Blackeye
-
Posts
266 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Blackeye
-
Of course not - you get ahead knowing the other party also doesn't want or can't afford to enter a legal battle and thus you may get away with things you wouldn't if you tried them with Disney.
-
As you said that's one theory and not what I suggested at all - different theories as to why this happened don't need to be compatible with each other. That said even if ED had a cash problem that doesn't mean that RB can afford a lawsuit and in that case ED would likely want to avoid giving them money because then they'd risk getting sued and being not able to fully defend themselves.
-
A scenario where ED uses their position of strength to gain some advantage seems more likely than the IP issue cropping up just on that day - especially when you factor in the text from other developers, where it appears RB was not *that* singled out with delayed payments. And I don't think that's super uncommon especially if one side is unlikely to have the means to go for a full on legal confrontation. As for the deeper reasons why: I don't know and the best I could come up with would be sarcastic remarks which I'll spare us all. And I'm not saying that ED is that fraudulent evil entity here; just that from what I've seen so far they do deserve some blame here for the whole fiasco.
-
Sure - but why focus on the most unlikely ones? This is not a criminal trial where you would want to take all unlikely possibilities into account in favor of ED. It tells us pretty much what happened at that time: Ron expected payment prior to this conversation, Nick then promised to pay by next Wednesday and didn't. Of course it doesn't solve "this case" or explains all details or intentions but I doubt any single evidence could do that - especially in this environment. It does shed more light on how ED conducts business though and combined with other pieces of information paints a picture where I find the "ED did nothing wrong" angle hard to maintain.
-
Since you did ask for "official announcements only" there is not much point for me providing you the source is there? But even if you don't want to take that evidence into account there's still the point of Nick promising to pay "next Wednesday" last August without any indication of IP trouble, but I guess since that's not an official announcement either you'll choose to ignore that as well. I mean I get it, it feels better to be part of a community where the developers are great guys through and through, but discarding any and all evidence to the contrary just because it's not an official statement is a bit too far for me.
-
While I'll agree that not everything posted on the internet is true I'll uphold that the same applies to official statements and reserve the prerogative to decide for me what sources I deem trustworthy enough to take into consideration and also which I want to talk about - just as ED can decide what they want to allow on their forums. You are obviously free to only consider official announcements or post whatever you want, but then telling people what not to post seems a bit odd when you're not in an official position to do so.
-
Nobody did that. Just that it is a very good module that has been pushing the envelope of what is available/possible in DCS. And how many of those are available in DCS? None, that's why it is the F-15E that had it first - just like the F/A-18 with its ground radar. And then F-15E the improved that ground radar quite a bit. Is it groundbreaking? That's probably down to personal opinion but it still has first TFR and the best ground radar implementation we currently have. Are we going to see new modules expanding what is possible in DCS? I sure hope so. But for now the F-15E is a great module with top of the line features (also some missing) and a decent EA release.
-
IIRC the L-39 had it first but the Mi-8 got multi-crew last year and the Huey about a year after the F-14 was released.
-
And each of the modules you mentioned pushed the envelope at the time they were introduced, just like the F-15E. You can think of Razbam and this conflict whatever you want but let's also be giving credit where it is due: the F-15E has the best AG radar in DCS, the first TFR and overall it is a great module. And it would be really sad if we lost it.
-
The problem is that without the source code (and ideally people who know the code) "maintaining" these modules gets harder as time goes on. Without the source you can't really modify aka "maintain" them in order to fit a newer engine (potential legal issues aside) but instead the engine needs to maintain full backwards compatibility and at some point that becomes too much of an investment. And again NineLine has already stated that ED cannot support those modules long term.
-
Might have to do with the fact that HB has their own store and had at least some money rolling in. A business can only survive on "understanding" for so long - at some point they need to be paid to keep going.
-
I'm afraid that's not entirely correct. While ED can work around some issues with unmaintained modules, eventually they'll have to decide between improving DCS or keep supporting the old modules. Without access to the source code there is only so much you can do with reasonable effort. Nineline has said that they don't have the source and won't be able to support those modules long term, so "slowly imploding" isn't a bad description for this situation.
-
When turning my head in VR the reflection in the mirror lags behind the actual movement a bit, which I find quite distracting. This looks somewhat like a motion smoothing feature with an overly long integration period but I'm not sure. In the F-14 the head movements in the mirror are responsive, so it would be cool if this could be implemented in the F-4E as well.
-
That is my point exactly: While "not enforcing clauses" may result in a precedent this does not equal "absolutely must not give money to the other party", so using IP loss as reason for not paying at all does not fly - that's all I said. You may not want to pay because you believe you'd have a hard time actually getting the other party to pay penalties or damages, but that has nothing to do with automatically losing your IP. Well since I don't have that mindset you are assuming things and incorrectly too. I'm not sure which statement(s) might have given you that impression or have a lack scope, but since your impression is wrong, your conclusion doesn't apply. No but (attempting to) sweep everything under the rug until it blows up doesn't either and I don't really see anyone panicking anyway. That's what I'm not so sure about. And again with those made up insinuations and ad hominem attacks... just stop - it doesn't help your point. Making a prominent official statement, amending the store pages with the current status, offering guaranteed refunds if you buy now or making partial payments to RB to keep things going come to mind. Admittedly the last one isn't entirely in ED's hands but RB could not have claimed "no payment at all" in that case. You can probably find more in this thread if you read it with an open mind. Yes, all of those have potential drawbacks for ED and one is a what-if scenario anyway, but they also have (had) potential advantages. The way ED does it now might be the best for them as many people tend to forget trouble once the next shiny new thing comes out, on the other hand some may not and the drama might impact the long term reputation.
-
A threat to your IP is something pretty specific, i.e. losing the rights to it (or to some extent theft) and separate from other stuff you can affect a company. Specifically the claim I objected to was "ED cannot pay RB because that might lose them their IP rights" which is not how that works. Paying for something that is not directly related to an IP dispute is not an endorsement and thus should have no bearing on any IP disputes. And again I'm not saying ED should not take any action at all - no clue where you got idea from. And again with those assumptions... instead of actually reading what is said you seem to have a picture in your mind, draw conclusions from that and then instead of explaining your position or rationale you jump to conclusions and attack the person. I've never said or hinted that I want ED to roll over and pay whatever RB wants, nor that doing anything and everything for short term customer happiness is a great idea. Maybe reset that idea in your head and read what I'm actually saying, instead of imagining what I must think based on your mental image. If it helps I'm closer to retirement than school. Maybe the customers you think of have no loyalty because they've been lied to too much - personally I'm not a big fan of being lied to. And just because many companies lie about stuff doesn't meant as a customer I have to be happy about it and keep quiet. Again they wouldn't risk all IP protection - provided that the F15 itself is not the product of the infringement, which I think is fairly safe to assume. If you have actual legal knowledge to the contrary feel free to share and explain, but no more "anything is a risk to everything else" if you please. Maybe my mind set is not tribal enough to pick a company and support or not support them, I just feel this might haven been handled better and ultimately it IS up the ED to resolve the problem with their customers.
-
No they're distinctively different things things - one may lead to the other but that's it. I'm amazed how people read one thing and then construct things in their head that author also "must" think and then go on rants about their imagined stuff instead of discussing things that were actually said. We'd still see the stopped development of RB modules with them breaking without any effort to fix them and expect a reasonable explanation. Not sure they could've provide a satisfying one without straight up lying. In any case we DO know and we're talking about what ED does or not given the actual situation.
-
Could be an issue with an expired certificate in the copy protection system.
-
You were talking about protecting your IP not settling disputes - if you are at a point where you're concerned about losing your (legal) IP protection then you will want to take documented legal action - that doesn't necessarily mean court but just taking "business actions" like withholding payment alone could put you at risk. I'm not saying that ED didn't take legal action just that the logic of "they cannot pay RB for anything because they would lose their IP" is not how this works. M2000 and Harrier are not early access. Also we know that the modules have not been worked on for some time already and this will continue for an indefinite time - that is not part of early access. And after months without solution to this dispute the confidence that it will be resolved soon point starts to lose the good faith perspective.
-
Doesn't look like a well thought out scenario when they first put up "no refunds" on the support page and then tell people in the forum they will refund. Or maybe the plan was to hold refunds until people get angry enough in which case I'd say that's the way you (knowingly) burn trust. Again it's not the dispute that is burning trust for me but they way the handle it towards their customers - don't know enough details to say if they could have handled the dispute itself better. Probably in a way that would have affected their customers less but with less cash than what they have now. Also I can't seem to remember to say they should roll over and give up their IP or business, so I'd appreciate if you don't assume I did. On that side note protecting your IP usually requires legal action and not withholding payment. It already does affect the customers - not in a big way yet but it's obvious that there's problems.
-
I don't think there's a rule that stipulates that the only thing ED can do is wait (and it certainly would not apply to us as customers) - in fact, if I'm not mistaken ED is processing returns of the F-15E for store credit, so there are things ED already does - could be more though imho.
-
Changing the status is also not the only other option how to handle this, some of which may give customers more reasons not to lose trust than others. In any case all of the options are definitely possible - it's just that ED decided they involve too much (potential) damage compared to what we see now. Maybe mostly ignoring it and a mega-thread for customers to vent was the plan all along idk - not sure if that makes me feel better than ED being surprised. Perhaps that's even the best for the business (certainly short term) but that doesn't mean I like it.
-
Removal isn't the only option though. In any case my point was that there's not a lot of signs pointing towards ED having a plan to prevent the loss of trust or maybe I'm wrong and what we're seeing was the plan all along and has been deemed the least costly option.
-
Well either surprised of it actually happening, blissfully ignoring the possibility or simply not planning for it. Unless the plan was to burn trust by leaving the users in the dark, going back and forth on "refunds" and just keep selling the module and hope nobody notices. With this problem going on for months you'd think they'd have some what-if-scenarios prepared.
-
Not going unpunished does not equal immediately stopping any and all payment whatsoever - there are other avenues to protect your IP. Of course those can take time and it might be harder to actually get money. On the other hand paying your supplier (at least part of the money) prevents the surprised Pikachu face when they then stop working...
-
Again your statement was "ED didnt sell you Razbam's stuff, Razbam did." And this is clearly wrong. ED DID sell me the modules Razbam developed. Who coded it using what tools and which royalties are involved or whatever (sub)contractors ED used or not does not matter at all for me as customer.
