Has Anyone Had Problems with Wilco Pub?

[kerouner 0]

________________________________________I recently purchased the download of Wilco's 777. I had immediate problems with the program and contacted Wilco support. I want to publish the correspondence between Wilco and myself and allow the public to see the customer service I received. Unfortunately, you will have to read from the bottom up.Mr. Goldman,Your sentence of "Unfortunately, we can make an exception for you only" is unclear but by your tone I am assuming you meant can't, correct? I also don't understand the line of "(if a fix is required)"? What does that mean? Your technician found the fault so how could a fix NOT be required. I am really happy that you have sold thousands of this product. Why this had to be told to me I will never know. I also know that every once in a while something happens in production and some of the product is sent out faulty. I purchased, in good faith, your product expecting it to work as all the other I have purchased from you. The product did not work properly. I asked for help from your company to fix the program. I received a reply from your technician that they have duplicated the problem but he doesn't know when it can be repaired. Because I could not use your product and there was no time frame as to when a fix could be rendered, I asked for a refund. I receive your email stating no refunds as per the policy I agreed to when I purchased your product. I again explain my position about your product and the events leading up to my request for a refund. I now receive this last email with the line "if a fix is required"? I don't appreciate the tone, insinuation, and general overall lack of customer service from Wilco. I am being forced to accept your decision since you already have my money and apparently don't feel the necessity to stand behind your product nor even consider doing the right thing. The only avenue I have left is to publish this correspondence between us on all the Forums I can and allow the public to view your idea of customer service. You need not bother with sending me a fix for the 777 as I am removing your program and I will no longer support any Wilco product. Gene Rouner-----Original Message-----From: Info - Wilco Publishing To: Gene Rouner Sent: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 1:30 amSubject: RE: Support Request Wilco - 777 - DOWNLOAD Product Hi, This product has been released 2 years ago and thousands of users enjoy it.Unfortunately, we can make an exception for you only.We will check the way we can fix this (if a fix is required). Please let me know if you have any other questions, I'll be pleased to help you. Best Regards, Latest Releases :Airbus Series Volume 2 737 PIC (FSX) To get the latest in simulation news, subscribe at our NewsLetter at http://www.wilcopub.comFred GoldmanWilco Publishinginfo@wilcopub.comhttp://www.wilcopub.com -----Message d'origine-----De : Gene Rouner Envoy

[Guest frozen]

GeneUnfortunately you seem to have been snared by a now familiar Wilco trap. If you search 'Tower Simulator' you'll find numerous Wilco customers who are unhappy with this piece of shoddy work, some of whom have asked, unsuccessfully, for refunds. I'm not sure where Wilco stand legally, as they do state that downloads will not be refunded before you purchase, but I have lodged a query with European Trading Standards on the basis that this is only relevant for satisfactory software and NOT an opportunity to sell rubbish. They also seem to try a familiar tactic of trying to make-out it's the user at fault and/or who cannot cope with the 'complexities' of the software. If you carry on challenging them, they then just give up and go quiet.Another couple of users have contacted me re: Tower Simulator and I'm unwilling to let this situation go; as well as selling a very poor program, Wilco got greedy and charged well over the going rate - even a premium chart title would have sold for less. In my mind this makes it even more worth fighting for, whereas I might perhaps have written off

[kerouner 0]

Thank you for educating me even more about Wilco's business practices and I do appreciate you keeping me in the loop concerning the outcome with the European Trading Standards and any other action taken against Wilco. If I can support your cause in any way please let me know.

[mgh 89]

I beleve there may be some misunderstanding about european law. Yhe Distance Selling Regulations do allow for refunds without queation ffor goods bought over the internet. But, and it's a big but, ththis right doesn't apply for the supply of audio or video recordings or computer software if they are unsealed by the consumer. I think that there'd be no doubt that installing a piece of software counts as unsealing it.This meabns youy have to rely on the normal Sale of Goods Acts (or whatever) in your own jurisdiction. These These typically require the goods to be as described and of satisfactory quality before a refund can be sought. Satisfactory quality means that "the goods would meet the standard a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking into account the description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances. The quality of the goods includes their state and condition including their appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects, safety and durability. They should also be fit for all purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied." In the case described here I fear that it would be very difficult to establish a claim unless you can clearly show that the function was specifically included in the description . Also, Trading Standards are well aware that no software is perfect and that consumers know that as well as they do. All commercial produced software I know of has faults.

[Donmo 6]

If you paid for the product by credit card, contact the credit card company, tell them the situation, and they will more than likely refund your money and then go after Wilco. Not all credit cards have that service, but many do. It is worth a call and ask them about their defect charge policy. Don

[kerouner 0]

So, even though Wilco's representative did find a fault in the programing, by their own admission he stated he reproduced the problem, you are saying this would not fall under the "Satisfactory quality" as you described above? If this be the case, laws need to be changed to prevent this. While I am out $50.00 US dollars, according to the email I received from Mr. Goldman, they have sold thousands. How many of those are defective? Look at the money they have made. This is just the 777 program. What about the Tower program? If the laws won't protect the public then the public needs to protect themselves. Using the Forums to show what kind of business ethics companies use is a great way to inform the public of whom they possibly might have to deal with, or not. The best way to hurt a company is to take its income away. Hopefully, people will read messages such as this and think twice before purchasing any product(s) from people who won't support their own product.

[Guest frozen]

To quote Wilco's site:-Ground and Tower simulation As far as it goes, true. It is a weak attempt to simulate the controller positions of 'Tower' and 'Ground'-Photorealistic renditions of several worldwide airports There is some photo-realism, but the graphics are fairly mediocre in comparison to latest titles. I think this point could be argued.-Multiple views, including out-the-window tower view, Air and Ground Radars True, even if the interface is appalling.-Realistic aircraft take-off, landing and moving along airport grounds Nope - this is one solid issue where customers have been misled. I understand SP1 is going to fix it though.-For beginners and experts, from Free simulation to Career mode Moot point - never stuck with it long enough.-Digitized pilots communications Any independent assessment would agree the voices are digitised, however for much of my comparative evidence I will be using BAO's Tower, which had much better voice performance in the mid-1990s.-Actively overlooked and supervised by licensed professionals Who should be mightily embarrassed. Paying a 747 pilot a consultancy fee doesn't make a 747 simulator any good.-Based on actual FAA and European regulations Nonsense. In version 1 I could happily weld 2 jets into one another, have a jet lined-up on the runway while another landed over it. If the basics like that have been overlooked, what chance is there of it considering stuff like weight turbulence separation? (nb. BAO's Tower managed it).-Advanced modern graphics and simulation technology Again, comparative products would undermine this argument.-User configurable traffic rate, time of day, weather, etcAgreed.

[Guest frozen]

>So, even though Wilco's representative did find a fault in>the programing, by their own admission he stated he reproduced>the problem, you are saying this would not fall under the>"Satisfactory quality" as you described above? If this be the>case, laws need to be changed to prevent this. While I am out>$50.00 US dollars, according to the email I received from Mr.>Goldman, they have sold thousands. How many of those are>defective? Look at the money they have made. This is just the>777 program. What about the Tower program? If the laws won't>protect the public then the public needs to protect>themselves. Using the Forums to show what kind of business>ethics companies use is a great way to inform the public of>whom they possibly might have to deal with, or not. The best>way to hurt a company is to take its income away. Hopefully,>people will read messages such as this and think twice before>purchasing any product(s) from people who won't support their>own product.That's sort of been my strategy - I took the hit, but I can do my damndest to warn others. In the short term it'll cost them money, but in the long term reputations cost much more. Interestingly, some of the obscure forums I've visited have warnings about Wilco quality and customer service, so they're known about. Ironically, their continued willingness to peddle rubbish is only spreading their own poor reputation, and it's a one-way street; they just have to cash-in as much as possible now before their inevitable collapse. Actually, that sort of explains the price for Tower Simulator.

[Guest frozen]

>If you paid for the product by credit card, contact the>credit card company, tell them the situation, and they will>more than likely refund your money and then go after Wilco.>Not all credit cards have that service, but many do. It is>worth a call and ask them about their defect charge policy. >>DonThe central problem is, apart from a couple of crashes in the first couple of hours that will only lead Wilco down the endless road of blaming my hardware settings, Tower Simulator does work - very badly and without any polish, but poorly programmed aircraft models do awkwardly and tediously do more or less what they're told, using the poorly-designed interface. It doesn't look good, the AI voice is truly appalling, but it does outlast a players interest.The best analogy I can come up with is someone selling "the latest exciting alien earth defence simulation" that costs EUR56, which turns out to be a weak version of Space Invaders with a photo background. It's cheating customers.

[mgh 89]

I am merely pointinbg out that in reality getting redress is not as easy as some people seem to think. No software is perfect the laes konows that and doesn't expect it to be. Whether the faults as sufficient to warrant a refund is a matter of judgement. I suggest that the fault you report is marginal as far as Trading Standards are concerned. I still suggest the golden rule is caveat emptor.Incidentally, did you try the default ARINC provided with the 777? You don't say in your answer.

[kerouner 0]

Yes, I did try the suggestion of using the installed Airac, completely uninstalled the program and reinstalled it numerious times, still with no positive results. As the email states, the Wilco tech did reproduce the problem but did not offer a solution nor time frame as to when a solution could be found.

[scoob 18]

>-Based on actual FAA and European regulations >Nonsense. In version 1 I could happily weld 2 jets into one>another, have a jet lined-up on the runway while another>landed over it. If the basics like that have been overlooked,>what chance is there of it considering stuff like weight>turbulence separation? (nb. BAO's Tower managed it).so it is the program's fault if you approve and command an unsafe situation in violation? the point is for you to understand and follow the rules ... the aircraft pilots follow the controller's instructions. Tower will note and log many of the violations in 'User Information'.--

[Guest frozen]

>>-Based on actual FAA and European regulations >>Nonsense. In version 1 I could happily weld 2 jets into one>>another, have a jet lined-up on the runway while another>>landed over it. If the basics like that have been>overlooked,>>what chance is there of it considering stuff like weight>>turbulence separation? (nb. BAO's Tower managed it).>>so it is the program's fault if you approve and command an>unsafe situation in violation? the point is for>you to understand and follow the rules ... the aircraft>pilots follow the controller's instructions. >Tower will note and log many of the violations in 'User>Information'.>>>--I've worked in a handful of real control towers and I don't historically remember any of my departing aircraft successfully clipping the top of an aircraft rolling out on the runway after arrival, as I can do in Tower Simulator. That's one - I'll continue if you like?I will concede that I've never made it to the 'violations' feature though, as I've not made it past 15 minutes of use yet.Could I ask one more time please, when is SP1 due out? I'm unwilling to join the FeelThere forum and give credibility to this product.

[mgh 89]

AS you say policy varies. However, credit card companies are very relectant to make refunds on software for obvious reasons - once it's been unsealed or installed there is no way for the consumer to prove that it's not still being used. It would be too easy to get free software thart way!

[Guest V4DIV-CVN-70]

On the same point.. Say it was a fraudulent purchase.... can they prove YOU purchased it....*grin*