DCS WWII Rewards

ED didn't get any of the money it was spent on development by RRG. If you want to sue go ahead. without ED we would all have nothing you put in $40 woopiedoo. If I was you I would think wow I got 2 DCS aircraft not RRG WW2 for $40 plus the map, What a idiot you really are.

I would say no need for name calling, but as it has been said earlier relating to this, one might want to take caution when approaching crowd funding altogether. There are risk involved and you are not guaranteed anything. Bluedrake42 you are not in this alone. We all have taken a hit on the fallout including ED, just be grateful we are getting anything at all.

It doesn't matter how much or little the company makes, from a moral standpoint accepting a product even partly funded by funds pledged under false impressions is wrong (in my view.)

And that's why you will turn down your planes and return them back to ED because to accept them would be morally wrong since the kickstarter actually failed.

Go ahead, say it.

You cant reap the profits on something that... 1) isnt complete and still requires money to be spent to create 2) has been given away, along with a number of other modules for the amount of money that wouldnt even cover development of a single module... Hey they are now giving the 190 to many of us, and losing profits on that... that wasnt even RRG's... so how many people here would have bought the 190 and now are choosing it as their reward plane?

 

Its simple math.

I wish I could rep you again Sith! I also see your avatar has returned to original form. Nice recovery from the fight! :D

In general I think it was a descent move by ED to update this new version of rewards. While probably majority of the backers are not fully satisfied with the outcome, as they won't get even half of what was promised to them originally, they can probably cope with the result, as they get at least something back from taking the risk and being a part of launching the project.

That makes it even more surprising that ED again forgot the lowest level backers entirely. And I really can't understand why. It can't be the money. There are only about 300 backers below the $20 level - so for example handing the P-51 keys to them would mean what financially to ED? P-51 was on sale here at $15.99 just a couple of weeks ago. So if 300 people would have bought it at that price, it would have meant sales of $4800. And certainly ED does not expect this group of backers, most of whom probably already have they P-51 keys already anyway, to buy the plane now, if they don't get the keys as a reward. So there are practically no costs involved for ED to hand these backers the P-51 keys. Besides, these backers also have already brought in some money for the project.

On the other hand, looking at the marketing side for potential of these backers that ED is now giving nothing... Obviously these 300 people are target group as potential customers for ED, as they have already shown their interest in ED products by backing their project. So why try to drive them away? If they are satisfied or even content about how ED is treating them now and let's say only a third of them decide to buy just one WWII plane, once it is ready that means 100 people times $40 - $50 = $4000 - $5000 income for ED. And that is obviously a super conservative estimation, as I doubt that backers of this project would be content with just one plane (remember, originally one plane was promised for free even for non-backers). Once you get these customers on the hook, they could bring in money for years, when more planes and maps are added to this WWII scenario.

And that does not even take into account the positive/negative effect that these people would have within their communities or by exposing new people to DCS products, if they already have the P-51 keys and give the awarded keys to their friends for example that otherwise would not be buying it or they already would have bought it, as it has been on the market for a long time already.

So to sum it up:

Giving the low level backers the P-51 keys in reality costs nothing for ED, but has the potential for lots of future sales + having a good word around how ED is treating backers.

Giving the low level backers nothing certainly makes them lose some of the future sales + bad word going around about how they treated people who had put money into their project.

So looking purely from business perspective, why even take the risk to drive away customers, while keeping them content really costs you nothing.

And at the end of the day, it is not really about the money. I am sure that these $10 level backers are not starving for giving up that amount, but I am also sure that ED will not be on the verge of bankruptcy either for giving at least something to these backers. It is more a matter of principle.

You cant reap the profits on something that... 1) isnt complete and still requires money to be spent to create 2) has been given away, along with a number of other modules for the amount of money that wouldnt even cover development of a single module... Hey they are now giving the 190 to many of us, and losing profits on that... that wasnt even RRG's... so how many people here would have bought the 190 and now are choosing it as their reward plane?

 

Its simple math.

Not so sure about that Sith. I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on the internet, but I know some. Allow me to play devils advocate.

I was told that the assets developed under RRG using the KS money that ED is going ahead and using in a product that they are going to sell, opens a whole big can of legal worms.

Now before you tell me "it's getting old" and "to move on" or the forum hit team come after me, I am ok with update #2. I'm loosing out on some backer rewards, but so is everyone else. I'm just saying, I hope ED has a lawyer look at this.

I'm saying that ED now reaps the profits behind a product partly funded via false pretenses. It doesn't matter how much or little the company makes, from a moral standpoint accepting a product even partly funded by funds pledged under false impressions is wrong (in my view.)

From a "moral standpoint", ED now probably has now a little less costs to cover - perhaps in the range of 5-10% of the whole project (assuming dev costs for a module - not even taken into account the new map - is about 200K). From a "moral standpoint" they have to INVEST now way more than they probably ever anticipated and/or planned to do.

How amoralic ED is now that they try to make this whole thing financially viable ... how dare they ...

For those of you asking whether I would have rather the DCS: WW2 module not have happened at all. Yes that is what I would have wanted. If ED wants a DCS: WW2 module, they could have started from scratch and left RRG to the legal wolves. If ED is not capable of fulfilling the promises made by the original company, then they should not take over the project.

From a legal perspecitive this were probably a totally viable option. From a flight simmer and aircraft enthusiast's perspective ... *facepalm*

What would you have gained by that? You would be left without your money (I doubt you would ever get anything back, no matter if or how much you would sue anyone) and you would be left without any aircrafts. But you would be "in the right". Yeah.

Just as a preface, I am going to say that the more I think about this... the more I am very unhappy with the situation. This very particular scheme (from a business standpoint) has extremely negative ramifications for the simulation and tactical gaming industry, and these ramifications reach considerably farther than merely this specific incident.

The money was spent before this happened... and it didnt cover much more than 10% of the total costs...

Then ED should forfeit any work or product made through that 10% funding, and RRG should be met with legal ramifications if they are unable to fulfill their promises.

I would say no need for name calling, but as it has been said earlier relating to this, one might want to take caution when approaching crowd funding altogether. There are risk involved and you are not guaranteed anything. Bluedrake42 you are not in this alone. We all have taken a hit on the fallout including ED, just be grateful we are getting anything at all.

I am sorry but I cannot be grateful for this. This particular scheme has massive legal implications, and is unfair in both a business and marketing standpoint. To accept a product even partly funded under false pretenses gives an unfair advantage over competing companies that adhere to strictly honest marketing guidelines.

If Company A and Company B are both running a Kickstarter campaign for the exact same product, however Company A lies and tells its consumers they will receive more than what Company B is offering... Company A will out compete Company B for no other reason other than that Company A lied during its marketing campaign.

This entire system promotes dishonesty in a marketing and business setting, and is out competing honest companies that are working to market their products accurately and effectively.

And that's why you will turn down your planes and return them back to ED because to accept them would be morally wrong since the kickstarter actually failed.

 

Go ahead, say it.

I love ED and their products, and honestly I could care less on getting my money's worth for this module. I've gotten enough copies of DCS modules for promotional purposes that it would be absurd for me to argue this purely from a personal financial standpoint... but if anything that should make you realize how seriously I take this situation. I'm probably risking my promotional relationship with them (hopefully not) by talking about this, but its important enough to me that I feel I must argue these points anyways.

Regardless I am a Youtuber... I make a living off of speaking my mind, and this is very much what is on my mind right now.

There still seems to be a strong impression among some people that ED is profiting greatly from this kickstarter debacle. It's already been said that ED is taking a financial hit in trying to honor the KS promises (and I damn well believe it given how much modules normally cost).

Given the pittance collected from the KS campaign, ED has to complete 5 aircraft and 1 map at their own expense and then GIVE THEM AWAY TO ALL OF US! If you think that is profiteering, please consult your local dictionary.

The list of KS campaigns that were abandoned after being funded is long, and I challenge anyone to find one other than DCS WWII that has been rescued by a third party.

No worries, I dont see it opening a big can of legal worms as they are going to deliver the final product... they are still giving rewards, they are communicating with us that they are changing, and why... they are doing it right...

Not picking a fight, but just because they are doing it in a kind way doesn't mean there won't be any ramifications.

As they say... "No good deed goes unpunished."

But I hope nothing happends to ED, there all we got left lol

Just as a preface, I am going to say that the more I think about this... the more I am very unhappy with the situation. This very particular scheme (from a business standpoint) has extremely negative ramifications for the simulation and tactical gaming industry, and these ramifications reach considerably farther than merely this specific incident.

 

 

 

Then ED should forfeit any work or product made through that 10% funding, and RRG should be met with legal ramifications if they are unable to fulfill their promises.

 

 

 

I am sorry but I cannot be grateful for this. This particular scheme has massive legal implications, and is unfair in both a business and marketing standpoint. To accept a product even partly funded under false pretenses gives an unfair advantage over competing companies that adhere to strictly honest marketing guidelines.

 

If Company A and Company B are both running a Kickstarter campaign for the exact same product, however Company A lies and tells its consumers they will receive more than what Company B is offering... Company A will out compete Company B for no other reason other than that Company A lied during its marketing campaign.

 

This entire system promotes dishonesty in a marketing and business setting, and is out competing honest companies that are working to market their products accurately and effectively.

 

 

 

I love ED and their products, and honestly I could care less on getting my money's worth for this module. I've gotten enough copies of DCS modules for promotional purposes that it would be absurd for me to argue this purely from a personal financial standpoint... but if anything that should make you realize how seriously I take this situation. I'm probably risking my promotional relationship with them (hopefully not) by talking about this, but its important enough to me that I feel I must argue these points anyways.

 

Regardless I am a Youtuber... I make a living off of speaking my mind, and this is very much what is on my mind right now.

WOW..

LOL

:cry:

Then ED should forfeit any work or product made through that 10% funding, and RRG should be met with legal ramifications if they are unable to fulfill their promises.

Why? Because of those obscure legal ramifications? What exactly are those?

I am sorry but I cannot be grateful for this. This particular scheme has massive legal implications, and is unfair in both a business and marketing standpoint. To accept a product even partly funded under false pretenses gives an unfair advantage over competing companies that adhere to strictly honest marketing guidelines.

 

If Company A and Company B are both running a Kickstarter campaign for the exact same product, however Company A lies and tells its consumers they will receive more than what Company B is offering... Company A will out compete Company B for no other reason other than that Company A lied during its marketing campaign.

 

This entire system promotes dishonesty in a marketing and business setting, and is out competing honest companies that are working to market their products accurately and effectively.

Up to this point we were only at "incompetence" regarding RRG. But what you are doing here is accusing RRG of fraud. Phew, strong tobak! And if I were black-hearted, I could wonder if you are also trying to hint that with this that ED somehow is a part of it...

Just as a preface, I am going to say that the more I think about this... the more I am very unhappy with the situation. This very particular scheme (from a business standpoint) has extremely negative ramifications for the simulation and tactical gaming industry, and these ramifications reach considerably farther than merely this specific incident.

.

I don't really understand why you're so unhappy with it, yes ED is taking some advantage of RRG's work but they're still giving us rewards! Had they said backers would get nothing then I would understand you but here???

I'm getting 2 planes and a map for $40 and that's perfectly fine.

Edit: and I believe the advantage they get is less than the loss of revenue incurred by the licences given to backers

I second the last post!

i´m happy... And i will buy all airplanes that my rewards don´t cover.

Sorry by my bad english

i´m happy... And i will buy all airplanes that my rewards don´t cover.

 

 

Sorry by my bad english

No apologies! Your English is just fine! :thumbup:

I don't really understand why you're so unhappy with it, yes ED is taking some advantage of RRG's work but they're still giving us rewards! Had they said backers would get nothing then I would understand you but here???

There are over 300 backers that are getting nothing right now.

There still seems to be a strong impression among some people that ED is profiting greatly from this kickstarter debacle. It's already been said that ED is taking a financial hit in trying to honor the KS promises (and I damn well believe it given how much modules normally cost).

 

Given the pittance collected from the KS campaign, ED has to complete 5 aircraft and 1 map at their own expense and then GIVE THEM AWAY TO ALL OF US! If you think that is profiteering, please consult your local dictionary.

 

The list of KS campaigns that were abandoned after being funded is long, and I challenge anyone to find one other than DCS WWII that has been rescued by a third party.

This has nothing to do with turning a profit or not, this has to do with the legalities of business. There are many ways to do illegitimate things while loosing money, just because you're taking a financial hit... doesn't make it legal.

I can make the heads of RRG pay for this and still get my product... You dont invest in the people where this started ever again, but I will continue to support ED who are trying to fix it...

 

If you want to go on a personal crusade to champion the rights of all us poor people... go ahead... but I am not interested. I dont see it as a discussion that needs to be dragged out here either.

That is not enough. If someone says "give me money and I'll give you a car" and you give them money, and they say "oh well, I'm not giving you a car" or even "oh well, here's a bicycle" you don't say "ah well, at least I learned not to trust that guy" no you report him for fraud. That's fraud.

The statement of marketing under false pretences is nonsense. RRG marketed based on what they thought reasonable with no involvement by Eagle. When Eagle had to take over, they adjuted the plan to make it workable. There was no colusion or attempt to bait and switch. To say otherwise is liable and insulting.

 

Simple as that.

It was absolutely marketed under false pretenses. From a definitive standpoint, RRG has bait and switched its backers. A product was offered, and it is not being delivered in whole.

I would also like to say that Kickstarter has contracts that hold the campaign starter to their promises, this whole "ah well its Kickstarter, fraud is okay there" is not true.

From their website:

Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?

 

Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) We crafted these terms to create a legal requirement for creators to follow through on their projects, and to give backers a recourse if they don't. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill.

Up to this point we were only at "incompetence" regarding RRG. But what you are doing here is accusing RRG of fraud. Phew, strong tobak! And if I were black-hearted, I could wonder if you are also trying to hint that with this that ED somehow is a part of it...

I'm not saying ED is somehow a part of it, but I also have no proof that they aren't. It is entirely feasible that someone could take advantage of this situation. Granted that is all speculative, but it is a justifiable speculation. I don't know anyone in ED personally, and I have no inner knowledge of your business or marketing... therefor in my mind the possibility exists.

There are over 300 backers that are getting nothing right now.

Now that's a fair point but Bluedrake was not focusing on these only...

For these 300 I would give either the map or a P-51 licence.