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

[Smashy]

2 hours ago, Beirut said:

 

While there are good reasons to feel that way, it is also the case that great devs, like ORBX and Heatblur, are very active with ED. That's a good sign.

Orbx seems to be happily married to another big civ sim.  DCS is the side chick for them.  HB is also getting more involved with the big civ sim and I'm wondering if this was planned all along or if it's to prepare for an uncertain future with ED.

[Beirut]

1 minute ago, Smashy said:

Orbx seems to be happily married to another big civ sim.  DCS is the side chick for them.  HB is also getting more involved with the big civ sim and I'm wondering if this was planned all along or if it's to prepare for an uncertain future with ED.

 

DCS might be the side chick, but having ORBX expand to DCS is a good omen. And having growing devs like Heatblur expand alongside DCS development, but still actively engaged with DCS shows that DCS has serious players involved.  

 

Regardless of the bad things going on with RB, there are good things going on with other devs. 

[Mizzy]

17 hours ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

So then how long until you feel customers should be provided an official announcement from ED? 6 months? 1 year? Or are we just hoping everyone forgets and moves on?

You just don't get it do you. The first page explains what the situation is, it also makes clear why we are having this thread and it's because one Party decided to spit their dummy out and go public with "disparaging" remarks that was palpably aimed at stirring it up with only one side of the story, their story. Where have you seen any business give their customers all the details of legal battles which are privy only to people on a  need to know basis. As stated many many times, customers will be provided an official announcement when it is appropriate to do so, probably after legal advice. I have all the Razbam modules except the F15e and since the other modules are out of EA, they won't be updated with new features because they are considered feature complete by the developer and only fixed by ED if ED breaks them.

Enjoy DCS, it has a lot of content, not just the F15e which is the ONLY module affected by this "disparaging" announcement that we all could have done without.

Edited July 30, 2024 by Mizzy

[Mizzy]

6 hours ago, some1 said:

I've spent 200$ in ED store on Razbam modules that are now unsupported and/or unfinished. How's that for a contract?

As stated, the only module affected is the F15e. The other modules are out of Early Access and therefore considered feature complete with no updates, just fixes. You may think they are unfinished but that's your opinion and may be shared with others, however that's another matter. 

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, Mizzy said:

As stated, the only module affected is the F15e. The other modules are out of Early Access and therefore considered feature complete with no updates, just fixes. You may think they are unfinished but that's your opinion and may be shared with others, however that's another matter. 

This is correct, and this is why we are offering a small form of a refund on the F-15E, the others are out of EA, considered feature complete by RAZBAM and we plan to make sure they continue to work on DCS no matter what happens. The SA Map is still in active development despite the disagreement. 

[some1]

12 minutes ago, NineLine said:

This is correct, and this is why we are offering a small form of a refund on the F-15E, the others are out of EA, considered feature complete by RAZBAM and we plan to make sure they continue to work on DCS no matter what happens

The new DCS fuzing options do not work correctly on any Razbam module, it's been reported months ago, when can we expect ED to fix this? Some bombs are unusable because there's no way to set the new fuzes. As you can see, things already start to deteriorate as ED makes core changes to DCS platform.

The Harrier does not even come with a complete manual. It was supposed to be finished after rework that was planned by Razbam when main work on F-15 was done. Doesn't look like it will happen any time soon.

 

Edited July 30, 2024 by some1

[some1]

1 hour ago, Mizzy said:

You may think they are unfinished but that's your opinion and may be shared with others

That's also the opinion of Razbam themselves, see the picture above.

[Mizzy]

18 minutes ago, some1 said:

That's also the opinion of Razbam themselves, see the picture above.

And what date is this picture may I ask? AFAIK Razbam consider the other modules as feature complete and announced that they are out of early access with no more feature updates. They work perfectly well for the money I spent, so nobody has lost anything unless you bought the F15e which I didn't.

[some1]

Date is at the top, August 2023. To my knowledge it's the most recent plan of work posted before the dispute with ED started. 

Similar thing happened with the Mirage. All the big model and system reworks, proper manual and realistic radar were done years after the module had been proclaimed out of early access. I wouldn't put so much emphasis on what's early access and what is not. Devs have different standards and different motivations to move the modules out of EA quickly, or call them beta forever.

 

Edited July 30, 2024 by some1

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, some1 said:

The new DCS fuzing options do not work correctly on any Razbam module, it's been reported months ago, when can we expect ED to fix this? Some bombs are unusable because there's no way to set the new fuzes. As you can see, things already start to deteriorate as ED makes core changes to DCS platform.

The Harrier does not even come with a complete manual. It was supposed to be finished after rework that was planned by Razbam when main work on F-15 was done. Doesn't look like it will happen any time soon.

 

 

I'll look into the fuzing issues, but the manual is not something we would do. 

[Guest]

 

1 hour ago, some1 said:

That's also the opinion of Razbam themselves, see the picture above.

Did you believe that by buying a module you are guaranteed that it will keep being developed forever? I didn’t because IMO that isn’t reasonable…every module will eventually become outdated and unsupported (just like every other piece of software I’ve ever bought). While it’s certainly nice when a developer keeps modules updated with new features and fixes, I don’t think it’s a guarantee that anyone is making. In the case of the other Razbam modules, I have certainly had and used them long enough that I have gotten “my money’s worth” even if they stop working.  
 

EDIT: TBH this is one of the concerns I have with ED’s business model long term.  Eventually the effort needed to keep the library of modules working is going to overwhelm new revenue from sales.  At some point I wonder if ED will need to switch to some kind of subscription model in order to bring in the needed revenue 

Edited July 30, 2024 by wombat778

[nessuno0505]

54 minuti fa, some1 ha scritto:

Date is at the top, August 2023. To my knowledge it's the most recent plan of work posted before the dispute with ED started. 

Similar thing happened with the Mirage. All the big model and system reworks, proper manual and realistic radar were done years after the module had been proclaimed out of early access. I wouldn't put so much emphasis on what's early access and what is not. Devs have different standards and different motivations to move the modules out of EA quickly, or call them beta forever.

Nevertheless you currently have the exact modules you have bought for the money, f-15e excluded (but refundable).

I highly doubt they will remain fully functional in a year or two if the dispute won't be addressed (the bomb fuse problem speaks for itself), and even if it will be, what can Razbam do after two years of abandoned modules? But that's another matter.

[Horns]

56 minutes ago, some1 said:

Date is at the top, August 2023. To my knowledge it's the most recent plan of work posted before the dispute with ED started. 

Similar thing happened with the Mirage. All the big model and system reworks, proper manual and realistic radar were done years after the module had been proclaimed out of early access. I wouldn't put so much emphasis on what's early access and what is not. Devs have different standards and different motivations to move the modules out of EA quickly, or call them beta forever.

 

 

I'm with you on the Harrier being unfinished (and the M2K being finished long after it was claimed to be feature complete).Regardless of that post by Alpha Juliet on their Discord suggesting the F-15E would finance further work on the Harrier, if they were prepared to be held to adding what's missing - such as the rest of the manual - they wouldn't have moved it out of EA. We can't expect anything to get added to the Harrier, whether Razbam are involved in DCS or not.

[Mizzy]

1 hour ago, some1 said:

Date is at the top, August 2023. To my knowledge it's the most recent plan of work posted before the dispute with ED started. 

Similar thing happened with the Mirage. All the big model and system reworks, proper manual and realistic radar were done years after the module had been proclaimed out of early access. I wouldn't put so much emphasis on what's early access and what is not. Devs have different standards and different motivations to move the modules out of EA quickly, or call them beta forever.

 

 

That's fair enough. If my memory serves, the updates were something to do with a military air force contract some years back, so maybe the Mirage benefited from that. One things for sure, they are what they are now and still working like the Mig21. No idea about the fusing thingy on bombs, I don't use any weapons in DCS, it's just a military flight simulator to me.

[some1]

1 hour ago, wombat778 said:

Did you believe that by buying a module you are guaranteed that it will keep being developed forever? I didn’t because IMO that isn’t reasonable…every module will eventually become outdated and unsupported (just like every other piece of software I’ve ever bought).

Software becoming outdated or unsupported due to old age is one thing. Software becoming unsupported because dev and platform owner get into public argument is another. Anyway, I'm repeating myself: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/351813-edrazbam-situation-info-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=5492950

 

[freehand]

15 hours ago, some1 said:

Regardless of who is at fault, I'm much less willing to spend money on DCS now, after the Razbam fiasco. I may still risk buying a really interesting addon in the future, but gone are the days of throwing money at DCS and the whole "passion and support" spirit.

I can understand 3rd party devs are sometimes falling apart due to internal arguments between team members or just loose the capability to support addons because of age and changing personal situation. That's life, and it's a risk involved in buying addons for any simulator. But ED and 3rd party fighting over money and throwing customers under the bus in the process? That's on another level.

 

I must say your post gives me food for thought.

[draconus]

2 hours ago, wombat778 said:

every module will eventually become outdated and unsupported

Where did you read that, pal? As long as DCS updates itself all modules are supposed to be working.

[RafaPolit]

2 hours ago, wombat778 said:

EDIT: TBH this is one of the concerns I have with ED’s business model long term.  Eventually the effort needed to keep the library of modules working is going to overwhelm new revenue from sales.  At some point I wonder if ED will need to switch to some kind of subscription model in order to bring in the needed revenue 

 

This is why I have been saying now for weeks, that the specific outcome of the Razbam dispute is of a lesser importance (albeit really important!!!) than actually using this to finetune, refine, rethink, or scratch from zero (whichever makes more sense) then entire ED -> 3rd Party Developers scenario.  The current model is:
a) not sustainable,
b) not protective enough of customers "investment" in modules, even more so if the Early Access model is taken into account,
c) not robust enough to prevent 3rd party developers from having complex interactions in the first stages of new product development (lateness in paying revenue, or 3rd party developers needing to sell themselves the modules on their websites to ensure cash flow, etc.)
d) favors quick time-to-market development of EA modules and then...
e) favors very little incentive to expand, complete and bug-fix modules for which you have already collected money for
f) many other things too long to list here

So, imagine you are buying a house which has only the foundations laid out ("early access" house if you will).  But your contractor demands payment of 80% of the value of the FINISHED house, up front, but this will mean your house will end up being 20% cheaper as you will never have to pay the remaining 20%.  Sounds GREAT! A great deal for you, and, being the trusting man you are, pay said contractor the amount.

Look at this scenario form the contractors perspective!
- Do you think that there is huge incentive for the contractor to finish your house?  Or to move on and sell another foundation for 80% of the finished house to your next door neighbor?
- If the contractor really is keen on finishing your house (eventually he will need to sell other houses, so it's probably a good idea to, at least, finish some), he now needs to starts hiring workers to keep on building your house.  Sometimes, those workers will be his direct employees, sometimes it will be 3rd party workers.  What is the big incentive for the contractor to now pay fair money and on time to those external workers? Very little, he already has the money!  He can use it elsewhere, to buy another lot to build another foundation.  That will make him TONS more money than finishing your current house.
- If no one finishes your house, will you be happy living in a foundation for which you paid 80% of a finished house value? If no, who do you complain to? You have already agreed to this model of house buying

The thing is, when you see the next door lot being sold as foundation, we are often un-clever enough to go buy that one as well in the hopes that, eventually, one of them gets finished.

As I see it, as long as the contractor does well on a few "key" houses that will sell like hotcakes, he can then afford to have some that simply fall through the cracks.  The general picture is that a good percentage of the buyers are happy. But what happens to those that aren't? Are they of vital importance to the contractor?  Or can the contractor simply move on and say that a few unhappy customers is a perfectly feasible reality, "I can live with that".

So yeah, the module model has problems, the fact that some are in-house and some are 3rd party adds complexity and uncertainties.  The more changes to the core DCS engine the more the developers (and 3rd party ones) need to patch and update their modules for which they are not getting more income as the users have already paid for those modules. When development is too complex now you market a V2 or V3 of the same module having to incur in extra charge from users who already thought they had bought a module (with hefty discounts, yes).  If you include the EA model then you are in even deeper waters, as the EA state could be anywhere from "barely usable" to "almost finished", and we have no certainty that the devs will keep on developing.  And then the internal contracts as to when the payments should be forthcoming from ED to 3rd party devs which has failed in the past and also here, for whatever the reasons.  And then you have 3rd party devs that need to stomach the expenses until the cash flows their way, which may be impossible for smaller companies whose early access (or even pre-sales) money could be the difference between being able to continue developing or not.

Bottom line, it's a miracle a scenario like this we are seeing with the F-15E has only happened once or twice and not more due to the NATURE of this model.  It is this model that needs to be reviewed while the court decides what will happen on this particular case, and it is THOSE changes that should be forthcoming and being communicated with the users, not so much the outcome of this particular dispute.

I would like to know:
- What is ED changing to prevent this?
- What is ED changing to ensure 3rd party developers have a healthy environment to develop and not fear lack of cash flow?
- What is ED changing to prevent IP breaches in the future?
- What is ED changing to prevent EA modules to go unfinished for years?
- What is ED changing to ensure that bug-fixing and feature enhancing is more attractive than ditching projects and moving on to the next module?
- What is ED changing to ensure they don't suffer from cash-flow in order to be able to pay out the 3rd party developers on time, always?
- What is ED changing to be more transparent about this changes in the future?

They refuse the subscription model, yet have addressed very little of the other shortcomings of the per-module model.

Edited July 30, 2024 by RafaPolit

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, draconus said:

Where did you read that, pal? As long as DCS updates itself all modules are supposed to be working.

I don’t need to read that — I just need to use my brain. Development requires money. To expect infinite development from a one-time purchase is silly.  What other software products provide you with that?  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, some1 said:

Software becoming outdated or unsupported due to old age is one thing. Software becoming unsupported because dev and platform owner get into public argument is another. Anyway, I'm repeating myself: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/351813-edrazbam-situation-info-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=5492950

 

Not really.  Every product that becomes unsupported becomes so for a reason. Disputes, running out of money, lack of sales, parent company pulls the plug, etc etc.  The specific reason why doesn’t matter much. Everything dies eventually 

Edited July 30, 2024 by wombat778

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, RafaPolit said:

This is why I have been saying now for weeks, that the specific outcome of the Razbam dispute is of a lesser importance (albeit really important!!!) than actually using this to finetune, refine, rethink, or scratch from zero (whichever makes more sense) then entire ED -> 3rd Party Developers scenario. 

I agree with all this.  Ultimately, we users basically expect DCS to operate like a live service game, but without paying a recurring fee like a live service game would have.  Every fee we pay is for “new” content, which in turn increases the development burden of an increasingly large and unmanageable library.  Do we really expect that DCS can continue to operate this way 20 years from now when/if there are 150 modules?  It’s unsustainable. 
 

I hate subscription fees with a passion, but DCS is probably the only product I would be willing to do that for.  

[Maduce]

26 minutes ago, wombat778 said:

I agree with all this.  Ultimately, we users basically expect DCS to operate like a live service game, but without paying a recurring fee like a live service game would have.  Every fee we pay is for “new” content, which in turn increases the development burden of an increasingly large and unmanageable library.  Do we really expect that DCS can continue to operate this way 20 years from now when/if there are 150 modules?  It’s unsustainable. 
 

I hate subscription fees with a passion, but DCS is probably the only product I would be willing to do that for.  

This! I have been against subscription fees as recently as just a few months ago, but my opinion has done a 180°. It's really the only way for DCS to survive long term... I think anyway.  

[PhantomHans]

11 hours ago, Mizzy said:

The other modules are out of Early Access and therefore considered feature complete with no updates, just fixes.

Correction:

The other modules are unsupported and will not be receiving updates or fixes.

[Pillowcat]

5 hours ago, wombat778 said:

I hate subscription fees with a passion, but DCS is probably the only product I would be willing to do that for.

Look at this from a perspective: Your subscription fees already included in the price of module, and due to inflation its more valuable to get it as one piece and as earlier as possible. So all  who bought module brings full cost of 20 years of subscription, instead of dispersion between minimum and who knows how long it goes till nuclear apocalypses or cancer got those passionate customers. [sorry for offtop]

[Horns]

I don’t and won’t play DCS as a live service game, and I wouldn’t buy modules if there was an ongoing cost. If a module came packaged with an iteration of DCS it worked with I’d buy, otherwise I wouldn’t; I could live without constant improvement to the engine and I have zero interest in multiplayer. Single player offline all the way for me.

Edit: Didn’t think about how terrains would work. I don’t know if a different way of doing things would work, but I wouldn’t pay an ongoing fee. If modules (including terrains) cost more to cover a one-off access fee (maybe $20 - $30 USD) I could live with that.

This is all pretty OT anyway.

Edited July 31, 2024 by Horns