in, and my access to it in that state not being hindered or limited.

I am not demanding it be made into the "release" version no matter what, just that what I have should not be taken away like the Hawk was.

[Exorcet]

8 minutes ago, Capn kamikaze said:

When I say final, I mean in what ever state it ends up in, and my access to it in that state not being hindered or limited.

I am not demanding it be made into the "release" version no matter what, just that what I have should not be taken away like the Hawk was.

Sorry for misunderstanding then. Although the concept of a final release is complicated by DCS itself being an evolving product. The Hawk would just continue to become more and more broken as DCS was updated which is why it needed to be pulled. On paper this shouldn't be the case anymore as ED would take over. Hopefully the issue is resolved and we never find out.

[xoxen]

The F-15E is still available in the store, so I guess actually there is still hope.

[Hiob]

7 minutes ago, xoxen said:

The F-15E is still available in the store.

Why shouldn’t it?

Unlike some members in the forum, the staff at ED act like professionals and keep their cool until there are ACTUAL FACTS to act on.

[bkthunder]

This is what happens when you pay in full for something that isn't finished. I am fully against this business model, but most of you "throw money at the screen" as soon as yet another EA module is announced. You didn't even really need Razbam or VEAO to see this, ED's own modules are probably never going to be fully complete either, yet you purchase hoping for what? 

Check what state the module is in, if you're happy with it buy it, otherwise wait longer. That's the harsh reality.

[Capn kamikaze]

13 minutes ago, bkthunder said:

Check what state the module is in, if you're happy with it buy it, otherwise wait longer. That's the harsh reality.

That would be fine, except this situation would not be avoided by doing that.

[plane_crazy242]

If you go on the assumption you can get your money back for anything “not finished”, please define “finished”. I feel pretty safe saying no DCS module will ever be 100% fullly “finished”. There will always be some aspect not fully modeled. So who decides what is “finished”?

[Lau]

This is the second time I get screwed while trying to get the Strike Eagle. The first time was by M2M that ended up never releasing the bird or refunding (2014) and now RB still working with people like M2M. There might be an EULA, but the industry needs to grow up, get away from these type of events and in no circumstances hold customers hostages when they want to get out of a stinky situation. One way or the other the Strike Eagle will be severely delayed to say the least, this situation has been going on for a long time and it has just been made public on a desperate move by RB while customers were kept in the dark as usual. If we cannot longer trust ED then that is going to be an important issue for many customers, I am not saying that we can’t, I am just saying that ED reaction to this problem will be paramount for its reputation. I personally would like out of this problem since, I am not convinced that what is happening is a good mix for the future of the Strike Eagle one way or the other.

Best,

Lau

[LeCuvier]

I'm afraid that the underlying problem is an unsustainable business model. The only source of revenue is the sale of modules. In order to generate revenue, ED launches new modules before earlier modules are completed. Most of that revenue is probably not spent for the development of the new modules but for (very slowly) completing recent modules, software maintenance and support. Every new module adds to the workload ( = Cost) of software maintainance. It's easy to see that this business model cannot be sustained in the long run. It doesn't work finacially, and it doesn't work for the customer base. I bought the Hornet on 01-DEC-1918, and it's still in "Early Access". I'm not happy about that at all, and I will be very reluctant about buying anything in EA going forward.
I believe that ED will be obliged to go to a business model where you pay a monthly or annual fee for using the software. A lot of people won't like that and the customer base might get smaller. Changing to that business model will be challenging; but the alternative is to go belly-up. Just my assessment, maybe ED finds another way to continue their Games line of business.

[Mr_Burns]

9 minutes ago, LeCuvier said:

I'm afraid that the underlying problem is an unsustainable business model. The only source of revenue is the sale of modules. In order to generate revenue, ED launches new modules before earlier modules are completed. Most of that revenue is probably not spent for the development of the new modules but for (very slowly) completing recent modules, software maintenance and support. Every new module adds to the workload ( = Cost) of software maintenance. It's easy to see that this business model cannot be sustained in the long run. It doesn't work finacially, and it doesn't work for the customer base. I bought the Hornet on 01-DEC-1918, and it's still in "Early Access". I'm not happy about that at all, and I will be very reluctant about buying anything in EA going forward.
I believe that ED will be obliged to go to a business model where you pay a monthly or annual fee for using the software. A lot of people won't like that and the customer base might get smaller. Changing to that business model will be challenging; but the alternative is to go belly-up. Just my assessment, maybe ED finds another way to continue their Games line of business.

I never liked them giving the base module free, even a token 10 bucks/pounds etc would increase cash flow of a deservedly great product, there is nothing else out like it so ask people to pay $10 for the base game.

 

I would consider a subscription but I think that is definitely a massive option that would seriously put off new players.

 

In any case, we have no idea what is going on so its all purely speculation, the reality will come out soon enough.

[cfrag]

2 minutes ago, LeCuvier said:

It's easy to see that this business model cannot be sustained in the long run. It doesn't work finacially, and it doesn't work for the customer base.

I'm as mystified in this regard as you are - what ED are trying to do is akin to covering long-term "debt" (maintaining older modules) with short term "loans" (one-off sales of new modules)  - something that Business 101 tells you can't ever work long-term. It forces you into ever-increasingly short-term borrowing cycle (bring out new modules) while not being able to service long-term commitments (fixing/finishing released models that have once sold well but now only contribute a small trickle). A vicious circle that only tends to speed up. 

I want DCS/ED to be successful, and it does give me pause that ED just recently have affirmed that they do not plan to switch to a more sustainable, reliable income stream (yeah, I'm talking about subscriptions). I have purchased all modules and maps in DCS, and I'm still willing to pay a subscription fee if that would secure ED/DCS's long-term future (I currently rent a server to host my missions, so why shouldn't I also pay a reasonable subscription if that allows ED to fix many of the most glaring issues of existing models rather than being forced to bring out new models at the cost of mostly leaving behind existing ones). It seems that the current situation is already creating friction - be it the Razbam dustup (which I hope will be resolved amicably), or prominent contributors like @Dzsekeb (of "Foothold" and "Pretense" fame - the missions that run on many servers and bring joy to many of us) pack up and leave in frustration. There is trouble in paradise, and I hope that ED management will find good solutions for all. Continuing on the current trajectory seems risky to me.

[Thamiel]

12 minutes ago, cfrag said:

I have purchased all modules and maps in DCS, and I'm still willing to pay a subscription fee if that would secure ED/DCS's long-term future

Looks like the other way around: you are "willing" to pay because you purchased all the modules and maps and therefore are not willing to let that investment go down the drain?

[G.J.S]

59 minutes ago, LeCuvier said:

I'm afraid that the underlying problem is an unsustainable business model. The only source of revenue is the sale of modules. In order to generate revenue, ED launches new modules before earlier modules are completed. Most of that revenue is probably not spent for the development of the new modules but for (very slowly) completing recent modules, software maintenance and support. Every new module adds to the workload ( = Cost) of software maintainance. It's easy to see that this business model cannot be sustained in the long run. It doesn't work finacially, and it doesn't work for the customer base. I bought the Hornet on 01-DEC-1918, and it's still in "Early Access". I'm not happy about that at all, and I will be very reluctant about buying anything in EA going forward.
I believe that ED will be obliged to go to a business model where you pay a monthly or annual fee for using the software. A lot of people won't like that and the customer base might get smaller. Changing to that business model will be challenging; but the alternative is to go belly-up. Just my assessment, maybe ED finds another way to continue their Games line of business.

That’s a VERY long lead time on the Hornet . . . (read it again . . . !)

[cfrag]

28 minutes ago, Thamiel said:

Looks like the other way around: you are "willing" to pay because you purchased all the modules and maps and therefore are not willing to let that investment go down the drain?

In business circles that would be called 'throwing good money after the bad', a bad decision. The maps and modules that I already own will not suddenly stop working (the advantage of using Steam), so my investment is safe. I'm actively willing to increase my investment in DCS's future, not "willing" just to keep my past. That is safe. 

[falcon_120]

That’s a VERY long lead time on the Hornet . . . (read it again . . . !)

its amazing ED managed to access the documentation some 60 years ahead of the hornet development

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[LeCuvier]

1 hour ago, G.J.S said:

That’s a VERY long lead time on the Hornet . . . (read it again . . . !)

Oh hell, yes that was a totally unintended joke. With no typo it was 01-DEC-2018 of course.

[Thamiel]

58 minutes ago, cfrag said:

I'm actively willing to increase my investment in DCS's future, not "willing" just to keep my past.

Remind me: you are still a single person and speak for yourself? Unless you are a major investor with x k$ (and ED is willing to let you do that because as an investor you always want to secure an investment of that magnitude) this increase will be marginal and not worth to speak of. So what you are "willing" to do is not really to increase your investment into DCS' future, is it?

[LeCuvier]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

...The maps and modules that I already own will not suddenly stop working (the advantage of using Steam), ...

If ED went out of business with no successor, it might not take long before this complex software became useless. I've had to provide budget for an engineering software development for some years, and I was amazed by the amount of money we had to spend for maintenance.

[cfrag]

28 minutes ago, LeCuvier said:

If ED went out of business with no successor, it might not take long before this complex software became useless.

If DCS were some kind of production title that depends on integration with your workflow, I'd completely agree with you. Keeping legacy software integrated in your production stream can be (usually is) prohibitively expensive. Then again, DCS is entertainment, and (ahem) it already contains many bits of software that have not seen updates in (what feels like) ages.

But consider this: I still occasionally play "Unreal Tournament". The last update that game received was before my godson's parents married. If push comes to shove, I deem DCS being similarly long-lasting. There won't be new additions save what the community contributes, but it also won't become useless. And I'm definitely not going to mention a still-existing flight sim from days yonder that focuses on the F-16 and still has a fair amount of relevance to many. 

So yes, there is risk, and in the hopefully "unlikely event of emergency" my hopes are that DCS's core lingers in a meaningful way for a long time. But best we hope that it won't come that far, and that we all work together to make DCS a continuing success. Leading this will be ED, of course, so I'm very interested to see how they react to these challenges. 

[Coxy_99]

Id love for you to get all your money back for the modules you paid for, Cant wait to see how that pans out . Im sure it will get resolved, This is just a drama thread which has not been locked yet.

Edited April 7, 2024 by Coxy_99

[Nevyn]

Sub fees would be a big no no for me and for many many reasons.

[The Stick]

This topic is a non-starter - see clause 5 of the EULA. Moreover, there appears to have been an attempt at damage control as reported here.