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

[Citizen]

1 hour ago, Oban said:

Again, why would it be public?

because he said the messages and emails had been posted elsewhere.

[Oban]

4 minutes ago, Citizen said:

because he said the messages and emails had been posted elsewhere.

They have.

I think you're view of being public, and mine may differ, when I refer to things being made public, I mean that companies have directly made statements to the general public. 

I believe you're looking in a broader context, in that whats now in the public domain, not necessarily approved by the main parties.

The problem with leaked documents/messages/emails etc is that real way of telling if they're genuine or not, I can photoshop a letter to me from Donald Trump to say what a good, no wonderful, no magnificant man I am, I could convince some people it's genuine, after all, me and the Donald go way back, I played gold on one of his courses, so we're best buddies..

Now, the burden of proof always lies in the accuser, and all the evidence presented has to be verified, cross checked, and all the t's crossed and the i's dotted in order to make a compelling case/argument.

All of this legal stuff gets dealt with at boardroom level 99% of the time, rarely are factory/floor level workers involved, even to the extent most would not have been aware there was an issue. They would become aware if their management puts out a pubilc statement..

There's no doubt that this shytshow is messy, and stinks, but when both CEO's have put out public statements to say they're working on a resolution that's in best parties interests,that's pretty positive, but when a very bitter and disgruntled 3rd party sub contractors starts leaking sensitive material and information, then the trust is gone, and there's never going to be a mutually favourable outcome.

LIke I said, when both CEO's seemed to be on the same page a path, it was encouraging, but those 3rd party devs want blood, they're going scorched earth in the hope the court of public opinion will favour them.....it will in some quarters, in most cases, it never ends well for them, I get their grievances, I totally do,

I have known blokes to have not been paid for 4 months, because their CEO withheld their salaries because a client was late in payments, they actually withheld payment due to breaches in the contract, and it was stupid stuff too, and they were all on 5 figure monthly sums, and they also made threats to their employee, and to the clients directly, not only did they lose their well earned money, they lost their jobs, and were blacklisted.

The business world is ruthless, especially at corporate levels. I wouldn't expect ED to behave any differently when they believe there's been a breach of contract.

[Citizen]

13 minutes ago, Oban said:

They have.

Again, I'm not finding it.  I'm no slouch at google-fu, and I'm not finding anything on discord either.  To put it bluntly, I think something was misinterpreted or worse.

[SkateZilla]

3 hours ago, Citizen said:

Again, I'm not finding it.  I'm no slouch at google-fu, and I'm not finding anything on discord either.  To put it bluntly, I think something was misinterpreted or worse.

There's a specific reddit page that likes to do "expose" articles.

[Aries]

8 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

I've spoken w/ both Pete and Ells after VEAO Left, that is the Long story short version, which is why it was labelled "allegedly", I can't really go into specifics beyond that publicly.

 

Same here... fair enough... 

[av8orDave]

After watching this re-hashed over and over again for months now, I've realized there are three camps:

1) Those that understand that businesses agree to certain terms, practices, rights, boundaries, usually in writing via a contract or set of contracts, and that if one side violates any part of these contracts, there are remedies which are often spelled out in the contracts or established through legal precedent. This group also seems to understand that it doesn't really matter how it looks, feels, or what the court of public opinion thinks as to whether the remedy is fair, again because it is what both parties agreed to, or at least one side thinks they agreed to. They also seem to understand that unwinding all of the above with lawyers, whether through arbitration, simple dialogue to find a commercial settlement, or through actual legal proceedings is very complicated and takes time.

2) A group that thinks it is as simple as "you must pay someone for their work, regardless of whether they violated any sort of agreements."

3) A group that thinks they know what happened, understand all of the subject contracts, and have the necessary legal experience to definitively say that no harm was done and Razbam must be paid. I actually sometimes can't tell whether this group actually believes they understand all of the nuances or whether they just don't care about the nuances.

[scommander2]

23 minutes ago, av8orDave said:

there are three camps

It is very interesting summary.  Regardless, we are still in nowhere at this point...

[Oban]

4 hours ago, scommander2 said:

It is very interesting summary.  Regardless, we are still in nowhere at this point...

Nobody outside of the legal parties involved knows at what stage things are, there may well have been progression, and there may well have been setbacks, the realists here knew this was never ever going to be a quick fix, and it hasn't even reached a courtroom yet..

But lets see where we really are shall we?

The F15E which is the main module of concern for 90% of consumers still works as it did day 1 of release.. so are we really nowhere? The only thing affected is the roadmap.

Personally I think ED should not update modules as regular as they do, but go for a singular annual update, which gives them way more time to put it all together...

I also think that ending early access needs to be looked at, and release in a more complete stage.

[NineLine]

Once again all, please focus on the topic, which is the 1st post in this thread, it's not about the validity of EA, HB, VEAO, etc. 

[nessuno0505]

13 ore fa, av8orDave ha scritto:

I've realized there are three camps:

There's also a 4th camp, who does not care less who's wrong and who's right, lawyers, contracts and such, and just thinks the whole stuff is a very bad happening for DCS as a whole, has simply lost the desire to spend money on it as his game has been ruined.

[Oban]

2 hours ago, exhausted said:

There WAS a deal though

A "deal" outside of contractual obligations and stipulations had the issue of the breach of contract not arisen?

I'd like to see proof of this "deal" otherwise its hearsay..

[ssn]

4 hours ago, Mizzy said:

I just see your posts as a nuisance to me.

Yet, you are very attentive to this thread.

 

43 minutes ago, Oban said:

I'd like to see proof of this "deal" otherwise its hearsay..

I'd like to see proof of the IP infringement, otherwise it's a hearsay.

 

Gosh, I don't get the motivation of some people here.  I'd like F-15E development to continue, cause I'd like to buy it. Same for Harrier. I'd like for M2000 not to degrade, cause bought it and I love it.  I don't want to see talent leaving dcs ecosystem or projects get abandoned, because everything here takes years or decades here...

I'd love ED to reconsider its tactic.  Non payment makes development impossible, lawsuits OTOH can simmer in the background for years and no customer would be impacted / would care. What's motivation of some other users here... I don't understand.

Edited November 5, 2024 by ssn

[Oban]

6 minutes ago, ssn said:

I'd like to see proof of the IP infringement, otherwise it's a hearsay.

Ask Razbams and ED's lawyers for a copy because it does exist, I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige divulging legal contractual matters to some random nobody on an internet forum..

[Oban]

11 minutes ago, ssn said:

Gosh, I don't get the motivation of some people here.  I'd like F-15E development to continue, cause I'd like to buy it. Same for Harrier. I'd like for M2000 not to degrade, cause bought it and I love it.  I don't want to see talent leaving dcs ecosystem or projects get abandoned, because everything here takes years or decades here...

NOBODY wants to see modules abandoned, irrespective of the developers.

Is there a dislike towards Razbam, yeah mostly from those familiar with their abandoned products in FSX... can you blame them??

There's equally a dislike towards ED, some justified, a lot not, if ED dissapeared, there's ZERO alternative out there that comes remotely close to what DCS offers. If Razbam dissapeared, it's move along, nothing to see here...

Pesonally, I love my F15E and Harrier, they're good modules, as is the South Atlantic map..

[Horns]

16 hours ago, ssn said:

Yet, you are very attentive to this thread.

 

I'd like to see proof of the IP infringement, otherwise it's a hearsay.

 

Gosh, I don't get the motivation of some people here.  I'd like F-15E development to continue, cause I'd like to buy it. Same for Harrier. I'd like for M2000 not to degrade, cause bought it and I love it.  I don't want to see talent leaving dcs ecosystem or projects get abandoned, because everything here takes years or decades here...

I'd love ED to reconsider its tactic.  Non payment makes development impossible, lawsuits OTOH can simmer in the background for years and no customer would be impacted / would care. What's motivation of some other users here... I don't understand.

 

I'd like people to remember that the policies we accept when we buy EA modules mean we are putting a lot of trust in devs to deliver something close to what they promise.

I'd like people to consider the state the Harrier was in when Razbam reclassified it as 'feature complete', and I'd like them to consider the missing parts of that module right up until this dispute began.

I'd like people to remember how basic the M2K was before the AdA got involved.

I'd then like them to consider what the chances ever were that the F-15E would actually become something like the module Razbam promised, given their track record.

I would like Razbam to sell their modules to a dev who actually seeks to meet their commitments to customers, and then I would like Razbam to leave DCS.

[Dallenbach]

I just had a brainstorm. What happened to Ron Zambrano's announcement on October 6th at the Tokyo Show about important and positive news about the future of Razbam? Did I miss something?  Or is this just another rant?

[Mainstay]

Anyone excited for the upcoming "DCS 2025 and beyond RAZBAM" video?

Edited November 6, 2024 by Mainstay

[TheFreshPrince]

Am 4.11.2024 um 16:13 schrieb av8orDave:

After watching this re-hashed over and over again for months now, I've realized there are three camps:

1) Those that understand that businesses agree to certain terms, practices, rights, boundaries, usually in writing via a contract or set of contracts, and that if one side violates any part of these contracts, there are remedies which are often spelled out in the contracts or established through legal precedent. This group also seems to understand that it doesn't really matter how it looks, feels, or what the court of public opinion thinks as to whether the remedy is fair, again because it is what both parties agreed to, or at least one side thinks they agreed to. They also seem to understand that unwinding all of the above with lawyers, whether through arbitration, simple dialogue to find a commercial settlement, or through actual legal proceedings is very complicated and takes time.

Well about what time are we talking, maybe some experts can share their experience with such things? We are 7 months in now, so how much longer will it likely take? Are we talking about several months, another year, several years? That would be good to know.

[av8orDave]

3 hours ago, TheFreshPrince said:

Well about what time are we talking, maybe some experts can share their experience with such things? We are 7 months in now, so how much longer will it likely take? Are we talking about several months, another year, several years? That would be good to know.

I think academic research suggests arbitrated disputes can be resolved in the 6 - 12 month timeframe, while cases that actually go to court are resolved 2 - 3 years after initial filing. That is for the States, I couldn't say for international / multi-national cases.

[Nightdare]

On 11/5/2024 at 7:55 PM, Oban said:

A "deal" outside of contractual obligations and stipulations had the issue of the breach of contract not arisen?

 

And this is why businesses deal in written contracts, not in handshakes, pinky swears and rememberwhenitoldyous

[Mizzy]

On 11/6/2024 at 12:31 PM, Horns said:

I'd like people to remember that the policies we accept when we buy EA modules mean we are putting a lot of trust in devs to deliver something close to what they promise.

I'd like people to consider the state the Harrier was in when Razbam reclassified it as 'feature complete', and I'd like them to consider the missing parts of that module right up until this dispute began.

I'd like people to remember how basic the M2K was before the AdA got involved.

I'd then like them to consider what the chances ever were that the F-15E would actually become something like the module Razbam promised, given their track record.

I would like Razbam to sell their modules to a dev who actually seeks to meet their commitments to customers, and then I would like Razbam to leave DCS.

Couldn't have said it better myself. You forgot that Razbam left MSFS leaving a mess and don't bother with what they did with Strike Fighters. When will people realise Razban doesn't do any development, they just publish other peoples work.

Mizzy

[Ignition]

On 11/6/2024 at 9:31 AM, Horns said:

I'd like people to remember how basic the M2K was before the AdA got involved.

You would wonder how basic ALL our DCS aircrafts are until real military institutions get involved. Even the so beloved ED F-18C.

The community needs to thank Razbam to update the M2K even after so many years instead of complaining.

[Ignition]

On 11/6/2024 at 9:31 AM, Horns said:

I'd then like them to consider what the chances ever were that the F-15E would actually become something like the module Razbam promised, given their track record.

The F-15E has the best AA radar simulation in DCS.

The F-15E has the best AG radar simulation in DCS.

The F-15E has the best TGP video simulation in DCS.

The F-15E has an excelent simulation of TFR.

You don't know the chances, no one knows but we know the effort put in those systems.

We only know that the amount of 3rd party developers is really small and Razbam was one of the biggest contributors, now DCS is even smaller than before.

If you don't have trust in a company just don't buy their products.

Edited November 8, 2024 by Ignition

[Horns]

4 hours ago, Ignition said:

You would wonder how basic ALL our DCS aircrafts are until real military institutions get involved. Even the so beloved ED F-18C.

The community needs to thank Razbam to update the M2K even after so many years instead of complaining.

The M2K was basic compared to the other aircraft in DCS at the time. An outdated module can't be sold, don't pretend Razbam's doing any charity here.

[Horns]

4 hours ago, Ignition said:

The F-15E has the best AA radar simulation in DCS.

The F-15E has the best AG radar simulation in DCS.

The F-15E has the best TGP video simulation in DCS.

The F-15E has an excelent simulation of TFR.

You don't know the chances, no one knows but we know the effort put in those systems.

We only know that the amount of 3rd party developers is really small and Razbam was one of the biggest contributors, now DCS is even smaller than before.

If you don't have trust in a company just don't buy their products.

 

The F-15E has some great features, no doubt, and I didn't say otherwise. The level some of its systems might reach has got nothing to do with whether the module as a whole would have been completed or not. I agree that no one knows what the future held for the F-15E, all we can do is look at the past. No one should have trust that Razbam can deliver anything, and as you say, if they don't have trust in what can be delivered by the company developing it they shouldn't buy it. Hopefully the F-15E will change hands and wind up with a dev who is worth putting some faith in.