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

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Oban said:

And you know this because you've presonally spoken to all of their CEO's and Business managers to come to this conclusion?

Pretty sure he meant customers but he has no data about that either.

3rd parties are small business units that can easily go down due to different reasons at any time - nothing ED can do much about.

Edited November 15, 2024 by draconus

[Horns]

14 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

With all due respect Nineline -and your free to disregard and remove this opinion if not relevent enough for this discussion

But that this doom-scenario wasn't identified and nailed down prior to this 'problem', still keeps a powderkeg under the whole 3rd party business model and motivates customers to only 'invest' in ED modules, since that has a certain 'safety' to early adopters to come to full fruition

Even if this dispute settles with all parties aboard and happy, or if things go awry yet ED manages to still get this module on the market as intended, this time, the key words are: "this time"

No question ED took a big hit from this, but all 3rd parties are also burnt with the ensuing distrust

In this topic where we talked ad nauseum about business, contracts, property and accountability, you can be sure a part of the customers aren't gonna settle for pinky promises and sorry's anymore either

I accept that some people may not have understood before the Razbam situation that buying into EA may not end with them receiving a completed module. Do you see a solution?

Between ED not being in a position to offer completion guarantees and Early Access being necessary in order to generate positive cash flow during our long development times, I don't see a lot of room to move, but both of those are assumptions on my part, so fair enough if you disagree with either or both.

The only other thing I can think of is maybe adding an extra checkbox when people purchase a preorder or EA product confirming that they understand they are buying under the terms of the EA policy, and the features list is aspirational rather than a statement of the module's current or ultimate state. It's not a solution to what you mention, to be sure, but at least it would be an extra invitation to people to inform themselves about what exactly they're paying for...

[lee1hy]

 deleted all razabam.
And the troll is razabam and ed, not user.
Speak straight

[Nightdare]

21 hours ago, Oban said:

Oh but they do, and constantly bang on about "promises" made by ED and from 3rd part devs..

Not once have I ever read that ED will promise anything, whether it be a weapons platform, or a radar update..

I constantly read on YouTube video comments that "ED promised X,Y and Z" but when challenged to post a link to those promises they can't....because there's never been such promises.

Take a look at ED's first newsletter of 2024, it does use the word promise, but it's the context of how it was written...

"This year promises to be an exciting one", or words to those effects..and then goes on to discuss all the up and coming modules, and work, in other words the 2024 roadmap, and if you look at it, they've pretty much delivered everything they were aiming for, from a business perspective, they've achieved what they've set out to do.

However, the rabid ED haters out there, and there's plenty, keep saying ED promised this, ED promised that, they're no good, they can't deliver blah blah blah.

Then there is this nonesense

"No question ED took a big hit from this, but all 3rd parties are also burnt with the ensuing distrust "

And you know this because you've presonally spoken to all of their CEO's and Business managers to come to this conclusion?

 

 

Leave the haters aside for a moment

I'm not talking about monetary metrics (Though I'm certain that at least the F-15 succes got tanked), I'm talking about trust, you're honestly trying to claim that apart from the doombringers nobody is looking at this with misgivings?

 

You are not buying a car expecting it to fall apart, or be told after the fact that you won't be able to get the basic service parts, most certainly when a company has made such a mistake previously and claims to have learnt from that mistake

 

"Yeah they hand over the source code"

Oh good so,...

"but we can't/won't do anything with that if things still go south and the customers either have to accept a half-finished module, or store credit for things they didn't want to spend their money on"

...wait what?

 

The Hawk debacle should have been a wake up call, not a reminder to switch off the alarm clock and go back to sleep

 

 

13 hours ago, Horns said:

I accept that some people may not have understood before the Razbam situation that buying into EA may not end with them receiving a completed module. Do you see a solution?

Between ED not being in a position to offer completion guarantees and Early Access being necessary in order to generate positive cash flow during our long development times, I don't see a lot of room to move, but both of those are assumptions on my part, so fair enough if you disagree with either or both.

The only other thing I can think of is maybe adding an extra checkbox when people purchase a preorder or EA product confirming that they understand they are buying under the terms of the EA policy, and the features list is aspirational rather than a statement of the module's current or ultimate state. It's not a solution to what you mention, to be sure, but at least it would be an extra invitation to people to inform themselves about what exactly they're paying for...

 

Some people may have not understood buying an EA module? What is this? Star Citizen?

You know, there used to be a time when companies were required to guarantee their products, these days instead, customers are required to accept being disappointed

"Check this box that enables us from taking your money yet not be obliged to actually provide you with a (decent) product"

Not a jab at ED specifically, but software industrie already enjoys a huge level of protection (IP outlives Patent by decades), no large physical resources or transportation for its product, makes its customers it's unpaid beta-testers and the licensing construction is almost a manifestation of "You will own nothing and be happy"

 

Do I see a solution? Yes, a different business model, since this one is asking for repetition of the same problem

Perhaps one where ED only commissions modules, which will allow 3rd parties to still suggest/make modules and receive royalties but all ownership of code, artwork, design lays with ED

If in such case a 3rd party drops out, ED can hand out the work and give those royalties to the one actually realizing the project (or do it in house)

It's how my employer deals with bankrupt/antagonistic contractors, sure we can leave everything in hands of those, but anybody with some common sense knows this is asking for trouble, with this construction, when crap hits the fan, we go in, grab our molds and materials and give them to the next, enabling us to keep our customers supplied and happy

 

 

 

 

[Horns]

6 hours ago, Nightdare said:

Some people may have not understood buying an EA module? What is this? Star Citizen?

You know, there used to be a time when companies were required to guarantee their products, these days instead, customers are required to accept being disappointed

"Check this box that enables us from taking your money yet not be obliged to actually provide you with a (decent) product"

Not a jab at ED specifically, but software industrie already enjoys a huge level of protection (IP outlives Patent by decades), no large physical resources or transportation for its product, makes its customers it's unpaid beta-testers and the licensing construction is almost a manifestation of "You will own nothing and be happy"

 

Do I see a solution? Yes, a different business model, since this one is asking for repetition of the same problem

Perhaps one where ED only commissions modules, which will allow 3rd parties to still suggest/make modules and receive royalties but all ownership of code, artwork, design lays with ED

If in such case a 3rd party drops out, ED can hand out the work and give those royalties to the one actually realizing the project (or do it in house)

It's how my employer deals with bankrupt/antagonistic contractors, sure we can leave everything in hands of those, but anybody with some common sense knows this is asking for trouble, with this construction, when crap hits the fan, we go in, grab our molds and materials and give them to the next, enabling us to keep our customers supplied and happy

 

 

 

 

With the example of your employer and the way he deals with contractors, are those contractors selling discrete products in their own names, or are they contributing something which is sold as part of a greater 'whole' (eg they are working on a construction project ultimately sold under your employer's name)?

I take it from your Star Citizen comment that you feel that people do go into Early Access purchases understanding what they are getting - in that case they understand the choice they are faced with, and they can already choose to stick to products developed by ED. If the guarantees (or lack thereof) offered for EA products, or the parties offering them, aren't sufficient for a customer to be satisfied, buying a mature module offers terms where the guarantees are much more concrete.

Personally, I don't think ED commissioning all modules is an answer. For ED to retain ownership of what's produced they would have to cover all development costs, therefore we'd be limited to the number of modules ED could afford to develop and accept risk for - I don't see a reason to think that number would be greater the number of modules ED produce themselves currently. I prefer seeing a situation where third parties expand the pool of available capital, and leave it up to the customer to decide which dev - if any - they are prepared to take a risk with and under what terms they will do so.

This situation has come up twice in fifteen years. I guess we'll see whether there is enough of a dip in sales for long enough to force a change of business model, but I hope this is more like a bump in the road.

[Nightdare]

55 minutes ago, Horns said:

With the example of your employer and the way he deals with contractors, are those contractors selling discrete products in their own names, or are they contributing something which is sold as part of a greater 'whole' (eg they are working on a construction project ultimately sold under your employer's name)?

 

Irrelevant, my example was about keeping control to prevent disputes from undermining performance (whether this is measurable monetary performance or something elusive like 'customer trust') 

But as a side note: we used to have our own R&D team but also (and now exclusively) have had a few products we bought the rights to to produce, either by outright lump sum or under royalty payment, regardless, we hold the property, we call the shots

 

Apparently the business model of ED being a 'publisher' proves not to be a good strategy at keeping control, even though they claimed to have nailed the issue of abandoned modules down with the Hawk

As a consumer, this doesn't sit well about any 3rd party purchases and in the end, the consumer is exchanging money with ED, not with the contractors, nobody can demand Razbam for their money back

 

55 minutes ago, Horns said:

I take it from your Star Citizen comment that you feel that people do go into Early Access purchases understanding what they are getting - in that case they understand the choice they are faced with, and they can already choose to stick to products developed by ED. If the guarantees (or lack thereof) offered for EA products, or the parties offering them, aren't sufficient for a customer to be satisfied, buying a mature module offers terms where the guarantees are much more concrete.

 

Yes they understand, where in the EA ToS does it say development can be dropped at any point?

My SC comment was about selling an idea and then deciding to change the strategy after people invested

 

55 minutes ago, Horns said:

Personally, I don't think ED commissioning all modules is an answer. For ED to retain ownership of what's produced they would have to cover all development costs,

 

Which is what almost every other company that has to sell a tangible product has to do, and only few of them are able to fund their development by Early Access

Kickstarter is a thing, For DCS, it would actually show viability of certain modules beforehand

You'd have a 3-tier funding

- Kickstarter = no work done yet, minimum amount to start development over a set period of time needs to be reached or refunded, Not enough interest? No animosity!

-EA = Working module, which is just dotting the i's and working out the kinks anyway prior to: 

-Retail

 

55 minutes ago, Horns said:

therefore we'd be limited to the number of modules ED could afford to develop and accept risk for - I don't see a reason to think that number would be greater the number of modules ED produce themselves currently. I prefer seeing a situation where third parties expand the pool of available capital, and leave it up to the customer to decide which dev - if any - they are prepared to take a risk with and under what terms they will do so.

 

If 3rd parties can invest in new developments, so can ED, also, ED decides which modules are viable anyway, where 3rd parties have to put up all the development and risk beforehand and hope to get approved by ED

If ED doesn't want to risk development in their own product, they might as well pack up

As for seeing less modules, too much too quickly is a thing, there will be a point where DCS will run out of popular planes to add, at the rate they are introducing new planes, this will be sooner than later

 

55 minutes ago, Horns said:

This situation has come up twice in fifteen years. I guess we'll see whether there is enough of a dip in sales for long enough to force a change of business model, but I hope this is more like a bump in the road.

Yeah, twice in 15 years, when it should have been avoided after the first time, and remains a risk for the future

I doubt we'll get figures on the F-15, and then it's the question whether the refunds are included to skew revenue numbers (because ED didn't lose any actual money on those)

But since we are talking about one of the most popular planes in the minds of the interested public, where there was at least a good hope for projected sales, it won't be just a 'blip on the radar'

[Horns]

5 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

Irrelevant, my example was about keeping control to prevent disputes from undermining performance (whether this is measurable monetary performance or something elusive like 'customer trust') 

But as a side note: we used to have our own R&D team but also (and now exclusively) have had a few products we bought the rights to to produce, either by outright lump sum or under royalty payment, regardless, we hold the property, we call the shots

 

Apparently the business model of ED being a 'publisher' proves not to be a good strategy at keeping control, even though they claimed to have nailed the issue of abandoned modules down with the Hawk

As a consumer, this doesn't sit well about any 3rd party purchases and in the end, the consumer is exchanging money with ED, not with the contractors, nobody can demand Razbam for their money back

 

 

Yes they understand, where in the EA ToS does it say development can be dropped at any point?

My SC comment was about selling an idea and then deciding to change the strategy after people invested

 

 

Which is what almost every other company that has to sell a tangible product has to do, and only few of them are able to fund their development by Early Access

Kickstarter is a thing, For DCS, it would actually show viability of certain modules beforehand

You'd have a 3-tier funding

- Kickstarter = no work done yet, minimum amount to start development over a set period of time needs to be reached or refunded, Not enough interest? No animosity!

-EA = Working module, which is just dotting the i's and working out the kinks anyway prior to: 

-Retail

 

 

If 3rd parties can invest in new developments, so can ED, also, ED decides which modules are viable anyway, where 3rd parties have to put up all the development and risk beforehand and hope to get approved by ED

If ED doesn't want to risk development in their own product, they might as well pack up

As for seeing less modules, too much too quickly is a thing, there will be a point where DCS will run out of popular planes to add, at the rate they are introducing new planes, this will be sooner than later

 

Yeah, twice in 15 years, when it should have been avoided after the first time, and remains a risk for the future

I doubt we'll get figures on the F-15, and then it's the question whether the refunds are included to skew revenue numbers (because ED didn't lose any actual money on those)

But since we are talking about one of the most popular planes in the minds of the interested public, where there was at least a good hope for projected sales, it won't be just a 'blip on the radar'

If the contractors don’t produce anything that can’t be sold separately, it’s not close to the same thing. Really not much point talking about it if you see that as having anything to do with third parties making discrete products. FWIW I applaud your employer for taking the approach he does, it just doesn’t translate here.

Development can’t be stopped optionally at any time. People can and should take it up with Razbam, as that’s the company responsible for honoring agreements for the mudhen. For the record that’s not meant to sound glib; I think it’s shocking that a company has simply decided not to honor their obligations - and I say ‘decided’ because if they can’t afford to meet their obligations they should be in some form of administration. I really hope they get nailed for that too.

I believe the business model for MSFS is roughly analogous (I’m no expert on the MSFS marketplace, if anyone knows major differences please post and say so) and it seems to work fine for them.

Clearly we have a fundamental disagreement about just how consequential the Razbam situation will be for DCS, and that’s fine, neither of us can see the future, I hope and believe things will be ok here given a little time. Here’s hoping the sim and this forum is still healthy in five years and we can argue about how much difference this situation made.

 

[Pipe]

Is MSFS a store front, or do third parties collect their own funds from purchases?
I have admit that I thought I was paying RB when I bought their products including the SE. 

Also I have bought all HB products from their store since it opened..

[PLAAF]

On 11/13/2024 at 3:58 AM, NineLine said:

We can only share what is in the original post, and right now nothing leads me to believe that either team wants the F-15E to go away. I understand it is hard to hold out hope, especially with all the noise out there and I know some of that noise comes from sources you might consider official, but the safest path right now is to go off the official announcements and the fact that everyone wants the F-15E to continue. 

Not just the F-15E. Please tell us that once they solve the issue between them, we can still get the MiG-23MLA.

[Horns]

6 hours ago, PLAAF said:

Not just the F-15E. Please tell us that once they solve the issue between them, we can still get the MiG-23MLA.

If the module is as far advanced as we’ve been led to believe, even if Razbam leave the good news is it’s not unimaginable that another dev might acquire it and complete it.

[Nightdare]

18 hours ago, Horns said:

If the contractors don’t produce anything that can’t be sold separately, it’s not close to the same thing. Really not much point talking about it if you see that as having anything to do with third parties making discrete products.

You seem to forget that RB is now in dispute with ED for 'selling ED property separately', so your comparison of the modules (AKA the product) itself are on point, the software (AKA the materials) isn't, the sourcecode (AKA the drawings) are viewable to ED, but -as far as we know- not their property

My comparison is indeed not truly 1:1, but shares many of the possible pitfalls to recognize and try to evade in business

Just because the current construction has its upsides for ED, there are downsides to this business model as well

 

18 hours ago, Horns said:

Development can’t be stopped optionally at any time. People can and should take it up with Razbam, as that’s the company responsible for honoring agreements for the mudhen. For the record that’s not meant to sound glib; I think it’s shocking that a company has simply decided not to honor their obligations - and I say ‘decided’ because if they can’t afford to meet their obligations they should be in some form of administration. I really hope they get nailed for that too.

 

As I stated earlier in one of the topic's earlier incantations, you are not signing a ToS/EULA with RB but with ED, as such you bought this module under their rules and obligations, which means you have to deal with ED first and foremost (if not exclusively), how ED then deals with RB is -as often stated- none of our business

 

18 hours ago, Horns said:

I believe the business model for MSFS is roughly analogous (I’m no expert on the MSFS marketplace, if anyone knows major differences please post and say so) and it seems to work fine for them.

 

Yes, but that starts with the letters "MS", regardless of being a subsidiary, they are owned by a big player whose name alone more easily controls its contractors

Everybody knows not to piss off the boss' wife, just ask Chris Roberts

 

18 hours ago, Horns said:

Clearly we have a fundamental disagreement about just how consequential the Razbam situation will be for DCS, and that’s fine, neither of us can see the future, I hope and believe things will be ok here given a little time. Here’s hoping the sim and this forum is still healthy in five years and we can argue about how much difference this situation made.

 

I figured that the situation would be different since ED had experienced the whole dealings with the Hawk and added checks and balances to prevent a module being abandoned

With EA modules represented in the ToS as being completed over time, they are no different than a complete purchase

I may have joined DCS long after that dispute, but as flightsim fan, was aware of it happening at the time, the risk of 'losing' a purchase was negated by ED's statement that they would always have the source code

@NineLine's comment that in a worst case scenario, they still can't (let's rephrase that more nuanced: they currently have no plan in place on how to move forward in such case),is from a consumer's PoV, quite a bombshell

If there doesn't come any plan, the situation in 5 years will still be the same, and instead of hoping for the best future, we can only hope old worst-case scenario's don't pop up again

[C3PO]

Any signs of a resolution?

[Major_Shepard]

5 hours ago, C3PO said:

Any signs of a resolution?

Nope, come back in one or two decades

[Horns]

7 hours ago, Nightdare said:

You seem to forget that RB is now in dispute with ED for 'selling ED property separately', so your comparison of the modules (AKA the product) itself are on point, the software (AKA the materials) isn't, the sourcecode (AKA the drawings) are viewable to ED, but -as far as we know- not their property

My comparison is indeed not truly 1:1, but shares many of the possible pitfalls to recognize and try to evade in business

Just because the current construction has its upsides for ED, there are downsides to this business model as well

 

 

As I stated earlier in one of the topic's earlier incantations, you are not signing a ToS/EULA with RB but with ED, as such you bought this module under their rules and obligations, which means you have to deal with ED first and foremost (if not exclusively), how ED then deals with RB is -as often stated- none of our business

 

 

Yes, but that starts with the letters "MS", regardless of being a subsidiary, they are owned by a big player whose name alone more easily controls its contractors

Everybody knows not to piss off the boss' wife, just ask Chris Roberts

 

 

I figured that the situation would be different since ED had experienced the whole dealings with the Hawk and added checks and balances to prevent a module being abandoned

With EA modules represented in the ToS as being completed over time, they are no different than a complete purchase

I may have joined DCS long after that dispute, but as flightsim fan, was aware of it happening at the time, the risk of 'losing' a purchase was negated by ED's statement that they would always have the source code

@NineLine's comment that in a worst case scenario, they still can't (let's rephrase that more nuanced: they currently have no plan in place on how to move forward in such case),is from a consumer's PoV, quite a bombshell

If there doesn't come any plan, the situation in 5 years will still be the same, and instead of hoping for the best future, we can only hope old worst-case scenario's don't pop up again

If you think the EULA or ToS make Eagle Dynamics responsible to the end user for third party modules, what's your argument? According to you ED is already assuming responsibility to the customer for every module through the EULA/ToS, so customer satisfaction is just as safe as if ED did operate using the business model you suggest.

I'd hope you understand that's not actually the case. If you genuinely think otherwise I suggest you stop wasting time arguing with me and approach your local consumer advocate.

[Horns]

On 11/17/2024 at 3:46 PM, PLAAF said:

Not just the F-15E. Please tell us that once they solve the issue between them, we can still get the MiG-23MLA.

I guess ED’s upcoming fulcrum won’t scratch that itch?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

8 minutes ago, Horns said:

I guess ED’s upcoming fulcrum won’t scratch that itch?

I'm certainly eager for it.

[Gorn_GER]

On 11/18/2024 at 12:13 AM, Horns said:

If you think the EULA or ToS make Eagle Dynamics responsible to the end user for third party modules, what's your argument? [...]

I bought DCS Modules for DCS (the game) on the website "digitalcombatsimulator" that says "© 1991-2024, Eagle Dynamics SA" and the Name of the Product says "DCS: F-15E by RAZBAM" and on all the Shop-side the Name "RAZBAM" is just called out twice. 1. in the Name 2. below on the product picture. The Name RAZBAM is not called out in any Legal Document on the website or in my E-Mails. After Purchase I get an "Order was completed" by noreply@digitalcombatsimulator with no mention of a 3rd Party Developer.

For the Customer, Eagly Dynamics SA is 100% responcible for the F-15E and any other Module by RAZBAM.

If I have a company that develop and sells products and I name this product "XYZ by Max Mustermann" because my employee Max is very talented and people know that, It still only is a quality mark for my customer, not more not less. Even if i let "Joe Doe" produce 1/3 knowing his quality level is way below and sell it as "by Max Mustermann", neither of these two are responsible to deal with product issues and concerns of customer. I do. (the same counts for my company buying products from different factorys. If I let Factory X and Factory Y build my products and I myself have problems with one of the companies, I have to deal with quality-concerns by my customer, not Factory X nor Y)

And here comes the important part, the customer sould never know if there is any kind of problem between me and my employees or another company. I have to provide product quality and it is very very sad that we are still talking about what RAZBAM did or did not do. We all never bought a RAZBAM product. We all bought Eagle Dynamics-DCS-Products by RAZBAM/Aerges/AvioDev/DekaIronwork/Heatblur/IndiaFoxtEcho/Magnitude3LLC/OctopusG/Orbx/Polychop/RedStar/UgraMedia and even VEAO.

I got concerns about why the Early Access F-15E does not get any more updates. I bougt an Early Access product, knowing that the developers work on them until it is ready to release.

As I like to quote the official Eagly Dynamics description on what early access is:

" What is DCS World Early Access?

Early Access is an option for you to play this module in an early state, but it will be incomplete with bugs. The time a product remains in Early Access can vary widely based on the scope of the project, technical hurdles, and how complete the module is when it enters Early Access. Eagle Dynamics and all of our third parties strive to make this period as short as possible. Once the module exits Early Access, you will automatically have the Release version."

the line "once the module exits Early Access" implies to the customer that the Product will be fully released and functional as it was as advertised.

So please stop telling people that "[...]buying into EA may not end with them receiving a completed module.[...]"

But @Nightdare already said enough about this specific topic for both of us so I do not start telling you the same, he already did. It is a shame that we even have to deal with people thinking that EarlyAccess was supposed to be a "maybe abandon early" phrase. Companies that work this way should also be "maybe abandon early". But before people get on fire here, EagleDynamics officials stated that the product is not dead already and we should stick to it until known further. So stop calling the Eagle and its Developers dead before they die. The F-15E is not abandon now and I do not know what is with you and your countries Laws but if it dies, I for myself will get my money back and from that point I will only be disapointed about that I could never fly the F-15E as a full-release and just try it out in Alpha/Beta-tests without a future.

[Gorn_GER]

On 11/15/2024 at 6:58 AM, Oban said:

Oh but they do, and constantly bang on about "promises" made by ED and from 3rd part devs..

Not once have I ever read that ED will promise anything, whether it be a weapons platform, or a radar update.. [...]

nullQuote: "The subject of this study level simulation is the F-15E Suite 4E+ software installed in F-15E's in around 2003. "

Source: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/f-15e/

The real F-15E Suite 4E+ is scale for product quality on this module. They have to provide a simulation on this module that is compareable to the real one. This includes weapons platform and radar functionality the the Strike Eagle had at this time. (I Still have no working AGM-65, AGM-84 and AGM-88 on this module)

If the DCS F-15E cannot refer to this line that was stated when I clicked the purchase button, Eagle Dynamics better ask Boundless Dynamics, LLC how good VTOL VR is, with fully fictional planes and helicopters.

[BIGNEWY]

@Gorn_GER please read the first post in this thread. 

Until the dispute is resolved we will all need to wait for the outcome. 

thank you 

[Gorn_GER]

4 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

@Gorn_GER please read the first post in this thread. 

Until the dispute is resolved we will all need to wait for the outcome. 

thank you 

@BIGNEWY I never said something else. I even said: So stop calling the Eagle and its Developers dead before they die." I even encouraged people to wait in your interest. Therefor I do not understand why you write @Gorn_GER instead of pointing out to the others.

[BIGNEWY]

12 minutes ago, Gorn_GER said:

@BIGNEWY I never said something else. I even said: So stop calling the Eagle and its Developers dead before they die." I even encouraged people to wait in your interest. Therefor I do not understand why you write @Gorn_GER instead of pointing out to the others.

you are right, sorry I did not read the other context before your posts. 

Lots of people claim to know more than they think they do, or make incorrect inflammatory comments that are best ignored.

have a good day. 

[Gorn_GER]

4 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

you are right, sorry I did not read the other context before your posts. 

Lots of people claim to know more than they think they do, or make incorrect inflammatory comments that are best ignored.

have a good day. 

Times are difficult at the moment and will be better some day. Since a long time I wait for the day when we just ask questions like "will the AH-1Z come to DCS" and "Help, I am not able to shoot that fully functional/implemented Weapon because I forgot one step from weapon deployment tutorial".

Thanks that you did not just let that statement hang in there and replied to my comment. You are a good example for a Moderator.

have a good day.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Gorn_GER said:

AGM-84 and AGM-88

Never planned. Not the USAF F-15E mission profile.

I still can't believe you dared to compare DCS to V#$% VR.

8 minutes ago, Gorn_GER said:

Since a long time I wait for the day when we just ask questions like "will the AH-1Z come to DCS" and "Help, I am not able to shoot that fully functional/implemented Weapon because I forgot one step from weapon deployment tutorial".

These are actually every day questions on the forum.

 

Edited November 22, 2024 by draconus

[Gorn_GER]

7 minutes ago, draconus said:

Never planned. Not the USAF F-15E mission profile.

I still can't believe you dared to compare DCS to V#$% VR.

seams you are right about the AGM88. I was misslead by the quote "For air-to-ground missions, the F-15E can carry most weapons in the Air Force’s inventory".

That may have been Israel or South Koreans F-15.

But are you sure about the AGM84? Maybe bad examples but the F-15E from 2003 had some weapons that are not implemented yet or do not work well, I would like to see for a release Version of this module.

Yes I compared to VTOL excactly because of that fear. Look what World of Tanks and War Thunder have become. They both drift away more and more from reality and the same way I never used the Vanilla stuff from Arma3, I would not like to see unrealistic and fictional modules in DCS, too. In terms of Games, I like them to play them as realistic as they could get.

[Horns]

9 hours ago, Gorn_GER said:

I bought DCS Modules for DCS (the game) on the website "digitalcombatsimulator" that says "© 1991-2024, Eagle Dynamics SA" and the Name of the Product says "DCS: F-15E by RAZBAM" and on all the Shop-side the Name "RAZBAM" is just called out twice. 1. in the Name 2. below on the product picture. The Name RAZBAM is not called out in any Legal Document on the website or in my E-Mails. After Purchase I get an "Order was completed" by noreply@digitalcombatsimulator with no mention of a 3rd Party Developer.

For the Customer, Eagly Dynamics SA is 100% responcible for the F-15E and any other Module by RAZBAM.

If I have a company that develop and sells products and I name this product "XYZ by Max Mustermann" because my employee Max is very talented and people know that, It still only is a quality mark for my customer, not more not less. Even if i let "Joe Doe" produce 1/3 knowing his quality level is way below and sell it as "by Max Mustermann", neither of these two are responsible to deal with product issues and concerns of customer. I do. (the same counts for my company buying products from different factorys. If I let Factory X and Factory Y build my products and I myself have problems with one of the companies, I have to deal with quality-concerns by my customer, not Factory X nor Y)

And here comes the important part, the customer sould never know if there is any kind of problem between me and my employees or another company. I have to provide product quality and it is very very sad that we are still talking about what RAZBAM did or did not do. We all never bought a RAZBAM product. We all bought Eagle Dynamics-DCS-Products by RAZBAM/Aerges/AvioDev/DekaIronwork/Heatblur/IndiaFoxtEcho/Magnitude3LLC/OctopusG/Orbx/Polychop/RedStar/UgraMedia and even VEAO.

I got concerns about why the Early Access F-15E does not get any more updates. I bougt an Early Access product, knowing that the developers work on them until it is ready to release.

As I like to quote the official Eagly Dynamics description on what early access is:

" What is DCS World Early Access?

Early Access is an option for you to play this module in an early state, but it will be incomplete with bugs. The time a product remains in Early Access can vary widely based on the scope of the project, technical hurdles, and how complete the module is when it enters Early Access. Eagle Dynamics and all of our third parties strive to make this period as short as possible. Once the module exits Early Access, you will automatically have the Release version."

the line "once the module exits Early Access" implies to the customer that the Product will be fully released and functional as it was as advertised.

So please stop telling people that "[...]buying into EA may not end with them receiving a completed module.[...]"

But @Nightdare already said enough about this specific topic for both of us so I do not start telling you the same, he already did. It is a shame that we even have to deal with people thinking that EarlyAccess was supposed to be a "maybe abandon early" phrase. Companies that work this way should also be "maybe abandon early". But before people get on fire here, EagleDynamics officials stated that the product is not dead already and we should stick to it until known further. So stop calling the Eagle and its Developers dead before they die. The F-15E is not abandon now and I do not know what is with you and your countries Laws but if it dies, I for myself will get my money back and from that point I will only be disapointed about that I could never fly the F-15E as a full-release and just try it out in Alpha/Beta-tests without a future.

The product only being identified twice as being a Razbam product has nothing to do with anything. The reason the emails you received about the order are from DCS because you're buying from a DCS storefront, if you had bought through Steam instead you would have received these emails from Steam. For that matter, if you buy any early access game from Steam, the game studio's name may turn up on the store page in one place only and none of the order emails. Yet, if that studio collapses, you end up with only what got made because the responsible studio no longer exists to be held to account.

If a dev, in this case Razbam, ceases to exist while a DCS module is in Early Access that product can wind up incomplete, as we're seeing with the F-15E. No one is saying a company can just decide not to make a module anymore and thereby leave you with a module partway through EA (eg Razbam could not have simply declared the F-15E abandoned and then proceeded to release a new module), but the dev alone - Razbam for the F-15E - bears the responsibility for delivering.

These are not new issues. These are not untried issues. Arguing with me doesn't change the fact that ED is not the liable party. If you think otherwise, make a legal claim out of it.

I'll assume when you talk about "stop calling the Eagle and its Developers dead before they die" you're addressing that to people who think ED is going out of business - if that's the case I guess we may agree on something, ED is fine and DCS is not under threat.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Horns
Cleaned up cut and paste word salad