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

[PD919]

19 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

If this was real, they would have dug their own grave... (It would mean it is a violation of the EULA). I remember some advertising, with a company on professional simulation events with the F-15E... let's hope I'm wrong.

If true, this would explain why RAZBAM has not gone to arbitration/litigation.  I'm pretty sure the EULA when I download DCS said personal use only.

Assuming this rumor is true then this random guy on the internet would suggest that ED partially pay RAZBAM while deducting the cost of the commercial license from what they "owe" RAZBAM with the demand that RAZBAM ceases commercial marketing until the get said license from ED.  The lawyers can hash out whether the EULA is violated and RAZBAM can at bear minimum bug fix their products because they got paid.  

ED wins PR points which is important right now and RAZBAM has to go back to work.  Right now, both companies are losing revenue.  I'd venture a guess that this spat damaged Heatblur and Polychop because people are reluctant to buy a new module right now.  Everyone is hurting unless a temporary stopgap is put into place.

Edited June 8, 2024 by PD919

[afnav130]

1 hour ago, Rainmaker said:

And they currently do not have access to past and future profits that they make from updating said products. You left that part out. I’ll add it. 
 

And remember, I screenshot my posts as I make them in case of them magically disappear again. 

Yeah it's pretty convenient right? This guy, he knows a lot more than he lets on but like a press secretary is NEVER going to give you the truth and will leave out critical details as you just said. I mean, they can work on the module, but they ain't gonna get paid. Who does that benefit? RB? No, it benefits ED. See, comments like that swing me back towards RBs side of the house. 

[krazyj]

Also seems odd that the planes from RB have died but judging from another post further up the SA map is being developed. *

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. (state of Denmark being a metaphor for RB in case it wasnt clear)

for those who have any of the planes, I hope they will sort their issue out soon

Edited June 8, 2024 by krazyj

[Pipe]

4 minutes ago, krazyj said:

Also seems odd that the planes from RB have died but judging from another post further up the SA map is being developed. *

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. (state of Denmark being a metaphor for RB in case it wasnt clear)

for those who have any of the planes, I hope they will sort their issue out soon

 

The map is a different team fyi

[krazyj]

1 minute ago, Pipe said:

The map is a different team fyi

but still under RB. not knowing the RB constellation Id assume (and yes I know the thing about assumptions) that RB as an entity would get paid for maps and planes. Then its RBs decision on how the deliver the funds to plane devs vs map devs. 

Hence why something is rotten...

Not taking sides but something about when pointing a finger 3-4 fingers point back ect. But yes, on behalf of the users being stuck, some clarity would be nice but probably wont happen for awhile 

[Pipe]

2 minutes ago, krazyj said:

but still under RB. not knowing the RB constellation Id assume (and yes I know the thing about assumptions) that RB as an entity would get paid for maps and planes. Then its RBs decision on how the deliver the funds to plane devs vs map devs. 

Hence why something is rotten...

Not taking sides but something about when pointing a finger 3-4 fingers point back ect. But yes, on behalf of the users being stuck, some clarity would be nice but probably wont happen for awhile 

I get the feeling we will never actually get the facts. And I’m fine with that as long as my RB modules eventually keep progressing

[Rainmaker]

30 minutes ago, PD919 said:

If true, this would explain why RAZBAM has not gone to arbitration/litigation.  I'm pretty sure the EULA when I download DCS said personal use only.

Assuming this rumor is true then this random guy on the internet would suggest that ED partially pay RAZBAM while deducting the cost of the commercial license from what they "owe" RAZBAM with the demand that RAZBAM ceases commercial marketing until the get said license from ED.  The lawyers can hash out whether the EULA is violated and RAZBAM can at bear minimum bug fix their products because they got paid.  

ED wins PR points which is important right now and RAZBAM has to go back to work.  Right now, both companies are losing revenue.  I'd venture a guess that this spat damaged Heatblur and Polychop because people are reluctant to buy a new module right now.  Everyone is hurting unless a temporary stopgap is put into place.

 

Depending on who you listen to, the water gets very muddy on whether DCS and MCS are even related or are treated as two different entities entirely with two different sets of contracts.

Each customer can decide for themselves whether or not they are okay with any of that drama affecting an independent product they paid money for, and as a result, have that money held as a litigation tool, which has ultimately resulted in development/support stopping for the last two months and foreseeable future at this point.

[afnav130]

2 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

Depending on who you listen to, the water gets very muddy on whether DCS and MCS are even related or are treated as two different entities entirely with two different sets of contracts.

Each customer can decide for themselves whether or not they are okay with any of that drama affecting an independent product they paid money for, and as a result, have that money held as a litigation tool, which has ultimately resulted in development/support stopping for the last two months and foreseeable future at this point.

In the end, if there is an issue with the MCS side of the house, that has nothing to do with the 15E and us as the users. It can't be due to the 15E because we were just told they can update it at will whenever they want. Thats the real issue I think that if people understood fully would really piss them off. They are separate issues, and they have nothing to do with each other. 

I will offer it may be that RB is throwing a temper tantrum and won't work on the E model regardless. From what I have heard I don't think thats true but I for one have no real feel on what's gong on over there. 

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, Horns said:

I hope Big or Nineline might be able to answer this:

As much as I and a bunch of others are enjoying following this thread, nothing will practically change between now and the next patch, which at this stage has to be at least a month away. If people stop monitoring the forum and things progress negatively (eg Razbam not continuing to operate in DCS) will affected product owners be updated on the situation, or do we need to keep monitoring ourselves?

Thanks

If anything major happens one way or another we will do our best to get the word out. Thanks.

[SkateZilla]

56 minutes ago, krazyj said:

Also seems odd that the planes from RB have died but judging from another post further up the SA map is being developed. *

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. (state of Denmark being a metaphor for RB in case it wasnt clear)

for those who have any of the planes, I hope they will sort their issue out soon

 

S.A. is developed by a separate team.

[Horns]

4 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

Depending on who you listen to, the water gets very muddy on whether DCS and MCS are even related or are treated as two different entities entirely with two different sets of contracts.

Each customer can decide for themselves whether or not they are okay with any of that drama affecting an independent product they paid money for, and as a result, have that money held as a litigation tool, which has ultimately resulted in development/support stopping for the last two months and foreseeable future at this point.

Even if a professional/military version of the sim never existed, a third party actively assisting users in violating the EULA by using it for other than personal use would be a violation. Edit: That sentence was somewhat speculative. I should have said something like "whether a EULA violation occurred is not dependent on available alternatives".

The only reason the drama affects the product and consumers is because Razbam decided to stop providing the support they are obliged to. If they have an issue with terms of a contract being met (eg payment) the place for that is the courtroom. Of course, if they don't have the capacity to trade - and if they haven't even had enough to pay their workers, that would mean they've been trading while insolvent for a while - they can (and in my country would probably be required to) put Razbam into administration and allow the system to run its course. At least then users would get clarity on the future of their products - and for that matter, depending on where in the world the action happens, the F-15E module may well be purchasable by another entity who are willing and able to finish it, provided conditions are met.

Business disputes are what they are, but the only party who's chosen to make this the consumer's problem is Razbam.

Edited June 8, 2024 by Horns
As stated at the end of the first paragraph

[SkateZilla]

47 minutes ago, krazyj said:

but still under RB. not knowing the RB constellation Id assume (and yes I know the thing about assumptions) that RB as an entity would get paid for maps and planes. Then its RBs decision on how the deliver the funds to plane devs vs map devs. 

Hence why something is rotten...

Not taking sides but something about when pointing a finger 3-4 fingers point back ect. But yes, on behalf of the users being stuck, some clarity would be nice but probably wont happen for awhile 

the team that did S.A. is also operating independently, 
It was released under R.B. but the map and source is with the team that's not part of R.B.

[SkateZilla]

2 minutes ago, Horns said:

Even if a professional/military version of the sim never existed, a third party actively assisting users in violating the EULA by using it for other than personal use would be a violation.

The only reason the drama affects the product and consumers is because Razbam decided to stop providing the support they are obliged to. If they have an issue with terms of a contract being met (eg payment) the place for that is the courtroom. Of course, if they don't have the capacity to trade - and if they haven't even had enough to pay their workers, that would mean they've been trading while insolvent for a while - they can (and in my country would probably be required to) put Razbam into administration and allow the system to run its course. At least then users would get clarity on the future of their products - and for that matter, depending on where in the world the action happens, the F-15E module may well be purchasable by another entity who are willing and able to finish it, provided conditions are met.

Business disputes are what they are, but the only party who's chosen to make this the consumer's problem is Razbam.

Technically, if all the rumors on the breach are true, and it went to court, not only would RB Lose, but they would have to forfeit the source to ED per the contract terms, as it's no longer voluntary end of support, rather a constructive termination of support due to terms being breached.

I can go all in with a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, but I have more important projects that require my time than to go down the rabbit hole of rumors and outcomes. lol

[Rainmaker]

4 minutes ago, Horns said:

Even if a professional/military version of the sim never existed, a third party actively assisting users in violating the EULA by using it for other than personal use would be a violation.

The only reason the drama affects the product and consumers is because Razbam decided to stop providing the support they are obliged to. If they have an issue with terms of a contract being met (eg payment) the place for that is the courtroom. Of course, if they don't have the capacity to trade - and if they haven't even had enough to pay their workers, that would mean they've been trading while insolvent for a while - they can (and in my country would probably be required to) put Razbam into administration and allow the system to run its course. At least then users would get clarity on the future of their products - and for that matter, depending on where in the world the action happens, the F-15E module may well be purchasable by another entity who are willing and able to finish it, provided conditions are met.

Business disputes are what they are, but the only party who's chosen to make this the consumer's problem is Razbam.

Hmmm....same could be said for accusing IP violations.  Ones that still haven't even come to light yet.   "Guilty before innocence' is not how that usually works in most countries.     Carry on....

[Horns]

1 minute ago, Rainmaker said:

Hmmm....same could be said for accusing IP violations.  Ones that still haven't even come to light yet.   "Guilty before innocence' is not how that usually works in most countries.     Carry on....

If there's another violation by someone else then absolutely, that should come out into the open. Of course, even if that were true, it wouldn't change the circumstances of the current dispute.

[Rainmaker]

1 minute ago, Horns said:

If there's another violation by someone else then absolutely, that should come out into the open. Of course, even if that were true, it wouldn't change the circumstances of the current dispute.

Might not.  And there is the word 'IF'.  We know money isn't changing hands.  That was confirmed.  No need to speculate there.  But most of the public judging by the general temperature everywhere, is that the majority want no part in all of it.  They paid money.  They want no part of a tiff between a distinct few at the top.  So far, their money is being withheld from the developers who made said product.  Customers didn't vote for that...it just happened.  That's a choice being made, and not by the customer.  The devs have said they'll support it if they get paid.  Thus far, no one is holding them to their word or calling them on it because the money is still exactly where it has been.  That's the point of the post you initially quoted.  If you are fine with that...perfectly okay.  You are welcome to do that.  Most customers involved in this?  Probably not I'm guessing.

[Horns]

15 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

Might not.  And there is the word 'IF'.  We know money isn't changing hands.  That was confirmed.  No need to speculate there.  But most of the public judging by the general temperature everywhere, is that the majority want no part in all of it.  They paid money.  They want no part of a tiff between a distinct few at the top.  So far, their money is being withheld from the developers who made said product.  Customers didn't vote for that...it just happened.  That's a choice being made, and not by the customer.  The devs have said they'll support it if they get paid.  Thus far, no one is holding them to their word or calling them on it because the money is still exactly where it has been.  That's the point of the post you initially quoted.  If you are fine with that...perfectly okay.  You are welcome to do that.  Most customers involved in this?  Probably not I'm guessing.

If EULA disputes were ever something for the public to vote on, there would be no such thing, but of course they do exist, and they exist for a reason. And if someone isn't being treated properly by the other party in a contract they can always take that to arbitration - if they don't, that's usually for a reason too 

[Rainmaker]

14 minutes ago, Horns said:

If EULA disputes were ever something for the public to vote on, there would be no such thing, but of course they do exist, and they exist for a reason. And if someone isn't being treated properly by the other party in a contract they can always take that to arbitration - if they don't, that's usually for a reason too 

And...the word 'if' is still present there isn't it?  What do you have to go on thus far?  Trust?  That would be the only thing that's out there to this point.  For the last three decades I have had the same mantra in my line of work.  "Trust but verify".  You can be my own mother...I trust you...but I'm also going to verify what you tell me or what you have done before I'll accept it.  Not doing so can get people killed.  So far....the other 90% is missing and hidden under a cloak of secrecy.  You can't know....but just 'trust' us.  I don't personally buy into that thinking.  Specially when it comes to someone else's livelihood and whether someone is 'guilty' of a legal accusation.  You are basing that all on a lot of 'what if's' and second party statements...and only an affected party...not a non-bias one.  Certainly not a judge.

Since we are speaking what-if's.  What if you were a party that holds all the leverage...holds the money....and just says if you want money you might be rightfully owed...you need to put up additional money on top of that for legal council in order to come get it.  Not our money...customer money.  Meanwhile...we'll just sit on it till then and say you are guilty of X without a legal proceeding.  We won't take you to court ourselves to prove accusations and have a judge rule on it, we'll just make our own ruling on this one.  Just playing...what if's. 

Edited June 8, 2024 by Rainmaker

[krazyj]

53 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

S.A. is developed by a separate team.

So I was told and posted this below.

1 hour ago, krazyj said:

but still under RB. not knowing the RB constellation Id assume (and yes I know the thing about assumptions) that RB as an entity would get paid for maps and planes. Then its RBs decision on how the deliver the funds to plane devs vs map devs. 

Hence why something is rotten...

Not taking sides but something about when pointing a finger 3-4 fingers point back ect. But yes, on behalf of the users being stuck, some clarity would be nice but probably wont happen for awhile 

 

[Oban]

48 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

Hmmm....same could be said for accusing IP violations.  Ones that still haven't even come to light yet.   "Guilty before innocence' is not how that usually works in most countries.     Carry on....

That saying "Innocent before guilty " was correct in the past, however these days not so much, trial by social media put paid to that, and it's more about "you're guilty, now prove your innosense !!

[Rainmaker]

2 minutes ago, Oban said:

That saying "Innocent before guilty " was correct in the past, however these days not so much, trial by social media put paid to that, and it's more about "you're guilty, now prove your innosense !!

Well, fortunately social media trials are not legal proceedings either.  And that's exactly where guilt of IP violations is handled.

Edited June 8, 2024 by Rainmaker

[nessuno0505]

2 ore fa, tribbin ha scritto:

There are at least two claims from both sides that you skip.

1. ED claims breach of contract.
2. RB claims not being paid for a very long period.
3. This is where you step in with your "suddenly decided".

I don't know what is true anymore, but I do know that people tend to pick a side and ignore anything that might challenge how they want to view the situation.

I am well aware of all the claims. But if the dispute and the alleged suspension of funds has been going on for a year, why only today has RB decided to stop the updates, creating a detriment to users? Wouldn't you define this "suddenly"? What happened during that year? I guess negotiations, otherwise you don't work a year for free. So why (again) suddenly stop the updates? 

[Oban]

4 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

Well, fortunately social media trials are not legal proceedings either.  And that's exactly where guilt of IP violations is handled.

 

which is why we're never going to hear anything disclosed on these forums, everything will come out oce it goes to court, IF it actually gets that far..

That being said, both parties are being tried through platforms like this, facebook, and youtube etc which is social media.

Which is why I've constantly said leave it to the legal representatives to resolve, and not social media kangaroo courts, who are not privy to all the information

Edited June 8, 2024 by Oban

[nessuno0505]

3 ore fa, SkateZilla ha scritto:

Contrary to the twitter-sphere theory, it's more likely that RB ran out of capital to pay the employees to keep working while waiting to resolve the issue and get their sales shares, than it is ED ran out of money. which would be better aligned with why "they suddenly stopped working". etc etc.

Plausible, why not? Obviously speculations, the truth is that we do not know (none of us).

 

But if this is going on for a year and RB's decision in only the last act of a long story, I doubt we'll see it resolved anytime soon. ED has to decide what to do because in the meanwhile RB's modules will age quickly and eventually stop working.

Edited June 8, 2024 by nessuno0505

[Rainmaker]

19 minutes ago, Oban said:

which is why we're never going to hear anything disclosed on these forums, everything will come out oce it goes to court, IF it actually gets that far..

That being said, both parties are being tried through platforms like this, facebook, and youtube etc which is social media.

Which is why I've constantly said leave it to the legal representatives to resolve, and not social media kangaroo courts, who are not privy to all the information

 

Well, can only speak for me, but my thoughts are that you shouldn't openly make the accusation unless you are also prepared to openly defend it.  Its one to have a rift between companies, it's another to openly accuse the other party of a crime.  Let's not forget or omit, only one party did that.