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

[Nightdare]

12 hours ago, bjdy said:

anyrhing really new here?

 

I see "transparency"?

So,.. if there was anything new in their story, I'd expect the "why we're not being paid" to finally be in there

[jackd]

So far i only bought South Atlantic from Razbam .. they did not get their fair share?

Edited April 5 by jackd

[Tank50us]

4 minutes ago, jackd said:

So far i only bought South Atlantic from Razbam .. they did not get their fair share?

One thing to remember is that Razbam isn't really one developer like Deka or FlyingIron, they're a collection of them. The Strike Eagle was developed by a different team than South Atlantic, but all of them are under the Razbam umbrella.

That said, if you buy a RB published module right now, the way the payout works basically means that the 'seller' gets their share first (For example Steam), then ED (as they own the engine and IP), then licensees (Boeing, Lockheed, etc), and then finally the developer. Now, if you're looking at that and wondering what's happened to the money... we... Steam, ED, and Boeing/Dassault/Mig all have their cuts already from the RB sales (Strike Eagle and Harrier, Mirage 2000C, and Mig-17 respectively) but Razbams cut is being held in escrow until this matter is resolved. However long that takes... but considering that RBs CEO has an ego the size of Jupiter.... it may take a while....

I honestly feel sorry for the people who actively worked on these projects. They poured their blood sweat and tears into their respective projects, and thanks to RB trying to do some shady stuff, they can't get paid for it. Literally all RB has to do is either hand over the Source Code for the respective modules so they can be maintained.... or agree to new terms from ED so that things get back on track.

[MAXsenna]

So far i only bought South Atlantic from Razbam .. they did not get their fair share?

South Atlantic was just published by Razbam, it's not made by Razbam, (probably why there's a lack of content for actual Razbam modules). It's actually pretty much the same team that develops Kola. As we still get SA and Kola updates, I assume it's all hunky dory.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Horns]

6 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

One thing to remember is that Razbam isn't really one developer like Deka or FlyingIron, they're a collection of them. The Strike Eagle was developed by a different team than South Atlantic, but all of them are under the Razbam umbrella.

That said, if you buy a RB published module right now, the way the payout works basically means that the 'seller' gets their share first (For example Steam), then ED (as they own the engine and IP), then licensees (Boeing, Lockheed, etc), and then finally the developer. Now, if you're looking at that and wondering what's happened to the money... we... Steam, ED, and Boeing/Dassault/Mig all have their cuts already from the RB sales (Strike Eagle and Harrier, Mirage 2000C, and Mig-17 respectively) but Razbams cut is being held in escrow until this matter is resolved. However long that takes... but considering that RBs CEO has an ego the size of Jupiter.... it may take a while....

I honestly feel sorry for the people who actively worked on these projects. They poured their blood sweat and tears into their respective projects, and thanks to RB trying to do some shady stuff, they can't get paid for it. Literally all RB has to do is either hand over the Source Code for the respective modules so they can be maintained.... or agree to new terms from ED so that things get back on track.

I agree with what you say about the employees, no matter where one comes down on the rest of the dispute, it's not cool that employees have wound up suffering because of it.

[Mateo]

12 hours ago, Jarhead0331 said:

"We cannot continue to support the platform or maintain our modules..."

If I'm not mistake, they have not been supporting the platform or maintaining their modules. My intention here is not to opine whether they are contractually in the right, or not, but just stating a fact. What is the point of this post other than to remind us of the obvious? There is still no resolution in sight.

This is exactly what I wanted to write down here. Statement is telling nothing.

[Kurnass1977]

My first time comment in this querelle, and wow, is already a year that started...I'm pretty sorry for the last statement by Zambrano, obviously.

I own only the Harrier and I'm really interested in other RZ modules but with this situation I'll wait to buy one at least until an official and definitive statement by RB or ED.

This said, if the thing will go for the worst ( as RB want to sublty imply with his latest social post) well, as anyone else I'll be decisely sorry for eventually lost a pretty fun product but this don't will stop me continuing "fly" DCS or bought other modules...maybe this can be the thrust to start learn the alreadt own F-14...

 

[Japo32]

  For me the most worrying situation is knowing if ED has the source code or not. It was supposed from time ago, that if any new developer wanted to produce something in ED, the third party should give the code from the beginning of the development. That is the reason I buy their products, because ED is behind to support it against what happened with the VEAO Hawk that I bought and no one gave me any compensation for it. 
If ED don't have the Razbam code, then... What ensures me that the VEAO situation will repeat again? And that is something that ED can say right from the first moment, and unless I am wrong (hope so) I didn't read anything about it.  

[Nealius]

If it were an issue of non-payment for services this issue would have been legally resolved by now. RB is not telling us what the real issue is.

[Guille H. Mono]

Ok, so the head or Razbam just openly widened the hostage base.

[happyhappy]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

納得してもらえなくて残念です。 

When have you said something that you could understand? 

 

 

[some1]

1 hour ago, Japo32 said:

If ED don't have the Razbam code, then... What ensures me that the VEAO situation will repeat again? And that is something that ED can say right from the first moment, and unless I am wrong (hope so) I didn't read anything about it.  

1. ED does not have the Razbam code.

2. Nothing really prevents VEAO situation from repeating again. Except maybe this time ED will be more careful not to introduce game breaking changes that would render older modules non-functional. I think the arrival of Vulkan rendering will be a big test, in the past such major changes to DCS rendering pipeline usually broke something in every module and required developers to scramble and make fixes. 

[Mike Force Team]

@NineLine Thank you for your response. We, meaning the ED community, are concerned that we could lose our RZ modules we paid for and enjoy flying. Yes, I have read ED's responses in this forum.  At the same time, I also read RZ comments in discord.

Due to prolonged stalemate, RZ has not updated their modules because they claim they are not being paid. Other ED vendors provide timely updates for their products in a timely manner. I find unusual, even strange, that ED and RZ have not taken this dispute to court. 

I know DCS needs to make a profit to pay its employees and business expenses. 

Does ED have any plans to actually resolve? The dispute is like an open wound: it festers over time because it is not treated properly. 

For ED:  why not buy out RZ's coding and programming outright? ED can purchase the full-fidelty modules outright and maintain them. RZ gets paid and likely to cease business with ED. Problem solved

Mike Force Team 

Edited April 5 by Mike Force Team

[Tank50us]

19 minutes ago, Mike Force Team said:

For ED:  why not buy out RZ's coding and programming outright? ED can purchase the full-fidelty modules outright and maintain them. RZ gets paid and likely to cease business with ED. Problem solved

It's not just the code they'd need to buy, but the licenses. And then they'd have to hire people on who can work on those modules to keep them up to date or add to them.

Also, if it were that easy, I'm sure the mess would've been settled by now. But as I understand it, it isn't the issue at all. RB doesn't just want the money from the modules, but also to go back behind EDs back and sell sims using the DCS engine again.

Now, I'm sure ED doesn't have an issue with a developer using their engine to make a simulator for an air force... just so long as they pay the royalties. There's probably more to it than that, but that's the nuts and bolts.

[some1]

22 minutes ago, Mike Force Team said:

I find unusual, even strange, that ED and RZ have not taken this dispute to court. 

Why would they, and where? Razbam probably does not even have the resources to sue a Swiss company across from another continent. ED has little incentive to do so, they already have all the cards, cashing in all the money from Razbam sales for over a year. They can prolong the current situation indefinitely.

The only thing ED is loosing is a bit of consumer trust and support. Not a big deal when there is little competition on the market.

[AndyJWest]

3 minutes ago, some1 said:

The only thing ED is loosing is a bit of consumer trust and support. Not a big deal when there is little competition on the market.

I suspect this mess has cost more in lost sales than ED would like to admit. And if it were as simple as some make out - ED looking for excuses to avoid paying Razbam for work done - they'd also be losing the trust of other third-party developers. Which doesn't seem to be happening, making me wonder whether these developers are better informed about what is actually behind this, and less convinced by Razbam's arguments.

As for taking the matter to court, that should be the last resort, for both parties. Neither would benefit from the inevitable expenses, and inevitable delays, if a negotiated settlement is at all possible.

 

[Nealius]

3 hours ago, some1 said:

Nothing really prevents VEAO situation from repeating again.

This is my fear, because it's not just the Mudhen but the Harrier, Mirage, MiG-19, South Atlantic, LHA, and South Atlantic Assets pack that all get impacted by this.

[MAXsenna]

This is my fear, because it's not just the Mudhen but the Harrier, Mirage, MiG-19, South Atlantic, LHA, and South Atlantic Assets pack that all get impacted by this.

No, SA map is safe, and I assume assets pack as well.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[UmamusumeMirage]

Wow, has this conflict been going on for a year？Recalling the anticipation of driving the strike eagle and using the Sniper Pod and AGM130 to blast everything on the ground, stopping the update was truly a regret.Bytheway I recall that ED once mentioned it will bringing us the sniper in the first major update in 2025, but the first quarter has already passed

[Japo32]

3 hours ago, some1 said:

1. ED does not have the Razbam code.

2. Nothing really prevents VEAO situation from repeating again. Except maybe this time ED will be more careful not to introduce game breaking changes that would render older modules non-functional. I think the arrival of Vulkan rendering will be a big test, in the past such major changes to DCS rendering pipeline usually broke something in every module and required developers to scramble and make fixes. 

Then there was a misunderstanding by my side, where I thought they said, it was mandatory to third parties share their source files with ED to collaborate. Or is there anyone that do this? In that case, it would be nice in the product page to note if the product is sharing the source files or not, and then we could decide it we would like support that product. I make planes, and it is very rare to see developers that stay for years giving support to their payware addons.

Edited April 5 by Japo32

[ChuckJäger]

16 hours ago, NineLine said:

This is hardly what is happening, the only thing we are not doing is making public statements as it is, once again, a legal matter to be dealt with in the appropriate way. I am not sure if we made a similar statement to what was made today that would help anything. 

We still aim to resolve as we have from the start.

@NineLine The constant comments about how you can't/will not make public statements to your customers as this is a legal matter isn't sitting well with me.  You have repeatedly said it... the reason it doesn't sit well is, it is not because you can't do it, it's because you won't do it.  You could ask your legal team to draft update(s) that would inform the people that have paid for these modules. 

It REALLY feels like the lack of information from ED is a conscious management decision in the hopes that this will just go away as ED continues to bring features and new modules.

It feels dishonest.  Giving ED the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure that is not the intent.  This has been going on for over a year now with not even a shred of hope for resolution for the people that enjoy both Razbam's and ED's modules.  My hope is that the two legal teams can get together and provide an update and outline a path forward for the people that have invested their hard earned dollars to enjoy these modules.

A good resolution is only going to make this community stronger.

[Dr_Pavelheer]

10 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

The fact they granted RB access back to tools and are still going this route is evident to anyone not playing internet super sleuth.

 

Not RB, just the owner. And not just access to tools but his personal account which was, probably by accident, blocked along with everything else which makes me wonder if the dev account isn't just another accident

[some1]

59 minutes ago, Japo32 said:

Then there was a misunderstanding by my side, where I thought they said, it was mandatory to third parties share their source files with ED to collaborate

There was some talk about it a long time ago, but either that never materialized or Razbam was exempt. It's all hush hush NDA so as customers we know very little about these things.

ED barely has the manpower to maintain their own modules, without the burden of handling 3rd party code.

[Lasko]

20 hours ago, bjdy said:

anyrhing really new here?

Just another "working for free" accusation without even an acknowledgement that payment for sales is the tip of the iceberg in this issue.  Appears to me to be another public sentiment manipulation, not encouraging or conducive to an amicable resolution.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

22 minutes ago, ChuckJäger said:

@NineLine The constant comments about how you can't/will not make public statements to your customers as this is a legal matter isn't sitting well with me

Irrelevant. They're doing what their legal representation is telling them to do. If you're in a position like this and your lawyers tell you to clam up, you clam up because it's better for all involved.