I absolutely agree, even though I am bias.
If you are a developer and you offer shit scripts and shit support, your customers can simply take their business somewhere else.
The amount of idealism I see in this thread is sickening.
These people tend to forget one thing
For every tebex sale, 15% of your earnings go to support FiveM
Script Selling actively supports FiveM as a whole.
Server owners have recognized that due to the amount of competition you need to have something special. And not everyone of them can’t afford or want to have a dedicated developer.
Currently, there are several aspects that require careful consideration:
1. Escrow System Improvements:
FiveM could work on improving the error handling within the escrow system. By providing more informative error messages, users would have a better understanding of the issues they encounter during file uploads. This would reduce the number of support requests and minimize instances where creators are wrongly blamed for errors caused by external factors.
FiveM could conduct thorough compatibility testing with commonly used software like FileZilla to ensure a smoother file transfer process. By addressing any compatibility issues proactively, errors and corruptions during file uploads could be significantly reduced.
2. Revocation Feature:
FiveM could consider reinstating the revoke button for verified creators. This feature would allow creators to revoke their assets from individuals engaged in inappropriate behavior or reselling without proper authorization.
FiveM could implement a system that allows verified creators to submit evidence of inappropriate behavior by users. This evidence could include screenshots, chat logs, or transaction records. By establishing a clear process for reviewing and acting upon such evidence, FiveM could take appropriate action against individuals involved in illicit activities.
3. Improved Support:
FiveM could create dedicated support channels or forums specifically designed to handle escrow-related issues. This would provide a centralized platform where users can seek assistance, report errors, or request asset revocations. By streamlining support channels, creators would have an organized way to address user concerns and provide timely assistance.
First and foremost, I disagree with this thread’s title, “Issues for known creators”, it disregards the very many creators who do great work, that outperform “known creators”. Every creator’s issues and opinions should matter the same.
While it would be nice to have a error logging system that was more descriptive, there’s no way to do that without decreasing the security of the current escrow system.
Since the script is decrypted into bytecode, there’s no way to get an accurate reading on what line the error would be at on the source version, while running the escrowed version.
Another topic, I believe after a certain amount of metric (views, sales, etc), the resource should be audited by CFX or a neutral party to ensure there are no copyright conflicts with other people’s work. I’ve seen CFX do this before, but it is usually reported by the owner first. However, with the escrow system, creators truly have no idea if their code was taken unless it is visually obvious.
Speaking of escrowed scripts, I think we should introduce a one-week refund guarantee to customers that purchase any script that has a escrowed file. This obviously places more responsibility on sellers, but I believe that if they are providing a quality service to their customer base, then this should not be an issue. This shouldn’t apply to fully open-source resources for obvious reasons.
For my store, I’ve self-implemented a one-month refund guarantee for escrowed scripts since three months ago, and I’ve only had 2 refunds requested & granted within that time.
If creators are confident enough to sell their resources, they should be confident that the products they sell work.
I agree with most of your stuff, especially about the refunds thingy.
Doesn’t matter if escrow or not, I always provide refunds as well if (one of the features of) my product doesn’t work for whatever reason and I cannot get it running on their server for whatever reason. Though so far I only offered these twice as I either always got it running (e.g. bugs that weren’t found while testing) or the user simply kept the script and didn’t even want a refund.
However:
This is anchored in Tebex’s checkout terms & conditions.
Purchases from Us are payments for licenses to use the digital virtual items contained in the purchase. This transaction is final and there are no refunds.
(You can find this by going to your store page and clicking the “terms & conditions” button from the Tebex banner in the footer of the page)
This is probably something that should then be addressed to Tebex directly. Although I doubt that they are gonna change this “just for FiveM escrow resources”.
This is regarding tebex’s refund guidelines, this isn’t a prohibition on giving refunds, which is why the refund option is present on every transaction tebex processes.
The point I’m making is that creators need to be held responsible for what they sell. Many “known creators” use that line to justify their no-refund policy, which is obviously to avoid having to give refunds to people.
To my knowledge, I don’t know any creators personally that have a no-fault refund policy for escrowed scripts.
I’m not saying you can’t give refunds, but it is your right as a seller to not give one.
… unless the product is faulty of course. Tebex has another clause for this as well that I can’t find right now.
But how many customers actually report such behavior (e.g. selling faulty products) to Tebex?
I had some customers come to me months after purchasing asking me if “their product was finally fixed”. Which basically means they never got it running and never asked for support (all those problems were in the readme including solutions).
But that basically means they had a (from their pov) “faulty” product in their account and never reported it to anyone.
Because they already know the answer is 99.99% no. If a customer got an completely open source free to use anywhere resource it’s going to be harder to justify. But a half or fully escrowed resources from which the customer can’t do anything with? A legally required refund wouldn’t harm imo.
Customers can’t know for sure if it will work or not by simply seeing the dependencies. There are a lot of factors. But we are always talking about protecting sellers etc. But where is the customer protection? Simply requesting a chargeback/refund from Tebex disallows you from using their services further? (Can’t confirm this just heard about it a lot.) What should a customer do?
Meanwhile we are discussing here if we should give sellers the ability again to ‘just’ revoke resources again. So if I feel like it I can just pull it without question. Just because my feelings got hurt by the customer. Even worse for them.
If it doesn’t work, Tebex already covers the buyer. A seller is legally required to sell working products. They just have to report it.
But instead of contacting Tebex with their issue, they will just do a chargeback which will get them banned.
Our community has grown so much and we see this not a lot but still way too often. We always tell people not to do a chargeback immediately. They should contact the seller first and if they don’t get support they should contact Tebex directly and get the issue resolved the other way around…
If you ask Tebex, they will offer support regarding the issue and a refund if nothing else is possible and it might even give problems to the store owner if such a thing happens.
In case of chargebacks yeah you would get banned from tebex globally afaik.
However in terms of refunds I’ve had a case or two with my RP server where Tebex would email me for the customer, communication is then overseen by them between store & customer which will ultimately result in a resolved situation (either by tebex or store owner).
Maybe unpopular opinion but I think it’s probably a good thing not to have this option, as store owner trying to police and develop is difficult and maybe not worth the time but could also lead to customers given a bad experience which … reflects on everyone!
Thank you @jaksam1074 for expressing your opinion and opening this topic.
I understand the desire to restore the revoke button for verified authors as a means of combating inappropriate behavior. However, I don’t agree that it would be useful or efficient to implement such a button again.
First, the concept of “compulsory proof of inappropriate behavior.” is of serious concern. Determining what constitutes inappropriate behavior can be subjective and difficult. The requirement of proof can lead to an onerous process that can be misused or manipulated. It could also potentially violate the principles of due process and the presumption of innocence.
Secondly, instead of relying solely on the revoke button for assets, the platform should prioritize the implementation of comprehensive content moderation policies. These systems should be designed to address inappropriate behavior from all users, regardless of their verification status. As creators, we already have tools that help to quickly block accounts and resellers or leaks discord servers, but we would also like to see tools and action plans from the CFX team regarding store sites that resell someone else’s content. The only working option currently to hide and block content is through a DMCA request. It may also be worth considering proactive measures, such as user training and transparent reporting mechanisms.
Sadly, Tebex doesn’t listen even when we have clear proof. Like in my screenshot, a guy admits he bought the script from another person, not the original seller. But Tebex says, “we can’t do anything.”
It’s good you brought up DMCA requests. They can help, but not always. There are many websites where we can’t remove a leak
I’m curious why you talked about “innocent until proven guilty”. My screenshot clearly shows someone did something bad. Tebex’s ToS say you can’t resell something you bought. That’s why I think verified stores should get the “revoke” button back. If we allow reselling (or pretend that reselling it’s not an issue), we get issues like:
The reseller takes the money but doesn’t give the asset
People who buy from resellers surely won’t get any support or friendliness
People who buy scripts properly might ask why they pay full price when others buy cheaper from resellers
This is a bit off topic but to answer the title of the post, I mentioned “known” creators because these issues will likely happen more often to them than to new creators. That’s the only reason
As for the escrow errors that keep being overlooked, it’s not just “FileZilla” causing the problem. This also happens a lot to people who download their assets straight from Keymaster to their VPS. In any case, I think FiveM should deal with this. They should clearly tell users it’s not the developer’s fault through a big red error message that doesn’t let the script start at all, similar to “You lack the required entitlement” error. That way, it won’t cause support issues that the creator can’t (and shouldn’t have to) handle
Thank you for listening, I wish you a great evening
In the case of reselling an asset, it is often challenging to provide official documents or records confirming the transaction, such as receipts or transcripts. This absence of explicit evidence can make it difficult to address the issue, which is why Tebex may state that it is unable to resolve such situations, as they fall into a gray area.
I understand your suggestion regarding allowing “verified stores” to revoke access for resellers. However, there are concerns about how to ensure that these verified stores or creators will not misuse this feature to their advantage. Providing guarantees for customers in such cases becomes an important consideration.
Furthermore, by repeatedly mentioning “known creators,” it may inadvertently classify individuals based on certain criteria. This raises questions about how, in your opinion, the definition of the “verified” store will be made and what parameters will be used for this classification. In addition, what options will newly arrived content creators have if they encounter problems when revoking access to their resources?
Considering that the problem exists, it emphasizes the need for reliable content moderation policies, effective mechanisms, and active communication with users. Taking these actions collectively can help address such problems effectively. However, the idea of dividing people by status and granting them “power” that can potentially be abused might lead to new challenges and complications.
Personally i feel escrow is a bit of a mess for both end, the seller and the buyer, and really needs some rework.
For reselling it a touchy topic, Personally If i buy something for $60 and no longer use it naturally im going to want to sell it on to someone that can make use of it to make some of my investment back and that is normal,
FiveM into days standards is very expensive, and long term investment for most.
I understand for some developers selling and making assets is a day job, And i think some trading platform for users may solve the whole reselling issue.
Sadly leaks are always going to be a thing that we cant get away from, But there against there is a reason leaks exist in the first place, there many reasons but let not get off topic.
In the end i really wish escrow was more balance for everyone and code didnt need to be to restricted.
It seems that the presence of strong evidence is useless anyway, considering the screenshot of my first post
The criteria is the amount of sales, for example a minimum of 10 sales per month
When I started with FiveM years ago, the revoke button didn’t exist yet and I never complained about it since I knew I was a new creator and I couldn’t expect special benefits. For new creators, resellers are extremely less frequent, it wasn’t a problem for me when I just arrived, it’s normal not starting with all benefits when you are new
So for you it’s normal to break the contract you sign with Tebex in the moment you buy something? Interesting to know
So are you saying you know that this is a day job for some developers, and despite this, it’s fair to trade their work without giving them their profits for their work and support they have to provide, because you want to make some of your investment back, after actively using the asset you bought?
I completely agree with your perspective.
