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

[JuiceIsLoose]

15 minutes ago, plott1964 said:

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

Again, I am asking where does it say anywhere that is feature complete? Please point to me where this statement is true, that there are no planned missing features to the RB modules (excluding the F-15E).

Edited September 4, 2024 by JuiceIsLoose

[MAXsenna]

Again, I am asking where does it say anywhere that is feature complete? Please point to me where this statement is true, that there are no planned missing features to the RB modules (excluding the F-15E).

I believe they are referring to whether the store page says EA or not.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[NineLine]

15 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

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?

She was helping people understand that we will keep things working at the state they are at now, you needed to understand what that completed state is, which is something for you to go find out. The F-15E of all their modules is the only one that isn't at an acceptable state of completeness. You are just trying to start yet another off-shoot discussion about what you feel is complete vs someone else. I am stopping you both from continuing down an off-topic vein. Ask her in DMs if you feel you need to know that bad. Or ask on the RB Discord which modules are out of EA or feature complete. 

[JuiceIsLoose]

6 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

I believe they are referring to whether the store page says EA or not.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

 

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

She was helping people understand that we will keep things working at the state they are at now, you needed to understand what that completed state is, which is something for you to go find out. The F-15E of all their modules is the only one that isn't at an acceptable state of completeness. You are just trying to start yet another off-shoot discussion about what you feel is complete vs someone else. I am stopping you both from continuing down an off-topic vein. As her in DMs if you feel you need to know that bad. Or ask on the RB Discord which modules are our of EA or feature complete. 

So then if being out of Early Access is Feature Complete, then we can expect not further updates to the F/A-18? If what you are stating is that a module being out of Early Access means it is "feature complete". Then that means there are no new features planned for the F/A-18 which has been moved out from Early Access.

I think we both know that is false. And that there are future features planned for the F/A-18. And thus, this would then be true for the other Razbam modules that are our of Early Access. So claiming that they "it's finished and no further feature updates will be forthcoming only fixes, agree with it or not, that's the situation." would not be correct would it? If we are going to discipline users for spreading "misinformation" then lets keep it fair.

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

 

So then if being out of Early Access is Feature Complete, then we can expect not further updates to the F/A-18? If what you are stating is that a module being out of Early Access means it is "feature complete". Then that means there are no new features planned for the F/A-18 which has been moved out from Early Access.

I think we both know that is false. And that there are future features planned for the F/A-18. And thus, this would then be true for the other Razbam modules that are our of Early Access. So claiming that they "it's finished and no further feature updates will be forthcoming only fixes, agree with it or not, that's the situation." would not be correct would it? If we are going to discipline users for spreading "misinformation" then lets keep it fair.

Sigh.... you are comparing a module that is still supported to a hypothetical situation where the developer leaves DCS which is not the goal. Hypothetically the modules other than the F-15E are in a state that they could continue to be enjoyed for years to come in the state they are in. That doesn't mean they could not be improved, but if the developer is not here to do so, and the source files are not passed to someone who could then they will not continue to be developed. The F/A-18C is still supported and we will continue to improve as needed. I am not sure how that comparison works, but there you go. 

You are splitting hairs now, or looking for a fight. Please move on from this now. We want to see RB continue and would love the Harrier and others to grow and expand. Obviously, that cannot happen if they are frozen, but they are still great modules as they stand. That's it.  

[plott1964]

4 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Sigh.... you are comparing a module that is still supported to a hypothetical situation where the developer leaves DCS which is not the goal. Hypothetically the modules other than the F-15E are in a state that they could continue to be enjoyed for years to come in the state they are in. That doesn't mean they could not be improved, but if the developer is not here to do so, and the source files are not passed to someone who could then they will not continue to be developed. The F/A-18C is still supported and we will continue to improve as needed. I am not sure how that comparison works, but there you go. 

You are splitting hairs now, or looking for a fight. Please move on from this now. We want to see RB continue and would love the Harrier and others to grow and expand. Obviously, that cannot happen if they are frozen, but they are still great modules as they stand. That's it.  

Some people just complain ...to complain.

[Mizzy]

38 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

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.

I have no idea about the Harrier being improved out of early access, if it was, it isn't now sadly.

Mizzy

[nessuno0505]

NineLine has been cristal clear here: a module can be:

- in early access: insufficient state of completion. Case 1: ah-64: supported and then further developed; case 2: f-15e: currently unsupported and then refundable, the aim being to have it supported again.

- out of early access: sufficient state of completion. Case 1: supported (f/a-18, a-10c, f-5e, ecc.) then you can expect further development as far as DCS progresses, being it payware (a-10c II) or already included in the initial purchase (f/a-18). Case 2: currently unsupported (m2000c, av-8b, mig-19): no further development but at least bug fix provided by ED to keep it as it is, the aim being to have it supported again.

I'm not so confident in the long term survival of modules out of early access but unsupported; as it is now it's a transitory condition, we will see what will happen if the condition becomes definitive.

6 ore fa, some1 ha scritto:

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?

Obviously not, if the bad review is about the f-15e and not DCS as a whole.

I would also not recommend a finished product with no dev support, such as the other RB's modules, even if formally completed. For me at their current state thumb down for av-8b, mig-19 and m2000c too.

And I'm not a hater, still thumb up for DCS as a whole.

Edited September 4, 2024 by nessuno0505

[Mizzy]

1 hour 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.

If you read this thread and the other one, you will get to know what my sources were but I think you have been informed where this information is. I don't want another warning (my last btw) and the moderators do not give a toss if I am male, female, pink or blue, I don't get any concessions like allowed to talk off topic and you are not. that is rubbish. 

As far as I am "not allowing anything" from Reddit/Discord or whatever, I have no control of what people use as a source when they dispute my opinions and information. However, the reason I don't accept Reddit and Discord sources is simply because they are hostile environments towards DCS and therefore not a good source to use in this thread. I apologise if I am coming over a bit flustered, but you keep jumping on my posts as if I shouldn't be here.

Mizzy

11 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

Obviously not, if the bad review is about the f-15e and not DCS as a whole.

That is what I meant to say to some1 in his post.

[Horns]

15 hours ago, TobiasDeVil said:

I would like to ask whether the view of the end customer as a creditor is also taken into account in this situation. We have been offered a product for purchase that is still not in its final state. Given that the customer has invested his own money in this product, it is quite understandable that he may feel uncertain or even disappointed or even cheated. Especially if it is not clear whether the product will ever reach its final, full-fledged state. 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? All the customer can do at this point is blow off steam on the forum and deal with the bang theories.

 

True that the customer bought a module expecting it to be completed. Module development is something that Razbam is directly responsible to customers for, I suspect there won't be more forthcoming than the last official announcement where Ron Zambrano stated they don't intend to abandon their product. Hopefully when the dispute between ED and RB is over RB will clarify what the future looks like for the F-15E, although I wish it could be sooner.

[draconus]

7 hours ago, some1 said:

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?

Fair enough, that makes sense if you put it like that, thanks. Imho still worth it and ED specifically said they won't break it with DCS updates.

[Beirut]

8 hours ago, some1 said:

 

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?

 

 

No it certainly does not make you a hater. It makes you a customer, because only buyers have the option to answer that question.

 

I am a huge fan of the F-15E, but I amended my initial positive review and made it a negative review based on the fact that the updates stopped and there is no guarantee they will start again. There is also no guarantee that a resolution to the issue will ever be achieved and the module could suffer as a result. So as great as the plane is, I would caution anyone before buying it. The customer has a right to know what's going on. 

 

Unfortunately that is not the case unless the customer goes digging. So as far as Steam goes, negative reviews are the proper way to caution potential buyers to inform themselves.

[afnav130]

On 9/3/2024 at 6:06 PM, NineLine said:

That is your opinion, you are welcome to it, but we disagree. The longer it goes on though, the tougher it will be though. 

When you get lawyers involved, that is ALWAYS the ending. I would think more and more people would understand that. Kind of like in sports when you take a player to arbitration. The player usually comes out of that different than when they went into that room. In a lot of cases, irreparable harm is done. 

[Mizzy]

1 hour ago, Beirut said:

Unfortunately that is not the case unless the customer goes digging. So as far as Steam goes, negative reviews are the proper way to caution potential buyers to inform themselves.

Unfortunately yes, agreed. time for my bobos.

[TKhaos]

20 hours ago, some1 said:

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.

No, I wasn’t overly happy about it but things happen that end users have no control over. The difference is I accepted the fact and didn’t become obsessive like many people have with the DCS and Razbam dispute, I just moved on with my life. I still played the games and enjoyed them, despite knowing there was very little chance of any further updates or fixes, so just made the best of a bad situation. Would I buy from that studio again, depends on if I really wanted the game or DLC and the current state it was in.

At this point I’ve removed all Razbam content from my purchase list until there is a final decision made on how they move forward. It hasn’t stopped me buying other DLC from ED and other developers.

I also don’t feel passion, support or anything else for the dispute or anyone involved in it because I don’t have the full details as to what has taken place. As for ED allowing it to escalate to this point, as I don’t know the details I couldn’t comment on if they have handled it badly or not. For all I know it may have escalated due to the behaviour of several Razbam contractors or something behind the scenes.

20 hours ago, some1 said:

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.

I know the ED refund isn’t cash in the bank and it’s store credit but still a refund of sorts that would allow a person to purchase something else. It doesn’t have to be an ED product there are other developers, although if it was ED then like you say they get to keep all of it.

Steam refunds might be possible at some point in the future but it requires ED to talk to Steam directly and get them to authorise it, it’s happened with other games such as The Wild Eight when development for that got dropped, also there was partial refunds on one of the Total War games and been a few others.

Not totally on the subject of refunds but there’s been lot of discussions about the F-15E still being for sale on DCS and Steam.

This was covered in a post on Steam where Bignewy stated:

“We can not change the status of the sale of the module until there is a legal resolution.”

20 hours ago, some1 said:

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.

As I previously said until I know the status of ED and Razbam and modules being supported I won’t buy any Razbam product, but it hasn’t stopped me supporting other developers and buying their modules.

I haven’t voted either way on the modules, I will do that at a later date once it’s been resolved.

As for bad reviews on Steam it’s not just a review for many, it’s a deliberate attempt to prevent anyone buying anything from DCS. You see the same hateful, trolling rants on there as you do on Reddit, in fact some are just cut and paste jobs and literally nothing to do with the module. It’s fine to leave a review and advise people to maybe wait a while until purchasing a module as there is an ongoing dispute, but people are actively trying to run DCS into the ground and that affects everyone.

I also look at it another way, as I don’t know what’s in the contracts between ED and Razbam when it comes to payments. For all I know Razbam or any other developer might sign a contract where they are paid for the initial design work then they take a percentage of every sale. If that is the case then bad mouthing ED and starting a campaign against them affects the developers as well, every sale lost is money lost for them.

I don't think you're some kind of hater for voting not to recommend the product that's your choice, I'm just referring to the bitter and twisted individuals that get some pleasure out of causing as much trouble as possible.

Edited September 5, 2024 by TKhaos
Spellcheck

[av8orDave]

Maybe @NineLine can comment, but I haven't touched the AV-8B in a bit, and it seems that the JTAC ATHS, which used to function perfectly, is now definitely completely out of commission and no longer works. Given that there was apparently some kind of statement that third party modules would be maintained, do you know if this will be corrected for the next update?

[NineLine]

3 minutes ago, av8orDave said:

Maybe @NineLine can comment, but I haven't touched the AV-8B in a bit, and it seems that the JTAC ATHS, which used to function perfectly, is now definitely completely out of commission and no longer works. Given that there was apparently some kind of statement that third party modules would be maintained, do you know if this will be corrected for the next update?

Can you point me to a bug report about it? Thanks.

[av8orDave]

17 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Can you point me to a bug report about it? Thanks.

You bet. Second post in the AV-8B bugs section. To be a bit more descriptive, it has always been that as soon as the built-in DCS JTAC finishes the nineline readout (sorry no pun intended), the CAS page populates with the target data. This  no longer seems to function.

 

Edited September 5, 2024 by av8orDave

[Adalla]

Came here just out of curiosity of any news. I'm not entirely surprised, but still roll my eyes, to see folks post dozens of posts on the subject without knowing any of the confidential details. As someone mentioned earlier, it's never black and white in life. Life is all sort of shades of gray (and manI wish THAT movie didn't twist the meaning of those 3 words forever Lol) 

As a combat sim and DCS fan, I can probably speak for just about all of us, wishing ED and RAZBAM all the best to find a resolution that is beneficial to both parties at the soonest and let us get back to celebrating and enjoying the amazing Harrier, Strike Eagle, Mirage 2000 etc. 

If ED wins AND RAZBAM wins, we all win. 

[Sinclair]

ED used to say “Thank you for your trust and support” but if we supported them by paying and they stopped to support us in exchange by providing the promised updates, then there is no more bidirectional trust so I guess that is the reason why they rely now on peoples passion, or in other words, unconditional faith, to keep their support.

[NineLine]

13 hours ago, av8orDave said:

You bet. Second post in the AV-8B bugs section. To be a bit more descriptive, it has always been that as soon as the built-in DCS JTAC finishes the nineline readout (sorry no pun intended), the CAS page populates with the target data. This  no longer seems to function.

 

 

Thanks, I have asked the team about it. 

6 hours ago, Sinclair said:

ED used to say “Thank you for your trust and support” but if we supported them by paying and they stopped to support us in exchange by providing the promised updates, then there is no more bidirectional trust so I guess that is the reason why they rely now on peoples passion, or in other words, unconditional faith, to keep their support.

Or you are over analyzing it. 

[C3PO]

Any resolution news?

[felixx75]

1 minute ago, C3PO said:

Any resolution news?

 

[Beirut]

49 minutes ago, C3PO said:

Any resolution news?

 

Two-weeks. 

[Nightdare]

9 hours ago, Sinclair said:

ED used to say “Thank you for your trust and support” but if we supported them by paying and they stopped to support us in exchange by providing the promised updates, then there is no more bidirectional trust so I guess that is the reason why they rely now on peoples passion, or in other words, unconditional faith, to keep their support.

Sorry, but I find this kind of funny

Where did you buy Trust? You got a game(/product) and a thank you for giving them money

And where does it say that you'll get trust and support back? as far as I understand the EULA, it's a business transaction

 

it seems more like you are under the assumption you connected yourself to some kind of religion with your purchase