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

[Maduce]

Yep, the EULA thing. That keeps ED and other devs out of legal trouble, but not PR trouble with their customers. There is legal way to treat your customers and then there is the right way. And that is not exclusive to ED. Sometimes the legal way is the only financial way, but the PR will get you every time. I have my fingers crossed. I just want it to work out and to continue to enjoy not only my RB modules but all my modules. 

[Jackjack171]

4 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Razbam had built an F-15E with IRIS Simulations back in the day, with M2M doing most of the engineering IIRC. Guess what else they had? A Mirage 2000, AV-8B, GR7/9....my faith in Razbam products were already on thin ice when they came to DCS, Ive no faith in them producing anything of substance from here on out anymore.

Same here. RB had an entire line up of Naval aircraft including the A-6 Intruder (there was a banner on the website: YOU WILL FLY THE INTRUDER IN 2016), P-3 Orion, A-7E and the T-2 Buckeye. The SE was never finished, and the Harrier sucked. And then one day, I see the announcement that they are leaving FSX/P3D for DCS (I barely knew what DCS was at the time) leaving users hanging. Fast forward to 2024 and it's the same thing. I got the Harrier and M2000C from reading about how they were better in DCS. That restored my faith in them but now this situation. I hope they fix themselves. There's talent there but also what looks like mismanagement. I've learned my lesson and will be weary in the future.

[Ignition]

3 hours ago, freehand said:

Nothing will happen to DCS don't worry. 

Something will happen, small or big we don't know but something will happen. It won't be the end of DCS though.

[freehand]

It's just a blip in the matrix.

[Ignition]

Just now, freehand said:

It's just a blip in the matrix.

It's enough for a change in the chosen one.

[NAM]

4 hours ago, NineLine said:

Well the desire to do a F-15C FF has nothing to do with the F-15E.

IMHO .. how can for the number one simulation of military aircraft without any version of the f15... the best combat aircraft of modern era.?

Edited June 9, 2024 by NAM

[Citizen]

2 hours ago, Jester986 said:

Refunds for years old modules aren’t reasonable. And I’m sure there’s a you own nothing and are entitled to nothing clause in the EULA. Refunds for the 15 are a nice good faith gesture. But I’ve been flying and enjoying the others for a long time. Also an example of the good a payment model that shall not be named. If something goes wrong with a module you stop paying for it. 

What about the folks that bought those modules recently?  It would kind of suck to pick up a module only to have it break a few months later with no recourse.

[NineLine]

17 minutes ago, Citizen said:

What about the folks that bought those modules recently?  It would kind of suck to pick up a module only to have it break a few months later with no recourse.

I am sure if you only had it a short time we would definitely look at that 

[PhantomHans]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

Because it was fairly recent you could request it, but it might not be possible right now. Again our ultimate goal is continued support.

This would be my preferred outcome.  The refunds are a great good faith gesture from ED, but don't really fix the standoff that we have going on here.

Ideally the continued support would come in the form of Razbam resuming normal operations and adding more features, but if it came in the form of ED taking over support of those modules I suppose that's better than nothing. 

[freehand]

12 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I am sure if you only had it a short time we would definitely look at that 

I have asked several times & pm you just now and bignewy on how long does it take to process refund and still no reply is it a secret ?

[NineLine]

2 minutes ago, freehand said:

I have asked several times & pm you just now and bignewy on how long does it take to process refund and still no reply is it a secret ?

Sorry, it's been a busy day, it can take up to 1 week, but it's generally faster than this.

[freehand]

1 minute ago, NineLine said:

Sorry, it's been a busy day, it can take up to 1 week, but it's generally faster than this.

Cheers.

[Shibiswag]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Sorry, it's been a busy day, it can take up to 1 week, but it's generally faster than this.

@NineLine
Under what heading do we put in for a refund with support? 
Game problem, Order purchase payment and Ed Miles, commercial or additional?

[Bosun]

16 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

We understand Wizard, I hope once we have a resolution everyone can go back to enjoying the F-15E. 

No matter what happens DCS is here to stay and we continue to grow and work towards improving DCS. 

have a great weekend. 

I understand that DCS core will not be going anywhere. 

I do have questions around the 3rd-party development model as a business though. 

While the DCS Core may not go anywhere - can you tell us about the protections that ED puts in place, to ensure that we don't wind up with a long laundry list of outdated, unsupported modules?  

in 10 years, DCS may be here - but what if something happened to Heatblur, for example?  If they sold, or shuttered for unrelated causes?  Would their modules be transferred to ED ownership because they were made for that product specifically and cannot exist outside that product, allowing them to be maintained by someone who could keep them working within the core?  (This means the DCS versions cannot exist without DCS).  

I think we're just now seeing the growing line up of outdated, non-working or malfunctioning modules from developers that have delivered, yes - but have also transformed or moved on. 15 years is a long time for any developer in the software world, and I'd like to know that there is intentional planning from the very beginning in making sure that modules that are developed for this game have a fall-back of ownership plan to ensure they can be kept updated.  

While I doubt Heatblur would ever have legal disputes - there's nothing to say they'll be in business in another 10 years (I would bet so - but anything can happen).  If DCS is still around...can you confirm that those modules would be maintained by to work by someone.  Even if new features are not added - it is imperative to the line up of the game itself that existing modules continue to work.  

So I guess - detailing that there is a process for these eventualities might ease some of the concern.  If there is no process - I think I'd recommend that ED look into contracts which stipulate what happens to a functioning module, should the developer come unable to maintain it. 

[golani79]

2 hours ago, Shibiswag said:

@NineLine
Under what heading do we put in for a refund with support? 
Game problem, Order purchase payment and Ed Miles, commercial or additional?

Order, purchase, payment .. and then the option with "possible refund"

[Ignition]

50 minutes ago, Bosun said:

I understand that DCS core will not be going anywhere. 

I do have questions around the 3rd-party development model as a business though. 

While the DCS Core may not go anywhere - can you tell us about the protections that ED puts in place, to ensure that we don't wind up with a long laundry list of outdated, unsupported modules?  

in 10 years, DCS may be here - but what if something happened to Heatblur, for example?  If they sold, or shuttered for unrelated causes?  Would their modules be transferred to ED ownership because they were made for that product specifically and cannot exist outside that product, allowing them to be maintained by someone who could keep them working within the core?  (This means the DCS versions cannot exist without DCS).  

I think we're just now seeing the growing line up of outdated, non-working or malfunctioning modules from developers that have delivered, yes - but have also transformed or moved on. 15 years is a long time for any developer in the software world, and I'd like to know that there is intentional planning from the very beginning in making sure that modules that are developed for this game have a fall-back of ownership plan to ensure they can be kept updated.  

While I doubt Heatblur would ever have legal disputes - there's nothing to say they'll be in business in another 10 years (I would bet so - but anything can happen).  If DCS is still around...can you confirm that those modules would be maintained by to work by someone.  Even if new features are not added - it is imperative to the line up of the game itself that existing modules continue to work.  

So I guess - detailing that there is a process for these eventualities might ease some of the concern.  If there is no process - I think I'd recommend that ED look into contracts which stipulate what happens to a functioning module, should the developer come unable to maintain it. 

I believe any 3rd party which stay away from the military simulation side is "safe". As far as I know there're no other 3rd party of DCS doing military simulation other than Razbam.

Some people believe nothing will happen to Heatblur. I believe they do expensive but good products and most of their sales are because they have the best marketing of DCS but I believe they (or any other 3rd party dev) aren't invulnerable to a contract dispute. Is the second time this happened for this game and it can happen again. The business model is prone to this disputes.

I agree it would be nice to know if ED could maintain the modules for the lifetime of DCS.

[skywalker22]

What in case if you don't want to refound at all? In the worst case scenario, will the F-15E still be used on the servers, so I can fly it offline and online?

And btw, if you get a refound, will you keep the module on your HDD, will still be flyable?

[SkateZilla]

44 minutes ago, Ignition said:

I believe any 3rd party which stay away from the military simulation side is "safe". As far as I know there're no other 3rd party of DCS doing military simulation other than Razbam.

Some people believe nothing will happen to Heatblur. I believe they do expensive but good products and most of their sales are because they have the best marketing of DCS but I believe they (or any other 3rd party dev) aren't invulnerable to a contract dispute. Is the second time this happened for this game and it can happen again. The business model is prone to this disputes.

I agree it would be nice to know if ED could maintain the modules for the lifetime of DCS.

Erm, Military contracts often eclipse consumer sales if done properly, if anything it ensures survival of dev studios.

As for Studios shutting doors, 
That would likely fall under the *No longer able to fulfill their support* clause, in which case, assets / IP would shift to ED for retention.

The situation with RB is a complicated and different situation, as they arent shutting doors, they are simply on a development pause, in which case, the Assets / IP clause doesn't apply.

 

[OSIW]

Maybe ED should consider a new clause for the case a 3rd party dev takes a hiatus?

 

[SkateZilla]

22 minutes ago, OSIW said:

Maybe ED should consider a new clause for the case a 3rd party dev takes a hiatus?

 

if a company is still operating they have the ownership of their IP.

if a company is closed and no longer operating IP shifts to Escrow, unless they have a contract to sell or transfer it before they end operations.

no company would willingly sign a contract with such a blanket and undefined clause that allows another company to take their IP so easily.

RB as a company isn't on a operational pause, they are still working on projects for other sims, they are on a development pause for DCS Projects until their contract issue is resolved.

[Tom Kazansky]

11 hours ago, NineLine said:

We will do refunds even if the worst possible scenario happens for the F-15E. So there is no risk waiting for it right now. It will be store credit. If the situation is rectified for positive, obviously the refund policy will change to normal.

Thank you very much. I will keep my stuff and try to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem and be able to say that I tried everything I could, no matter how it turns out.

This does not mean, that I don't respect the reasons to see this differently.

[BIGNEWY]

Folks I have hidden some post, please remember to treat each other with respect. 

thank you

[DUSTY]

18 hours ago, Horns said:

I can name three: F-4, F-14 and F/A-18, and those are just from my hangar.

TWO of those aren't ED modules and I purchased the F/A18 on day one and its EA state was nowhere near what the Strike Eagles was on day 1.

[felixx75]

The fact that this thread now has 63 pages can only be explained by the absolute determination of those involved to imagine the worst or even wish for the worst.
We simply do not have enough reliable information about the matter between ED and Razbam to discuss it meaningfully. You're all just going round in circles without anything constructive coming out of it.

But patience has never been a human strength... (at least for most)

[eFirehawk]

Just now, felixx75 said:

The fact that this thread now has 63 pages can only be explained by the absolute determination of those involved to imagine the worst or even wish for the worst.
We simply do not have enough reliable information about the matter between ED and Razbam to discuss it meaningfully. You're all just going round in circles without anything constructive coming out of it.

But patience has never been a human strength... (at least for most)

I think it's more about overall disappointment and an some people being overly emotionally invested in this module (which is my case). From ED's side they are already offering refunds (albeit only as store credits, which is a bit dodgy, and only for the F-15E), which, honestly, what more could we want? We bought the module, it goes boom, money back - no harm done (not counting the other modules though, but at least they've been out for years and people could enjoy them for a long time).

However... for some of us this module holds an incredible emotional and symbolic value. After all, after a nearly decade-long hiatus it was precisely this module that got me to play DCS again. So, yes, considering that ED is (sort of) refunding this module (which is the right thing), I don't think anything that can done apart from continued development that will compensate for waiting over a decade for our dream module to come out, only to fall short and die within a few months.

The only thing that could possible fulfill that void now that RB is done for is if ED would make an SE of their own... but sadly, at least for another decade it has next to no chance of happening.