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

[exhausted]

On 6/14/2024 at 1:28 PM, davidrbarnette said:

I for one have finally reached the point of agitation with good ol' Razbam.

Looking back, I've purchased three of their modules (Harrier, Mirage 2000, F-15E) and have been very pleased with the quality of modeling and their support of the modules. Overall, I've considered them to be a top-tier developer for DCS.

Then all of a sudden they are no longer supporting their modules. I learn there are two sides to the story. I've been around the block in the business world a bit, and can imagine the contractual and business issues that have spun this situation up, but with the breaking of the radar, I guess I'm seeing things differently today.

Here are the two stories that have been thrown out there:

1) Razbam says that for some unknown reason, ED wakes up one day and decides to no longer pay one of their most productive and top tier developers. Razbam asserts that it is a total mystery to them why this happened, but basically that ED is awful.

2) ED asserts something to the effect of "Razbam breached contractual obligations regarding legally protected IP rights" and that they are seeking a commercial outcome rather than legal.

Which of these stories seems more realistic and likely, honestly? The "we don't know why but they stopped paying and we've done nothing wrong" story or the idea that ED has a good reason to withhold payment story?

Overall it irks me to no end and I think Razbam should be very concerned about the damage to their reputation. I won't be buying any more of their products for any simulator until the situation is fully resolved and DCS development is back on track.

I think you may have distorted both arguments to fit the narrative you want to support. The fact that Razbam waited several months to say that their lack of support for almost a year resulted from lack of payment, and caused their company to shed talent, does not at all indicate they woke up and suddenly decided to break a contract. It sounds like they were either being ignored or stonewalled, with no resolution in sight.

ED immediately tried to mitigate but showed they don't have access to the material they need to maintain many 3rd party modules, which they basically promised to consumers after the VEAO incident. Sprinkle in a contract dispute with a history of trying to force new terms on 3rd party developers, and I think you see what some of the culprit has been.

Again, which of these scenarios seems more likely to you -- the one where someone suddenly decided to leave a large part of their cash stream, or the one where the host company once again decided to impose new terms over an existing agreement or did not show effort to resolve another issue?

Edited June 16, 2024 by exhausted

[Mizzy]

29 minutes ago, exhausted said:

It seems like there was so much time passing with no resolution, so it may have actually made one of the parties start to negotiate again.

Which Party were you referring to and why do you think they wanted to start negotiating?

Mizzy

[exhausted]

2 minutes ago, Mizzy said:

Which Party were you referring to and why do you think they wanted to start negotiating?

Mizzy

If you have my piece of cake and refuse to give me the slice that I earned, you probably don't want to negotiate something you intend to keep. If I let everyone else know that they should be careful with you when making a deal for a slice of cake, you probably may speak up and talk about how you've "been holding onto the cake, but have a really good reason." Then, the negotiations have to start about getting that cake where it needs to go.  

[Mizzy]

1 minute ago, exhausted said:

If you have my piece of cake and refuse to give me the slice that I earned, you probably don't want to negotiate something you intend to keep. If I let everyone else know that they should be careful with you when making a deal for a slice of cake, you probably may speak up and talk about how you've "been holding onto the cake, but have a really good reason." Then, the negotiations have to start about getting that cake where it needs to go.  

Word salad, what do you mean ?

Mizzy

[Horns]

46 minutes ago, exhausted said:

Silence on an issue can be construed as evidence of liability, though. He's right -- you can take the pieces, and look at them, and get a reasonable picture at what's happening. Razbam is taking down the links on its website for DCS product support and it looks like whatever ED did to piss them off is going to be permanent. The negotiations are probably for how much ED gets to keep and has to support going forward.

Members of the public might reach their own conclusions about silence, as appears to have happened here, but I’d be extremely surprised if any court of law has ever stated that someone’s case was weakened by not commenting on a dispute publicly.

 Edit: Just to be clear, I am saying I don’t believe any court has ever construed public silence as evidence of liability.

Edited June 16, 2024 by Horns
Added second paragraph

[Mizzy]

8 minutes ago, Horns said:

Members of the public might reach their own conclusions about silence, as appears to have happened here, but I’d be extremely surprised if any court of law has ever stated that someone’s case was weakened by not commenting on a dispute publicly.

So why did Razbam go public with this ?

Mizzy

[Horns]

16 minutes ago, Mizzy said:

So why did Razbam go public with this ?

Mizzy

To try to offer the public an explanation for suspending support of their modules that placed the blame on ED rather than themselves. I don’t think for a second a lawyer suggested it would help their legal case.

 Edit: I suspect (I don’t claim to have knowledge of their game plan) everything Razbam have done from the announcement of the suspension of support onwards has been about trying to use the public to put pressure on ED to accept an out-of-court agreement more favorable to Razbam than they would otherwise get. I wouldn’t be surprised if they felt they had to keep this out of court - not necessarily because their case was so weak, perhaps because of their financial position or some other reason.

Edited June 16, 2024 by Horns
Added second paragraph

[IceyJones]

still a joke tbh, that ED only refunds with store credits

personally i conclude. that i wont buy any more modules for this sim, when 3rd party support can seize over night like that

 

specially taking into consideration, that ED promised, that this wont happen again after the other 3rd party desaster. the way ED handles this mess is not very promising......being trustworthy looks different. so i conclude further, that i wont buy any modules from ED either in future. pain in the butt, that i already preordered the Afghanistan map

 

Edited June 16, 2024 by IceyJones

[exhausted]

1 hour ago, Horns said:

Members of the public might reach their own conclusions about silence, as appears to have happened here, but I’d be extremely surprised if any court of law has ever stated that someone’s case was weakened by not commenting on a dispute publicly.

 Edit: Just to be clear, I am saying I don’t believe any court has ever construed public silence as evidence of liability.

 

Silence between parties, yes. And it looks like this dispute involved some silence on the issue of when a pay issue would be resolved. Yes, that tends to matter. As to us, well silence to us probably does not have much evidentiary value in terms of who is blamed for the breakdown of the the contract. Nonetheless, silence itself can be used as evidence in many court bodies.

1 hour ago, Mizzy said:

So why did Razbam go public with this ?

Mizzy

Mizzy there is a simple explanation that perhaps some are refusing to accept: Razbam went public to be informative with that to expect now that payment from ED lapsed for months. If you want things sweet and direct, then don't be so evasive. 

[av8orDave]

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

I think you may have distorted both arguments to fit the narrative you want to support. The fact that Razbam waited several months to say that their lack of support for almost a year resulted from lack of payment, and caused their company to shed talent, does not at all indicate they woke up and suddenly decided to break a contract. It sounds like they were either being ignored or stonewalled, with no resolution in sight.

ED immediately tried to mitigate but showed they don't have access to the material they need to maintain many 3rd party modules, which they basically promised to consumers after the VEAO incident. Sprinkle in a contract dispute with a history of trying to force new terms on 3rd party developers, and I think you see what some of the culprit has been.

Again, which of these scenarios seems more likely to you -- the one where someone suddenly decided to leave a large part of their cash stream, or the one where the host company once again decided to impose new terms over an existing agreement or did not show effort to resolve another issue?

 

The ED side of the argument I referenced is almost verbatim. Look it up. Razbam, for what it is worth, referenced stopping work because of “circumstances completely beyond our control.” Again, look it up.

What makes you believe ED has “imposed new terms over an existing agreement”? That’s an honest question; maybe I’ve missed something.

[Horns]

44 minutes ago, exhausted said:

Silence between parties, yes. And it looks like this dispute involved some silence on the issue of when a pay issue would be resolved. Yes, that tends to matter. As to us, well silence to us probably does not have much evidentiary value in terms of who is blamed for the breakdown of the the contract. Nonetheless, silence itself can be used as evidence in many court bodies.

Mizzy there is a simple explanation that perhaps some are refusing to accept: Razbam went public to be informative with that to expect now that payment from ED lapsed for months. If you want things sweet and direct, then don't be so evasive. 

I think you might be distorting this argument, or maybe you just didn't read closely. I'll captitalize the words in my post that you responded to...

1 hour ago, Horns said:

Members of the public might reach their own conclusions about silence, as appears to have happened here, but I’d be extremely surprised if any court of law has ever stated that someone’s case was weakened by not commenting on a dispute PUBLICLY.

 Edit: Just to be clear, I am saying I don’t believe any court has ever construed PUBLIC silence as evidence of liability.

 

 

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, exhausted said:

It seems like there was so much time passing with no resolution, so it may have actually made one of the parties start to negotiate again.

I am not a lawyer, but I doubt you will find many lawyers giving out that advice.

[PhantomHans]

6 hours ago, MustangSally said:

Off to play minecraft then?

Falcon BMS more likely.  The devs aren't paid but they don't expect it.

[exhausted]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

I am not a lawyer, but I doubt you will find many lawyers giving out that advice.

True, many lawyers would tell them not to make public outcry part of their recover strategy, but if somehow making a public spectacle happens, then it may get things rolling. It certainly looks like that happened.

[exhausted]

2 hours ago, Horns said:

I think you might be distorting this argument, or maybe you just didn't read closely. I'll captitalize the words in my post that you responded to...

 

I didn't distort or read your post carelessly and I agree that publicly discussing the issue does not weaken a claim Razbam may have. 

3 hours ago, exhausted said:

As to us, well silence to us probably does not have much evidentiary value in terms of who is blamed for the breakdown of the the contract.

I responded mainly to your point about the courts not using silence as evidence in the words, "as to us," as in 'to us' the public. There are absolutely times when silence can be used to damage a case, though I could not say here.

[Horns]

42 minutes ago, exhausted said:

I didn't distort or read your post carelessly and I agree that publicly discussing the issue does not weaken a claim Razbam may have. 

I responded mainly to your point about the courts not using silence as evidence in the words, "as to us," as in 'to us' the public. There are absolutely times when silence can be used to damage a case, though I could not say here.

I am glad we at least agree public silence carries no negative evidentiary weight, which was the actual subject. However, I never said or suggested publicly discussing the issue didn't damage Razbam's case. What I said was that if they did want to keep action out of court, the reason may not be a weak case. I strongly disagree that public silence is ever damaging to a case. It is unfortunate if you know otherwise but can't discuss it, as obviously that means it's neither something that can be used to support your thesis, nor can we investigate it further. However, in deference to the suggestion that there is more to say that you cannot speak about, and to avoid getting into a 'Yes it is, no it isn't' argument, I'm willing to bury the point here.

[primus_TR]

11 hours ago, PhantomHans said:

for Razbam to officially go bankrupt and close their doors

In my opinion,  if Razbam will close their doors,  it'll be because no talent worth their salt will want to work for an employer who is capable of withholding salary payments to employees for reasons not related to the employee or their performance. 

[Marnes23]

I don't give a flying *insert profanity here* who is right and who is wrong I just want my modules to work and continue to be supported.

I love the Mirage 2000C and the AV/8B, I started learning the F-15E but the pilot having a seizure and the continuous JFS sound on uncontrolled aircraft put me off. I know small pedantic things but such things annoy me.

Anyhow I'm refunding the F-15E and if someday this nonsense is sorted out and support and development continues I'll purchase it again.

I don't even know why I replied to this thread, just bored I guess.

[Nightdare]

16 hours ago, afnav130 said:

If I said I paid you and you said, um no you didn't. All I have to do is find the bank transaction which was completed, show that document  to you and thats that. 

 

Do you need a lawyer for that?

 

and all I need to do is look up your transaction in my bank account and find its not there, my bank confirms there has been no deposit under that reference number, now what?

[Nightdare]

16 hours ago, Blackeye said:

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.

IP theft is the most simple one

Contract disputes can threaten your IP, for they might negate some points in the contract

Like "Not allowed to use product for other means or parties without consent of the parent company" - If you don't enforce that, any similar dispute following risks having that as precedent, you might just have given contractors carte blanche in doing whatever they want with your product

How about mismanagement of patents/Licenses, same deal

 

16 hours ago, Blackeye said:

 

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.

 

I didn't assume, your comments show a clear lack of scope and a basic mindset of "ED should just do whatever helps me get what I want now, no matter how", with no idea about any ramifications which may entail, which made me conclude you have no practical experience with these kind of issues

-Granted, I'm not an expert either, but do have at least some insight in things like this

Appeasement/acquiescement are big "No"'s in policies surrounding disputes. Hell, why do you think lawyers and insurance companies always stipulate to never admit guilt before investigation for everyone?

 

16 hours ago, Blackeye said:

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.

 

The bitter truth:

 

Panic helps no one

 

16 hours ago, Blackeye said:

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.

 

Even if the dispute is just about the F-15, there are contractual obligations ED needs to hold the 3rd parties to, if they "don't mind the shop" with 1 of those, this could royally screw up the contracts with ALL the others 

 

16 hours ago, Blackeye said:

Maybe my mind set is not tribal enough to pick a company and support or not support them,

 

Thing is that ED is handling this situation as should (People just lack a sense of reality), while RB throws the 'facts' in this world but without a "Why"

ED knew very well this would burn their ass if they couldn't solve this before it became public, yet they are persevering regardless

RB only has to look out for #1, ED has to take into account #2 and #3 as well

and the tribalism I'm seeing is that people support RB without asking for that "Why", the other thing I'm seeing is a childish sense of entitlement "I want my lollypop NOW" not wanting to hear it's passed the closing time of the candy shop

It could very well be that ED is in the wrong, we'll find out eventually, but forget thinking you have any authority in dictating the timespan and results

 

16 hours ago, Blackeye said:

I just feel this might haven been handled better and ultimately it IS up the ED to resolve the problem with their customers.

 

How could have ED handled this dispute better? There are 2 parties in this

The only suggestion I see which IS in control of ED was immediately stopping sales of the F-15, but I'm sure you can't deny that wouldn't create a <profanity>storm as well

But Why create drama when, for all we know, this could have ended amicably, yes NOW may be a point that action is on the table, but that's not taking any contractual obligations into account -For all intents and purposes they might be forced to hold to the stipulations and need to keep it for sale

 

 

[Rifter]

10 hours ago, Horns said:

Edit: I suspect (I don’t claim to have knowledge of their game plan) everything Razbam have done from the announcement of the suspension of support onwards has been about trying to use the public to put pressure on ED to accept an out-of-court agreement more favorable to Razbam than they would otherwise get. I wouldn’t be surprised if they felt they had to keep this out of court - not necessarily because their case was so weak, perhaps because of their financial position or some other reason.

The DCS ecosystem is tiny - a niche in a niche. That means, no matter who has more dirt under his carpet, both sides are losers in this matter.
We are not talking about an enterprise level company which has a dispute with one of its many suppliers and has an army of lawyers ready to proof who is in charge. We are talking about economic dwarfs who’s business relationships depend very much on friendly partnerships because the economic survival of all involved parties is decided from year to year. There is no ‘strong’ player in the DCS ecosystem. ED is not in a position to tell their 3rd party developers: ‘Love it, hate it or leave it’. ED must always strive to maintain good relationships with its partners and have an early warning of disagreements and dissatisfaction, just like its business partners.

97.8% of all conflicts between companies are solved in an out-of-court agreement. If it wouldn’t be that way, our whole economy had allready been collapsed because everyone would legally litigate each other to death. Going public aggressively, like Razbam did, usually indicates long-held dissatisfaction, rather than a question of whether one can gain an advantage in court.

[HWasp]

5 hours ago, primus_TR said:

In my opinion,  if Razbam will close their doors,  it'll be because no talent worth their salt will want to work for an employer who is capable of withholding salary payments to employees for reasons not related to the employee or their performance. 

How is it even possible to come up with this?

[Nightdare]

11 minutes ago, Rifter said:

The DCS ecosystem is tiny - a niche in a niche. That means, no matter who has more dirt under his carpet, both sides are losers in this matter.
We are not talking about an enterprise level company which has a dispute with one of its many suppliers and has an army of lawyers ready to proof who is in charge. We are talking about economic dwarfs who’s business relationships depend very much on friendly partnerships because the economic survival of all involved parties is decided from year to year. There is no ‘strong’ player in the DCS ecosystem. ED is not in a position to tell their 3rd party developers: ‘Love it, hate it or leave it’. ED must always strive to maintain good relationships with its partners and have an early warning of disagreements and dissatisfaction, just like its business partners.

 

Indeed, this isn't "David vs Goliath", nor any "rooting for the underdog"

I'm not holding ED above criticism, but all I'm seeing at the moment is "circumstances" and IMO on which ED seems to be the party that tries to act upon as best they can/are allowed

Whereas RB came in, screamed "Victim", told everyone they weren't gonna finish their work and ran off again, like a kid that received detention and out of spite, flushed a cherry bomb down the toilet and leaving everyone in a mess

[nessuno0505]

The incredible thing after 88 pages is that there are still those who defend Razbam. Maybe ED didn't handle it well either, but I say: Razbam? Regardless of how this thing ends, Razbam is dead. It is a dead man walking. It remains to be seen what will happen to its modules: "frozen" as they are, with only minimal maintenance? It might be fine for the m2000 and the mig-19 which are basically finished, for sure it's not what gamers would want for the av-8b and especially for the SE. Maybe it would be better to take a clean sweep of everything with some refunds and hope that sooner or later the AV-8B, the Mirage or the SE will find a new developer who deserves them.

[Oban]

4 minutes ago, HWasp said:

How is it even possible to come up with this?

RB employees and sub-contractors will have terms and conditions as to which theur remuneration is set, I don't believe for one minute any of their employees/sub-contractors were on a zero hours contract.

ED's terms and conditions for RB for the SE by all accouints was that they'd receive remuneration for services complete upon completion of the SE ( it's not complete, it's in early access)

The development time for the F15E was several years, 5+ for development. So the Remuneration would have been more along the lines of a productivity bonus.

There's not a chance that any employee or sub-contractor on the F15E development team were not receiving a salary from RB for the duration of the development, on the premise that they'd all get paid at the end of the project. 

The payment of salaries would be down to RB, and not ED.

Non payment of RB employees would be an internal issue between RB and their employees, and not related to ED in any shape or form.

The payment of Bonus's for performance related pay would be dependent on the payment that would have been expecting from ED, which the payment from ED is more than likely part of the teams bonus scheme.

Now, none of the RB employees or Sub contractors have offered up their employement terms and conditions for public scrutiny to show how and when they were to be paid on a monthly basis, nobody works on an annual one payment per year, unless it's part of their contract.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I worked for a company, busting my balls, and after the 1st month they said " sorry, can't pay you until the client pays us" then you'd be like " WTF, I have a contract, and you've not honoured that, I want paid" but the Finance department say "don't worry, next month for sure"

Then you carry on working your ass off, as you don't want to leave because you will lose that salary owed.

Then the following month, still no salary received, and the same story " sorry, we can't pay you, client still hasn't paid us" , and the preise is that next month..so you keep going?

Are we supposed to believe that the development team and RB employees went without salary for 6+ months, without any of them seeking their own legal advice ?


So the poster is right, why would any potential new employee work for a company that's not paid their employess and sub contractors for several months, I sure wouldn't , would you?