Microsoft and/or Asobo may have no control over, or even interest in product quality within the Marketplace, but what really matters is that there is a refund policy - in some countries there are consumer rights to refunds embedded in the legal system, and I live in one of them.
1 Like
But the distributors (Microsoft) get a cut, a rather hefty percentage of each sale. So they are at least partially responsible for selling defective products and under the laws of some jurisdictions selling a product that is faulty and not repairing, replacing or refunding it is illegal.
Now, on the other hand, good luck getting your countries version of our Commerce Commission to take action against Microsoft over a few dollars here or there, but they are still at least partly at fault.
Now if you go to Microsoft after buying a dud product, and quote certain legal protections in your jurisdiction, they might come to the table, but I kind of doubt it.
At a minimum, they could and should block new purchases of a product that has serious defects until fixed, but letâs be honest, this probably goes against their best interest as they stop getting a commission on sales. Microsoft is playing the game, hoping that the profit they make in the short term, will offset the potential long term losses if people feel they were burnt and start buying through other stores.
But failing that, just adding some simple features to the marketplace that are common on most online stores would give Microsoft some protection over buyers remorse, help committed third-party developers to improve their products, and even instil some confidence in the marketplace. It should be a win-win, with very little time commitment.
Itâs just a real shame that Microsoft isnât willing to spend even a few hours on this to get it right.
Edit: oh and for what itâs worth, you canât even get a proof of purchase when buying through the marketplace, this is an issue that has been brought to their attention, I presume one that hasnât been fixed. - Iâm not willing to buy another product at the moment to test that theory.
What I would recommend is that if you have brought anything from the marketplace, you file a support ticket on Zendesk, and ask for a log of your purchases including product names, dates, and amounts, in case you ever need it.
3 Likes
As so many have already pointed out, its a conflict of interest â so can one reasonably expect MS to tell potential purchasers not to buy a product that MS is making a profit on. ?
What might work better in any case is an Independent product Monitoring service (Website) , provided by some independent entity, that does not have a conflict of interest.
But at the end of the day, the best way to safeguard against being DUPED with a bad product, is to do some initial research BEFORE clicking that EASY to click on BUY BUTTON.
A good lesson to learn in life âŚ
âLook before you leapâ
3 Likes
Microsoft isnât a distributor, theyâre a retailer.
As for your analogy, manufacturers handle warranties. (If something breaks) Retailers handle refunds. (If something isnât what you expected, or doesnât work)
Iâm not disagreeing about your point⌠itâs up to consumers to do research, and a lot of people donâtâŚbut several people have to buy it before thereâs anything to research. Fortunately, I do⌠which is why I started the thread about the C90âŚtheres wasnât any information about it anywhere yet. So far, Iâve managed to avoid buying any of the really bad aircraft, and Iâve bought nearly all of them.
(Storytime) I do this because I learned my lesson several years ago when I bought Call of Duty, Black ops IV direct from Microsoft on launch day for the Xbox. I only play single player campaign, so I was shocked to discover it was multiplayer only. That information was online, but I had certain expectations of that franchise, so it was unexpected. Microsoft has a no refund policy for games, but they did kindly refund me.
The understandable mistake people make is that they expect a certain amount of quality for items sold directly in game. Theyâre more likely to do research when purchasing from a 3rd party store rather than directly in game.
A final few thoughts: This topic about the marketplace was sparked because of the C90 release. The developer of BT Studio has made a statement in that thread, so itâs essentially being handled as a âwarranty repairâ. A fix is being submitted this coming Monday.
Iâm ok with Microsoft running the marketplace as they are, with one exception. I want written reviews in the marketplace, to help people do proper research a little easier.
4 Likes
Well, I am happy he responded and said he will submit a fix. I am gonna hold my excitement until the fix is HERE and working. 
Not to be overly skeptical, but we arenât working with a solid track record here.
5 Likes
This is not necessarily true. Reviewers exist, and they usually reach out to creators to request a review copy.
Creators that are confident in their quality will usually be happy to provide reputable reviewers with a copy so that that people can get information on said quality without anyone having to risk their own money blindly.
In my experience, itâs extremely rare that good creators wonât be happy to get their product reviewed. As a matter of fact, even creators that have a a lot of room for improvement usually will send out review copies anyway (feedback and visibility still help even when a review is fairly critical or mixed).
If a few days after the release of a product there are absolutely no reviews or even simply video content of an add-on, that should raise a massive red flag.
Thatâs normally the indication of a product so bad that reviewers immediately noticed it wasnât worth their time simply from the images/trailers/promotional stuff, or the creator refused/ignored requests for reviews.
For instance, I asked to review Malpensa airport from a certain developer that afterward proved to be very, very bad (in the worst way possible since theyâve been caught plagiarizing with one of their aircaft). Unsurprisingly, I never received an answer. Which, to be fair, saved me a good deal of time and frustration.
Ultimately, if you donât want to wait for reviews, carefully examine promotional materials like screenshots, trailers, and what the developer writes about the product. If those give you doubts about its quality (there are plenty telltale signs), perhaps itâs best to hold off.
Every one of us has learned by doing. They will as well.
Besides, letâs be real. They may be simulation newbies, but theyâre not baby chicks that just came out of the egg. They purchase games all the time, so theyâre used to read reviews (possibly more than many here) and to get informed about what they buy.
1 Like
afaik only 1 product has serious deffects. If the planes are advertised as using the default planeâs systems (CS777) or if they are very basic (the new Embraer) that is not a deffect.
95% of complaints here are because people do not read, not because the products are unusable. They are usable, just because they are completely arcade does not mean you are entitled to a refund.
Always check befor buying the information of what you buy.
I agree with your other statements, a refund policy of a few days should be implemented, though I imagine it would be really difficult to combat piracy.
One known defective product on the marketplace is too many.
Microsoft is a retailer, a store, and while they might not have an obligation in the US (not sure how far their obligations go there), they are still required to meet their consumer protection laws in other jurisdictions where they do business. Again, how far this goes depends on the country and its laws, but as a general rule of thumb, they shouldnât be selling products that are known to be defective until the issue has been resolved.
If they do sell a product that is defective at the point of purchase, Microsoft should:
-
WIthin reason, force the developer to fix the defect, and block new sales of the addon in question if the developer refuses to or is unable to comply so that others donât buy a defective product
or;
-
At your request, revoke your licence and refund the flight credits purchased.
Again both of those options should have reasonable, well defined and discoverable limitations, the refund route especially so. If youâve used a product for over a defined amount of time (e.g. >10 hours), then the refund shouldnât apply.
As I said earlier, I highly doubt Microsoft is going to be prosecuted by any consumer watchdog over such small purchases, but you never know.
By having some level of standard around fundamentally broken products, Microsoft will hopefully build consumer confidence in the marketplace, which at least, in theory, keeps people coming back, generating more revenue for Microsoft. However, if people have bad experiences, theyâre less likely to buy items through the marketplace, and MS loses out on their cut.
Unfortunately, we havenât seen any real move to introduce these standards, so I suspect some analyst in Redmond has run the numbers and that theyâve decided they can afford to allow broken products to stay on the store at the risk of losing customers because theyâll make more money in the short term than they will with long time repeat customers.
I would prefer that quality control be reactive rather than proactive. If we have to wait for Microsoft to pre-approve and test every inch of every product addons and their updates would never arrive on the marketplace. But at least give us a formal route to notify the marketplace team of defective products.
I also believe that they shouldnât be enforcing a âqualityâ standard on products for reasons I discussed a few posts ago. TLDR; what one user might consider quality, another will consider subpar.
If this is the product I am thinking of, at least initially the labelling was not as clear as it should be. This product may well have violated our Fair Trading Act for miss leading advertising. But that is probably another debate for a different topic.
1 Like
In the UK at least thatâs the exact opposite of the law which was extended to cover digital purchases a few years back.
I am not going to ellaborate any further, I have already previously replied to the comments you made.
Microsoft will not check every product to see if all the systems work correctly, that would require an insane amount of beta testers and thus, money, and it is the buyerâs responsability to not buy anything that does not work as intended, since there are tons of reviews before release.
Best regards.
You seem to have missed what Iâve said twice on this topic, so Iâm am going to quote a piece of my post.
Here is a helpful definition of reactive (which was used halfway through the first sentence)
-
of, relating to, or marked by reaction or reactance
2a. readily responsive to a stimulus
2b occurring as a result of stress or emotional upset
source: Merriam Webster
Simply put, test products that are reported as being faulty, not prior to release, which is their current strategy and one that is potentially illegal in many of their jurisdictions in which they deliberately sell. Yes, this is a customer be-ware market, something I am happy about, but that doesnât absolve Microsoft of all responsibility, and it doesnât make it the smartest business practise either.
2 Likes
not for marketplace only releases like the Kingair from the last store update that released fully broken, it just shows up and reviews come after people see it.
100% agree with OP
1 Like
Thatâs not always the case. I didnât see a single review for the Cessna 140 before it was released, for example.
If you think about it, the worse the product, the less likely a dev. is going to release early builds to YouTube channels for review. The absence of previews of a new plane should be a sign.
2 Likes
Interesting exchange I just had with Chock on Avsim:
12 minutes ago, Chock said:
I agree that those you mention are great, are indeed so, and said so in my reviews of a couple of them, but what I did not do was completely dismiss the other offerings in my reviews of those. I simply presented the facts in my reviews and let people draw their own conclusions from an informed standpoint, allowing them to make choice based on some pertinent knowledge. Doing this is not âmaking excusesâ for stuff, it is presenting them as they are, often taking a hit on their purchase price when doing so, in order help people avoid the same if they subsequently deem the product not to their liking.
If I think something is very good, you might note I say so in my reviews, whereas if something is less so, I donât actually say âdonât buy itâ, I usually say something along the lines of âitâs up to youâ. Feel free to spend a ton of your own money on these things and then spend time reviewing them if you care as much about people in flight simming as I do. So if you think that is making excuses, well, youâre entitled to believe that, but it couldnât be further from where Iâm coming from.
I donât know if you know this, but thatâs EXACTLY what I do. I own pretty much almost everything released for MSFS thus far and I write reviews for all of those on the MSFS Forums. With the exception of a few aircraft that were graciously provided to me by the developers, my entire idea is to inform others of my initial impressions of the aircraft. I donât go as in-depth as you do and I also donât make videos. But I have ZERO issues saying things like âstay FAR, FAR away from thisâ. I think we may just have to disagree in our style, but I feel that refraining to state your actual feelings on the aircraft is not doing what you think you are doing - saving people the frustration in buying worthless junk.
5 Likes
I understand it perfectly, what you donât seem to understand is that Asobo does not have the personnel required to check if a product is faulty or not, even after some users tell them it is.
And what is a faulty product? CS 777? That is a â â â â bad product, but it is not faulty per-se, yet a ton of users wanted it removed and is the plane that sparked all of this.
A refund policy is all we need, but that again is an issue in itself, since piracy could go rampant.
Then just wait 24h for the reviews and buy after release, no need to pre-order everything.
1 Like
Thatâs good advice for gamers in general.
1 Like
In my opinion YouTube is a good quality-check, if not the best. Just watch some videos from JayDee or Into the Blue Simulations or Rakuzard, Grim Reapers and Aus Flight Simmer and others, and you will get a perfect and detailed preview of you will get in your sim.
Take your time and sit back and enjoy some videos, and you will see how the cockpit looks like, how the plane behaves, how it sounds, how realistic it feels, graphics quality and liveries inside the cockpit and for the outside model, and much more.
A full experience and overview - before buying.
Reviews on the other hand are not representing your personal opinion about what is most important for you when buying a plane.
There are enough people who just don´t care and just âwanna have funâ.
In this case you get a review from gamers who don´t care about realism and immersion and things like that, and in this case the following review happens: âI overall really like that plane and it´s soooo cheap only 40$ which is literally NOTHING and that plane is absolutely worth it yadda yadda yadda a clear 7 out of 10âŚâ (even if the product is worthless in the eyes of a study-level simmerâŚ)
You know what I mean
YouTube on the other hand will never fail to deliver an accurate product overview.
A buyer should always quality-check for him or her self to prevent buyer`s remorse.
And watching a few hours of flight videos is the best way to relax and see what will be coming soon into the hangar⌠and what not.
There is only one thing no one can be sure about when buying addon-planes:
Will that product ever be fixed or patched or finished (in most cases airplanes are kinda beta and stay in development for a long time and get updated for up to four years after release, especially if it`s a very complex module), or will the plane become abandon-ware rather fast after release, with all it´s features half-baked and unfinished?
That´s why I would only trust PMDG, Carenado, Alabeo, A2A Simulations, Just Flight, and Captain Sim.