Rainmaker
-
Posts
1609 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rainmaker
-
-
11 minutes ago, Horns said:
You proved far enough for me that it happened once. If you can prove it happened again then fair enough, otherwise edit your previous posts so they don't suggest it did happen more than once.
I will not because it did. A great majority of people who follow the title already know it was. I’m not editing something just because you do not feel satisfied. I already showed you two examples.
-
Just now, Horns said:
No you didn't, but you proved once. No reason to think this happened twice unless you can show otherwise.
Well, just because you won’t take the time to search even after you were proven wrong already….its not worth my time engaging with you any more over it.
-
Just now, Horns said:
I probably could, but wouldn't. Ok, if you're talking about this being on sale for a couple of hours in error once then fair enough.
Read my other statements? Did I say once?
-
Just now, Horns said:
And there has been a request that statements like that come from official sources or not at all. If you had an actual source you could do better than a browser screenshot.
I mean, you can’t try for 5 seconds?
-
1
-
-
Just now, Horns said:
Yeah, and that's the exact price someone buying their first module would have seen with their 50% introductory discount. I mean actual proof, not a screenshot from a browser.
No, that’s not the case with those modules. A simple internet search will reveal what you want, I’m not gonna go back and forth till you are pleased here. Its not NEW news
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Horns said:
Can you link an official source on that, or do you have anything to corroborate it? Saying a product has been improperly discounted is a serious charge, even if it doesn't lead to material loss it can make it more difficult to sell a product at full price, so if that can be confirmed it would definitely be relevant to the current situation, if it can be backed up.
Yeah, the internet doesn’t forget. Happened at least two times.
All of that shouldn’t really be breaking news to anyone. Word spread pretty rapidly during those occurrences and a bunch of folks purchased at that reduced price.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Horns said:
Can you link an official source on that, or do you have anything to corroborate it? Saying a product has been improperly discounted is a serious charge, even if it doesn't lead to material loss it can make it more difficult to sell a product at full price, so if that can be confirmed it would definitely be relevant to the current situation, if it can be backed up.
Yeah, the internet doesn’t forget. Happened at least two times.
-
1
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Horns said:
When was it that the F-15E was on sale? I've gone back through the news since the mudhen hit EA and it's not listed as discounted in any of the sales.
That’s correct. You won’t. It was improperly put on sale multiple times during sales that were not supposed to involve it.-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Nightstalker said:
I have to tell you, I'm more annoyed to see the South Atlantic map now on sale for 50% off in the summer sale. What is the sense of purchasing these modules with the "supposed" early adopter discount only to see them come on sale for 50% off while they are STILL in E/A. I'm really getting weary of this now. Especially since the S/A map is the most disappointing map I've purchased in DCS and why this is why I won't purchase Kola at 59,99 right now.
Given the F-15E was also discounted when it wasn’t supposed to be a number of times during previous sales, I do wonder if this was intentional or sanctioned given they usually don’t participate?
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, freehand said:
Is this some sort of cryptic message ?
Not really. If I was in Vegas I woulda laid down a $1000 that the person creating their own drama would show up here a few hours later to complain about it under an alias. I would have won that bet.
And for the record...it wasn't referring to Hammer
-
1 minute ago, Nasder said:
Never said anything about such things. Only said that Razbam need to pay their workers. Nothing about if they did or not.
Then my mistake for misinterpreting the context of your post.
Following not directed towards so don’t take it as suchPerhaps the bigger reason being not for lack of money, but perhaps they all got fed up together, with not being compensated for their work and watching money being taken in for a product they were supporting and seeing no compensation from? Not exactly a whole lot of reason to show up to work anymore or give support in that case. Appears to be a pretty collective action in terms of decision making.
-
2
-
-
41 minutes ago, Nasder said:
I never said they should work for free. Razbam need to pay their workers.
Razbam as a company should secure an income (an income can come from more than once place) to pay their workers and keep the company running. How, what and such they can do in order to keep at it is up to the management of Razbam to decide and manage.
We can not say that any involved party did or did not hold their side of the contract, we know nothing about what the contract say. We got he said, she said which are just rumors and nothing else.
In my eyes a company should keep doing their side of a contract even if the other party may not have not held their side. Keep at it until it's settled by the legal teams, if not to keep their professionalism looking good and customer-base happy then at least to make sure they don't make anything worse while the dispute is in progress.
This is based on a company that has decent economy and is able to get an income to keep it going. They then could keep their end even at a loss, which they would most likely get back if they win the dispute.
But that's just my opinion on how I think good companies should handle situations like this.
Leaving the customer-base in the dust is never a good move, even if they say that they might come back and pick them up later, maybe...
In my eyes, Razbam will never look as good as they once did.
Do you know that Ron has not been paying them? All that has really been said openly is that the owner and devs have not been compensated for sales to this point. So you know that he hasn’t been paying them anything?
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:
And I thank you for answering, was just curious to see the other another PoV that's all, Discord status didnt have a part as I dont frequent the RB discord.
lol, Cause I carry so many titles across so many discords, I'm like Barnes and Noble.
I didn’t assume as such FWIW.
I have them on multiple discords. As do other pilots, etc. Me = not all that special.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, NineLine said:
Once again, you are missing the point. Stop getting so mad because some have an opinion differing from yours. This can go to several people in this thread, but also to you.
You are greatly misinterpreting my emotional mood when it comes to this situation.
But implying that I have some sort of tilted viewpoint because I have a tag on discord, when I actually have tags on multiple discords for the same thing, is pretty comedic actually.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, NineLine said:
You are an SME, with a special role on their Discord, and you do have some relationship with them, that said you missed the point. Your opinion is no more or less important than anyone else here, you don't need to fight so hard to make it.
What’s your point? The fact I have a green tag on my name to differentiate me from joe schmo when it comes to F-15 related stuff. You mean the sole reason it was created for? Because myself and a few others have actual experience on the real airplane? Because we had the young potatoes of the world showing up and dreaming up all kinds of stuff so we were tagged so they knew who we were. Those tags? Same ones that places like the 10% True channel use to differentiate SMEs. Those tags?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, NineLine said:
That is all we have and all that should be referenced, everything else is opinion and suggestion unless you are speaking formally and officially on behalf of RAZBAM you don't know any more or any less than anyone else. Thanks
And lets stop with the RB associations? You know full well I don’t have any official associations with either party.-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Oban said:
And why do you feel they have to substantiate anything publicly especially within the court of public opinion, of which we're all participants ?
You keep dismissing that it's almost guranteed that ED have been advised by their legal team to refrain from anymore public posts. You don't have to have a court rule on that, it's just common practice, less said, soonest mended , and prevents words being twisted and disterted in order to provide a narrative.
Neither party gets a free pass in this mess.I think you are not following the conversation. I made a post about substantiating claims. Got quoted on said post. I responded. Got told my response was ‘word salad’ or something rather. Now all the sudden, not word salad anymore and another response. Still nothing substantial there. I responded. Did they need to respond? Did I initially quote anyone when I made the post? No. SZ chose to ask why I blindly followed one and not the other. I stated I didn’t have to as it was substantiated already. No need to blindly believe anything. I didn’t make the statement…I just asked if someone could provide anything and I would be waiting. People chose to quote that. I responded. Not that hard to understand. You are again trying to make more out of it than what it was.
And yes, guilt is determined in court. Anything out outside of that is just a party allegation. THAT’S IT!
-
1
-
-
Just now, SkateZilla said:
That's literally all there is, and all there is going to be until resolved.
Don't understand how you're quick to throw away one CEO's statement, but blindly follow another CEO's statement.I don’t need to blindly trust one’s statement when the other confirmed part of it. Payment withheld. The other party did make a criminal accusation against the other and has chosen to make the claim (by choice) and pull the legal card out when it comes to substantiating. Also, again, for about the 20th time now, which court ruled on that exactly to make it so? Choose to blindly believe that if you want. I don’t have to, and won’t.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Mizzy said:
"
Without entering into the details of matters that are confidential to the parties, we firmly reject the allegations that the current disagreement between Eagle Dynamics and Razbam Simulations would be as stated by Razbam “due to circumstances completely beyond our control” and that it is “a situation that Razbam Simulations did not seek”.
On the contrary, the current disagreement is the result of improper actions that have been taken by Razbam Simulations, in breach of its contractual obligations towards our company and of our legally protected IP rights, and for which we are seeking a reasonable and forward-looking commercial outcome rather than entertaining legal claims.
We very much regret that Ron Zambrano has decided, without even pre-advising us, to make these disparaging public statements and, more importantly, to take the customers of the Razbam developed aircraft as leverage in the discussions with us."
Nick Grey
Dude, I’ve been waiting for how many pages now for you to provide anything substantiating for what you keep peddling that extends beyond claims from a single party? I asked you how many pages ago now? When you got something, show something…otherwise….dunno why you keep quoting me.
Statements don’t equal that.
-
1
-
-
And while we are on the topic of ‘good faith’. Good faith to whom exactly? The customer?
Good faith to the customer wouldn’t be continuing to sell a product that apparently has a legal dispute ongoing. Apparently this has to have been going on for months, no?
Good faith wouldn’t be withholding payment to the company expected to support a product for almost 10 months, then expecting everything to go swimmingly the whole time afterwords and obviously having zero fallout plan if it didn’t
And….in it’s current state, if purchased today, would have a major feature broken with no timeline on resolution.
But the folks who haven’t been paid for it, pretty much at all, are supposed to just come back in to the rescue and fix it?
Yeah, that all makes tons of sense…..
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Oban said:
It's called observation, stop being so salty.
Salty?!? No. Its called pointing out the fact he didn’t say anything about where you tried to take the topic. Calling me salty doesn’t change that at all.-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Oban said:
They don't, but it wasn't the last update by ED that broke the radar.
The radar failed 7 days after, there's no connection at all.What’s that got to do with anything? Ignition didn’t mention anything about it in his post. He responded with ‘months’ and ‘good faith’.
You are the only one trying to connect the two dots there.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, 336_TheAngryGamer said:
Cries of sabotage, reminds me of the old witch trials when people let their fears runs wild when cooler heads would have been more beneficial. Has anyone fearing sabotage actually taken the time to logically think this out?
Not if it doesn’t fall in line with their previous agendas they don’t. You are giving the few too much credit of rational thought.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Slippa said:
Curiouser and curiouser
.
Does this radar fiddle where the clock had to jiggle give anyone a giggle or no?
This doesn’t sound good to me. Do coders put self-destructive time-limits in their code? Or has this thread got the better of my addled mind this morning?
More coffee… good day all
.
Not the first time its ever happened before. It was DLL related and probably going to happen again without ‘maintenance’ being performed on the module.
Sniper Pod Progress?
in F-15E
Posted
I don’t wanna kill your’s or anyone else’s vibes…haha…but more weight doesn’t equal more kaboom.