So better stay away from Steel Beasts dongles

[mirth]

I guess the question is, do you believe the veracity of the claim? If you do, charge whatever you need to cover your costs and send a replacement. If you do not, don't issue a replacement. If the guy can provide proof-of-purchase, I don't see where the problem is.

[Tuna]

It is not the Customer's fault that the DRM costs a lot of money. May be a sign that it is time to get rid of that form of DRM!

[mirth]

It is not the Customer's fault that the DRM costs a lot of money. May be a sign that it is time to get rid of that form of DRM!

Bingo.

[Con]

So you'd essentially argue to reward those who can spin the best yarn. Or you're in favor of some arbitrary, whim of the moment decision. That doesn't sound very just to me. I would rather use simple rules that can be checked for consistency.

If everyone followed the rules slavishly then we wouldn't need common sense.  To me the term customer service and customer relationship exist for these situations. They belong partly in order to be able to provide an answer in the greater context which in this case includes previous purchases (customer loyalty) versus no history of repeatedly losing/abusing any of the DRM.

[Boggit]

I guess the question is, do you believe the veracity of the claim? If you do, charge whatever you need to cover your costs and send a replacement. If you do not, don't issue a replacement. If the guy can provide proof-of-purchase, I don't see where the problem is.

That seems the best solution. I don't see the point in making a huge issue where the balance of probability is that the customer is telling the truth. Where is the real loss to the company, if they charge to cover the costs of replacement?

The worst case scenario is that someone steals the dongle and can use it, or sell it on successfully. What is the quantum of loss to the company? A lost sale? Most likely a thief won't even know what it is for, and more likely have never heard of SB, let alone be into it. A lost sale will only apply if the thief, or subsequent purchaser would have actually bought the game, which is unlikely if they haven't already.

I do understand where Ssnake is coming from, but without admitting any liability, it might with hindsight, have just been more sensible to have given RyanE as an "established customer" the benefit of the doubt and helped him out. If Ssnake points out that this is not usual policy but a discretionary goodwill gesture, then not only does eSim retain a customer, but also sends a positive message to the community that if things go wrong with "established customers" they will "at their discretion" help them out. It is not a surrender to any claim, as eSim retains the right to exercise their discretion based on the credibility of the claim.

Is Ssnake wrong to ask for verification of the cause of claim? - absolutely not. But on the flip side of the coin sometimes you just can't do this - as in RyanE's case. It doesn't mean the claim is unfounded, even if a rare occurrence. It does call for a commercial judgement as to whether you believe the customer is probably telling the truth. If you think they are probably being truthful, then you retain a customer, and that loyalty often gets reflected whenever a supplier comes under fire in the community. Like Mirth said:

I guess the question is, do you believe the veracity of the claim? If you do, charge whatever you need to cover your costs and send a replacement. If you do not, don't issue a replacement. If the guy can provide proof-of-purchase, I don't see where the problem is.

[Boggit]

So you'd essentially argue to reward those who can spin the best yarn. Or you're in favor of some arbitrary, whim of the moment decision. That doesn't sound very just to me. I would rather use simple rules that can be checked for consistency.

If everyone followed the rules slavishly then we wouldn't need common sense.  To me the term customer service and customer relationship exist for these situations. They belong partly in order to be able to provide an answer in the greater context which in this case includes previous purchases (customer loyalty) versus no history of repeatedly losing/abusing any of the DRM.

Exactly. Good point Con. O0

[Boggit]

@B_Cat, Barth and Con :bd:

Brilliant cat meme's and Youtube link!

[mirth]

Can a thread be simultaneously derailed and on topic?

[DoctorQuest]

Yes and no.

[RyanE]

I think Ssnake just reinforced my point on the definition of pedantically following the rules...

"Should we offer replacement without verification at least sometimes?
When exactly? Whenever a case is being presented with a plausible story?
So you'd essentially argue to reward those who can spin the best yarn. Or you're in favor of some arbitrary, whim of the moment decision. That doesn't sound very just to me. I would rather use simple rules that can be checked for consistency."

Let's look at what is being assumed here...

2013, upgraded to 2.64
2014, Upgraded to 3.0
2016, upgraded to 4.0
end of 2016,  RyanE suddenly decides he is going to screw over esims by pretending to lose a dongle.  esims sees right through the ploy and declares rules are rules.

Does anyone think this is a reasonable assumption to make.  esims, in so many words, is calling me a thief.  This is not some random guy trying to break into your business.  This is, at minimum, a customer that ahs dropped almost $200 on your company in less than three years.

btw, Ssnake has suddenly declared I never gave him a chance to be flexible.  I mean...he sent two emails outlining how sorry he is but can't help me.  I'll post them if its what is needed for esims to wake up a little.

I have on multiple occasions defended esims pricing.  I want esims to make money to continue producing games.  I made this public because Ssnake gave me no choice.  His email to me was pretty clear.  I am not emotional about this issues.  I understand its a business decision.  But poor customer service decisions have consequences.  A small or large company doesn't matter.  This forum is one of the few places a company can be dragged before the public and exposed for stupid decisions.  esims thought they held all the leverage on this.

I doubt I am going to get anything out of this whole thing.  But I hope the next person who has this happen gets a better deal then me.  And I hope it hurts esims a little financially enough that they'll rethink it.  I hope that $50 was worth it.

[mirth]

RyanE suddenly decides he is going to screw over esims by pretending to lose a dongle.  esims sees right through the ploy and declares rules are rules.

Does anyone think this is a reasonable assumption to make.

No. It's a Jim Rose level of paranoia.

[bayonetbrant]

Can a thread be simultaneously derailed and on topic?

A thread about trainwrecks?

So, this one?

Yes, I am preemptively quoting your built-in punchline. You're welcome :)

[mirth]

Can a thread be simultaneously derailed and on topic?

A thread about trainwrecks?

So, this one?

Yes, I am preemptively quoting your built-in punchline. You're welcome :)

lmao

[RyanE]

Can a thread be simultaneously derailed and on topic?

A thread about trainwrecks?

So, this one?

Yes, I am preemptively quoting your built-in punchline. You're welcome :)

That is a classic.

[weateallthepies]

I don't understand why a software company selling a relatively niche product would seek to drive away a loyal customer over something that could be resolved quite easily. Thankfully this sort of DRM is relatively rare now.