GG, I want a refund

#1 Maybe it's best to go to the contact page rather than posting on the forums...


Can I also suggest you request this thread be closed/deleted before you get flamed by most of the community?

#2 I dont care whatever they flame or not. If they have nothing better to do than flame a refund request , then Im sorry for them. Deeply :P

I ask a refund on grounds on not delivering what was expected and advertised for 1.0, a working dynamic lighting system .

I looked at that page, and i seen no pointers to sales department , so I choosed to ask in forums how can I get my money back. I will have ask this thread to be closed / deleted once I have the information i need, which is how can I have my money back.

#3 I thought the dynamic lighting system was working... which part isn't?

#4 Dan, I really doubt they will give you a refund, but good luck. Let us know what happens.

I've always found your forum posts to be very entertaining. I was sorry to see you banned from the C4 forum. Are you still using C4, if not then what engine are you using now?

#5 Im using C4, slightly modified to allow logic game objects, and with physics replaced by PhysX SDK .

I wouldnt have asked GG for a refund, should they had made a good 1.0 release, I waited till 1.0 was out, then some, but they failed to deliver a clean and functional 1.0 , this is a pre-beta product at most, and whats more important, not complete according to the advertising they used to sell the EA.

#6 Dont. Feed. The. Troll.

#7 Neo, are you calling Dan a troll? He has been very polite in this thread. You are the first one to post a negative comment.

#8 According law, they have to refund if they sell stuff based on false advertisement which is what is done even at the moment with the features for 1.0, not only during EA where it was clearly stated as "things might change" and WIP.

Advertising things not there (calling atlas2 next gen terrain if it does not even feature the core stuff of legacy especially when mentioning dynamic lighting and shadow godness some lines later) is a legal reason for refund.

So I don't think luck is needed in this case, even if the EULA stated something else, it is still of sub legal importance to advertisement laws and refund.

#9 @Dan
I can't remember if you are in the US or not. If so, you can use Google Call to call Garage Games to talk about this. It's the kind of thing that it might help talking to someone live. And Google foots the bill.

@Marc
I didn't see anything that would fall under false advertising. What specifically is there? I gave it a casual glance, not that in-depth, but didn't see anything.

#10

Quote:Static DTS objects cast shadows onto interiors and terrain.

Wrong they do not cast anything on anything right now (beside onto DIF)

Quote:TLS supports powerful envirionmental lighting options including direct sunlight, interior/terrain light map and custom illumination.

Wrong, atlas2 does not support anything like light map from a editor placed light source.

Quote:Mission light objects allow lighting to be edited in the Missions Editor without recompiling interiors. Mission lights also uniformly illuminate multiple interiors, DTS objects and terrain. Static light objects support omni and spotlight baked light mapping.

Wrong, atlas2 does not


I could add many more quotes to that but in the end it sums up to two things: atlas2 is not what it is advertised (might be a lot but definitely not a terrain by GGs terrain feature definition) and the lighting system does not even nearly what it is advertised to do.

dynamic Lighting and atlas2 are 2 of the main features TGEA and clearly advertised as features of TGEA.

#11 Dynamic shadows cast onto all objects including Atlas - if you're seeing a problem report it in the bug section.

Terrain != Atlas, Terrain == legacy terrain

Your complaints seem to boil down to Atlas needing some love, from what I understand this is being addressed.

#12 Dan,

Feel free to send me an email with your grievances and your request and I'll try to get you an answer. In general, our policy is not to provide refunds to those that have had substantial opportunity to pore over the source code, but neither do we want dissatisfied customers.

To others in this thread, thanks for the feedback. I will make sure our dev team is aware of it.

#13 Sorry for barging in,

I have sent a couple of emails to GG regarding a refund based on the above comments also, and have provided some pretty indepth information about why TGEA doesn't stack up. My contact was James Wiley, but I am still awaiting some sort of reponse.

I would appreciate an answer in regard to this via email.

addictive@ihug.co.nz

I'm sure James is working on it, but as we are currently refinancing I really need an answer this week.

Thanks in advance,

addiktive

#14 I'm thinking that you should e-mail Eric as well about this.

#15 @addiktive: TGEA doesn't stack up to what? If you're claiming that it doesn't stack up to the claims made in advertisements, please cite those specifically as Marc did. John addressed those comments directly (yes, we are working on Atlas and it's not where we want it to be, but it is functional) and I'd be happy to do the same with any other complaints.

However, if you are claiming that TGEA doesn't stack up to it's competition, I think you're standing on shaky ground. At $295 for a proven track record, shader support, etc, you'll be hard pressed to find any peers.

#16 Interesting...

No offence Brett but Im not really interested in discussing this with 3 different employees, but I will talk to the PR Manager or whoever is in charge regarding the issue. I have sent two emails clearly stating our case and I am patiently awaiting a response. And to answer your question no, its nothing to do with comparing TGEA to other products, it is purely based on 'promised features' and lack of professional support, documentation and a range of other issues, which I have already conveyed via email.

This is an interesting statement: (yes, we are working on Atlas and it's not where we want it to be, but it is functional)

From what I gather from GG, 'tough luck' to anyone who bought the EA and happily put up with the development of the product that was slated for a RC1 release, resulting in an incomplete, bug ridden product anyway...

Therefore if I buy car from a reputable company that is advertised as a running vehicle (with the 'possibility' of a future service) and theoretically functioning, yet it uses 10gallons of oil a day, smokes badly, overheats, and the tires are constantly deflating, does that mean tough luck for me, since the vehicle is functioning and a 'service was promised' and yet I cant get from point A to point B without investing more of my own personal time, money and effort to keep the thing 'functioning' when I could be focused on the actual trip and getting to my destination.

Sorry if this comes off sarcastic, but all I want is a professional reply to my request as per the emails I have already sent, and I require it sooner rather then later. Im not sure how you operate businesses in the US, but in NZ there is something called the Consumer Guarantees act that protects customers against false pretenses and ensure general goodwill between business and consumer. From my experience with GG over the last 6 months, I couldn't say that the customer support is of a 'high' standard...

You can do two things with this, take it as offensive and inturn get defensive, or turn it around into Customer Feedback and evaluate your current systems of Customer Relations... Something to think about...

Posting anything in this forum is a mistake it seems, so I will patiently sit by my inbox...

addiktive

#17 I have to agree with Brett on this one. While TGEA has a few known bugs, they are addressing them. Atlas is functional. GG has always stated that Atlas isn't exactly where they want it to be yet.

And when people start talking about "Consumer Rights" and "Consumer Acts", I think they need to turn their computer off.

-Andy

#18

Quote:Dynamic shadows cast onto all objects including Atlas - if you're seeing a problem report it in the bug section.

Terrain != Atlas, Terrain == legacy terrain

Sorry but the advertisement does not seem to take responsitibility of this difference.
Legacy terrain is as its name says, legacy, while out of my sight (and I would assume out of sight of most others) and out of the sight of the advertisement, atlas2 is TGEA terrain current and so called next gen terrain system.
I know that dynamics cast shadow. Thats nice but actually a world is filled with TSStatics not with dynamics, so its in the end a serious issue as those do not cast shadow onto anything if you do an outdoor environment, at least right now. I'm aware that I have StaticShapes that could do that, but the setup of them has shown some very unnice problems and beside that, those dynamic shadows draw massive performance for nothing as I want only static shadows a la TGE for massive objects.

I'm aware that those things are adressed.
But the current feature listing definitely does not reflect the "right now" reality which is what I stated and listed.
I don't have a problem with these things beeing at implement, at least at the moment.
I'm doing my current work in TGB, not TGEA, as it does need to run on university systems as well which are Pingus with crappy FX5200 at best.

#19 John Kabus,


while talking about technicalities is nice, and entertaining, I bought this engine based on a advertised feature set. Dynamic lighting & shadowing was one of the advertised functions. Bottom line is , this aint working in 1.0 release. In fact , stock TGE has better looking lighting that TGEA.

You also underestimate the "amount"of work needed for a good lighting systems saying that "Atlas" needs some "love". The whole system needs a lot of work to stack up against even a entry level dynamic lighting system in year 2007. Not some "love" A lot of work :P

Today, 3 April 2007 the system does not work. TGEA has reached version 1.0 prior this date.

#20 @Eric Fritz


I sent you an e-mail regarding the refund request. Thank you .