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

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, juanar10 said:

Hi! I have a couple of questions:

1. Do you have a deadline for this issue to be fixed before taking measures? For example: "if we don't solve this dispute before the end of the year we are going to..."
2. If (1) is true, how would you end the phrase?
3. Do you conceive a world in which users that payed money for the F-15E will keep a non-finished product? Let's say the dispute has no solution, is it ok for you to have this half-finished product be sold and users that bought it being able to use it, but not finished?

Thanks!

1) We are committed to solving the issues no matter how long it takes. Obviously we want sooner than later as well we have to prepare for a long haul and what that will look like.

2) See #1 but basically we are working towards the best, but preparing for any scenarios that arise. I know it's kind of a non-answer but things are in the heat of discussion right now and guessing either way won't help anyone. 

3) That's a tough question, I cannot see DCS without a fully complete F-15E, the aircraft is simply too iconic not to have in DCS. I am not saying that because it's one of my favourites but because it's just a fact. So it's impossible to answer right now sadly. The best answer is RB back to working on their already epic module and finishing it off. 

[Shibbyland]

15 hours ago, NineLine said:

 

As we understand it, it was put in by an individual dev based on working with RAZBAM and was not intended to be part of the issues with this current situation. Meaning it was not intentional to inflame the current issues even if it now has. 

That's bizarre. I'm not asking you to comment on what the intent might or might not have been in doing this but can you think of a legitimate reason why a contractor/employee would take it upon themselves to deliberately put such a flaw in their product?

I'll freely admit I don't know anything about the development of software but to me that seems a bit like burying a razor in a chocolate bar.

[nessuno0505]

Il 1/7/2024 at 07:58, NineLine ha scritto:

For example we know what causes issues with updates and modules, we will make sure to make adjustments to our updates to not break the older modules if they remain unsupported.

16 ore fa, Rifter ha scritto:

Wait…could the same strategy be applied to all older (feature complete) modules? Would save a lot of time for bugfixes and would catapult customer satisfaction into orbit.

15 ore fa, NineLine ha scritto:

It adds extra work to our team, so 3rd Parties that are active it still makes more sense for them to continue to update their modules for major updates.

Well, but the issue is true also with old feature complete ED's modules! 

Isn't breaking things and then having to fix them more work than trying not to break them from the start? 

Customer satisfaction would take flight even if we had an f-86, a huey or an f-5 carefully treated so as not to introduce new bugs, which sooner or later should be corrected anyway.

[LordOrion]

18 hours ago, draconus said:

Ever been married?

lol

[Horns]

7 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

Well, but the issue is true also with old feature complete ED's modules! 

Isn't breaking things and then having to fix them more work than trying not to break them from the start? 

Customer satisfaction would take flight even if we had an f-86, a huey or an f-5 carefully treated so as not to introduce new bugs, which sooner or later should be corrected anyway.

I think he's saying they'd need to find workarounds for each particular module, not that just building the updates differently would solve it for all of them at once

[bfr]

32 minutes ago, Shibbyland said:

That's bizarre. I'm not asking you to comment on what the intent might or might not have been in doing this but can you think of a legitimate reason why a contractor/employee would take it upon themselves to deliberately put such a flaw in their product?

I'll freely admit I don't know anything about the development of software but to me that seems a bit like burying a razor in a chocolate bar.

The short answer is they're ticked off for not getting paid and its a way of hitting back.

Last time I checked (admittedly in UK law) then its perfectly legal to do this (you can't make something destroy itself but you can make it simply stop working) and its not unheard of for it to happen (e.g. contractors with bad client relationships so if the final bill doesn't get paid then the software is eventually bricked without further intervention).  Whether it reflects badly on the dev is much more subjective, but I think we can all understand their grievance if the bills ain't getting paid.

[draconus]

47 minutes ago, Shibbyland said:

That's bizarre. I'm not asking you to comment on what the intent might or might not have been in doing this but can you think of a legitimate reason why a contractor/employee would take it upon themselves to deliberately put such a flaw in their product?

I'll freely admit I don't know anything about the development of software but to me that seems a bit like burying a razor in a chocolate bar.

The author was very clear in his message on how and why he did this and that he even informed the right persons about it.

[JB3DG]

Has ED looked at paying the various contractors of RB who did the actual work their money bypassing RB as a business?

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, JB3DG said:

Has ED looked at paying the various contractors of RB who did the actual work their money bypassing RB as a business?

We have a contract with RB, that would not be legal or good business at this point. 

[afnav130]

9 hours ago, JB3DG said:

Has ED looked at paying the various contractors of RB who did the actual work their money bypassing RB as a business?

Yeah, pay the people who do the work, and work out your issues with the leadership. If anything, pay them what they are owed for work done, not for anything new. We still don't know if ED paid them anything at all. 

[=BoB= David]

Hi everyone,

I've been thinking about this for a while and I have no idea what to think about it, so I'd like some feedback from the people responsible. 

We all know that the situation between RAZBAM and ED is tense, given that the lawyers have it in their hands now, it could be for quite a while, and at this point it doesn't matter if RAZBAM or ED is to blame for the problems, we've all read some "statements" from both sides and it's up to each of us what we think about it, but... How on earth is it possible that the F-15E is still being sold, it's a very unfinished module with a really uncertain future, and ED is acting like nothing happened, the module is still being sold on the eshop and there is no note or disclaimer that there are some remaining issues.

How the hell is this possible? The concept of "respect for the customer" is unfamiliar to ED? Just cashgrab as much money as possible and be cool and pretend everything is fine, meanwhile releasing modules that won't be finished for another decade?

The fact that the F-15E is still being sold under the current circumstances with no further comment on the progression of the cause for months is really a huge spit in the face of the customers that really boggles my mind and there really is no intersection here for any sane person.

As I said above, problems can arise between business partners, but then it is up to the platform operator (in this case ED) to take sufficient, pro-community steps. However, in this case, apart from one statement and the offer of a refund (even for store credit, not for actual currency, which is even legally actionable under the circumstances under some EU statutes as far as I know), it is just one big joke, especially seeing that ED doesn't give a damn about customers, given that 15E is still on the eshop.

I hope I get a reply and it doesn't get deleted.
I'm not aware that it would break any rule.

your until recently loyal customer

David

Edited July 3, 2024 by =BoB= David

[Horns]

5 minutes ago, =BoB= David said:

Hi everyone,

I've been thinking about this for a while and I have no idea what to think about it, so I'd like some feedback from the people responsible. 

We all know that the situation between RAZBAM and ED is tense, given that the lawyers have it in their hands now, it could be for quite a while, and at this point it doesn't matter if RAZBAM or ED is to blame for the problems, we've all read some "statements" from both sides and it's up to each of us what we think about it, but... How on earth is it possible that the F-15E is still being sold, it's a very unfinished module with a really uncertain future, and ED is acting like nothing happened, the module is still being sold on the eshop and there is no note or disclaimer that there are some remaining issues.

How the hell is this possible? The concept of "respect for the customer" is unfamiliar to ED? Just cashgrab as much money as possible and be cool and pretend everything is fine, meanwhile releasing modules that won't be finished for another decade?

The fact that the F-15E is still being sold under the current circumstances with no further comment on the progression of the cause for months is really a huge spit in the face of the customers that really boggles my mind and there really is no intersection here for any sane person.

As I said above, problems can arise between business partners, but then it is up to the platform operator (in this case ED) to take sufficient, pro-community steps. However, in this case, apart from one statement and the offer of a refund (even for store credit, not for actual currency, which is even legally actionable under the circumstances under some EU statutes as far as I know), it is just one big joke, especially seeing that ED doesn't give a damn about customers, given that 15E is still on the eshop.

I hope I get a reply and it doesn't get deleted.
I'm not aware that it would break any rule.

your until recently loyal customer

David

 

From the OP:

On 6/18/2024 at 6:55 AM, NineLine said:

How can you keep selling the F-15E or other modules?
Right now we are working within the framework of the legal advice moving forward and not wanting to cause any more riffs or issues. It's a complex process at this point and most likely why it seems to be moving so slowly for everyone. Nothing more can be said about that right now. Sorry.

 

Edited July 3, 2024 by Horns
Changed "first post" to "OP"

[=BoB= David]

 

1 minute ago, Horns said:

From the first post:

 

Did you read my comment? 

the question was how the hell is it possible to sell it under the given conditions, because a normal person simply does not have the stomach for this.

i know several multinational store owners (even in SW) and they would never in their life sell an unfinished or unsupported product because they don't have the stomach for it and have some respect for the customers.

The fact that some standardized framework is being developed does not justify or excuse the fact that it is still on the e-shop under the given situation

[Horns]

1 minute ago, =BoB= David said:

 

Did you read my comment? 

the question was how the hell is it possible to sell it under the given conditions, because a normal person simply does not have the stomach for this.

i know several multinational store owners (even in SW) and they would never in their life sell an unfinished or unsupported product because they don't have the stomach for it and have some respect for the customers.

The fact that some standardized framework is being developed does not justify or excuse the fact that it is still on the e-shop under the given situation

Saw your comment, that's the answer.

[=BoB= David]

1 minute ago, Horns said:

Saw your comment, that's the answer.

Its not, but nevermind, have a nice day.

 

[Dallenbach]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb =BoB= David:

Es ist nicht, aber egal, einen schönen Tag zu haben.

 

That was an answer, unsatisfactory, but an answer. Have you considered that RAZAM insists on keeping the F15 in the shop? No outsider knows the contracts signed by the two parties. It will never be known legally.

[JuiceIsLoose]

It keeps selling because whatever "IP infringement" was done was bad enough to not pay RB, but not bad enough to not sell/release the module apparently.

[=BoB= David]

2 minutes ago, Dallenbach said:

That was an answer, unsatisfactory, but an answer. Have you considered that RAZAM insists on keeping the F15 in the shop? No outsider knows the contracts signed by the two parties. It will never be known legally.

of course it's possible, but I doubt it's true, these conditions are dictated by the platform owner in most cases.

[JuiceIsLoose]

3 minutes ago, Dallenbach said:

That was an answer, unsatisfactory, but an answer. Have you considered that RAZAM insists on keeping the F15 in the shop? No outsider knows the contracts signed by the two parties. It will never be known legally.

Multiple RB devs stated they requested the module be taken down from sale. Obviously, I don't have direct communication to show of that. But, when it was stated that the RB website still directed to ED's site, and ED took that to mean they still wanted it sold, RB immediately broke those links in like 30 minutes from their website. 

[=BoB= David]

Just now, JuiceIsLoose said:

It keeps selling because whatever "IP infringement" was done was bad enough to not pay RB, but not bad enough to not sell/release the module apparently.

thats a BS.. it's lying to customers, the customer buys it with the understanding that the module will be supported and further developed,but well..  it's not.

[JuiceIsLoose]

Just now, =BoB= David said:

thats a BS.. it's lying to customers, the customer buys it with the understanding that the module will be supported and further developed,but well..  it's not.

Hey, I hear ya, and I agree. I also fully understand why RB decided to stop work without being paid for the work they had already done. Seems weird ED would release a module knowing they weren't going to pay the developers.... Would imagine they would hold off until the issue was resolved.

[exhausted]

23 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Hey, I hear ya, and I agree. I also fully understand why RB decided to stop work without being paid for the work they had already done. Seems weird ED would release a module knowing they weren't going to pay the developers.... Would imagine they would hold off until the issue was resolved.

This is exactly what is most baffling, and the obvious explanations are not great

[Oban]

2 hours ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Hey, I hear ya, and I agree. I also fully understand why RB decided to stop work without being paid for the work they had already done. Seems weird ED would release a module knowing they weren't going to pay the developers.... Would imagine they would hold off until the issue was resolved.

It's called contractual obligations, and there would be specific terms and conditions attached to the sale of said module.

Nobody has to like it, they just have to accept it, and in this case, the consumer doesn't have any rights. If you don't want to buy the module, then don't, it's as simple as that, and if others do, then that's their prerogative.

 

[RaisedByWolves]

BOB David.  If ED were to wait to sell a finished product, we'd probably only have like 2-3 modules as of right now. 

[JuiceIsLoose]

6 minutes ago, Oban said:

It's called contractual obligations, and there would be specific terms and conditions attached to the sale of said module.

Nobody has to like it, they just have to accept it, and in this case, the consumer doesn't have any rights. If you don't want to buy the module, then don't, it's as simple as that, and if others do, then that's their prerogative.

 

All I’m saying is they feel RB did something bad enough to warrant withholding pay, but not bad enough to not/stop selling their work.

Are they in full rights to do that legally? Idk, probably. Does it seem right to do that morally/ethically? People can draw their own opinions on that.