So better stay away from Steel Beasts dongles

[bob48]

ROFL - some class stuff there - I love the double-bass on wheels  :))

...I prefer the Led Zep version myself.........

[Pinetree]

[bbmike]

Where do we vote for Grogheads best thread of 2016?

[bob48]

You need a dongle for that.

[bbmike]

^ 

[Steelgrave]

You need a dongle for that.

[Nefaro]

Interesting take on DRM.

I thought DRM was there notionally to prevent the pirating of software (although clearly it doesn't in practice in many cases). The point being it is there to stop unauthorised people accessing software. It is not there - at least in the arguments in favour of DRM - to punish legitimate users when things go wrong.

The issue here is that someone authorised to access the software is being prevented because of the DRM even when the company know that he is a legitimate customer. The issue Toonces makes about DRM is just smoke and mirrors to the substantive issue of a known legitimate user being prevented from using the software he has already paid to use.

Absolutely agree.

:clap:

[RyanE]

To toonces...

But the math doesn't add up.  They know I bought $200 or worth of SW.  They have the receipts.  They know I have been using it for years.  I didn't lose the SW, I lost a $25 dongle that lets me use it.  If the dongle is the SW, what heck am I downloading for the last few years.  What is the worst that can happen to them.  I am offering to pay all costs on the dongle.    This isn't about an arbitrary rule bu esims, its about logic and customer service.  They haven't presented any real argument about why this rule is in place and why they can't be flexible.  If they came to me and said we have a contract that says we can't do that, I can buy that.  But they haven't.

Here is the equation:

Pros for selling a new dongle:

1) Happy customer
2) Good PR for customer service
3) No net cost to esims and customer continues buying

Cons:

1) Pissed off customer
2) Lose an opportunity to take another $125 our of a customer's pocket
3) Some really bad PR
4) the loss of at least a few sales here that most likely add up to more than $125

So esims is losing money on this deal.  Why????

If this was a publicly traded company, a CEO would be taken to task by its board for that business logic.

[RyanE]

Re-reading my own post and the pros/cons; the only really logical reason for esims holding the line here is they want my $125.  Am I missing a pro or con that would tip the balance to esims solely wanting my $125?  I can't think of one except Sanake originally saying that he didn't want to set a precedent.  And what precedent would that be?  Letting the customer use the SW they spent a couple hundred dollars on at no net cost to esims.  And by the way, esims does have the discretion to say, hey, a good customer, we decide to help you out.  Instead, it like a snake eating its tail.  esims says sets it own rule and then says we can't break a rule that's been set. 

One thing I have noticed that connects to my real job.  Government contractors operate in a very black/white world.  Little flexibility and everything by the book.   This is especially true of defense contractors.  I have seen companies that start out as defense contractors try to work in the commercial and retail space before.  They rarely get the nuanced business processes of customer service.  Because in the defense supplier world, there are no nuances.  Every thing is rigid and any thing that doesn't align does not get done or needs a change order.  Maybe I should submit a change order for $35 for the cost of a new dongle.  I think we are seeing why esims has a successful government business, yet continues to struggle when meeting up against the general public.  LL Bean they are not.

[Toonces]

I know this seems like I'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth, but I don't disagree with you Ryan.  I've always felt that if I had an issue with some software where the developer posts on Grogheads, I could say, "Hey, I'm Toonces from Grogheads and here's my problem..." and that would buy me some flexibility with the company. 

For example, if I had a problem with Matrixgames, hopefully I could use the credibility I've developed here to get some exception or...something...if I had a problem.  Like, "Hey guys, you know me, I'm not just some Shmo off the street looking to scam you."

So, given the relatively niche space eSims occupies, and given your record both here and documented by your receipts, I probably would have handled things differently.

But I'm not eSims, I have no idea what their company is like, and maybe they just can't.  Or won't.  They don't owe you.  I'm sitting here thinking their margins aren't so slim that they can't afford to make a mistake with you, and a few more times....or maybe they are.  What if you're really taking advantage of them?  I assume they can eat a loss or two...is it worth you posting a thread about how awesome their customer service was vice this thread?

I don't know.  This is the calculus they worked through and came to this conclusion.  I don't think they're bad guys because of it.  I take it as a data point going forward for future purchases.  I think this was your point in the first place.

You both have valid arguments.

[RyanE]

But again...they will make money SELLING a new dongle to me.

I will probably upgrade again over the next two years - lets say $50 net for esims
At worst, they charge me total landed cost of the replacement dongle - net of $0 to esims
Let's say they have lost to xmas sales this year over this just looking at this forum - $250

So thier choice is make maybe $125 extra from me, but most likely nothing at this point, or...
Make a pretty solid guess at $300 if they had an ounce of logic in them.

I am not saying they are obligated to replace my dongle, but just logic and even mediocre business logic says they should do it.  That is why, unless they a a terribly run business or the most pedantic company in the world, which might be the same thing, there is something else there that esims isn't saying.  My guess is they are trying to move off the dongle.  Maybe it eats into margins or has become a support nightmare.  Maybe they are trying to sell the company and the time-based license is attractive to a corporate buyer.  We can only guess, because anything else fits no business logic.

[panzerde]

One thing I have noticed that connects to my real job.  Government contractors operate in a very black/white world.  Little flexibility and everything by the book.   This is especially true of defense contractors.  I have seen companies that start out as defense contractors try to work in the commercial and retail space before.  They rarely get the nuanced business processes of customer service.  Because in the defense supplier world, there are no nuances.  Every thing is rigid and any thing that doesn't align does not get done or needs a change order. 

I've been thinking along these lines since the start of this thread. eSims is used to operating in environments where things are very defined, serving large, government customers. For this issue - and I suspect others on the consumer side of their business - their tendency is almost certainly going to be to want to set policies and stick to them. In their world, exceptions to policies are not permitted, because once an exception is made, if someone else hears about that, then pretty soon everyone will be demanding that exception. This is a very real-world situation for them in their defense contracting world (I used to deal with defense contracting too, once upon an age). In their world, trying to refuse an exception to one customer when you've allowed it for another can have significant administrative and even legal consequences. So, the government contractor thinking gets carried over to the consumer side, where it really doesn't play well, at all.


So, while I can't agree with how eSims handled this, I can understand it, and what may have influenced their thinking. I've been acquainted with Ssnake through forum posts and the like for years now, and I don't think he's a deliberate hard ass, or wants to deliberately screw a customer. I think from his perspective he genuinely sees making an exception here to be potentially opening the floodgates to all kinds of unsubstantiated dongle replacement claims (okay, give me a minute while I laugh about "dongle replacement claims). I don't think he's right, and I completely agree with RyanE and Mirth that losing the means of access is not at all the same as losing the product. But I can understand why he might think the way that he does. Nonetheless, I hope RyanE gets back his ability to play the game without having to shell out $125.

[RyanE]

But even with that thinking your forgetting 2 key points:

1) We now know they can blacklist dongles and deactivate them if you try to use them
2) We know the replacement costs are about $35.  btw, we used to pay $15 for volume in the hundreds.

One more thing we can guess at is that the commercial side of their business is probably not very big...a niche of a niche

Add that up and what do get?  There really isn't much of a downside.  If it becomes so onerous because of the volume of lost dongles, it shows that a lot of people are playing SB.  And charge $50 for the lst dongle.  esims makes $15/loss.  If the numbers are so great, they'll actually make money.

No, there is something else up behind this.  The fact the are pushing hard for me take a time-based license hints there are issues with the dongle business ( I just say these things to make you guys giggle like little girls).

[Ssnake]

I'm probably repeating myself here but my perception of the situation is different. Someone else - United Airlines - lost the CM stick by way of losing the suitcase. That's nobody's fault but the United's. They offered absolutely insufficient compensation for their failings, in direct violation of IATA regulations (as far as I understand it). And because United is hard to deal with, the owner of the suitcase is looking for compensation elsewhere, and picking on the weakest party in sight. I almost wrote the "weakest link in the chain" but that would imply at least some marginal amount of responsibility.


A purchase was made, years ago. That purchase compensated eSim Games for a decade of work invested into the development of the software. We delivered a CM stick, and a license, and both worked. We offered upgrades to the software. The customer decided that the upgrades were worth the price that we were asking for. On every single occasion eSim Games fulfilled its contractual and moral obligations. Licenses were delivered, the software worked as advertised. That much is undisputed.



I'm still missing the part where eSim Games is responsible for the disappearance of the CM stick, or any other form of negligence. eSim Games fulfilled its part of the various deals to the fullest extent; often enough we ovedelivered, with software features that were included (but not advertised), offering free licenses in competitions, and other stuff.
That we would offer a free replacement in case of loss was never advertised, never implied, never promised.


No - the matter was almost immediately taken to the public to depict us in a negative way. You may see it as objective "citizen reporting" to "warn" everybody about eSim's business policies - but the fact remains that the responsible party for the whole mess, United Airlines, never stood at the focus of the attention. Was a similar stink raised with UA's hotline, their web site, or in social media?
I haven't checked, but based on what I read so far I highly doubt it. The customer, at least, hasn't bothered much to mention their role - except when pointing out that the Airline was so "kind" to raise its compensation from $100 to $300, when IATA regulations suggest a liability in excess of $1300.- ... is that a new manifestation of the Stockholm syndrome?


eSim Games is perceived as most vulnerable to attack - plain and simple. It's cyber bullying in its purest form, and you're taking part in it - wittingly or not. Before you all double down now, ask yourself if you're doing it because the cognitive dissonance of admitting that you're in the wrong is more difficult to accept.

[Con]

^
Defensive much?
I stand by my earlier comments re common sense.  Customer relationships are part of your brand.  You can do with it what you want but in this case penny wise pound foolish seems to fit the bill you are writing.