Recent posts, and visits to commercial add-on developers' site have led me to ask "What warranties do developers offer on their products?" with the general answer "none".I'm writing here about fundamental problems such as failure to load or run, and not about downloading and registration problems nor about minor problems relating to simulated systems that don't appear work as some people believe they should, or that details of the visual model appear wrong, etc, etc. Most developers set out the minimum hardware and software requirements but that doesn't seem to be enough to ensure that a product will load and run. I suspect they'd have to specify not only the hardware and operating and flight simulation software but also require that there are no other add-ons except those specifically approved by the developer - and I imagine that still wouldn't be enough. I'm aware of the fact that FS is a complex application that puts a heavy load on processing, memory, disks and displays, and that most users will have already installed other add-ons, making it impossible for add-on developers to test every possible combination. However, it's not uncommon to see responses from developers or their testers on the lines of "we didn't get this during testing so it's the users' problem." It can't be right that some people are expected to pay for something that doesn't work, on the basis of the no-refund policy adopted by some, but not all, developers and sellers. (There are some who do offer refunds - one offers a 30-day unconditional refund although it does offer its products on CD.)If I buy a product in the UK and I find it doesn't work then I can take it back to the shop and either exchange it for one that works or get a refund. This isn't due to the goodwill of the retailer, it's a fundamental legal right based on the principle that products must be "fit for purpose" supported by a range of laws. This right seems to go by the board in relation to downloaded add-ons, as do many other rights.The basic problem with add-ons seems to me to be the method of delivery - direct downloading from a developer's site and registration. Developers have valid concerns about people asking for a refund and yet still continuing to use the product - effectively stealing it. I have a good deal of sympathy with them about this, but feel that, as they chose that method of delivery, they can't ignore the consequences they don't like.Let me make a suggestion then. Why can't these products be delivered with a delayed registration and a limited life? By this I mean that they could be loaded and run for a limited period (say 30 days maximum) after which they'd fail unless they'd been registered. They would be paid for on ordering, as at present, with a refund being available anyone who hasn't registered. I think it would be reasonable to require claims for a refund to be made within the 30-day period. I suppose refunds could be automatically be generated after the 30-day period on unregistered products. This could avoid complaints (and possible legal difficulties) from those users who did nothing until they found they could no longer run the product, even though it would be yet another task for the developer.This would give a fair balance as between the developer and customer. The developer would be protected against theft, and the customer against paying for an unuseable product. Constructive comments welcome.

Do the customers warranty the developers that their system (and their technical skill) is up to the task? No, so it would be churlish to argue the semantics of a warranty on a computer product when a major cause of failure-to-install is either user error or a problem with the users hardware or software, caused by fiddling. Nothing to do with the developer, and not impacted by the Sale of Goods Act, in the UK at least.Reputable developers do offer a money-back guarantee. Some even do it `no questions asked` That really is as good as it gets - and probable better than it deserves to be!Allcott

>Let me make a suggestion then. Why can't these products be>delivered with a delayed registration and a limited life?Well, this is a clear example that software protection can even protects the user's rights. If a software is protected with a server based activation, refounds are not much of a problem, because when an user asks for a refound, his activation will be deleted from the server so everyone rights are preserved.

in the UK anything bought over the phone on the internet etc is covered by the distance selling act, this allows for a 30 day eriod in which the customer is allowed to change his mind and get a refund, it is not even dependant on the goods being faulty, the punter is just allowd to change his mind. although i supect you would have difficulty get sellers outside the UK to adhere this. what you need to do is research or only buy from those offering refunds.

We can say that Eaglesoft Development Group has had a 30 Day refund policy since our inception as has most if not all other developers using the Flight One wrapper system.This policy has worked very well for us and the customer since it eliminates difficulty for those who simply cannot run a given addon:-)

Customers don't have to warrant anything - they're not selling the product.If a developer sets out the minimum requirements (hardware and software) for his product to run on a computer then it should. If it doesn't then the customer is entitled to a refund. Of course, the developer could always explicitly state that it doesn't warrant that the product will run then there'd be no liability - and few sales!The UK Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) lays down several conditions that all goods sold by a trader must meet. The goods must be: - of satisfactory quality - as described - fit for purpose 'Satisfactory quality' covers minor and cosmetic defects as well as substantial problems. It also means that products must last a reasonable time. But it does not give you any rights if a fault was obvious or pointed out to you at point of sale.'As described' refers to any advertisement or verbal description made by the trader.'Fit for purpose' covers not only the obvious purpose of an item but any purpose you queried and were given assurances about by the trader.If something you buy from a trader does not meet these conditions, you are entitled to a full refund if you return the goods soon after purchase. Otherwise you are first and foremost entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced.I think "an obvious purpose" of software is that it shall run on a computer.I agree that reputable developers do offer refunds. However, there are a lot of sites with a no refund policy.

>The basic problem with add-ons seems to me to be the method of>delivery - direct downloading from a developer's site and>registration. Developers have valid concerns about people>asking for a refund and yet still continuing to use the>product - effectively stealing it. I have a good deal of>sympathy with them about this, but feel that, as they chose>that method of delivery, they can't ignore the consequences>they don't like.Its not just the developers who choose the method its the customers too.And if the customer did not have confidence in the direct-download method they wouldn't be all going out and bringing down servers to get their hands on some of the latest new products.So we can't put this all on the developers as far as consequences.The customer still makes the decision whether or not to make the purchase. If enough customers made the decision that they would 'not' purchase direct-download add-on software without the warranty you suggest , that would then put the add-on developers in a position to make a decision regarding the delivery method.But don't be sure sure the developers would all fall in line and provide a guarantee/warranty. They might choose a method that is safer for them and less convient for the users.Regards.Ernie.

An exclusion in the Distance Selling Regulations is "...computer software ... unsealed by the consumer"In the case of downloaded software it could be argued that it is not unsealed until a registration key is downloaded. So you'd be entitled to a "without question" refund before then.To prove I'm not getting at add-on developers exclusively, consider the FS9 EULA:"By accessing or otherwise using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, do not use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; you may, however, return it to your place of purchase for a full refund."1) You have to "access" the product to read the EULA2) Anyone know of any UK retailers who will give you a refund on opened/unsealed software?

>Its not just the developers who choose the method its the>customers too.>That's only really true for those developers who offer their customers alternative means.My point remains that because of the nature of the download method the developers can't check that all refund claims are valid and could be, naturally, reluctant to accept them all.Even developers who are really confident of their products and give warranties can only accept a reasonable number of claims for refunds. They presumably know by experience what is a reasonable number of claims.

That's good to know. If only everyone did the same...My suggestion though should give you greater confidence that the claims were genuine?

I think there is another alternative, it's called DEMO SOFTWARE.Most mainstream software companies from MS, to Adobe to the smaller niche-product companies have a time-limted, feature-limited or number-of-uses-limted demo version. I always wonder why the FS world should be any different?With the advanced programming techniques going into a lot of products today this should be feasible, even for such things as aircraft.That way the consumer could sample the product before actually buying providing peace of mind for both the user and the developer.

That would put an extra burden of providing a feature-limited version on the developer.What happens if the demo version runs OK but the full one with additional features doesn't?

But who (and how) to verifythe claims as genuine? The SGA covers faulty software provided by the vendor, but makes no provision for rejection of the goods based on dysfunction of a good or product not covered under that particular contract - If I buy an exhaust for my Ford Fiesta, and it doesn't fit then I am entitled to a refund - if the exhaust says that it fits Ford Fiestas. If I buy a Ford Fiesta exhaust and try to fit it to my Jag, I am not covered by the SGA. And what about if I try to fit that exahust to the Ford Fiesta that's had a different engine fitted, or cross-ties that foul the manifold? Who's fault is that?As I said, the problem lies not with the developer or publisher, it's mainly (but not exclusively, Captain Sim are a good example of `take your money and run` or as they now call it, `Technical Release and Scarper`) problems with items outside the developers control. Under those circumstances SGA refund does NOT apply. So if you want to cover computer software with some kind of warranty, it need to be enforceable, and for it to be enforceable there have to be contract terms, offer and acceptance by both sides. I can't see how you can warrant that the USER has met his/her obligation to provide a platform appropriate to the use intended, unless there is independent verification on a global scale. I don't think that's workable in practice. And also, how to ENFORCE the warranty? I'd like to get my money back from CS for a 707 that flies like a pig, not an airliner, but all I got were threats and intimidation. What use would their warranty be to me? Nice bit of paper, but only of any use lining the bottom of the budgies cage.No the best method of `buyer beware` exists right here. Bad experience? Tell everyone.Allcott

I can assure you it's not that great a burden, especially when you're talking about satisfying the customer that the product works as advertised.The demo version is the full version, thats the point, it unlocks via a registration key.

Allcott, how refreshing. A man who KNOWS of which he speaks:-)