Not being able to critique a resource in the reviews.

[GoldenBear]

So I purchased this.... https://www.mc-market.org/resources/475/ a long time ago.

My computer was stolen not long ago (a Christmas break in) so when making a new server set up, I came on here, to download the config that I know I have purchased in the past only to find that my licence has been removed because now it has been changed to a 4 month licence.

To be clear. When I purchased my licence, the licence length was permanent. I only paid my money based on his promise that I would have access to the resource for life. The 'dev' then revoked everyones licence and made the money that they had paid now irrelevant because he switched to a monthly licence length.

I left a review on the resource and was contacted by a staff member named Majored who told me that, (even tho I explained my point of view to him) that I was not allowed to post this review because "Your review must be about the product itself or the support that the author has provided along with it."

My problem with this is 2 fold:
1) Me saying that the 'dev' had removed my licence and been extremely rude to me is 100% about the product. When you purchase something, the definition of the product that you purchase is not specifically just the item, but it's also the whole process including the sales experience and any support that you may receive in relation to the product.

2) The review section is supposed to be for other potential buyers to seek the opinions of previous customers to decide if they should buy it or not. It therefore is 100% relevant for them to be able to see the opinion of a previous buyer who was not happy with their transaction and why as they may agree that this does not show the 'dev' to be the type of person that they would want to purchase from.

I understand that this website may have rules and that the rules allow for the 'dev' to do this but that does not mean that the website should suppress any opinion that differs from this as a lot of people (some contacted me after seeing my review) would agree with me that this is not okay.

I think that the rules should be changed in the following ways:


1) To keep public confidence in this websites buying process: Once someone purchases an infinite licence, it should remain so, even if the developer changes to a monthly payment system, the people who paid for infinite, should keep it.
2) People should be allowed to voice their opinion and even if a specific staff member does not Agee, that opinion should still be relevant. If it contains info that most people don't know and it effects the way someone would purchase a product on the site then it is 100% relevant as a review. Censoring is not an okay response.

 

[Harry]

This is clearly a controversial topic for many of you, and more so than I was expecting to be honest.

When you purchase a premium resource, your purchase guarantees you a single download of the resource content. In most cases, you will have indefinite access to download and receive updates, but your purchase does not guarantee this. For instance, the user may never update the resource again after posting, the user may delete the resource entirely for valid reasons, or the resource may be deleted by a staff member. In the two latter cases, you're effectively losing your license anyway.

Providing that you've received the single download you're entitled to, these situations including a license being revoked due to a renewal system being introduced are not considered scams. Why? Because you've already received the product for which your payment was for. Purchasers are responsible for maintaining any copies of the resource content they download, and though GoldenBear's situation regarding his computer being stolen is saddening, it's not one that the resource author is expected to make up for.

If the said purchaser hasn't received the single download they're entitled to, the author would be expected to refund the purchaser, or provide them with a copy of the resource content even if they resource was deleted or their license was inactive/disabled.

All in all, this discussion summarises a situation in which the resource author's actions are not considered a scam. However, all of your concerns would be best expressed via our reputation system.

They could easily have just stopped purchases and set up a new resource for the monthly paying customers.

This is actually not an option for the resource author, as we don't allow duplicate resources to be uploaded.

 

[ItsSniper]

This is clearly a controversial topic for many of you, and more so than I was expecting to be honest.

When you purchase a premium resource, your purchase guarantees you a single download of the resource content. In most cases, you will have indefinite access to download and receive updates, but your purchase does not guarantee this. For instance, the user may never update the resource again after posting, the user may delete the resource entirely for valid reasons, or the resource may be deleted by a staff member. In the two latter cases, you're effectively losing your license anyway.

Providing that you've received the single download you're entitled to, these situations including a license being revoked due to a renewal system being introduced are not considered scams. Why? Because you've already received the product for which your payment was for. Purchasers are responsible for maintaining any copies of the resource content they download, and though GoldenBear's situation regarding his computer being stolen is saddening, it's not one that the resource author is expected to make up for.

If the said purchaser hasn't received the single download they're entitled to, the author would be expected to refund the purchaser, or provide them with a copy of the resource content even if they resource was revoked or their license was inactive/disabled.

All in all, this discussion summarises a situation in which the resource author's actions are not considered a scam. However, all of your concerns would be best expressed via our reputation system.


This is actually not an option for the resource author, as we don't allow duplicate resources to be uploaded.

I believe all of us realized he wasn’t breaking any rules. That’s why it was posted here in the feedback section, to see if that could be changed so others don’t feel scammed in the future. It’s clear a good amount of people agree with this. Anytime I’ve purchased a plugin or resource on any other site (and I’ve purchased hundreds between multiple sites) I’ve never had a license revoked due to greed from a developer. I get the rule you have in place, in case a license gets removed by staff or the account gets banned, etc. I just personally think there should be clarification so that they can’t revoke it from previous customers for no reason, or have mc-market create a grandfather system where old customers would keep the license and only new ones would need to pay monthly. Because it does seem like borderline scam to me, and clearly others agree here. I personally hesitate now to purchase from mc-market if other options are available, due to the thought that I could easily be “scammed” by a developer here. That’s just my opinion tho. Hoping to see a better system in the future. Obviously I don’t expect anything to come out of the case with this guy, and tbh I don’t want his products ever again, they aren’t worth it in my opinion, but I’d hate to have future products that I pay a lot for getting revoked randomly. I’m sure you can understand that. Thanks for hearing me out.

 

[Harry]

That’s why it was posted here in the feedback section, to see if that could be changed so others don’t feel scammed in the future.

Understandable, and it's great that there's been a discussion on this with such a surprising amount of support (to me at least). Though, I don't see any changes coming from this thread specifically. Instead, if you have specific suggestions on how our enforcement should change, it would be best to suggest them here: https://www.mc-market.org/suggestions/create-thread

I just personally think there should be clarification so that they can’t revoke it from previous customers for no reason

Again, a very reasonable expectation and I personally wouldn't want a license of mine that I had purchased to be revoked without reason.

With that being said, however, how do you suppose we handle when a resource is deleted by the user or a staff member? None of these situations differs in my opinion, and so enforcement shouldn't differ either. We'd be risking introducing a double-standard.

 

[ItsSniper]

Understandable, and it's great that there's been a discussion on this with such a surprising amount of support (to me at least). Though, I don't see any changes coming from this thread specifically. Instead, if you have specific suggestions on how our enforcement should change, it would be best to suggest them here: https://www.mc-market.org/suggestions/create-thread


Again, a very reasonable expectation and I personally wouldn't want a license of mine that I had purchased to be revoked without reason.

With that being said, however, how do you suppose we handle when a resource is deleted by the user or a staff member? None of these situations differs in my opinion, and so enforcement shouldn't differ either. We'd be risking introducing a double-standard.

I get the point you’re trying to make, but then again resource deletion is a completely different thing. Removing a resource and upping the price to loyal customers because of greed are very different imo. If a resource simply gets removed, I would understand. Usually in a situation like that if it were to be removed by staff, the author likely isn’t trustworthy at all anyway. And if it gets removed by the author, I wouldn’t care as much, as it’s not simply “removing license out of greed.” I have had that happen to me before, and I don’t fight it, nor do I care.

Imagine purchasing an expensive software, let’s use a video editing software for instance. Then suddenly one day your license is revoked and they decide “screw our loyal customers, we want more money for the same exact product” (just a scenario). You’d obviously most likely be pretty mad about this, unless you’re rich as hell. This would cause the public to get mad at that company, etc. Now let’s say they simply discontinue a software, people are way more understanding of that. Softwares and devices are constantly discontinued, receiving little to no updates anymore. But when something is just straight up revoked from someone due to wanting more money, they’d get pretty upset. This is just how I see it though. Obviously this resource isn’t a ton of money, nor is it even close to worth a ton, but my concern here again is purchasing something on here that does cost a lot, just for the author to decide he wants to charge me more for the same product. Until something changes there, I likely won’t be purchasing anything big on mc-market unless absolutely necessary, as I simply can’t trust it. No disrespect to you or the site, I see the points you’re trying to make. But as buyers, there should be better protection for us too in my opinion, not just for sellers. That’s when trust begins to die down. Thanks again for hearing me out. I’ll consider making a thread about it in the suggestions channel in the future, although I doubt anything would come from it. Have a nice day!

 

[lokka30]

Thank you for the information Harry. It's very unfortunate that this is the case with digital products and thus others' and my own's purchases on this site will be very limited. I can completely agree with ItsSniper's statement that customers need more protection.

 

[Norska]

Thank you for the information Harry. It's very unfortunate that this is the case with digital products and thus others' and my own's purchases on this site will be very limited. I can completely agree with ItsSniper's statement that customers need more protection.

Customers do not "need more protection", what needs to be done is:

1. MC-Market fixing their resource manager system because there is no way for authors to add timed licenses (after a license has expired), to delete a license entirely so they can re-apply it to the buyer. In good faith, I believe that if that was an option, MarkElf would re-apply new, limited licenses to his buyers.
2. Potential buyers of a resource checking out the sidebar to see if what they're buying comes with an unlimited or limited license.

As Harry said, you are guaranteed one download only at the time of your purchase, you got what you paid for (the product), that does not necessarily include unlimited future updates and is solely up to the developer's discretion. I understand that when most of MarkElf's resource buyers purchased his resource, the license was unlimited but even then everyone was guaranteed one download only. I really don't understand how buyers believe they have any right/entitlement to demand unlimited updates and create such threads to complain about it while the one-download guarantee term was part of MC-Market ever since it was created.

 

[ItsSniper]

Customers do not "need more protection", what needs to be done is:

1. MC-Market fixing their resource manager system because there is no way for authors to add timed licenses (after a license has expired), to delete a license entirely so they can re-apply it to the buyer.
2. Potential buyers of a resource checking out the sidebar to see if what they're buying comes with an unlimited or limited license.

As Harry said, you are guaranteed one download only at the time of your purchase, you got what you paid for (the product), that does not necessarily include unlimited future updates and is solely up to the developer's discretion. I understand that when most of MarkElf's resource buyers purchased his resource, the license was unlimited but even then everyone was guaranteed one download only. I really don't understand how buyers believe they have any right/entitlement to demand unlimited updates and create such threads to complain about it while the one-download guarantee term was part of MC-Market ever since it was created.

I apologize if my statement offended you, as it seems you are a bit upset about this. Again, it’s my opinion, which I am in fact entitled to, as well as the opinions of others in this thread that seem to share similar views to me. I still stand by what I said 100%, but I do respect your opinion on the situation. I realize there are terms, and I’m not saying what he did was against the rules. I do not in any way expect to get my license back from him. I just personally think the rule should be changed. Again, a matter of opinion. Thanks for sharing yours regardless tho! Have a nice day!

 

[lokka30]

Customers do not "need more protection", what needs to be done is:

1. MC-Market fixing their resource manager system because there is no way for authors to add timed licenses (after a license has expired), to delete a license entirely so they can re-apply it to the buyer. In good faith, I believe that if that was an option, MarkElf would re-apply new, limited licenses to his buyers.
2. Potential buyers of a resource checking out the sidebar to see if what they're buying comes with an unlimited or limited license.

As Harry said, you are guaranteed one download only at the time of your purchase, you got what you paid for (the product), that does not necessarily include unlimited future updates and is solely up to the developer's discretion. I understand that when most of MarkElf's resource buyers purchased his resource, the license was unlimited but even then everyone was guaranteed one download only. I really don't understand how buyers believe they have any right/entitlement to demand unlimited updates and create such threads to complain about it while the one-download guarantee term was part of MC-Market ever since it was created.

Point 1 - definitely. better license management would be beneficial to everyone.
Point 2 - in this issue, it isn't valid - the buyer had purchased the resource and it was changed afterwards. at the time of purchase, it was an unlimited license.

 

[ItsSniper]

Point 1 - definitely. better license management would be beneficial to everyone.
Point 2 - in this issue, it isn't valid - the buyer had purchased the resource and it was changed afterwards. at the time of purchase, it was an unlimited license.

Yeah, I can agree with the option to grandfather a license in. I think that's a great idea to be able to allow old buyers to stay unlimited, and new ones to be limited, if a developer wants to change to a limited license system. This way everyone is happy in the end.

 

[Norska]

Yes, it was unlimited at the time of purchase but there's also the terms and conditions section a developer can fill out, MarkElf states he can change those terms and conditions at any time. Either way, the best option would be if you could keep unlimited buyers and get new ones with a limited license, I have created a ticket about this and was told it is not doable, hopefully it will be sometime in the future.

 

[ItsSniper]

Yes, it was unlimited at the time of purchase but there's also the terms and conditions section a developer can fill out, MarkElf states he can change those terms and conditions at any time. Either way, the best option would be if you could keep unlimited buyers and get new ones with a limited license, I have created a ticket about this and was told it is not doable, hopefully it will be sometime in the future.

I'm sure anything is doable, may take them a decent amount of time to implement, but I feel as though it would be well worth it :tup:

 

[Zyger]

Couldn't you just back up the files in the future?

 

[GoldenBear]

Customers do not "need more protection", what needs to be done is:

1. MC-Market fixing their resource manager system because there is no way for authors to add timed licenses (after a license has expired), to delete a license entirely so they can re-apply it to the buyer. In good faith, I believe that if that was an option, MarkElf would re-apply new, limited licenses to his buyers.
2. Potential buyers of a resource checking out the sidebar to see if what they're buying comes with an unlimited or limited license.

As Harry said, you are guaranteed one download only at the time of your purchase, you got what you paid for (the product), that does not necessarily include unlimited future updates and is solely up to the developer's discretion. I understand that when most of MarkElf's resource buyers purchased his resource, the license was unlimited but even then everyone was guaranteed one download only. I really don't understand how buyers believe they have any right/entitlement to demand unlimited updates and create such threads to complain about it while the one-download guarantee term was part of MC-Market ever since it was created.

It's not just about 'updates' it's about bug fixes. When you purchase a product you are entitled to bug fix updates for at least some time. The licence was set to lifetime at the time of purchase so the 'deal' when purchasing was that people purchased the item with the understanding that they will have access to this with future bug fixes etc included.[DOUBLEPOST=1580731323][/DOUBLEPOST]

It's totally on the buyer for not keeping the product they purchased.
If you throw something in the trash, i.e. a chocolate bar, you don't go to the chocolate bar manufacturer for another one, you punch yourself in the face for throwing a good chocolate bar in the bin.

The example isn't for something digital, but the same methodology still applies.

Im sorry but thats totally wrong. As I said, its about future updates and bug fixes. Its like if you purchase an iPhone and then apple decided to charge you for future IOS updates.

 

[lokka30]

Its like if you purchase an iPhone and then apple decided to charge you for future IOS updates.

Off-topic, however they might slow the phone down here and there, effectively making you want a new phone, making them more money

 

[GoldenBear]

Or like if you purchased an iPhone and apple stops updating their product. Which they do.

After a long time. yeah. But you still get years of software bugs and updates and more importantly. You know that at the time of purchase.

At the time of purchase this was supposed to include the updates etc and then was changed AFTER purchase meaning the user did not get what they agreed on at the time of purchase. Regardless of that the rules technically are, the implication and expectation from the buyer at the time of purchase was for a lifetime licence so at the very least it would be false advertising.

 

[MarkElf]

GoldenBear Since you don't like my paragraph responses I'll leave dumbed down ones that are to the point just for you

It's not just about 'updates' it's about bug fixes. When you purchase a product you are entitled to bug fix updates for at least some time.

That's what you hope for, not what you're entitled to.

The licence was set to lifetime at the time of purchase so the 'deal' when purchasing was that people purchased the item with the understanding that they will have access to this with future bug fixes etc included.

Just because it's unlimited, doesn't makes a resource creator your slave - or as GoldenBear likes to think personal assistant - who needs to keep 'your' work personally updated for the remainder of their life. Updates or even support technically on this platform after your purchase should be treated as a bonus.

After a long time. yeah. But you still get years of software bugs and updates and more importantly. You know that at the time of purchase.

I, nor anyone else, intend to keep resources updated forever and I think 4 and a half years of updates posted regularly is very successful and maintained.

To clarify our specific conflict, you bought a configuration which is still pretty much identical to the one you got when you renewed your license. In which case, you haven't been cheated out of anything and you're throwing a fit like a child. Is 4 and a half years of updates not enough? It's longer than most phone companies care about their products enough to update them.

 

[GoldenBear]

GoldenBear Since you don't like my paragraph responses I'll leave dumbed down ones that are to the point just for you

That's what you hope for, not what you're entitled to.

Here we go again, just because it's unlimited, doesn't makes a resource creator your slave - or as you like to think personal assistant - who needs to keep 'your' work personally updated for the remainder of their life. You aren't entitled to updates or even support technically - just a single download. Anything after your purchase should be treated as a bonus.


I, nor anyone else, intend to keep resources updated forever and I think 4 and a half years of updates posted regularly is very successful and maintained. To clarify our specific conflict, you bought a configuration which is still pretty much identical to the one you got when you renewed your license. In which case, you haven't been cheated out of anything and you're throwing a fit like a child.

After your last barrage of insults you said that you was done speaking to me. Please at least stick to your word on that statement even if you won't stick to your promises that you make to buyers. The licence was permanent when people purchased and that means that, at the time they gave you the money, it was under the impression that they would have access to any future bug fixes. However you try to justify it, I think the common view here is that what you did is morally wrong. Please stop speaking to me as we just go around in circles and you insult me when I do not agree with your unlogical excuses.