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

[HWasp]

37 minutes ago, Oban said:

ED didn't go direct to the Nuclear option...

 

Do you have a source? What happened exactly?

Edited January 17 by HWasp

[afnav130]

35 minutes ago, Oban said:

ED didn't go direct to the Nuclear option...

What you, or I's opinions on this are irrelevant, it's not our business that's at stake here, and I know for a fact, this situation isn't unique to ED/RB either, it happens a lot.

Big companies/coprorations couldn't care less about a smaller companies employees if that company steps out of line, where contracts have been breached, licences abused etc etc etc.
Why should they?

Because those same employees, who see their module still being sold, that they worked on..and are receiving nothing for it? Yeah, thats where the line gets drawn. At the end of the day, when the clock hits a year both sides need to look at themselves and ask themselves what the hell are we really doing here.

[Nightdare]

9 minutes ago, afnav130 said:

Because those same employees, who see their module still being sold, that they worked on..and are receiving nothing for it? Yeah, thats where the line gets drawn. At the end of the day, when the clock hits a year both sides need to look at themselves and ask themselves what the hell are we really doing here.

 

That RB is risking their developers' pay over a contract breach is on RB, ED has its own employees to worry about

 

"Sorry boys, we're done, RB got our IP protection destroyed and all your hard work is now publicly available for anyone to use"

 

"Oh, BTW other contractors: sorry, you can let your people out too, DCS just went bust, no more money for you either"

 

"Hi Customers, yeah about that 1-4 modules that may have become unusable,...well, it's now ALL of them,... no not all 4 RB modules,... ALL modules in DCS, props, jets, heli's maps, tech packs, oh, also no more DCS core, thank you for your support, bye now!"

 

[afnav130]

1 hour ago, Nightdare said:

 

That RB is risking their developers' pay over a contract breach is on RB, ED has its own employees to worry about

 

"Sorry boys, we're done, RB got our IP protection destroyed and all your hard work is now publicly available for anyone to use"

 

"Oh, BTW other contractors: sorry, you can let your people out too, DCS just went bust, no more money for you either"

 

"Hi Customers, yeah about that 1-4 modules that may have become unusable,...well, it's now ALL of them,... no not all 4 RB modules,... ALL modules in DCS, props, jets, heli's maps, tech packs, oh, also no more DCS core, thank you for your support, bye now!"

 

If that was truly the case, then ED would be done for right now. That genie would never get put back into the bottle. Pretty sure thats not the issue, it was supposedly using the IP without consent from ED to make the ST. There is even more to that story than even you probably know. RB was doing something they thought they could and they had to stop, that wasn't even related to ED even, and stop they did.

Things are pretty murky between DCS and MCS. So methinks there is come grey area there. Hell the scuttlebutt is ED is getting info on the -35 due to an MCS contract, which would make sense because ED isn't gonna throw a -35 out there without having some pretty substantial research that doesn't involve watching a demo at an airshow. 

Edited January 17 by afnav130

[Nightdare]

7 minutes ago, afnav130 said:

If that was truly the case, then ED would be done for right now. That genie would never get put back into the bottle.

 

if ED does not gatekeep their IP,.. then yes you would have a point, but as it stands, ED IS enforcing it's IP

 

7 minutes ago, afnav130 said:

Pretty sure thats not the issue, it was supposedly using the IP without consent from ED to make the ST. There is even more to that story than even you probably know.

 

be honest, you don't know either, just assuming

 

7 minutes ago, afnav130 said:

RB was doing something they thought they could and they had to stop, that wasn't even related to ED even, and stop they did.

 

Who said it needs to be directly ED related, ED is part of a privately held business that comprises of several sharing a common owner

If the owner finds RB abusing 1 IP (and I'm sure MCS and DCS share software, so infringing on one exposes IP of the other) then the owner gets to decide how to put pressure on RB

 

7 minutes ago, afnav130 said:

Things are pretty murky between DCS and MCS. So methinks there is come grey area there.

 

Things aren't murky when you realize they are both owned by the same entity

 

7 minutes ago, afnav130 said:

Hell the scuttlebutt is ED is getting info on the -35 due to an MCS contract, which would make sense because ED isn't gonna throw a -35 out there without having some pretty substantial research that doesn't involve watching a demo at an airshow. 

I sincerely doubt ED is getting F-35 info, MCS may be, but there are securities in check that ED does not get acces to sensitive information from a current gen fighter jet

And MCS will only get the clearance for those 'need to know'

If whatever authority responsible for F-35 classification even gets wind of that info leaking into a 'civilian' game, there'll be hell to pay and anything MCS (and DCS) may even get confiscated to protect international security

[Oban]

18 minutes ago, afnav130 said:

If that was truly the case, then ED would be done for right now. That genie would never get put back into the bottle. Pretty sure thats not the issue, it was supposedly using the IP without consent from ED to make the ST. There is even more to that story than even you probably know. RB was doing something they thought they could and they had to stop, that wasn't even related to ED even, and stop they did.

Things are pretty murky between DCS and MCS. So methinks there is come grey area there. Hell the scuttlebutt is ED is getting info on the -35 due to an MCS contract, which would make sense because ED isn't gonna throw a -35 out there without having some pretty substantial research that doesn't involve watching a demo at an airshow. 

Nick Grey didn't wake up and decide to withold payment to Razbam on a whim.

He would have taken this to his stakeholders with a Plan of action, and they would have approved the course of action taken, he would have also taken legel advise on what could and could not be done...

All your source of information has come from one party, a party that is the subject of the action against it. You have stated the devs are your friends/colleagues, so you have a very very obvious bias, and don't seem to entertain that Ron Zambrano, who lets be honest is far from being the pillar of truth, and has a track record of dodgy shyt, might not be telling his devs the truth.

Why did Razbam not begin legal proceedings against ED after 2 months on non payment ? Clearly you have the dates on which payment was supposed to have been received by RB from ED, as you seem to be privy to everything else... ??? Why didn't RB initiate legal proceeding before ED went nuclear? They were the ones who were going to be out of pocket?

Were the 3rd party developers made aware that their own remuneration was based solely upon being paid by ED, in which they would have been working for free anyway ?
It's funny how none of them has posted their terms and conditions with razbam publicly but they have no problem leaking contracts and conversations that they should never have been privy to to begin with !! ??

There's no winners here.

 

[Ignition]

2 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

That RB is risking their developers' pay over a contract breach is on RB, ED has its own employees to worry about

 

"Sorry boys, we're done, RB got our IP protection destroyed and all your hard work is now publicly available for anyone to use"

 

"Oh, BTW other contractors: sorry, you can let your people out too, DCS just went bust, no more money for you either"

 

"Hi Customers, yeah about that 1-4 modules that may have become unusable,...well, it's now ALL of them,... no not all 4 RB modules,... ALL modules in DCS, props, jets, heli's maps, tech packs, oh, also no more DCS core, thank you for your support, bye now!"

 

This is overdramatic HAHAHA

I like the "publicly available for anyone to use" LOL

38 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

if ED does not gatekeep their IP,.. then yes you would have a point, but as it stands, ED IS enforcing it's IP

 

It depends on the contract, what they've signed.

40 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

to protect international security

And IP LOL

[Nightdare]

3 minutes ago, Ignition said:

This is overdramatic HAHAHA

I like the "publicly available for anyone to use" LOL

 

Fender called, they want their strat shape back

 

3 minutes ago, Ignition said:

It depends on the contract, what they've signed.

 

And has RB provided any contract that they were allowed to do the things they were doing?

They 'say' they were allowed, but haven't used that contract to end the dispute in their favor, well before it escalated and they had to let their developers go

[Davee]

4 hours ago, Ignition said:

Why?, just by the name?

Those are 2 completely different aircraft.

My preference is not up for debate. It just is! 

[JuiceIsLoose]

41 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

Fender called, they want their strat shape back

 

 

And has RB provided any contract that they were allowed to do the things they were doing?

They 'say' they were allowed, but haven't used that contract to end the dispute in their favor, well before it escalated and they had to let their developers go

Where are you seeing RB “let their developers go”? I have seen that no where. Only thing I have seen in one developer leave to go to a full time job using similar services, a CM leave, and then some devs state they don’t want to do ED stuff anymore. No where have I seen RB “let anyone go”. 
 

As far as this IP thing and C&D. It’s about the stupid Tucano. And then when they received the IP issue they stopped work on it. And they were only made aware of this IP issue AFTER they weren’t paid for months. So it’s not like RB did something and told ED to suck it and then ED decided to not pay. Only after not being paid were they told there was an issue. They stopped. So why continue it from EDs side? If they truly wanted an amicable outcome. 
 

Let’s assume ED is correct on their claim of IP infringement. Probably a few better ways to handle it than to refuse to  pay RB. They had to know if they weren’t going to pay RB they would halt work after a time. 

[Sunbather]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb felixx75:

For me, an F-15C is simply not a replacement for an F-15E. A supplement, but absolutely no replacement.

Yeah, I really don't understand why they don't make their own F-15E and be done with the Razbam Situation. They could even give it to previous owners for free. To win back some confidence and trust and unimportant stuff like that.

[Nightdare]

1 hour ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Where are you seeing RB “let their developers go”? I have seen that no where. Only thing I have seen in one developer leave to go to a full time job using similar services, a CM leave, and then some devs state they don’t want to do ED stuff anymore. No where have I seen RB “let anyone go”. 

 

The discussion about devs not being paid has been going on for quite a while, you're telling me they're still there without pay?

What's RB paying them from? It certainly isn't the F-15 income

 

1 hour ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

As far as this IP thing and C&D. It’s about the stupid Tucano.

 

"Stupid" is your opinion, breach of contract isn't a silly thing to disregard for a company ,even if it's about some stupid CGI rendered crop-duster with guns on it

 

1 hour ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

And then when they received the IP issue they stopped work on it. And they were only made aware of this IP issue AFTER they weren’t paid for months.

 

Yeah sure, as if anyone wouldn't suddenly see payments stop

My boss has about 1 week before I start asking questions, and that's just concerning a few $1000 to pay my bills with, not the entire profit of one of the most cherished planes in fighter sims that has just been released, while I have my own bills and a a whole team of devs to pay

And by the end of the month, the first ultimatum is in the inbox of finance, HR and the CEO, with a snail mail copy in the mailbox for good measure, signed: my lawyer

 

1 hour ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

So it’s not like RB did something and told ED to suck it and then ED decided to not pay. Only after not being paid were they told there was an issue. They stopped. So why continue it from EDs side? If they truly wanted an amicable outcome.

Yet RB has given no evidence of this innocence, they are so innocent they haven't went after the missing money they are owed yet

 

You are missing the damages part

You think that you stop banging my car with a hammer is enough, but you forget you're gonna pay for the repairs as well

 

And you should know stop paying without any warning will get you on very shaky legal grounds

If ED cannot show they informed RB about the breach of contract prior to cutting payment, ED owes RB money up to the point where the dispute became clear

(and maybe even an added chosen timespan in which RB was given time to stop this work or face heavier consequences)

because how the F could RB know what they did wrong when they were never told this? Any defense attorney will put ED's lawyers through the wringer on such an oversight

So that pretty story of yours doesn't add up

 

1 hour ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Let’s assume ED is correct on their claim of IP infringement. Probably a few better ways to handle it than to refuse to  pay RB. They had to know if they weren’t going to pay RB they would halt work after a time.

 

 

Apparently, RB wasn't listening, so with the risk of Development on the F15 in mind, they decided to protect the entire company at the expense of some customer trust and a 3rd party developer

Better lose some than lose all

 

Now let's assume ED's story is BS as you say and RB is in their right, what's in it for ED, possibly checkmate RB and get their IP,... at the risk of losing everything?

If your story is true, RB would have proof of that and already be in court, because they are missing out of a lot of money, they can add to this money with a big fat paycheck of ED in damages

Edited January 17 by Nightdare

[Mizzy]

3 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

The discussion about devs not being paid has been going on for quite a while, you're telling me they're still there without pay?

 

Nightdare, you are fanning the flames of a nuisance. Ignore him and he will go away I promise.

Mizzy 

[Horns]

15 hours ago, Sunbather said:

Yeah, I really don't understand why they don't make their own F-15E and be done with the Razbam Situation. They could even give it to previous owners for free. To win back some confidence and trust and unimportant stuff like that.

I don't quite see that happening, although they might do something for owners who look to buy Charlie too...

[Sunbather]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Horns:

I don't quite see that happening, although they might do something for owners who look to buy Charlie too...

If they announce something like this, it would be much easier for me to finally pull the trigger on the F-15E. _{(And it would need to work for Steam users as well...)}

[Nightdare]

7 hours ago, Sunbather said:

If they announce something like this, it would be much easier for me to finally pull the trigger on the F-15E. _{(And it would need to work for Steam users as well...)}

 

Issue is the existence of the F-15E

Since there are still owners out there, you can't have both next to each other, the people paid as much for the RB frozen EA module, which will not be debugged or developed further, as a different F-15 will cost

ED would need to do a straight up swap and then remove the RB version

That's a lot of extra development with no extra income to cover that development

Not even touching the discussion that some people only want the F-15E and would not settle for a C

[MAXsenna]

 
Issue is the existence of the F-15E
Since there are still owners out there, you can't have both next to each other, the people paid as much for the RB frozen EA module, which will not be debugged or developed further, as a different F-15 will cost
ED would need to do a straight up swap and then remove the RB version
That's a lot of extra development with no extra income to cover that development
Not even touching the discussion that some people only want the F-15E and would not settle for a C

If all really goes down the road, I'll let them keep my money as long as they make a new E. I'll probably have an abundance of Miles anyway...

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Mizzy]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

If all really goes down the road, I'll let them keep my money as long as they make a new E. I'll probably have an abundance of Miles anyway...

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

In my opinion it's going 'down the road' and ED will do what they can with the 'E' and nobody knows what that may mean. The announcement with the 'C' is due to many years of asking for the module and it may be for other reasons, who knows. 2025 is the year I have been a member of this forum for 20 years and DCS has grown to the biggest height I could never of imagined since Flanker released 1995. I am not going to let Zambrano steal the show.

Mizzy 

[Mizzy]

On 1/17/2025 at 5:59 PM, HWasp said:

Do you have a source? What happened exactly?

Read the first post, you will know what exactly happened ! Or do you wish to stay in ignorance of this dispute from 'official' sources? 

Mizzy

[afnav130]

On 1/17/2025 at 1:41 PM, Nightdare said:

 

if ED does not gatekeep their IP,.. then yes you would have a point, but as it stands, ED IS enforcing it's IP

 

 

be honest, you don't know either, just assuming

 

 

Who said it needs to be directly ED related, ED is part of a privately held business that comprises of several sharing a common owner

If the owner finds RB abusing 1 IP (and I'm sure MCS and DCS share software, so infringing on one exposes IP of the other) then the owner gets to decide how to put pressure on RB

 

 

Things aren't murky when you realize they are both owned by the same entity

 

I sincerely doubt ED is getting F-35 info, MCS may be, but there are securities in check that ED does not get acces to sensitive information from a current gen fighter jet

And MCS will only get the clearance for those 'need to know'

If whatever authority responsible for F-35 classification even gets wind of that info leaking into a 'civilian' game, there'll be hell to pay and anything MCS (and DCS) may even get confiscated to protect international security

Wrong, I know from a person who would know, not anyone from RB, that there was an issue with a version of the ST that RB was going to model. They got the request to stop from an entity that wasn't ED. 

Bet you didn't know that, did you? Nevermind, don't have to bet, I know you didn't. 

Edited January 19 by afnav130

[Ignition]

On 1/17/2025 at 7:23 PM, Sunbather said:

Yeah, I really don't understand why they don't make their own F-15E and be done with the Razbam Situation. They could even give it to previous owners for free. To win back some confidence and trust and unimportant stuff like that.

I'm sure ED wants to do an F-15E at some point, if this issue is not resolved. And after the F-35 announcement they can do any aircraft they want.

[Ignition]

On 1/17/2025 at 7:44 PM, Nightdare said:

 

Yeah sure, as if anyone wouldn't suddenly see payments stop

 

It already happened with other 3rd party.

And as I've said, it depends on the contract. The contract may say for how long the payments may be retained and maybe it was normal to receive payments after some time.

[LordOrion]

9 hours ago, Mizzy said:

... 2025 is the year I have been a member of this forum for 20 years and DCS has grown to the biggest height I could never of imagined since Flanker released 1995. I am not going to let Zambrano steal the show.

Mizzy 

We should carve those words in marble.

[Nightdare]

9 hours ago, afnav130 said:

Wrong, I know from a person who would know, not anyone from RB, that there was an issue with a version of the ST that RB was going to model. They got the request to stop from an entity that wasn't ED. 

Bet you didn't know that, did you? Nevermind, don't have to bet, I know you didn't. 

 

Yeah, you know 'a person' who 'knows 'an entity' that told RB to stop developing a module

Of course you can't say what the exact issue was, why they were asked to be stopped and if this could have repercussions on ED if they didn't

 

But what you are saying is that RB was told by 2 parties to stop developing something, ED and some entity someone told you about, which you can't give any verification from if that is true

[Mizzy]

3 hours ago, LordOrion said:

We should carve those words in marble.