JuiceIsLoose

Because you have stated many times that people are spewing half truths and conspiracy theories here, let’s be clear here. ED CAN choose to say more. They are CHOOSING to not say anything, as you say, to win the case. Hope the court outcome ED is looking for far outweighs the damage done to your own public opinion. No one has seen any evidence of how this claimed IP infringement has damaged DCS. The only thing I see damaging DCS is their own CHOICE to not pay third party developers (and we both know this isn’t the first time) and now it’s finally become public.

I’m sure ED would have wanted to continue to not pay RB for even more months with no one knowing. And no hate on Nineline or Bignewy. I stand by my statement previously that ED management is failing their community managers by staying silent.

So then how long until you feel customers should be provided an official announcement from ED? 6 months? 1 year? Or are we just hoping everyone forgets and moves on?

And so ED selling a module they didn’t make and not paying RB their share per the contract isn’t stealing then according to you?

This is assuming that ED's claim is true. Not saying I have any evidence it is a false. But what we know as facts from the statements is that ED has not paid Razbam. And that ED claims a breach of IP as their cause. As far as I know nothing has been proven as far as the breach of IP, just the claims. Again, if ED knew about this IP issue why would they release the module? If the IP issue came up after the release why didn't they pay RB their share of the F-15E sales before the supposed IP issue? Just seems odd that it happened in a way where ED was able to sell the module and receive revenue from it, while not having to pay RB what they should for it. And there's been nothing stated about RB benefitting in any way from this supposed IP issue.

A guy in my squadron is running into this same issue. The mirror is not rendering/displaying. He is looking straight "through" the mirror and seeing the nuts/bolts behind the mirror. Similiar to what Beirut posted above. He is using STEAM, ST, and is using VR.

They already did. For upwards of 9months they provided support with no payment. That’s one take on it. And I get it. BUT, ED must have known not paying and intending on not paying RB while still selling the module would have created the cluster we are in now. I cant believe they would be naive enough to think otherwise. ED COULD have payed RB what was owed while handling the other issue separately so that RB could still further and update the module (that ED is selling) and thus keep the customers first. But they decided not to. Not saying they had to do what I suggested. BUT they could have to keep customers first. That’s one take on it. And I get it. BUT, ED must have known not paying and intending on not paying RB while still selling the module would have created the cluster we are in now. I cant believe they would be naive enough to think otherwise. ED COULD have payed RB what was owed while handling the other issue seperately so that RB could still further and update the module (that ED is selling) and thus keep the customers first. But they decided not to. Not saying they had to do what I suggested. BUT they could have to keep customers first.

Then it would be great if ED made an official announcement saying, "Hey this is going to court. We no longer expect this to be resolved within a timely manner." Again last official announcement states they "are seeking a reasonable and forward-looking commercial outcome rather than entertaining legal claims". So if that has changed would appreciate an official announcement. As again, we are being told to only follow official announcements.

Well you would hope ED would make resolution of this issue a priority, as they stated they "are addressing the situation with the utmost attention and constructiveness." So hopefully they are actually doing that. You know, to benefit their customers who have purchased an EA module with 0 updates (apart from a single radar bug fix) in nearly 4months.......

So it has become nearly 4 months since the last official announcement by ED. Since we are being told to only look at official announcements, any chance we get a new one from ED management? That their last official statement is still valid, that they "are addressing the situation with the utmost attention and constructiveness"? We are being told to only look at official announcements, and it has been nearly 4 months.......with no news....

So then you are saying that this alleged IP infringement from RB is rooted only in DCS, and has nothing to do with that of MCS, or ED's other ventures?

Doing more damage to whom or what? A lot of the posts have been respectfully conversation about the topic at hand. Yes, some posts have been out of line (and removed), but the majority has been respectful between users, even if they disagree.

I don't think Razbam is selling the module. But rather just ED. RB deleted all links on their site pointing to ED to purchase modules. So I don't think its fair to say Razbam is still selling the module. You could interpret ED still selling the module as a sign they expect resolution. But they could also be doing it because of other reasons.

The only way things change is if companies feel pressure from their customers to change. That is why people/customers voice concerns over questionable practices. And I think it is great that ED has public forums that allow their customers to voice their concerns. Be it on a state of a module, or what they are doing. It allows ED to see the feedback from their community and customers. So I understand its been brought up before. But the voice on 10, 20, 100,1000 is much stronger than the voice of one.

And thats roughly what I understand too. But specific contracts may be different. But if you made business plans with that above agreement understood. Would you not struggle, with that fact that ED is keeping 100% percent, and 0% is going to the dev? I understand there is a separate IP issue, but my point is they should have handled that as a separate issue, while still paying the dev what they were owed. If the IP issue gets resolved and RB has to pay ED back a huge portion of the revenue, so be it. But they chose to withhold payment, which they may very well be allowed to legally (again I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not debating what they can/can't do legally). But I feel it to be naive for ED to think that withholding payment entirely wouldn't cause larger issues down the line, which is where we are at now.

Seems to set a questionable precedent that 3rd parties must be able to maintain modules, and their employees, with no cash flow once their module is released/sold indefinitely. These are small companies, not major corporations with huge bank rolls. They already take a risk with spending many resources and time to develop a module prior to it even hitting stores. Expecting them to carry enough cash to pay employees (to keep them working) in the event they don't see a dime from the sales indefinitely seems unreasonable, no? If I was a third party, I would be much more hesitant to sink those resources and time into a product that may be sold by ED, where I could possibly receive 0 payment from sales, and be expected to maintain that product indefinitely. Again, weird precedent to set. It would be different if RB delivered a crap module that sold 0 units. Then, I wouldn't expect ED to pay RB anything for their work, because ultimately, the entire system is essentially commission based. And it should be noted, that RB did continue to work for months, without proper payment. In my opinion, that shows they put good faith toward a resolution. But ED did not provide any good faith in return. I'm not hear to debate legalities, but ethics. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not debating legalities here, I am simply voicing concerns over questionable business practices. Which is something that happens from customers with all business world wide. And If I wanted ED to fail I wouldn't care so much. But the game is great, and the products provided by their third parties is equally as great. Is it wrong for a customer to voice they want a healthier business environment to better the game as a whole?

So I get what you are saying about RB is supposed to pay their employees/devs, not ED. So I'm not going to pretend like I know the contract between RB and its employees are. But, its not unfathomable in my mind that they aren't paid like an hourly or salary position (like someone working at as a delivery person in your example). I could see how they were paid on a psuedo commission basis. Example: for each module sale you receive X% or $X.XX. So I think this is where the issues come in. RB doesn't get their sales or revenue directly from the module sales. Rather, the way I understand it, is that RB gets their "sales" or revenue from ED, based on the number of modules that get sold through ED's store. So if ED is not paying RB at all for the sales, it can be treated like RB essentially has no sales. Thus, because RB has no revenue coming in, because ED isn't paying, the dev's may not be getting paid, if they are on a pseudo commission type payroll. Again, I don't know how their individual contracts are set up. But the way DCS works, I don't see it being unfathomable for this to be a way to operate. Then there is the issue you brought up about ED executing their contract breach procedures as directed by their legal team. Based on the first announcement by ED, even they stated that they didn't want to go to legal route first, "we are seeking a reasonable and forward-looking commercial outcome rather than entertaining legal claims". What I was eluding to in a post earlier about ED paying RB their share of the already sold F-15E modules as a sign of good-faith, was more in relation to PRIOR to legal professionals getting involved. RB claims they weren't paid for multiple months before going public. And I get what you are saying about ED losing leverage on the contract breach by paying RB. But if ED truly thought, there would be no issue with taking sales of a product they didn't create, while not paying the developers (and here when I say developers I mean the company RB), then that seems a little naive to me on ED's part. If ED knew about this IP contract breach, how did they think still selling the module and then not paying the developers (again the company RB, not the individuals) would result in anything but the cluster we have now? Legally do they have the right to? Probably. But if they didn't think this would blow up, that seems naive to me. To use your example, it would be like Walmart selling pepsi products, fully knowing that they were NOT going to pay Pepsi, because of an ongoing issue, and then expecting Pepsi to just keep supplying them with more product to sell. Why would Pepsi keep supplying product to Walmart knowing they aren't getting paid? And then how would Walmart not think withholding sales from Pepsi wouldn't result in them stopping to provide product. The developers have stated that if they get paid they will immediately start supporting and providing updates to the modules. ED paying RB just shows they are looking to keep the modules progressing, and shows good faith that they want a forward looking resolution with RB. ED has to understand that this business is wonky with cash flow. Its not a subscription based industry, so if ED had no sales, they would lose the ability to pay their employees, and probably lose some of their employees because of it. ED had to know this was a possible outcome by not providing RB any of their share of the module sales. From what I understand from the RB developers (this is where it gets murky and not confirmed by official sources), this IP issue is not related to the F-15E, or any DCS product. But rather another module, the Tucano. So why not sort that separate issue out while still paying RB for the module sales that ED has already received? Again, this would have been something great to do BEFORE legal processes were engaged as a sign of goodwill to find a forward looking outcome.

I'm sure its going to take a long time to sort out. But, ED could pay RB what they are owed from their module sales in the meantime. RB has stated numerous times they would begin work once they are paid. Work could then continue on the Strike Eagle, and all other RB modules, while this separate dispute is settled in the background. A compromise that puts the customer's first and shows a willingness to work together. ED stated in their official response that they "are addressing the situation with the utmost attention and constructiveness." A compromise that shows good faith and keeps the users satisfied would be an exemplary display of constructiveness.

So you’re saying them removing the modules from sale is a breach of contract? But not paying them their portion of sales is then not breach of contract? Wild contract.

I honestly do not understand your point. So are you saying ED must, contractually, sell the F-15E while also, contractually, not pay RB? Because they have no other choice?

All I’m saying is they feel RB did something bad enough to warrant withholding pay, but not bad enough to not/stop selling their work. Are they in full rights to do that legally? Idk, probably. Does it seem right to do that morally/ethically? People can draw their own opinions on that.

Hey, I hear ya, and I agree. I also fully understand why RB decided to stop work without being paid for the work they had already done. Seems weird ED would release a module knowing they weren't going to pay the developers.... Would imagine they would hold off until the issue was resolved.

Multiple RB devs stated they requested the module be taken down from sale. Obviously, I don't have direct communication to show of that. But, when it was stated that the RB website still directed to ED's site, and ED took that to mean they still wanted it sold, RB immediately broke those links in like 30 minutes from their website.

It keeps selling because whatever "IP infringement" was done was bad enough to not pay RB, but not bad enough to not sell/release the module apparently.

In the ED discord it was stated that the Radar Cross Section for aircraft are a fixed value. This wishlist item is to alter the Radar Cross Section for aircraft based on their external stores and/or azimuth. This would better reflect radar detection ranges.