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

[afnav130]

6 minutes ago, Oban said:

According to a prominent YouTuber, who claimed to have heard it from the horses mouth, RB and ED will cease their mutual contract(s) ... there's 2 horses, Nick Grey and Ron Zambrano, anyone out of that group has no official capacity. Certainly no 3rd party RB devs have any official capacity.

I'm dissapointed that he would have stated that, and then went on to back pedal.

The clown show continues to roll through town.

 

How much speculation and misinformation is being spread by HIS 3rd party developers?, I don't think any ED employee has leaked confidential documents, contracts, and conversations. 

I'm guessing he's addressing the statement that Kate made late last year, that ED would do their best to keep the F15E alive.

ED doesn't have the source code, and RB doesn't have the SDK.. so nobody is going to be doing anything, anytime soon.

Thats fine but that was months ago. Why post stuff today? Seems odd timing to wait several months to do that. And who is this prominent YouTuber?

[NineLine]

24 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Nothing new there. RB have already stated that ED don't have the source code. ED have not contradicted this statement. Without source code, 'full maintenance' clearly isn't possible. At best, all ED can do is try to ensure that DCS world updates don't break existing functionality - which will get harder and harder to achieve as code diverges more and more from its state when RB ceased updating. 

Yes, and that is all we have ever claimed, I am not sure what brought on this 'statement' but we have never said anything other than maintaining the current usability. 

[WipeUout]

This is a little confusing, what is the difference between:

"ensure the operational status of our aircraft"

and

"maintaining the current usability"

?

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

6 minutes ago, WipeUout said:

This is a little confusing, what is the difference between:

"ensure the operational status of our aircraft"

and

"maintaining the current usability"

?

The former would include bugfixes and ensuring every feature that is currently included works optimally.
The latter is trying to make sure future DCS core updates don't break the module.

[NineLine]

Just now, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

The former would include bugfixes and ensuring every feature that is currently included works optimally.
The latter is trying to make sure future DCS core updates don't break the module.

There should be no real way to break the module if we maintain core update compatibility. It's a lot of work, but we are committed to doing keep them working as is until this is solved. Its nothing new though. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

we are committed to doing keep them working as is

It is indeed nothing new, but it is nice to see it re-confirmed from time to time as this conflict drags on. Priorities shift after all, and there's a lot going on behind the scenes that we as users are not privy to that does influence decisions and long-term plans.
So I thank you nonetheless for confirming your commitment

[NineLine]

21 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

It is indeed nothing new, but it is nice to see it re-confirmed from time to time as this conflict drags on. Priorities shift after all, and there's a lot going on behind the scenes that we as users are not privy to that does influence decisions and long-term plans.
So I thank you nonetheless for confirming your commitment

I get it, doubt creeps in for all of us as this drags on. Its hard to stay positive. 

[Oban]

1 hour ago, afnav130 said:

Thats fine but that was months ago. Why post stuff today? Seems odd timing to wait several months to do that. And who is this prominent YouTuber?

Indeed, but which "Community manager" was he referring to, as Kate isn't a community manager, she's the COO of the company IIRC.

The YouTuber - CommandT

[PD919]

Ron is always so combative with his posts.  It definitely feels like RAZBAM has something their hiding beneath their complaint.  Especially when every "leak" has come from RAZBAM.  

[NineLine]

12 minutes ago, Oban said:

Indeed, but which "Community manager" was he referring to, as Kate isn't a community manager, she's the COO of the company IIRC.

The YouTuber - CommandT

Me and BN have stated the same line, so it has to be one of us. 

[Oban]

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Me and BN have stated the same line, so it has to be one of us. 

Interesting.... I don't believe there's been any attempt to spread "misinformation" from the ED camp, I can't say the same with regards to the RB camp.

Things are definately not good.

[Mizzy]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

Yes, and that is all we have ever claimed, I am not sure what brought on this 'statement' but we have never said anything other than maintaining the current usability. 

Calm down everyone, it's just zambrano trying to muddy the waters yet again. There is nothing knew in his so called statement and the only misinformation is coming from zambrano's discord. In my opinion, once ED gets rid of zambrano, the batter for all of DCS. Btw, it has also been stated zamrano doesn't hold the rights to the source code, he just sold it and packaged it for selling to ED.

Mizzy

[tribbin]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

I get it, doubt creeps in for all of us as this drags on. Its hard to stay positive. 

Would you say that keeping module/core compatibility affects core-feature progress? For instance when the modules need different Vulkan API calls and such.

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, Oban said:

Interesting.... I don't believe there's been any attempt to spread "misinformation" from the ED camp, I can't say the same with regards to the RB camp.

Things are definately not good.

Well if I or BIGNEWY have misled anyone on our capabilities to maintain the RB products as is for the foreseeable future, I apologize, but I think we have been pretty clear, I hope. 

2 minutes ago, tribbin said:

Would you say that keeping module/core compatibility affects core-feature progress? For instance when the modules need different Vulkan API calls and such.

I can't really say, I only know that it takes a little more work on our end to keep compatibility with the core. Generally, if a module is not updated by a 3rd party for a new version, it will not work, or work properly. Hence why we maintained an older version for the ill-fated Hawk long ago, now the team has managed to work around that to keep things functioning. 

[tribbin]

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Well if I or BIGNEWY have misled anyone on our capabilities to maintain the RB products as is for the foreseeable future, I apologize, but I think we have been pretty clear, I hope. 

I don't own any RAZBAM module. The single problem I have is that people (who commit countless hours to a module) are not informed in any way about the potential risks when they purchase a RAZBAM module.

[Oban]

9 minutes ago, tribbin said:

I don't own any RAZBAM module. The single problem I have is that people (who commit countless hours to a module) are not informed in any way about the potential risks when they purchase a RAZBAM module.

Ah, but there's potential risks with anything software related, and any module, these risks are normally in the small print of the EULA.

For example Windows updates fix a lot of things, and you can chose to update or not, but you run the risk of other programs not working.

Here's the reality v's risk, if ED were to suddenly go belly up, then every single module becomes irrelevant, it's game over.

If RB were to face the same situation, then only selected modules would be effected and cease to work eventually, but there's no guarantee that timeline is imminent or the issues manifest over several years time... if it's the latter, why not keep making hay whilst the sun shines? The F15E is still awesome fun, I will continue to play my Razbam stuff right up until I can't, as they wont load... that could be in 10 years time... it could be less, the thing is nobody can predict software life spans, unless there's a kill code written into it.

The whole wolrd was supposed to melt due to the Y2K virus, it turned out to be a nothing burger.... Razbam products are no different.

I'm less concerned with Ron's "clarification" message, than what I am with the Comments that CommandT made on his last youtube video, stating he had it direct from the horses mouth, ED and RB were pretty much dead...then goes to great legths to walk back what he said, and then states it's not a rumour, its fact. To me,  there's only 2 horses, that's Nick Grey, and Ron Zambrano, outside of those 2, the rest are donkeys wanting to be horses ( And No, I'm 100% not calling Nineline/Big Newy Donkeys).

In all honesty, I also believe that the normal 202X and beyond video due this week should be suspended until the Razbam situation has been resolved one way or the other.  releasing it when tensions within the community over the Razbam would be in poor taste in my opinion.

[tribbin]

14 minutes ago, Oban said:

Ah, but there's potential risks with anything software related, and any module, these risks are normally in the small print of the EULA.

There is an active legal dispute that has frozen development on the modules, of which one is in early access. Saying "read the EULA" does not cut it.

[Beirut]

21 minutes ago, Oban said:

In all honesty, I also believe that the normal 202X and beyond video due this week should be suspended until the Razbam situation has been resolved one way or the other.

 

Oh yeah, that would go over real well. 

 

[tribbin]

4 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Oh yeah, that would go over real well. 

 

I'm a simple man. I just want to see a glimpse of the MiG-17 in the video to get my dopamine fix. And preferably something on Vulkan.

[Oban]

28 minutes ago, tribbin said:

There is an active legal dispute that has frozen development on the modules, of which one is in early access. Saying "read the EULA" does not cut it.

You missed the entire point.. EVERY module carries an inherrent risk of falling foul of software updates, it doesn't matter whether it's Razbam, or Polychop.

[tribbin]

1 minute ago, Oban said:

You missed the entire point.. EVERY module carries an inherrent risk of falling foul of software updates, it doesn't matter whether it's Razbam, or Polychop.

Not every module has an active legal dispute and is thus frozen in development.

If you sell a car and you know it will probably not pass the next checkup, you don't tell the buyer: "Any car can break down."

[Oban]

12 minutes ago, tribbin said:

Not every module has an active legal dispute and is thus frozen in development.

If you sell a car and you know it will probably not pass the next checkup, you don't tell the buyer: "Any car can break down."

If I buy a car from a salesman, and he said it will pass its MOT, and it doesn't because the internal software failed, who's at fault? The salesman for selling you the car, the computer chip manufacturer or you for buying it?

Yes, literally any car CAN breakdown, manufacturers can go out of business, software chips can become unavailable... In this case you're talking about a $60 computer game that works as advertised, but development has been put on hold due to two naughty kids spitting their dummies out. It's not the end of the world.. though some see it this way.

[NineLine]

The thread was cleaned, and I left today's comments about the RB DIscord comments. 

As always, you can find the old posts here:

 

 

[tribbin]

2 minutes ago, Oban said:

If I buy a car from a salesman, and he said it will pass its MOT, and it doesn't because the internal software failed, who's at fault? The salesman for selling you the car, the computer chip manufacturer or you for buying it?

Yes, literally any car CAN breakdown, manufacturers can go out of business, software chips can become unavailable... In this case you're talking about a $60 computer game that works as advertised, but development has been put on hold due to two naughty kids spitting their dummies out. It's not the end of the world.. though some see it this way.

Do you think that the F-15E has equal likelihood to not be further developed, compared to other EA modules?

Do you think that RAZBAM modules have equal likelihood of not working in future versions of DCS, compared to other modules?

[Oban]

3 minutes ago, tribbin said:

Do you think that the F-15E has equal likelihood to not be further developed, compared to other EA modules?

Do you think that RAZBAM modules have equal likelihood of not working in future versions of DCS, compared to other modules?

Yes, I think once everything has settled, and it may take time, then the F15E will be developed.

No, I don't see Razbam modules not working in the future...

I will remain as positive as I can... and enjoy the current RB modules in my possesion.

The way I look at this.. IF RB come out direct and say the F15E is dead before any resolution, they lose everything that is potentially owed to them, there will be no sales, as Refunds would need to be given. Can RB survive if they ended their business dealings with ED ? I don't believe anyone least of all ED or Razbam want to see their relationship end.

There's no point in looking at this situation as if it's the end of the world, it's not, not even remotely close, but there's customers out there whose entire life appears to be revolving around a video game..