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

[Ignition]

The pros for ED of this situation and the future is outweighing the loses, except for the community.

This wouldn't be happening if it weren't beneficial for ED.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, TobiasDeVil said:

Should the customer have the right to be informed of the current state of product development and what steps are being taken to complete it?

Yes and we know all about it:

M2000C, AV-8B N/A, MiG-19P - status: release, maintained as is by ED.

F-15E - status: EA, updates on hold, waiting legal resolution, maintained as is by ED.

Edited September 4, 2024 by draconus

[Schmidtfire]

7 hours ago, TKhaos said:

Personally I wouldn't touch any business, or anything where M2M was involved, regardless of how good he is because he has shown himself to be completely unprofessional in the way he has handled the situation.

To be fair. I got the sense that he really needs the paycheck. Many other developers has other work and DCS development is a passion and a supplemental income stream.

Not saying he’s done a splendid job handling the situation. Far from it. But desperate people do desperate things.

[Beirut]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Yes and we know all about it:

M2000C, AV-8B N/A, MiG-19P - status: release, maintained as is by ED.

F-15E - status: EA, updates on hold, waiting legal resolution, maintained as is by ED.

 

 

Well not exactly.

 

On Steam, for example, the only notice as to the status, so to speak, of the F-15E is the   and "Mostly Negative" rating beside the product.  The reviews from the purchasers are where the info is. There isn't a single word from Steam, the devs, or ED as to the product's status. And I believe the same situation exists on this site on the e-shop page.

 

As forum denizens, we know what's going on. Someone new or someone who does not frequent the forums gets zero info from those on high.

[draconus]

16 minutes ago, Beirut said:

On Steam, for example, the only notice as to the status, so to speak, of the F-15E is the   and "Mostly Negative" rating beside the product.

Haters gonna hate and it shows how PR can ruin otherwise very good product.

[Beirut]

18 minutes ago, draconus said:

Haters gonna hate and it shows how PR can ruin otherwise very good product.

 

I'm a big fan of the F-15E. That said, it's not the "haters" who are responsible for any of this - it's ED and RB.

 

But if you can show that the public at large is even 0.1% responsible for the present situation, I'm willing to listen.

[draconus]

On 9/4/2024 at 1:13 PM, Beirut said:

I'm a big fan of the F-15E. That said, it's not the "haters" who are responsible for any of this - it's ED and RB.

But if you can show that the public at large is even 0.1% responsible for the present situation, I'm willing to listen.

I'm still saying it's only the haters responsible for such bad reviews. You'd think F-15E module that excels in simulation fidelity, graphics and being iconic, one of the most popular jet in the world could get some better marks, wouldn't you? Or have they mistaken product review with hate spam on ED/RAZBAM clash? Even up to May 2024 it was over 63% positive.

Edited September 5, 2024 by draconus

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, draconus said:

I'm still saying it's only the haters responsible for such bad reviews. You'd think F-15E module that excels in simulation fidelity, graphics and being iconic, one of the most popular jet in the world could get some better marks, wouldn't you? Or did they mistaken product review with hate spam on ED/RAZBAM clash?

 

I don't see that the word "hate" must play so heavily.

 

If the situation exists, and it does, that the plane could see no further updates and could even suffer a breakdown of sorts that leads to confusion over whether it can or will be fixed, then it's fair that buyers be made aware. The thing with the radar was evidence of that. At fist we didn't know if it would be fixed at all, then we get a mod, then we get a fix. Not to mention the plane being refunded by ED. That's hardly business as usual.

 

As stated, I'm a big fan of the module, but the idea that "everyone knows what's going on" is perhaps not as true as some might think it is. There is not a word of it in the Steam or ED sales pages. And this thread is evidence that the confusion is ongoing.

[some1]

13 hours ago, TKhaos said:

ED is a private company, RB is a private company making it private business between the both of them. It's being dealt with by the respective owners, appropriate management and their legal teams. Apart from them, no one else needs to be involved or know the intimate details of the dispute as it's no ones business but there’s, not mine, yours, the staff/contractors, the cleaning lady or the postman.

Unfortunately as customers we've been treated to cessation of all updates, further developments and support for the products we've paid for, code timebomb, and two modules (M-2000 and F-15) being broken for a few weeks each. So far. Plus the problems with new DCS features, like the new bomb fusing system, are already creeping in.

I don't expect to be updated daily about private dealings between private parties, but despite "the utmost attention and constructiveness" promised by Nick Grey, as customers we are in the same spot that we were 5 months ago when the announcements were made.

1 hour ago, draconus said:

I'm still saying it's only the haters responsible for such bad reviews.

A bad review on Steam is an answer to this simple question:

And that's exactly what it is. I wouldn't recommend anyone to buy an unfinished early access product with no dev support for 65$, that can also break at any time in the future because of DCS getting a new update.

Does that make me a hater?

Edited September 4, 2024 by some1

[TKhaos]

6 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

To be fair. I got the sense that he really needs the paycheck. Many other developers has other work and DCS development is a passion and a supplemental income stream.

Not saying he’s done a splendid job handling the situation. Far from it. But desperate people do desperate things.

I would have thought someone so talented would have no problem getting paid work.

My personal view is that if that money is so tight then maybe it's not a good idea to take on projects where payment is withheld until the end of the project. I never work more than 30 days without some form of payment, even if it's a retaining fee but I would never work 12 to 18 months without any kind of payment and it certainly wouldn't be my only source of income if I did.

As you say people do desperate things but does he really think he will get his money any quicker with the actions he has taken publicly, if anything it's delayed it and could end up costing him. Still what's done is done, bit late for regrets now.  

[Mizzy]

14 hours ago, TKhaos said:

ED is a private company, RB is a private company making it private business between the both of them. It's being dealt with by the respective owners, appropriate management and their legal teams. Apart from them, no one else needs to be involved or know the intimate details of the dispute as it's no ones business but there’s, not mine, yours, the staff/contractors, the cleaning lady or the postman. That's how it is and how it will stay, I doubt we even know 5% of the story and it's likely to stay that way even after it's all done and dusted.

There's two sides to every story, apart from 99% of what Joe Public is being fed is one sided and coming from RB, both made official statements and that's where is should have ended until it's all sorted out one way or another.

Personally I wouldn't touch any business, or anything where M2M was involved, regardless of how good he is because he has shown himself to be completely unprofessional in the way he has handled the situation. I'm actually surprised RB haven't tried slapping some kind of cease and desist notice on him, he's done more damage than anyone not only to ED, he's made RB look just as bad as well on how they conduct themselves when it comes to staff/contractors.

Despite the circumstances, whatever they may be ED have done exactly what any sane legal team would instruct them to do, make an official statement then don't discuss anything any further until it's all resolved. A careless comment or leaked document could lose a court case for either side. It doesn't really make sense that once M2M started leaking stuff that RB have just let him continued, unless they use him as the fall guy if it all goes pear shaped. 

I've read posts with M2M making claims and basically trashing ED, in fact if you trawl through the Reddit forums you will see he removed several posts because users with legal knowledge told him he could find himself on the end of a lawsuit. I've also read a number of posts where several of the users are joining in telling people to go to Steam and down vote DCS and leave bad reviews.

As for the evidence, well that mostly comes from two disgruntled staff and stuff like the text messages are easily faked, I could knock that up in 5 minutes in Photoshop so can't see them having any problems. Until Ron comes forward and either shows the original documents or makes an official statement that they are genuine, then it's just hearsay.

As for M2M, well no doubt investigators have been following his tracks and keeping screenshot evidence of everything he's been doing as that will be like gold dust in court proceedings, be ironic if RB ended up bankrupt because they couldn't keep one of their contractors on a leash.

I’ve worked on plenty of contracts as a sub contractor and if I am working for ‘X’ I expect ‘X’ to pay me, not ‘Y’ who they have the contract with because that is none of my concern. If I didn’t get paid my issue would be with ‘X’ RB and not ‘Y’ ED in this case.

A professional business should have made provisions to pay it’s staff and contractors regardless. I would never in a million years expect any of the people I have sub contracted to go without pay. I make sure that in the event I did have any issues with payment then I would pay the people myself then resolve the issue with the person I had the contract with.

Like it or not as end users we aren’t involved in any way other than being inconvenienced by the unfinished models that were paid for.

I really don’t understand people that speculate when they know tiny little fragments of unsubstantiated evidence and build a conspiracy out of it, then add to the problem by repeating those uninformed comments. I also don’t understand why so many people are getting their panties in a twist and raising their blood pressure to dangerous levels because Ron and Nick haven’t been on the phone to them and told them all their personal business.

If I went into work tomorrow and presented some of the leaked RB evidence, with no actual proof as to how genuine it was and suggested using it in a court case I would be told to get out and never get a contract with the firm again.

 

Give this guy a cigar and pin it to the front page, exactly what I have tried to say but not as succinct and all in one post. Only thing I would add is it's plain that RB are using Reddit/Discord to manipulate the narrative because one guy (not Smiley or M2M) goes on and on about why RB hasn't been paid and no matter how many times he's told it's complex and not as simple as that, it just doesn't work. A brick wall and head comes to mind. The other guy comes up with rumour exclusively and tries to pass it on as factual evidence (lol) and his arguments are worth as much as a piece of paper thrown down the toilet.

Well done TKhaos, greetings.

Mizzy

 

Edited September 4, 2024 by Mizzy

[TKhaos]

1 hour ago, some1 said:

Unfortunately as customers we've been treated to cessation of all updates, further developments and support for the products we've paid for, code timebomb, and two modules (M-2000 and F-15) being broken for a few weeks each.

That's why I ended my previous post with "Like it or not as end users we aren’t involved in any way other than being inconvenienced by the unfinished models that were paid for."

I've purchased games before and paid good money for them then got no updates for months, in the case of some Early Access it's been years and no updates or progression. At least with the F-15E module, when people felt so strongly about it at least they got a refund if they weren't happy and not a lot of developers do that if you been using something for 60+ hours.

1 hour ago, some1 said:

I don't expect to be updated daily about private dealings between private parties, but despite "the utmost attention and constructiveness" promised by Nick Grey, as customers we are in the same spot that we were 5 months ago when the announcements were made.

Unfortunately, with legal disputes both parties would have been told to say nothing. Nick and Ron have both done that after making the official statements and as annoying as it is, that's the way legal disputes operate, working towards resolutions without third party involvement.

Yes Nick Grey did say "Please rest assured, we are addressing the situation with the utmost attention and constructiveness." but how is he supposed to give an update without it being linked to the progress of the dispute. What would a further announcement look like "we are still working out our differences" and that's about it. A prime example of why it's not advisable to make any kind of statement is Reddit and how they take the slightest bit of information and twist it so it aligns with their narrative, then misinformation get's added causing even more bad feeling.   

You say that as customers we are in the same spot we were 5 months ago, how do we know that, there's been no announcements on progress so for all we know a resolution could be reached today, next week, next month, next year. No one knows apart from those dealing with the dispute and no one knows how constructive either side is being at resolving the issue.

Edited September 4, 2024 by TKhaos
Spellcheck, probably should do that before posting.

[TKhaos]

22 minutes ago, Mizzy said:

Give this guy a cigar and pin it to the front page, exactly what I have tried to say but not as succinct and all in one post. Only thing I would add is it's plain that RB are using Reddit/Discord to manipulate the narrative because one guy (not Smiley or M2M) goes on and on about why RB hasn't been paid and no matter how many times he's told it's complex and not as simple as that, it just doesn't work. A brick wall and head comes to mind. The other guy comes up with rumour exclusively and tries to pass it on as factual evidence (lol) and his arguments are worth as much as a piece of paper thrown down the toilet.

Well done TKhaos, greetings.

Mizzy

Thanks, I do try to keep out of it but I find some things laughable, especially when it comes to evidence.

I've noticed a couple as well in reference to your Reddit/Discord comment and it makes you wonder why they are trying to stir it continuously and what they would get out of it, suppose they could just be RB fanboys

[Mizzy]

1 hour ago, some1 said:

Unfortunately as customers we've been treated to cessation of all updates, further developments and support for the products we've paid for, code timebomb, and two modules (M-2000 and F-15) being broken for a few weeks each. So far. Plus the problems with new DCS features, like the new bomb fusing system, are already creeping in.

A bad review on Steam is an answer to this simple question:

And that's exactly what it is. I wouldn't recommend anyone to buy an unfinished early access product with no dev support for 65$, that can also break at any time in the future because of DCS getting a new update.

Does that make me a hater?

 

some1, you have been around here as long as I have and seen many changes to DCS, it's not the same game as it was in 2005, it's far more rich. I don't think you would want DCS to stagnate and you can't make scrambled eggs without breaking a few eggs. However, I agree with you that older modules are showing their age, the M2000 is a module I have but I never use it, but I can appreciate certain new features of DCS leave certain modules with problems, if you mainly play that module, then it's a big issue. I am going to suggest to DCS that each module has a disclaimer, like the one for the Hawk, so people know what version of DCS a particular module works as advertised, even though some people may dispute that.

As far as the Mig19, Harrier and M2000 are concerned, Razbam considered these modules as feature complete and taken out of early access and therefore were not going to be supported with 'new features' just fixes by ED. No, it doesn't make you a 'hater' IMO because you have clearly enjoyed DCS for a long time, but to give DCS a thumbs down because of certain issues is a bit mean when most of DCS has improved immensely over the years to a point that there is no Flight Sim out there that can touch DCS. Just my thoughts.

Mizzy   

[some1]

39 minutes ago, TKhaos said:

I've purchased games before and paid good money for them then got no updates for months, in the case of some Early Access it's been years and no updates or progression.

Were you happy about that situation and did you bought more stuff from those studios?

Because ultimately, ED depends on constant sales of new products to stay afloat, yet it seems they don't put customer satisfaction high on their priorities if they allowed the situation to escalate to this point. I certainly don't feel "passion and support" right now towards any side of the dispute.

39 minutes ago, TKhaos said:

At least with the F-15E module, when people felt so strongly about it at least they got a refund if they weren't happy and not a lot of developers do that if you been using something for 60+ hours.

1. In ED store it's not a monetary refund, you simply inform them that the money you've paid is no longer owed to Razbam and they give you store credit. So in a way, this is financially beneficial to ED. They still keep the money, 100% of it if you use the credit to buy an ED module instead.

2. You can't get refunds if you bought on Steam anyway.

39 minutes ago, TKhaos said:

You say that as customers we are in the same spot we were 5 months ago, how do we know that, there's been no announcements on progress so for all we know a resolution could be reach today, next week, next month, next year. No one knows apart from those dealing with the dispute and no one knows how constructive either side is being at resolving the issue.

That's the point. I don't know, no one here knows, so I use the last published info, that's already 5 months old, and make my purchase decisions accordingly. That is, I don't make new purchases.

Edited September 4, 2024 by some1

[Nightdare]

On 9/3/2024 at 1:19 PM, Mizzy said:

Looks like people posting links from DCS Exposed are breaking their forum rules, Rule 8 !! "Leaks..Just don't do it

 

Ah yes, DCSExposed, where you're banned for harassment when you aren't harassing anyone, just unwilling to drink the Kool-Aid without question

(The name alone suggests a tabloid/juice-reddit, I should have taken that red flag serious)

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, Nightdare said:

Ah yes, DCSExposed, where you're banned for harassment when you aren't harassing anyone, just unwilling to drink the Kool-Aid without question

(The name alone suggests a tabloid/juice-reddit, I should have taken that red flag serious)

Let's not talk about that place at all, please. It has no relevance here. 

[Schmidtfire]

2 hours ago, Mizzy said:

As far as the Mig19, Harrier and M2000 are concerned, Razbam considered these modules as feature complete and taken out of early access and therefore were not going to be supported with 'new features' just fixes by ED.

1. Feature Complete and out of Early Access are two different things. There are still items or sub-systems to be implemented, at least on the Harrier. Not to mention the bugs and planned overhaul. Leaving any module "as is" in DCS is a long term death sentence. We still see new bugs appearing in 10+ years old modules     

2.There is no evidence supporting that ED can "fix" these modules without Razbam. The issue with F-15E radar was a particular case that could be bypassed even by crafty users.

If ED can fix any issue in any Razbam module at will, why are they not sharing that information with us? Long term support of these modules is a very important topic.    

Edited September 4, 2024 by Schmidtfire

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

1. Feature Complete and out of Early Access are two different things. There are still items or sub-systems to be implemented, at least on the Harrier. Not to mention the bugs and planned overhaul. Leaving any module "as is" in DCS is a long term death sentence. We still see new bugs appearing in 10+ years old modules     

2.There is no evidence supporting that ED can "fix" these modules without Razbam. The issue with F-15E radar was a particular case that could be bypassed even by crafty users.

If ED can fix any issue in any Razbam module at will, why are they not sharing that information with us? Long term support of these modules is a very important topic.    

 

In fairness, I think a couple pages ago, the ED folks (not sure whether it was Nineline or Bignewy) stated that they have some sort of contingency plan in place to keep long term support of old modules.  NGL I'm skeptical too.  I literally dont know how it is possible at a technical level for ED to maintain old modules without source code when DCS as a platform is making huge changes.  Some kind of sandboxing maybe? Like where the module thinks its running in DCS version xxxx, even though its actually running on DCS version yyyy, with some kind abstraction layer translating between the versions?  IDK, but ED seemed pretty confident that those modules will continue to work long term.

EDIT: Here is the post I was thinking of: 

 

Edited September 4, 2024 by wombat778

[Mizzy]

1 hour ago, Schmidtfire said:

1. Feature Complete and out of Early Access are two different things. There are still items or sub-systems to be implemented, at least on the Harrier. Not to mention the bugs and planned overhaul. Leaving any module "as is" in DCS is a long term death sentence. We still see new bugs appearing in 10+ years old modules     

2.There is no evidence supporting that ED can "fix" these modules without Razbam. The issue with F-15E radar was a particular case that could be bypassed even by crafty users.

If ED can fix any issue in any Razbam module at will, why are they not sharing that information with us? Long term support of these modules is a very important topic.    

 

Twofold, firstly, of course feature complete and early access are different things, you are stating the obvious, whether or not you agree a module is taken out of early access is up to you. But as far as the developer is concerned, it's finished and no further feature updates will be forthcoming only fixes, agree with it or not, that's the situation.

Secondly, you have miss-interpreted what I said (not your fault) ED supporting fixes for broken modules, ED have stated that if the platform (DCS) by way of updates, breaks a module, they will endeavour to fix it. Nothing to do with source codes needed from the developer, it's fixing the module within the functionality of DCS. 

If you disagree with a developers feature complete decision, then you need to go to the developer and complain. The F15 is not included in what I said, this module is in dispute as we all know, I hope this helps you to understand the situation with modules in DCS.

Mizzy

Edited September 4, 2024 by Mizzy

[JuiceIsLoose]

29 minutes ago, Mizzy said:

Twofold, firstly, of course feature complete and early access are different things, you are stating the obvious, whether or not you agree a module is taken out of early access is up to you. But as far as the developer is concerned, it's finished and no further feature updates will be forthcoming only fixes, agree with it or not, that's the situation.

Secondly, you have miss-interpreted what I said (not your fault) ED supporting fixes for broken modules, ED have stated that if the platform (DCS) by way of updates, breaks a module, they will endeavour to fix it. Nothing to do with source codes needed from the developer, it's fixing the module within the functionality of DCS. 

If you disagree with a developers feature complete decision, then you need to go to the developer and complain. The F15 is not included in what I said, this module is in dispute as we all know, I hope this helps you to understand the situation with modules in DCS.

Mizzy

 

Can you please share your source, or evidence as you like to call it, that these other modules (excluding the F-15E) are feature complete by Razbam? Because you are not allowing anything but official announcements, please provide an official source (not discord, and not reddit, because you refuse to allow those sources) where it has been stated where they are finished and no further updates were planned. You have stated this numerous times and I would like your source for this.

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Can you please share your source, or evidence as you like to call it, that these other modules (excluding the F-15E) are feature complete by Razbam? Because you are not allowing anything but official announcements, please provide an official source (not discord, and not reddit, because you refuse to allow those sources) where it has been stated where they are finished and no further updates were planned. You have stated this numerous times and I would like your source for this.

It's off-topic here, you can do that research on your own. 

 

[plott1964]

15 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Can you please share your source, or evidence as you like to call it, that these other modules (excluding the F-15E) are feature complete by Razbam? Because you are not allowing anything but official announcements, please provide an official source (not discord, and not reddit, because you refuse to allow those sources) where it has been stated where they are finished and no further updates were planned. You have stated this numerous times and I would like your source for this.

...I think Schmidtfire summed that up for you. The "source" would be here, the forum and throughout the DCS website.

[JuiceIsLoose]

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

It's off-topic here, you can do that research on your own. 

 

MIzzy has brought this up numerous times. I do not see any comments from you about not discussing this because it is off topic?

There are comments from Mizzy in this thread: "The other guy comes up with rumour exclusively and tries to pass it on as factual evidence (lol) and his arguments are worth as much as a piece of paper thrown down the toilet."

I bring up statements from other sources, and have never claimed them as facts or evidence. Yet, when MIzzy makes comment there is no backlash about this being offtopic?

However, when I ask simple for the source of her statement it is off topic?

[nessuno0505]

57 minuti fa, Mizzy ha scritto:

But as far as the developer is concerned, it's finished and no further feature updates will be forthcoming only fixes, agree with it or not, that's the situation.

 

The F15 is not included in what I said, this module is in dispute as we all know, I hope this helps you to understand the situation with modules in DCS.

Mizzy

 

As far as the AV-8B is concerned, it was in RB's plan to overhaul and complete it in a similar way as they have done for the m2000c after it went out of early access. So if there was no dispute at all, for sure the AV-8B features would have changed and improved in the next months/years. Nevertheless, it's true the AV-8B is out of early access, so if ED can assure it will remain as is even in the future DCS upgrades, this is rather than nothing. And as they use to say in my town: rather than nothing, it is better rather.