Malakhit

Quick question; if things do not get resolved amicably, will the refund policy shift from store credit to actual monetary refunds? The way both sides have handled this dispute has completely killed off any remaining motivation I had to keep playing DCS, and I've already uninstalled the game - therefore, store credit will be of no use to me, as I do not intend to spend further money or time on this product. Thanks in advance.

I have been doing so, I spent an enjoyable evening flying the Strike Eagle last night. I don't see why this should preclude me from sharing my feedback in this thread, however?

I don't think that telling someone to prepare for a likely worst case scenario is particularly speculative, but you do you.

It's not ED's to give. Razbam are unlikely to give anyone anything if they are not paid. You should prepare for the likelihood that these modules will go the way of the Hawk.

South Atlantic team work somewhat differently; as far as I can tell, their product is published by Razbam, but is not developed by Razbam. The core devs actually work for Orbx in their "day jobs" and are responsible for Kola.

Rhymes with honey. Can be used to keep a roof over your head and food in your belly. Can't quite put my finger on the term. Also, with regards to the will - you know that Metal2Mesh has been working on futher features for the Strike Eagle, right? They haven't stopped working despite this unfortunate situation.

Not sure about that. There's one very important tool that they're missing at the moment...

There is no migration. It is simply account linking. Your products are still purchased through Steam, and so you cannot apply for a refund.

I should hope that anyone with any sense is unwilling to work for free. Nothing has changed, they're just responding to feedback that they received about the modules still showing up on their own website.

It does not really matter, though. Their past "reputation" does not excuse the current situation, if they are indeed the wronged party.

Both Metal2Mesh and CptSmiley have since said that they'd like to finish the Strike Eagle if the situation is resolved favourably.

Well put, Snappy. I have reached out to Razbam, and it would appear that they had forgotten to update their webstore in some time. They reached out to the folks in charge of their webstore, and are hopefully now discussing next steps.

I was encouraged to provide constructive and respectful feedback in this forum thread, so here goes; I'm a long-term customer when it comes to the DCS ecosystem. I started with Black Shark 1 in 2009, and have purchased the vast majority of modules over the years since then. I've seen DCS grow as a game and as a community, and I'm no stranger to some of the highs and lows that DCS has gone through over the years. With all of that said... the recent situation between Razbam and Eagle Dynamics has completely shaken my trust in the DCS ecosystem in a way that no other incident has. I was not under any impressions that DCS would last forever - nothing does - but there is a difference between a product coming to a natural conclusion, and a promising module being potentially written off before it's even been in the game for a year. As a result, I have decided that - for my own part - I no longer feel comfortable taking the risk of spending my money on further content for DCS World. Not only is the F-15E (which is, in my own personal opinion, one of the most impressive modules ever made for DCS World) jeopardised by this disagreement, but three well-established and beloved modules in the form of the AV-8B, M-2000C and MiG-19P are now also possibly facing their own termination. This also brings with it the news that ED does not in fact hold the source code for third party modules in escrow, contradicting a policy that was first mentioned in the 23/12/2018 newsletter: This news comes from the Russian side of the forums, where it appears to have been stated that, even if ED were to hold the source code in escrow, they would not take over the development of "abandoned" third party modules anyway. This situation is therefore greatly concerning to those of us with an interest in seeing DCS grow and improve, as it would imply that third party modules could be deprecated overnight with no contingencies in place. As custodians of the ecosystem as a whole, ED have a greater responsibility to the customer base to ensure that disagreements that could result in third parties leaving are dealt with as amicably and expediently as possible. It is not my belief that this has been achieved in this instance. My overall feedback would thus be as follows: Eagle Dynamics should strive to ensure that their relationships with third parties are kept in good standing. A positive environment for third parties to flourish is beneficial to everyone in the long run. Lately, I have heard too many rumblings that this environment is not currently present, and this is cause for concern. Eagle Dynamics and third parties should seek to be more transparent about issues "behind the scenes" earlier on in the future, if they are potentially going to cause customer impact. A more well-informed customer is a happier customer, and is more likely to buy from ED again. In a similar vein, it would not be unreasonable to expect a well-worded, neutrally-phrased warning to be present on the store pages for Razbam modules - knowingly selling an incomplete product with a list of upcoming features that stand a good chance of never being fulfilled is not a good look. Eagle Dynamics should, as a matter of some urgency, clarify in concrete terms what will happen to third party modules after a developer leaves for whatever reason. The contradiction between the 2018 newsletter and the recent statements on the Russian forums must be settled one way or another. I hope this feedback is received in the manner in which it is intended - to provide ED management with guidance about what customers want to see going forward. Thanks for your time.