waiting for resolution RAZBAM Situation Post Archive (will be deleted)

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, Major_Mayhem said:

I really don't care, I don't care about ED either, I care no more for them then I do a Chrysler employee when the clutch on my Jeep goes out and I'm stuck on the side of the road during a labor dispute between them and their company. So it doesn't matter to me what is going on between ED and Razbam.

I'm the customer, I'm not their family and I'm not their friend, The only investment I have with them is the money I paid for their Early Access product under the promise it will be supported and fully developed which is now very questionable.

Nate coulda ran off with Ron's Wife, I'm not their marriage counselor, and It doesn't change the fact I paid for a lemon module that right now is looking like it's going to go the way of VEAO Simulation's Hawk T.1A. 

My beef with Razbam is that they deliberately used us to put pressure on ED to give Razbam what Razbam wants.

Why hasn't Razbam just litigated? Why not just get a lawyer and sue, heck they should have at least one on retainer.

If Razbam is in the right than this should have never had come before us in the first place and Ron should have kept his pie hole shut. Instead, He basically told the customer base that their stuff isn't going to work any more cause ED did them a naughty an so they are no longer supporting their products, so there!

"They give me what I want or Your Toys will break!" <In evil villain voice>

Right now, I just want my money back on the Razbam products I have purchased in store credit. I will find other products sold by ED to spend it on. However, I will never ever buy another Razbam product for any sim, I will never pre-order another product from ED for DCS ever again (Th. I will either pay full price for the products when they release or wait even longer and catch them when they go on sale. That may be a year or two but once bitten twice shy. And Lastly I don't want to have to play on 5+ year old version of DCS to use a product I paid for like those poor souls that bought Hawk T1a, If that happens I will no longer be be buying anything from ED ... I'll be stuck on old version anyway and won't be able to use new products, so why buy them?!?!.

The biggest wrong I see with ED right now is continuing to Sell Razbam products specially if they are in the right. unfortunately IF ED is in the right that also means Razbam is probably done for and won't be able to continue to support and develop their products any way, No one will let them sell mods for their sims let alone ED. So pretty much they will be out of the Sim/Mod game.

The only bright side of this is If ED is in the right they can allegedly take over the mods to further support and developer them at which time I will happily repurchase them then.

I'm not a fan boy I just want what I paid for and I don't like being used or manipulated to help settle some one else's dispute.

 

^this

he gets it.

[nessuno0505]

12 ore fa, OldFlyer ha scritto:

Why do you keep posting in this thread then?

Because this is the most relevant fact happened to DCS since the Veao event and it severely affects DCS as a whole. Every DCS player should be interested in this. The trust in this simulator is challenged.

[Hammer1-1]

24 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

Because this is the most relevant fact happened to DCS since the Veao event and it severely affects DCS as a whole. Every DCS player should be interested in this. The trust in this simulator is challenged.

but it shouldnt be! the problem exists between Razbam and ED; Razbam being Razbam much like VEAO was being like VEAO. Does that not seem suspicious to you in the least?? The similarities are almost strikingly equal to each other, are they not? Its almost like the Kennedy/Lincoln coincidences.

Edited June 7, 2024 by Hammer1-1

[nessuno0505]

6 ore fa, Shibiswag ha scritto:

No one forced you to buy an early access item.
You do so at your own risk knowing things like this can happen.

M2000, AV-8B and Mig-19 are out of early access and now unsupported.

[NineLine]

50 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

Well, I’m sure the paying customers didn’t pay their money to be held as a litigation tool between parties either, nor was that their intent for it, but here we are.  So, talk to yo people, have them pay those people that put forth the man hours to put the -15 in the game (pretty sure that was the buyers intent), and everyone else can go back to doing what they were doing 2 months ago. After that, the two at the top can go have whatever jousting match they wanna have and leave everyone else, and the money they spent out of it. Sounds like pretty darn easy solution to me.  Pretty sure no one would continue to feel ‘punished’ after that right?  

 

I am sure if it were that easy it would not have come to this, sadly. I understand your loyalty to them as well as being one of their SME's so I appreciate that. But as I said both sides have a part in this and both sides need to rectify it. It's not for us to figure out, or guess at what and how that should happen it's for the management teams of the two groups. Thanks.

[Citizen]

Looking at it from a dispassionate angle, it's a matter of trust.

The entire platform relies on trust.  If the authentication servers die tomorrow, people lose access to what they've paid for.  Wags has said that without preorder, the business doesn't work, so trust is required that the products in EA will be delivered.

Trust is easy to lose and hard to gain.  Both sides have done things that have harmed trust in the past.  I think the highly polarized views of individuals are directed by who that individual trusts more.

There's no way around it - this situation impacts trust.  In that sense, it is absolutely for users to figure out who to believe as to do fail to do so while continuing to engage with the platform is fiscally irresponsible.

[Njinsa]

2 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

Well, I’m sure the paying customers didn’t pay their money to be held as a litigation tool between parties either, nor was that their intent for it, but here we are.  So, talk to yo people, have them pay those people that put forth the man hours to put the -15 in the game (pretty sure that was the buyers intent), and everyone else can go back to doing what they were doing 2 months ago. After that, the two at the top can go have whatever jousting match they wanna have and leave everyone else, and the money they spent out of it. Sounds like pretty darn easy solution to me.  Pretty sure no one would continue to feel ‘punished’ after that right?  

 

spot on

[Romandv]

2 часа назад, NineLine сказал:

I am sure if it were that easy it would not have come to this, sadly. I understand your loyalty to them as well as being one of their SME's so I appreciate that. But as I said both sides have a part in this and both sides need to rectify it. It's not for us to figure out, or guess at what and how that should happen it's for the management teams of the two groups. Thanks.

It would be nice if ED made some conclusions, not like last time with Hawk - the new situation is no different from the old, you have a conflict with someone, and the users still pay for this.

Even if everything is resolved tomorrow, it's not a win win if there are no changes. My personal grievance: your Steam customer doesn't have product keys, so they are not protected from such cases, if things stay as they are now, it certainly won't add to anyone's confidence that any product will work tomorrow. 

Edited June 7, 2024 by Romandv

[draconus]

So, you have a great module DCS F-15E and yet you want to block others from buying it? Why? Because you heard something wrong about developer or it hasn't been updated for 4 months? Isn't it your own problem? I see no reason to stop selling the module atm.

[Ala12Rv-Tundra]

5 hours ago, Major_Mayhem said:

My beef with Razbam is that they deliberately used us to put pressure on ED to give Razbam what Razbam wants.
!

I concur with you here, once the dispute reached the public, it only worsened

[nessuno0505]

4 ore fa, Hammer1-1 ha scritto:

Razbam being Razbam much like VEAO was being like VEAO. 

I agree with you on this: the main fault being RB, people who are little to trust (and this is why fortuately I do not own their modules - but I've been colse to buy the m2000). Nevertheless today is RB, yesterday was Veao, tomorrow who knows? ED said they have taken countermeasures after the Veao fact, but we still do not know what this countermeasures are made of. Maybe we won't need them and RB will be back to work, but I need to know what I have: my rwr is ringing like crazy and I don't know if I have chaff, flares, ecm or what else (have I got something or is it just a placebo and I have none?). I hope the missile misses, but we already have been hit once.

Edited June 7, 2024 by nessuno0505

[Ronin14]

6 hours ago, NineLine said:

Like it or not, all our paying customers feel punished by this and no matter what anyone thinks or believes the share is, both sides share the blame of anyone feeling punished which is why the path to the quickest resolution is needed and I hope both are committed to that. I can only speak for ED but I truly want to believe both sides see and feel this urgency.

Probably one of the best posts I have seen recently that actually supports the player base. From my perspective and that of those that I fly with there is a reluctance to invest further in DCS until this situation is dealt with which in my mind is rather counter-productive for a company. Please may I also say that I do understand that this should never have gone from behind the scenes and into the public domain but continued silence from both parties is not helping anyone at all and I think that if both parties where quick to make statements and do a little mild mud slinging that they should also do a little clarification for the community. As a parent I would of slapped both parties by now.

Edited June 7, 2024 by Ronin14

[Panny]

Thanks Neil

[Beirut]

6 hours ago, krazyj said:

by that standard the Sania map has also been abandoned. over 12 months and not one update.

 

The difference is the official statement of non-support. But neither is 12 months without an update a good thing for a new product like Sinai. The devs and/or ED should be letting us know about the state of the Sinai map.

 

6 hours ago, krazyj said:

I dont have RB products but looking at the glaring obvious thing. other 3rd party devs have been paid, we assume this as no other products havent been updated in a long while aside from Sanai, so the logic here should dictate that RB did something to make ED withhold payment. 

Not taking sides, just looking at things objectively.  

 

I don't know the circumstances beyond RB telling the customers to pound sand, which as a fan of their modules - though not of them - isn't great.

[Silver_Dragon]

23 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

The difference is the official statement of non-support. But neither is 12 months without an update a good thing for a new product like Sinai. The devs and/or ED should be letting us know about the state of the Sinai map.

You has check the forum section?

 

[Rainmaker]

6 hours ago, NineLine said:

I am sure if it were that easy it would not have come to this, sadly. I understand your loyalty to them as well as being one of their SME's so I appreciate that. But as I said both sides have a part in this and both sides need to rectify it. It's not for us to figure out, or guess at what and how that should happen it's for the management teams of the two groups. Thanks.

NL, lets be honest here. It is that easy and you know perfectly well it is.   It isn’t because of simple reasons. 
 

A. The individual doesn’t want to 

or

B.  Funds not available to do so. 
 

Lets not make that out to be any harder than it is.  The individuals who paid for the module are having their funds used as a ‘carrot’, chess piece, whatever you want to call it. That’s easily not the case if individuals so chose for it not to be that way.  Was anyone asked if they wanted their funds to be used in that fashion?  That really looking out for the customer?  Choices are being made to do that. End of story. 

Edited June 7, 2024 by Rainmaker

[Beirut]

8 hours ago, lead dispenser said:

There has been no official statement.so no its not.

 

There was an official statement. RB told the customers to pound sand and that maybe possibly perhaps one day the customers might get support again for the stuff they bought.  

 

8 hours ago, lead dispenser said:

 

you just have the need to be right in a situation where your not  .if you want to believe that your products are abandoned that's up to you its not reality but what ever helps you sleep at night

 

We're all just guessing. But... one thing I'm not guessing about is that my RB modules have been orphaned by the devs. And since said orphaning (is that a word?), my RB modules remain officially unsupported.  I'm not saying that - RB is saying that. Intent may well be to offer support again one day. Reality is that my RB modules had no support yesterday, have no support today, and unfortunately, will likely have no support tomorrow. I hope that changes because I really like my F-15E.

 

And I sleep just fine. Thank you for thinking about me. 

[ecirpnai]

I have just spent the last hour reading some of the posts and the impression I get apart from people being fed up with the situation is that they are starting to loose customer confidence and trust in both parties, me included.  I love DCS going back to the Lock On days and I like the Razbam modules, especially M2K but I love my wallet more.  I, like of few others will not be buying anymore modules until this situation is resolved.  I am not interested who is at fault as both parties are over 21 but I just hope that both, ED and Razbam are reading what everyone is posting on this group and take note. 

[PhantomHans]

Honestly I am just disappointed with this whole thing.

I have had regrets about buying into DCS since doing it, and this latest flap has certainly only added to that.

 

Personally I'd like to see a few guarantees from Eagle Dynamics:

1. A guarantee that any and all modules, 3rd party or not, will continue to be developed until the core functions of the aircraft are usable.

2. A guarantee that no module will be left, now or in the future, without bug fix support until the end of DCS.

3. Finally, a guarantee that DCS will never become an unplayable, unusable, abandoned game.

 

 

Eagle Dynamics should be able to guarantee us those three things.  No module will be left half functional as it's finished state, no module will ever just stop working because it isn't being patched, and lastly, that when they say "Were done, the authentication servers go offline forever on January 31st, 2068.  Thanks guys it's been a great time!  Adios!" that their last patch makes sure that nothing is broken and we can all make backups and keep playing for as long as we like, revisit for nostalgia, whatever our reason may be, the software that we paid for.

[DUSTY]

9 hours ago, Major_Mayhem said:

My beef with Razbam is that they deliberately used us to put pressure on ED to give Razbam what Razbam wants.

How on earth would you be able to judge if RB 'deliberately used you'? Zero thought to what the repercussions of not being paid for multiple months could be. What a stupid comment.

 

 

9 hours ago, Major_Mayhem said:

The only bright side of this is If ED is in the right they can allegedly take over the mods to further support and developer them at which time I will happily repurchase them then.

Keep dreamin'! Like we will see anything on this level of quality (F-15E) from ED?

 

[maxTRX]

1 hour ago, ecirpnai said:

...but I just hope that both, ED and Razbam are reading what everyone is posting on this group and take note. 

Forum moderators are, for sure   other then that, I doubt it.

[Ornithopter]

8 minutes ago, DUSTY said:

Keep dreamin'! Like we will see anything on this level of quality (F-15E) from ED?

 

 

Are you kidding me? There are many many ED modules that are every bit as good or better as this early access/maybe forever early access F-15.  It might be too much work to take on RB's code, but let's get real when we're talking about "quality".

Edited June 7, 2024 by Ornithopter

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

NL, lets be honest here. It is that easy and you know perfectly well it is.   It isn’t because of simple reasons. 
 

A. The individual doesn’t want to 

or

B.  Funds not available to do so. 
 

Lets not make that out to be any harder than it is.  The individuals who paid for the module are having their funds used as a ‘carrot’, chess piece, whatever you want to call it. That’s easily not the case if individuals so chose for it not to be that way.  Was anyone asked if they wanted their funds to be used in that fashion?  That really looking out for the customer?  Choices are being made to do that. End of story. 

 

I stand by what I said already. It's not for us to debate but for the management teams to solve, and nothing here is as easy as it seems.

[Beirut]

18 minutes ago, DUSTY said:

Keep dreamin'! Like we will see anything on this level of quality (F-15E) from ED?

 

ED has made several excellent modules, super high quality.

[Romandv]

50 минут назад, DUSTY сказал:

How on earth would you be able to judge if RB 'deliberately used you'? Zero thought to what the repercussions of not being paid for multiple months could be. What a stupid comment.

How? RB tried a manipulation that failed. 
This is perhaps the most important thing in the whole argument between them and ED. I absolutely don't care if RB gets the money or not. I paid the money through the ED, I've fulfilled my contractual obligations, it is not the end user who has to think about planning and consequences - now you're trying to manipulate with words about ‘salary’ too.

Edited June 7, 2024 by Romandv