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

[Arkenuh]

6 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

The source code clause isn't for 3rd party take overs.

I'm not saying you're not right. This might be the case. But in the end it, even if you're completely correct in your interpretation of the contract terms, it's still a full on failure from ED's perspective if we're losing modules because of it. If a 3rd party breaches contract and ED takes over, they should be given the files to continue support. Otherwise, as I mentioned, we'll be losing modules left and right because one day some other 3rd party dev decides so.

[BIGNEWY]

3 minutes ago, Arkenuh said:

I'm not saying you're not right. This might be the case. But in the end it, even if you're completely correct in your interpretation of the contract terms, it's still a full on failure from ED's perspective if we're losing modules because of it. If a 3rd party breaches contract and ED takes over, they should be given the files to continue support. Otherwise, as I mentioned, we'll be losing modules left and right because one day some other 3rd party dev decides so.

No one knows what will happen yet. we have to wait for a resolution to the dispute. 

thank you 

[Arkenuh]

I get that, no worries. I'm not demanding answers. I get that the whole legal process is lengthy and complex.

I was just posting my concerns because, as I see it, no matter who seems to be at fault in the whole dispute (ED, Razbam or a bit of both), the community losing modules over any kind of such dispute is an issue that has to be addressed by the parent company, especially considering that we've had some previous history of this kind with VEAO's Hawk, which ED claimed has been addressed going forward.

Edited June 19, 2024 by Arkenuh

[BIGNEWY]

6 minutes ago, Arkenuh said:

I get that, no worries. I'm not demanding answers. I get that the whole legal process is lengthy and complex.

I was just posting my concerns because, as I see it, no matter who seems to be at fault in the whole dispute (ED, Razbam or a bit of both), the community losing modules over any kind of such dispute is an issue that has to be addressed by the parent company, especially considering that we've had some previous history of this kind with VEAO's Hawk, which ED claimed has been addressed going forward.

 

As mentioned there are conditions in the contracts, now we have to wait and see. I'm afraid it will take some time however and we will all need to be patient. 

thank you

[Slippa]

8 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

No one knows what will happen yet. we have to wait for a resolution to the dispute. 

thank you 

Then lock it up?

If you’re gonna chop the thread up every time one of us tries to lighten the mood a bit as well as chop it when it ain’t so nice, just lock it up.

There’s an obvious gaping hole in the business model if as customers (and supporters) we can be hung out to dry because ED didn’t have things sewn up properly.

And to think I just ‘pre-ordered’ the Chinook in blind faith. Chop away if you want to, a few hours ago I was bowled over at your patience.

I need a break too. Have a nice day all .

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Arkenuh said:

If a 3rd party breaches contract and ED takes over, they should be given the files to continue support.

But here's the issue -- who decides whether a claimed breach is an actual breach?  No reasonable contract would allow ED to unilaterally determine that a breach occurred and then seize assets.  Instead, there will likely be a process in the contract for one party claiming breach, the other party having a time period to cure, and then a process for addressing what could be taken, when, and how.  And if there is disagreement at any step along the way lawyers have to get involved, and potentially even courts.  The real world of IP legal disputes are complicated and slow moving...

[BIGNEWY]

24 minutes ago, Slippa said:

Then lock it up?

If you’re gonna chop the thread up every time one of us tries to lighten the mood a bit as well as chop it when it ain’t so nice, just lock it up.

There’s an obvious gaping hole in the business model if as customers (and supporters) we can be hung out to dry because ED didn’t have things sewn up properly.

And to think I just ‘pre-ordered’ the Chinook in blind faith. Chop away if you want to, a few hours ago I was bowled over at your patience.

I need a break too. Have a nice day all .

people need to stay on topic and keep to the rules, we did mention this new thread will be moderated harder. 

People need somewhere to post.

Have a good day. 

[Firebird1955]

Some people here are amazing.   It is typical of todays environment though, where if you don't get ALL of the information or the answer you want: "Well, maybe they didn't understand the question so I will ask it again......and again.........and again......etc..   Stating your PERSONAL opinions and what YOU think should happen are doing nothing to assist or help the situation at hand.  I congratulate both Nineline and BigNewy for their patience.  I saw a post earlier in this thread about the Toxic environment on a Discord thread and they were absolutely correct about the toxicity.  I would prefer not have to dig through that same toxicity to get an update here.  At the end of the day, it will be what it is.  We will have to just put our Big boy pants on and live with the resolution/results.  

[LorenLuke]

4 hours ago, Arkenuh said:

Been searching around and I couldn't see an answer to this anywhere. Sorry if I missed it, and feel free to redirect me to the reply if so. If not, here I go.

How did this happen considering we were told that 3rd party agreements are required to make the game files available, after the VEAO fiasco? I'm a bit confused and I want to know where to put my money from now on. 

Check the highlighted section here again. 

'[A]ll FUTURE 3rd party agreements are now required to make the game files available'. 

StrEagle has been in development for over 10 years. This probably didn't and doesn't apply to this specific case. 

[Jackjack171]

39 minutes ago, Firebird1955 said:

Some people here are amazing.   It is typical of todays environment though, where if you don't get ALL of the information or the answer you want: "Well, maybe they didn't understand the question so I will ask it again......and again.........and again......etc..   Stating your PERSONAL opinions and what YOU think should happen are doing nothing to assist or help the situation at hand.  I congratulate both Nineline and BigNewy for their patience.  I saw a post earlier in this thread about the Toxic environment on a Discord thread and they were absolutely correct about the toxicity.  I would prefer not have to dig through that same toxicity to get an update here.  At the end of the day, it will be what it is.  We will have to just put our Big boy pants on and live with the resolution/results.  

Well said!

[skywalker22]

What is the main reason all this has happened, why Ron Zambrano had started it? I still don't get it.

[BIGNEWY]

24 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

What is the main reason all this has happened, why Ron Zambrano had started it? I still don't get it.

please read the first post in this thread 

[wadman]

5 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

No one knows what will happen yet. we have to wait for a resolution to the dispute. 

thank you 

I’m sorry - regardless of who is at fault here, the fact that you are still selling the F-15E module with no disclaimer to alert potential buyers to this situation is unconscionable.

I just don’t see anyway to see that as anything other than a dishonest money grab.  If you want to have a loyal customer base, you owe it to potential customers to be transparent about known issues that could very negatively affect their purchase!  If folks decide to buy, then they do so with full knowledge.

I, personally, will not buy any new DCS modules until I see how this plays out as I’ve lost trust in ED based on this lack of transparency for new customers.

[BIGNEWY]

12 minutes ago, wadman said:

I’m sorry - regardless of who is at fault here, the fact that you are still selling the F-15E module with no disclaimer to alert potential buyers to this situation is unconscionable.

I just don’t see anyway to see that as anything other than a dishonest money grab.  If you want to have a loyal customer base, you owe it to potential customers to be transparent about known issues that could very negatively affect their purchase!  If folks decide to buy, then they do so with full knowledge.

I, personally, will not buy any new DCS modules until I see how this plays out as I’ve lost trust in ED based on this lack of transparency for new customers.

We can not change the status of the module on the store, there is a legal process to follow.

I'm sorry you are not happy, I hope in the future you will have a change of heart.

thank you 

[Oban]

11 minutes ago, wadman said:

I’m sorry - regardless of who is at fault here, the fact that you are still selling the F-15E module with no disclaimer to alert potential buyers to this situation is unconscionable.

I just don’t see anyway to see that as anything other than a dishonest money grab.  If you want to have a loyal customer base, you owe it to potential customers to be transparent about known issues that could very negatively affect their purchase!  If folks decide to buy, then they do so with full knowledge.

I, personally, will not buy any new DCS modules until I see how this plays out as I’ve lost trust in ED based on this lack of transparency for new customers.

A dishonest money grab ? , you would have to have access to ED's customers sales in order to see how many modules are being sold on a daily/weekly/monthly basis.

Out of those sales, a % would go to razbam ( eventually), if ED make 20-30% ROI on modules, it's not enough to be substantial, and by the time that goes through the various overheads, it's not much of a money grab. 

Given that this situation has a serious effect on the said modules, I think you're clutching at straws with the term "money grab" here.

There's also contractual obligations between both parties outstanding, despite the grievences, that are still in effect.

If Razbam ask ED to remove those modules, as they're dead, and never going to be updated, then yeah, ED will remove tham, at present, it's a status quo, and negotiations are still ongoing.

 

[shagrat]

Am 18.6.2024 um 18:52 schrieb Sinclair:

You are not scaring away noone and we will keep exposing publicly all the illegalities we find as long as we want until they are not adressed properly.

 

No intention to scare, trying to educate...

[schurem]

I aint refunding my strike eagle. Love the thing too damn much. I have faith ED and Razbam can work things out in a manner that works for all. Good luck to the negotiators!

[Oban]

14 minutes ago, shagrat said:

No intention to scare, trying to educate...

I'd love to know who this "We" are, and also what illegalities to be exposed, seeing as he's in posession of the terms and conditions between Razbam, and Eagle Dynamics...

[shagrat]

vor 21 Stunden schrieb javelina1:

too bad you couldn't encapsulate the time/date into a virtual container, and just run it in that...  (sorry, just pulling stuff out of my six....)

You could, but that's still only on your end and will cause issues with any online service, cloud applications etc.

[wadman]

On 6/19/2024 at 4:00 PM, Oban said:

A dishonest money grab ? , you would have to have access to ED's customers sales in order to see how many modules are being sold on a daily/weekly/monthly basis.

Out of those sales, a % would go to razbam ( eventually), if ED make 20-30% ROI on modules, it's not enough to be substantial, and by the time that goes through the various overheads, it's not much of a money grab. 

Given that this situation has a serious effect on the said modules, I think you're clutching at straws with the term "money grab" here.

There's also contractual obligations between both parties outstanding, despite the grievences, that are still in effect.

If Razbam ask ED to remove those modules, as they're dead, and never going to be updated, then yeah, ED will remove tham, at present, it's a status quo, and negotiations are still ongoing.

 

Money grab may be too harsh, but I was not talking about the amount of money.

Regardless of the semantics, the lack of transparency on this significant issue for a new user buying a module that might end up not supported just doesn’t sit well with me ethically.  The dispute between ED and Razbam should not mean that new customers potentially get left with a module that doesn’t get promised updates, has no support or worse: loses existing functionality (like the current radar issue).

Also, I did not suggest removing the module - just adding a disclaimer so that purchasers could decide with full knowledge of this (unprecedented?) situation.  I also did not ask for a refund.

I’ll leave it at that - you won’t change my moral compass on that aspect of this mess.

 

Edited June 21, 2024 by wadman

[BeefSupreme]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

We can not change the status of the module on the store, there is a legal process to follow.

I'm sorry you are not happy, I hope in the future you will have a change of heart.

thank you 

Ok, I started a trial on the harrier 4 days ago, 36 hours later DCS is unable to load the module stating it cannot be authenticated. So the bigger question, is Eagle Dynamics still going to take in money for modules that cannot be authenticated? 
 

This is a very slippery legal slope, if ED is selling things that cannot be used in the product ED builds and claims compatibility with… then that is nothing short of theft by deception. 

Edited June 19, 2024 by BeefSupreme
Added photos

[Czar66]

16 minutes ago, BeefSupreme said:

Ok, I started a trial on the harrier 4 days ago, 36 hours later DCS is unable to load the module stating it cannot be authenticated. So the bigger question, is Eagle Dynamics still going to take in money for modules that cannot be authenticated? 
 

This is a very slippery legal slope, if ED is selling things that cannot be used in the product ED builds and claims compatibility with… then that is nothing short of theft by deception. 

Make an exception of the whole DCS folder on your Anti Virus Program(s) -> Repair DCS.

Edited June 19, 2024 by Czar66

[Horns]

18 minutes ago, BeefSupreme said:

Ok, I started a trial on the harrier 4 days ago, 36 hours later DCS is unable to load the module stating it cannot be authenticated. So the bigger question, is Eagle Dynamics still going to take in money for modules that cannot be authenticated? 
 

This is a very slippery legal slope, if ED is selling things that cannot be used in the product ED builds and claims compatibility with… then that is nothing short of theft by deception. 

Others may know more, but if I’ve understood the problem right this will be a problem with the way your AV software responds to the module, that’s  outside ED’s (or Razbam’s) control, and nothing to do with the issues between ED and Razbam currently.

 Adding your DCS folder to the ignore list in your AV software is the usual fix.

Edit: Czar66 beat me to it

Edited June 19, 2024 by Horns

[Oban]

11 minutes ago, BeefSupreme said:

Ok, I started a trial on the harrier 4 days ago, 36 hours later DCS is unable to load the module stating it cannot be authenticated. So the bigger question, is Eagle Dynamics still going to take in money for modules that cannot be authenticated? 
 

This is a very slippery legal slope, if ED is selling things that cannot be used in the product ED builds and claims compatibility with… then that is nothing short of theft by deception. 

A very ambigious post..

Is it in your module manager ?
 

[MustangSally]

32 minutes ago, BeefSupreme said:

Ok, I started a trial on the harrier 4 days ago, 36 hours later DCS is unable to load the module stating it cannot be authenticated. So the bigger question, is Eagle Dynamics still going to take in money for modules that cannot be authenticated? 
 

This is a very slippery legal slope, if ED is selling things that cannot be used in the product ED builds and claims compatibility with… then that is nothing short of theft by deception. 

 

Your AntiVirus is causing it. Other threads in here call it out. Nothing to do with the current situation.