Unfair and suspicious competition RmStudios and 2Pilots

[jovejunior]

Hello community,

I want to bring to your attention a concerning situation I recently encountered on the Marketplace, and I feel compelled to share it with all of you. Recently, I came across a new developer called 2Pilots, and I decided to purchase their A310 + A320 package. However, to my dismay, I realized that I already owned all the items included in the package under a different name. In fact, they were identical files. Upon further investigation, I made a disturbing discovery: 2Pilots is merely an alternate name used by RMStudio to sell the same products twice, engaging in duplicate sales.

When I reached out to the 2Pilots team via Facebook, the response I received only deepened my disappointment. They claimed to have established a “partnership” (in heavy quotation marks), but ultimately, the money ended up in the same person’s hands. This raises suspicions about the true existence of this partnership and leads me to believe that it is an act of unfair competition and an attempt to deceive consumers. It is disheartening to purchase a product, expecting something different from what is being marketed as an independent developer, only to find out that everything is exactly the same.

Unfortunately, my attempts to contact the team through Facebook and email were completely ignored, further reinforcing the notion that this is a dubious scheme.

This begs the question: How can Microsoft allow such practices? All the paintings available from the companies that offer 2Pilots’ packages are exactly the same as those from RMStudio. This means that when you purchase a product from 2Pilots, you end up buying something you already own, believing that you are dealing with different sellers.

It is crucial that we share our experiences and warn each other about questionable practices on the Marketplace. Therefore, I am here to express my frustration and discontent with RMStudio and 2Pilots. I strongly advise everyone to steer clear of these companies as they appear to be engaged in duplicate sales and show a lack of transparency towards their customers.

If anyone else has had a similar experience or has any additional information, please share it here. It is important to protect the community and ensure that the Marketplace remains a trustworthy and fair environment for all.

Together, we can make a difference and prevent other users from falling victim to these dishonest practices. Stay vigilant!

[Baracus250]

That’s terrible and needs to be investigated and squashed immediately.

This is the top of a slippery slope. The marketplace already has some signs of going the way of the mobile app stores - saturated with sub-par products that are somewhat misrepresented in the screenshots, over-priced for what you get or just plain deceptive. Heaven forbid they ever allow free items with some other way(s) of paying if you want to “unlock more” after you install the free teaser (micro transactions).

[EdamllamaB]

The main problem with the marketplace is people ASSUME it is a curated store of quality products.

Whereas in reality MS only check that products and the advertising meet their guidelines for things like no military hardware, nothing overtly sexual etc and do NOT check for quality of the offering or even whether the product actually works as advertised.

[Stardrifter2232]

You’re 100% right however that they should not be selling the exact same product even if they aren’t being deceptive about having formed a partnership. If they’re both on the Marketplace that’s doubly worse and speaks volumes of the quality control (which as others are pointing out is fully based on internal metrics, which in corpo speak means they mainly just want it to make money.) One of these absolutely needs to get pulled from the market, and this should be an exception to the no refunds policy. If I was driving that ship, I’d also temporarily freeze both developers from the release cycle until they provide clarity on why this happened.

[JakTrax78]

I saw these in the Thursday update and suspected they were the same as the RMStudios liveries — which to me look pretty poor anyway. Best thing to do is stick with the guys you know do half-decent repaints: 4Simmers (who’ve improved a lot lately), FSoares, and particularly Bravoairspace…

[XR219]

Please contact MSFS Zendesk support who will be able to get you a refund at the very least. It will also flag this sharp practice internally, and while you may not hear back about the outcome directly, they will address it.

[BegottenPoet228]

That’s definitely not cool.

I normally don’t act on something like this unless I’ve heard from both sides. But it seems an answer is not forthcoming. Thanks for sharing your (unfortunate) discovery. As of now, both devs are blacklisted for me.

[Jimrh1993]

@XR219

Please contact MSFS Zendesk support who will be able to get you a refund at the very least. It will also flag this sharp practice internally, and while you may not hear back about the outcome directly, they will address it

. . . and please keep us in the loop.

Since this is virtually guaranteed to be an “interstate” transaction, (and possibly international as well), and since MS is a US company, the FTC (and possibly the FBI), would be interested in allegations of deceptive trade practices and (being interstate/international), there is the real possibility of federal wire fraud as well.

This really needs to see the light of day.

If MS has half the brains God gave a squirrel, they’ll kick both vendors so far outta here that it would take a space probe light years to find 'em.

Don’t be afraid to let your state and federal authorities know about this as it’s a virtual lead-pipe cinch that there are felonies involved.^[1]

(I’m not a lawyer, but I do keep my eyes open.)

1. Even if there aren’t federal issues involved, the mere mention of the possibility of federal fair trade and wire fraud implications should be enough to get MS’s attention REALLY QUICKLY!

[MeridianOwl4306]

Isn’t this similar to a manufacturer selling a product, lets call the product Win11, and then allowing 10,000 licensed vendors to also sell your product and take a tiny share of the selling price ? The only difference being the actual name of the product. ???

[EdamllamaB]

@MeridianOwl4306

sn’t this similar to a manufacturer selling a product, lets call the product Win11, and then allowing 10,000 licensed vendors to also sell your product and take a tiny share of the selling price ?

I am unaware of anyone being fooled into buying Win11 twice .

[Jimrh1993]

@MeridianOwl4306

Isn’t this similar to a manufacturer selling a product, lets call the product Win11, and then allowing 10,000 licensed vendors to also sell your product and take a tiny share of the selling price ? The only difference being the actual name of the product?

Based on what I have read, the issue is that there is one single product, being offered by two different vendors in the Marketplace, where there is an expectation that individual products by individual vendors are unique and individual products.

For example:
Let’s assume that:

• PMDG produces a DC-6 model.
• WXYZ produces a DC-6 model.
• Someone else produces a DC-6 model.

There is the expectation that each object is the independent work product of the individual developer and/or development group.  Note that there are several different vendors that produce versions of specific Marketplace aircraft in reality, each varying in accordance with the care and quality that each vendor provides to its model.

If you have the same aircraft being sold via various sites or venues, they usually mention that it’s the same aircraft.  (i.e. The Edgly Optica being sold on Vatsim, Flightsim.to, and now The Marketplace, all clearly indicating that it’s the same vendor’s model.)

What is happening here is that two (apparently) different named vendors are selling the same model, without letting the customer know that it’s the same model being sold by the same vendor under a different name.

There is a settled expectation that individual vendors either sell their own wares or attribute the original vendor if selling for someone else.  The way this is being done gives the impression that there are now two competing models for aircraft “X”, when there actually isn’t and two competing developers where one of them is a shell or “straw-man” vendor.

@MeridianOwl4306:  Using your example Microsoft would manufacture Windows 11 and then license thousands of storefronts to sell the product - clearly indicated that it is Microsoft’s Windows 11, (a specific and identifiable product), at varying prices and/or discounts.  What is being alleged is that they’re saying this product is Windows 11 and that product is the latest Apple O/S, when they are, in fact, identical.

Two different vendors selling the same product isn’t illegal, (assuming they both have the developer’s permission).  What raises issues is that you have two apparently different vendors, selling what appear to be different models of the same aircraft, when there is only one developer and one of the two “competing” companies is a straw-man that was created to provide the impression of competition and diversity.  Based on the circumstances this might be a case of deceptive advertising and a possible violation of the Marketplace’s Vendor Terms of Service.

All that aside, why would a developer who is, (should be), seeking to promote his good name and the quality of his products/models, (his “brand”), create a different “straw-man” outlet for the same product and create the impression that it is something different?  That would make me 10,000% suspicious of the modeller’s intentions right there.

[MeridianOwl4306]

Long Explanation and I “sort of” agree with you, however, I see no illegal conduct by Re-Branding the same product and have the same product sold by a different seller. Not nice but may not be illegal either.

[EdamllamaB]

Soap companies do that all the time. if you rule out the couple of tiny “eco brands” there are only two soap manufacturers Lever and Kitchen and Colgate Palmolive and between them they make almost all the different brands on the supermarket shelves. In some cases they simply do rebox the same product with a different brand name.

However this is to create the illusion of a saturated market and the illusion of consumer choice. With the exception of specialist niche products like “wool wash” laundry detergents (which lack enzymes and bleach that can attack wool), consumers are unlikely to be buying multiple brand names of essentially the same product.

[RagingWombat839]

Two more developers to avoid on the marketplace, thanks for the tip. I wish we could have an exclusion list to permanently filter these out, but I know that won’t happen.

[FinalLightNL]

that’s pretty unethical, i hope MS refunds you and takes action for this.

[Mooncatt3953]

@EdamllamaB

Soap companies do that all the time. if you rule out the couple of tiny “eco brands” there are only two soap manufacturers Lever and Kitchen and Colgate Palmolive and between them they make almost all the different brands on the supermarket shelves.

The difference here is soap is a consumable item that you purchase multiple times, whereas DLC’s are a forever item. There is no need to buy the same item multiple times, and purchasing a livery from different developers carries the expectation that one is offering something more desirable to make the extra purchase.

[Jimrh1993]

@Mooncatt3953

@EdamllamaB

Soap companies do that all the time. if you rule out the couple of tiny “eco brands” there are only two soap manufacturers Lever and Kitchen and Colgate Palmolive and between them they make almost all the different brands on the supermarket shelves.

The difference here is soap is a consumable item that you purchase multiple times, whereas DLC’s are a forever item. There is no need to buy the same item multiple times, and purchasing a livery from different developers carries the expectation that one is offering something more desirable to make the extra purchase

That’s not entirely true about soap.

Soap at its lowest point is soap, and there isn’t much else to say.  Many differences are differences in added ingredients, fragrances, etc.

I happen to like Irish Spring because it has a shape I can hold without dropping, it has a nice scent, and it doesn’t cause me to break out into a painful rash when I use it.

Straw-man vendors for an aircraft model are not even close to being the same as cosmetic products - where at the very least, the cosmetic products have definite distinguishing characteristics, (ingredients, fragrances or the lack thereof, etc.)

There is something fishy going on here.

PMDG doesn’t need straw-man vendors to promote its products and they don’t need, or want, to dilute their brand.  Any vendor who WANTS to potentially deceive their customers and dilute their brand isn’t a vendor I want to deal with.

Potential wish-list item.

• A “friends and foes” list for the marketplace that would allow you to set favored vendors and vendors you want to avoid at all costsm

[graspee]

Surely you knew from the store pages that you were buying the exact same thing twice anyway, you just expected it to be different versions of that same thing?

[DORRAGER]

In this case I would hope you will be refunded for the duplicate add-on.

[Rexstealth01]

I’m happy you shared this. I was told about this via a DM on our discord. I notified MS directly via our private chat session for 3rd party vendors. It’s not fair what these guys are doing. They are cheating the public and monopolizing the livery market.