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

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Generally, within 14 days of purchase, we will refund the method of payment. 

Excellent!  In that case, it feels like the disclaimer "issue" is largely non-issue. 

[cuchara]

En 7/7/2024 a las 4:25, Notso dijo:

Not hypothetical at all.  This was just this week:

Same here but some weeks ago

[Guest]

1 hour ago, cuchara said:

Same here but some weeks ago

Out of curiosity did you ask for a refund?

[lazduc]

I read some time ago that Razbam stated they had developed F15 code BEFORE their involvement with DCS/ED.  With that, Raz, would not release their code

to ED, Because (?) When(?).   ED instituted a requirement of receiving current code from all 3rd party developer modules as this would avoid any future

problems ( Developer's unfinished code) enabling ED to be able to finish said code.   So the inference,  being a problem that should have been addressed

at the onset of this contract.  Caveat, read this as my opinion and I cannot remember where I read this information.  Dilbert comes to mind.

Notice....ED/Raz  time is becoming almost critical for many of us ole timers.  I do not say this lightly.  Please end this!!

Laz

 

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, lazduc said:

I read some time ago that Razbam stated they had developed F15 code BEFORE their involvement with DCS/ED.  With that, Raz, would not release their code

to ED, Because (?) When(?).   ED instituted a requirement of receiving current code from all 3rd party developer modules as this would avoid any future

problems ( Developer's unfinished code) enabling ED to be able to finish said code.   So the inference,  being a problem that should have been addressed

at the onset of this contract.  Caveat, read this as my opinion and I cannot remember where I read this information.  Dilbert comes to mind.

Notice....ED/Raz  time is becoming almost critical for many of us ole timers.  I do not say this lightly.  Please end this!!

Laz

 

Unless it comes directly from either management teams it's just theories. The development timeline doesn't matter, what matters is what was in the contract when it was signed. And then just because something was in the contract it would have to have been followed if that stipulation was there. (disclaimer: not saying anything either way, just noting that when the development of the F-15E or any module started doesn't matter much, most modules are started before a contract is signed)

[Mainstay]

Blablablabla Razbam blablablabla Eagle Dynamics……

Months later still nothing, seriously disappointed  

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, Mainstay said:

Blablablabla Razbam blablablabla Eagle Dynamics……

Months later still nothing, seriously disappointed  

This kind of dispute will take a lot of time to sort out. No way around that sorry. 

 

[JuiceIsLoose]

I'm sure its going to take a long time to sort out. But, ED could pay RB what they are owed from their module sales in the meantime. RB has stated numerous times they would begin work once they are paid. Work could then continue on the Strike Eagle, and all other RB modules, while this separate dispute is settled in the background. A compromise that puts the customer's first and shows a willingness to work together.

ED stated in their official response that they "are addressing the situation with the utmost attention and constructiveness." A compromise that shows good faith and keeps the users satisfied would be an exemplary display of constructiveness.

Edited July 9, 2024 by JuiceIsLoose

[BIGNEWY]

10 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

I'm sure its going to take a long time to sort out. But, ED could pay RB what they are owed from their module sales in the meantime. RB has stated numerous times they would begin work once they are paid. Work could then continue on the Strike Eagle, and all other RB modules, while this separate dispute is settled in the background. A compromise that puts the customer's first and shows a willingness to work together.

ED stated in their official response that they "are addressing the situation with the utmost attention and constructiveness." A compromise that shows good faith and keeps the users satisfied would be an exemplary display of constructiveness.

 

Apologies but it is not something we can discuss here, it is a private matter between the party's involved, and they have to use the advice given by professionals in this kind of dispute. 

We all hope for a good out come for the modules as they are great and a lot of fun. Once the dispute is resolved we will hopefully know more. 

thank you 

[killjoy73au]

We can't discuss, we can't fix it, but we'll sure as hell still sell the modules

[BIGNEWY]

19 minutes ago, killjoy73au said:

We can't discuss, we can't fix it, but we'll sure as hell still sell the modules

As mentioned many times there is a process to follow, and we have taken professional advice. 

All we can do is wait now for the dispute to be resolved. 

thank you  

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, killjoy73au said:

We can't discuss, we can't fix it, but we'll sure as hell still sell the modules

Please read the first post in this thread. 

[Mike Force Team]

It sounds like @BIGNEWY is also tired of the dispute dragging on. Sounds like he wants the dispute resolved.  Managing the ongoing discussion is time consuming because they must answer the same questions on a recurring basis.  In the meantime,  @BIGNEWY is limited what can be publicly disclosed.

Once the dispute is resolved, i hope ED and RZ can hold a public meeting to answer our questions about what happened. 

Mike Force Team 

 

[draconus]

11 minutes ago, Mike Force Team said:

Once the dispute is resolved, i hope ED and RZ can hold a public meeting to answer our questions about what happened. 

Why would they do that? It's not public info.

[NineLine]

Don't count on any legal dispute info being shared at any time, we just need to get this sorted one way or another and move on.

[nessuno0505]

7 ore fa, JuiceIsLoose ha scritto:

ED could pay RB while this dispute is settled

This makes no sense: if ED paid RB there would be no dispute.

Edited July 9, 2024 by nessuno0505

[RaisedByWolves]

14 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

This makes no sense: if ED paid RB there would be no dispute.

 

Exactly. If no dispute, what would keep this thread alive?

[NineLine]

42 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

This makes no sense: if ED paid RB there would be no dispute.

 

There is much more to it than this or else it would have been solved long ago. 

[MustangSally]

6 hours ago, nessuno0505 said:

This makes no sense: if ED paid RB there would be no dispute.

 

Did you read the first post in this thread???

[nessuno0505]

15 ore fa, NineLine ha scritto:

There is much more to it than this or else it would have been solved long ago. 

I know. What I meant is you cannot simply "pay razbam while the dispute is settled, so they can go back to work" as suggested; if ED could maybe there would be no dispute at all. Both ED's actions and RB's actions are part of the dispute itself, as I understand it.

9 ore fa, MustangSally ha scritto:

Did you read the first post in this thread???

Very carefully. That's the reason why I think the solution can't be simply "pay RB, so we have our modules back and then you manage your problems on your behalf, without annoying us customers", as someone suggested.

[SkateZilla]

21 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

I know. What I meant is you cannot simply "pay razbam while the dispute is settled, so they can go back to work" as suggested; if ED could maybe there would be no dispute at all. Both ED's actions and RB's actions are part of the dispute itself, as I understand it.

Very carefully. That's the reason why I think the solution can't be simply "pay RB, so we have our modules back and then you manage your problems on your behalf, without annoying us customers", as someone suggested.

That's assuming the obligation to pay the developers is ED's to begin with.
ED pays RB, RB pays his employees. if ED doesn't pay RB, it's still RB's job to pay his employees.

Does the pepsi delivery guy go after walmart for payment when pepsi doesnt pay him? nope.

ED executed their contract breach procedures as directed by their legal team for RB breaching their contract.
If ED pays RB the contract terms, then there would be no reason for RB to continue trying to resolve the contract breach as they would still be getting paid therefore nothing urging them to resolve the issue.

Paying RB during the negotiations doesn't bring the modules back, they never left, apart from the F-15E Radar Time code integrated by the Radar developer, the modules are all fully functioning.

Edited July 10, 2024 by SkateZilla

[JuiceIsLoose]

46 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

That's assuming the obligation to pay the developers is ED's to begin with.
ED pays RB, RB pays his employees. if ED doesn't pay RB, it's still RB's job to pay his employees.

Does the pepsi delivery guy go after walmart for payment when pepsi doesnt pay him? nope.

ED executed their contract breach procedures as directed by their legal team for RB breaching their contract.
If ED pays RB the contract terms, then there would be no reason for RB to continue trying to resolve the contract breach as they would still be getting paid therefore nothing urging them to resolve the issue.

Paying RB during the negotiations doesn't bring the modules back, they never left, apart from the F-15E Radar Time code integrated by the Radar developer, the modules are all fully functioning.

 

So I get what you are saying about RB is supposed to pay their employees/devs, not ED. So I'm not going to pretend like I know the contract between RB and its employees are. But, its not unfathomable in my mind that they aren't paid like an hourly or salary position (like someone working at as a delivery person in your example). I could see how they were paid on a psuedo commission basis. Example: for each module sale you receive X% or $X.XX. So I think this is where the issues come in. RB doesn't get their sales or revenue directly from the module sales. Rather, the way I understand it, is that RB gets their "sales" or revenue from ED, based on the number of modules that get sold through ED's store. So if ED is not paying RB at all for the sales, it can be treated like RB essentially has no sales.

Thus, because RB has no revenue coming in, because ED isn't paying, the dev's may not be getting paid, if they are on a pseudo commission type payroll. Again, I don't know how their individual contracts are set up. But the way DCS works, I don't see it being unfathomable for this to be a way to operate.

Then there is the issue you brought up about ED executing their contract breach procedures as directed by their legal team. Based on the first announcement by ED, even they stated that they didn't want to go to legal route first, "we are seeking a reasonable and forward-looking commercial outcome rather than entertaining legal claims". What I was eluding to in a post earlier about ED paying RB their share of the already sold F-15E modules as a sign of good-faith, was more in relation to PRIOR to legal professionals getting involved. RB claims they weren't paid for multiple months before going public. 

And I get what you are saying about ED losing leverage on the contract breach by paying RB. But if ED truly thought, there would be no issue with taking sales of a product they didn't create, while not paying the developers (and here when I say developers I mean the company RB), then that seems a little naive to me on ED's part. If ED knew about this IP contract breach, how did they think still selling the module and then not paying the developers (again the company RB, not the individuals) would result in anything but the cluster we have now? Legally do they have the right to? Probably. But if they didn't think this would blow up, that seems naive to me.

To use your example, it would be like Walmart selling pepsi products, fully knowing that they were NOT going to pay Pepsi, because of an ongoing issue, and then expecting Pepsi to just keep supplying them with more product to sell. Why would Pepsi keep supplying product to Walmart knowing they aren't getting paid? And then how would Walmart not think withholding sales from Pepsi wouldn't result in them stopping to provide product.

The developers have stated that if they get paid they will immediately start supporting and providing updates to the modules. ED paying RB just shows they are looking to keep the modules progressing, and shows good faith that they want a forward looking resolution with RB. ED has to understand that this business is wonky with cash flow. Its not a subscription based industry, so if ED had no sales, they would lose the ability to pay their employees, and probably lose some of their employees because of it. ED had to know this was a possible outcome by not providing RB any of their share of the module sales.

From what I understand from the RB developers (this is where it gets murky and not confirmed by official sources), this IP issue is not related to the F-15E, or any DCS product. But rather another module, the Tucano. So why not sort that separate issue out while still paying RB for the module sales that ED has already received? Again, this would have been something great to do BEFORE legal processes were engaged as a sign of goodwill to find a forward looking outcome.

Edited July 10, 2024 by JuiceIsLoose

[SkateZilla]

48 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

So I get what you are saying about RB is supposed to pay their employees/devs, not ED. So I'm not going to pretend like I know the contract between RB and its employees are. But, its not unfathomable in my mind that they aren't paid like an hourly or salary position (like someone working at as a delivery person in your example). I could see how they were paid on a psuedo commission basis. Example: for each module sale you receive X% or $X.XX. So I think this is where the issues come in. RB doesn't get their sales or revenue directly from the module sales. Rather, the way I understand it, is that RB gets their "sales" or revenue from ED, based on the number of modules that get sold through ED's store. So if ED is not paying RB at all for the sales, it can be treated like RB essentially has no sales.

Thus, because RB has no revenue coming in, because ED isn't paying, the dev's may not be getting paid, if they are on a pseudo commission type payroll. Again, I don't know how their individual contracts are set up. But the way DCS works, I don't see it being unfathomable for this to be a way to operate.

Then there is the issue you brought up about ED executing their contract breach procedures as directed by their legal team. Based on the first announcement by ED, even they stated that they didn't want to go to legal route first, "we are seeking a reasonable and forward-looking commercial outcome rather than entertaining legal claims". What I was eluding to in a post earlier about ED paying RB their share of the already sold F-15E modules as a sign of good-faith, was more in relation to PRIOR to legal professionals getting involved. RB claims they weren't paid for multiple months before going public. 

And I get what you are saying about ED losing leverage on the contract breach by paying RB. But if ED truly thought, there would be no issue with taking sales of a product they didn't create, while not paying the developers (and here when I say developers I mean the company RB), then that seems a little naive to me on ED's part. If ED knew about this IP contract breach, how did they think still selling the module and then not paying the developers (again the company RB, not the individuals) would result in anything but the cluster we have now? Legally do they have the right to? Probably. But if they didn't think this would blow up, that seems naive to me.

To use your example, it would be like Walmart selling pepsi products, fully knowing that they were NOT going to pay Pepsi, because of an ongoing issue, and then expecting Pepsi to just keep supplying them with more product to sell. Why would Pepsi keep supplying product to Walmart knowing they aren't getting paid? And then how would Walmart not think withholding sales from Pepsi wouldn't result in them stopping to provide product.

The developers have stated that if they get paid they will immediately start supporting and providing updates to the modules. ED paying RB just shows they are looking to keep the modules progressing, and shows good faith that they want a forward looking resolution with RB. ED has to understand that this business is wonky with cash flow. Its not a subscription based industry, so if ED had no sales, they would lose the ability to pay their employees, and probably lose some of their employees because of it. ED had to know this was a possible outcome by not providing RB any of their share of the module sales.

From what I understand from the RB developers (this is where it gets murky and not confirmed by official sources), this IP issue is not related to the F-15E, or any DCS product. But rather another module, the Tucano. So why not sort that separate issue out while still paying RB for the module sales that ED has already received? Again, this would have been something great to do BEFORE legal processes were engaged as a sign of goodwill to find a forward looking outcome.

 

Following legal direction does not mean Legal proceedings *(ie Court).

As for the above about employees, only RB and the employees know their terms, regardless of revenue amount, in the event the revenue amounts arent disclosed or withheld it's still RB's responsibility to supplement pay.

I wont speculate on their contract terms with RB, as it does no good here.

Edited July 10, 2024 by SkateZilla

[JuiceIsLoose]

24 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Following legal direction does not mean Legal proceedings *(ie Court).

As for the above about employees, only RB and the employees know their terms, regardless of revenue amount, in the event the revenue amounts arent disclosed or withheld it's still RB's responsibility to supplement pay.

I wont speculate on their contract terms with RB, as it does no good here.

 

Seems to set a questionable precedent that 3rd parties must be able to maintain modules, and their employees, with no cash flow once their module is released/sold indefinitely. These are small companies, not major corporations with huge bank rolls. They already take a risk with spending many resources and time to develop a module prior to it even hitting stores. Expecting them to carry enough cash to pay employees (to keep them working) in the event they don't see a dime from the sales indefinitely seems unreasonable, no?

If I was a third party, I would be much more hesitant to sink those resources and time into a product that may be sold by ED, where I could possibly receive 0 payment from sales, and be expected to maintain that product indefinitely. Again, weird precedent to set. It would be different if RB delivered a crap module that sold 0 units. Then, I wouldn't expect ED to pay RB anything for their work, because ultimately, the entire system is essentially commission based. And it should be noted, that RB did continue to work for months, without proper payment. In my opinion, that shows they put good faith toward a resolution. But ED did not provide any good faith in return. I'm not hear to debate legalities, but ethics. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not debating legalities here, I am simply voicing concerns over questionable business practices. Which is something that happens from customers with all business world wide. And If I wanted ED to fail I wouldn't care so much. But the game is great, and the products provided by their third parties is equally as great. Is it wrong for a customer to voice they want a healthier business environment to better the game as a whole?

Edited July 10, 2024 by JuiceIsLoose

[MAXsenna]

Seems to set a questionable precedent that 3rd parties must be able to maintain modules, and their employees, with no cash flow once their module is released/sold indefinitely. These are small companies, not major corporations with huge bank rolls. They already take a risk with spending many resources and time to develop a module prior to it even hitting stores. Expecting them to carry enough cash to pay employees (to keep them working) in the event they don't see a dime from the sales indefinitely seems unreasonable, no?
If I was a third party, I would be much more hesitant to sink those resources and time into a product that may be sold by ED, where I could possibly receive 0 payment from sales, and be expected to maintain that product indefinitely. Again, weird precedent to set. It would be different if RB delivered a crap module that sold 0 units. Then, I wouldn't expect ED to pay RB anything for their work, because ultimately, the entire system is essentially commission based. And it should be noted, that RB did continue to work for months, without proper payment. In my opinion, that shows they put good faith toward a resolution. But ED did not provide any good faith in return. I'm not hear to debate legalities, but ethics. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not debating legalities here, I am simply voicing concerns over questionable business practices. Which is something that happens from customers with all business world wide. And If I wanted ED to fail I wouldn't care so much. But the game is great, and the products provided by their third parties is equally as great. Is it wrong for a customer to voice they want a healthier business environment to better the game as a whole?

Pretty sure ED keeps 30% percent, and the rest to the dev, no matter how crappy the module is or how many copies are sold.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk