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

[av8orDave]

43 minutes ago, Cab said:

That’s the risk of buying early access. People who don’t want to accept that risk can just wait until modules are complete. FWIW I buy during early access all the time. 

Without question I understand your point and it is a point well-taken. Having said that, from a pragmatic standpoint, everything that ED and the 3rd parties release is released "early-access", and remains so for years upon years. Some may never reach a full-release state, and it is pretty murky as to when this "full release" actually occurs, so if you're going to buy modules from ED or the 3rd parties for DCS, it'll be in early-access. You don't really have another choice to buying early-access other than to not play the game / sim.

Razbam aside, this creates big questions regarding the 3rd party model. I personally have the M2000C, the Harrier, and the F-15E, and I fully anticipate that if Razbam is really a memory at this point, those modules will stop functioning eventually. I am pretty darn reasonable as far as gamers go in my assessment, but even I think ED has some clarifying to do for their customers on exactly how this 3rd party scheme is supposed to work.

By virtue of volume, the mass-market non-military popular flight sim does this well as it is pretty well understood that 3rd party aircraft or sceneries are bought on a buyer-beware premise (they may work today, may get developed further, may meet some varying and undefined standard of quality, and may eventually not work in the future). If that is the case with DCS, ED should say so.

[Czar66]

8 minutes ago, draconus said:

No idea, maybe they wanted only the one with Sniper, HMD, 9X and JSOW?

• TPOD area track logic is semi broken since release. Designation removes area track and point track until you bump it. This causes a huge let down on the flow of things.
• Pilot and WSO helmet visors doesn't move into down position and stays in the up position since a patch a few months after release.
• Pilot head twitches randomly on the mirrors reflection making an unwanted distraction and cheapens the software.
• Minor but impactful Y axis offset on the lower MFD in the pilot seat causing a bit of trouble reading the very top line of text where the a-g weapons names are written for example.
• JDAMs lock themselves up on smart weapons page if you have two on wing pylons plus any other on CFT. You can't switch to next weapon, undesignate, drop, nothing.
• Some issue where you couldn't fire A-A weapons after jettisoned A-G ordinance. (idk if it was fixed and I can't find the thread I replied adding more info to the bug.
• RWR seems incomplete. No audio for new threats. This might very well be as designed, IDK, but it was featured on the SE last patch the introduction of a more realistic RWR audio and behavior but it was still a WIP, besides it induces lower SA without some audio cues.

This from the top of my head with the first one being really annoying.

If you think people are refunding because of lack of Aim-9X, JSOW and other stuff you're out of your mind.

And I defend this module a lot...

Edited July 18 by Czar66

[LorenLuke]

4 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

 

 

 

[JuiceIsLoose]

So genuinely, what does it take for ED to provide a response to the situation? You would think a message from Razbam's Owner on both X, and every channel of their discord would qualify as a statement. But I guess not in the eyes of ED? 

Like what more do they have to do? Send a letter via carrier pigeon?

Edited July 18 by JuiceIsLoose

[AndyJWest]

4 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

So genuinely, what does it take for ED to provide a response to the situation? You would think a message from Razbam's Owner on both X, and every channel of their discord would qualify as a statement. But I guess not in the eyes of ED? 

Like what more do they have to do? Send a letter via carrier pigeon?

If Razbam chose to make random postings on X or discord, that's their choice, The have nothing to do with the formal negotiations the two parties should be engaging in, and ED will achieve nothing by responding to them.

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

No idea, maybe they wanted only the one with Sniper, HMD, 9X and JSOW?

personally I think the answer is pretty obvious. Its like you paid for Battlefield 4 and got Battlefield 2042 on release day instead...

10 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

So genuinely, what does it take for ED to provide a response to the situation? You would think a message from Razbam's Owner on both X, and every channel of their discord would qualify as a statement. But I guess not in the eyes of ED? 

Like what more do they have to do? Send a letter via carrier pigeon?

sometimes the best answer one could give is to just keep your mouth closed if you gain nothing from it. Razbam never had a problem with inserting footwear in various speaking orifices.

[cfrag]

15 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Like what more do they have to do?

Whenever one side in (legal) proceedings uses public channels to 'contact' the other side -- instead of using the very, very defined channels set out for legal proceedings, they are behaving unprofessional: they are deviating from the protocol laid out by law), and it is likely that such communication has other intents as trying to resolve the dispute between the two parties. If they really want to contact the other side, they contact the other side's legal representation, or, failing that, file with the legally appointed arbiter/court. There is no way that either side does not know this, so a post on a public forum is an immediate red flag. 

So, to answer your question: if RZ want to contact ED there are ample proper and defined ways to do so. A public forum or "social app" is usually not among them. I find it inconceivable that the post from RZ was out of desperation because they could not reach ED. There are likely other reasons to go the public way, and I can think of no good, innocent ones. We - the customers and general public - have no say in this dispute, and we will not be consulted for the resolution. We might after. This is how legal proceedings work.

6 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Razbam never had a problem with inserting footwear in various speaking orifices.

They are eating the shoes!

They are eating the socks!

Oh my...  

Edited July 18 by cfrag

[Oban]

It's nothing more than RZ trying to court public opinion again..

I'm very surprised that Razbams legal representative hasn't informed Ron that he's not helping Razbam, not his unpaid 3rd party contractors with statements such as his last one, but then again, Ron's ego is a huge part of the problem, he just doesn't know when to shut his mouth, and let discretion be the better part of valour. 

[Aapje]

5 hours ago, Cab said:

That’s the risk of buying early access. People who don’t want to accept that risk can just wait until modules are complete. FWIW I buy during early access all the time. 

Yes and no. There is definitely a risk that you don't get what you expect to get, however, if promises have been made that influenced people's buying decisions, then there is a legal obligation to fulfill those promises.

[Dragon1-1]

3 hours ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

So genuinely, what does it take for ED to provide a response to the situation? You would think a message from Razbam's Owner on both X, and every channel of their discord would qualify as a statement. But I guess not in the eyes of ED? 

Remember that there's an NDA (mentioned in one of ED's post) over the important aspects of the whole thing. I don't think that Ron actually broke it, but the fact he's willing to skirt its edges tells you something about him. Following an NDA is essentially a lot like handling classified information, the best way to avoid leaking something is to give the whole subject a wide berth. That's what responsible people do, as anyone who's had anything to do with classified or otherwise sensitive information knows. ED is being careful with their statements because if they started talking, they'd be risking an NDA violation, which would not help their case. Ron is bound by an NDA, too, but he's been a lot less responsible about it.

His last message was likely a lame attempt at influencing public opinion, just like his previous ones. Elon Musk he ain't, not matter how big his ego, and DCS players are a bit smarter than the average Musk fanboy, so it doesn't have a very great chance of working. That said, given his history, I doubt RAZBAM will, in its current form, be working with ED in the future. We'll see what comes out of it, but my hopes aren't high at this point. Ron might well cut the cooperation out of spite, particularly if the final settlement doesn't favor him (of course, AFAIK the only sim community that he hasn't screwed over at that point is a WWII one, not exactly his forte).

[Cab]

27 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Yes and no. There is definitely a risk that you don't get what you expect to get, however, if promises have been made that influenced people's buying decisions, then there is a legal obligation to fulfill those promises.

I would be curious to read what you think determines their legal obligations in this matter. 

[Cab]

6 hours ago, Czar66 said:

The risk of what actually happened in this situation was not on the cards of no one. The point making that: "you bought early access and you asked for it" is not valid at all.

I didn't say anything like "you asked for it". More like "that's the chance you take".

5 hours ago, av8orDave said:

Without question I understand your point and it is a point well-taken. Having said that, from a pragmatic standpoint, everything that ED and the 3rd parties release is released "early-access", and remains so for years upon years. Some may never reach a full-release state, and it is pretty murky as to when this "full release" actually occurs, so if you're going to buy modules from ED or the 3rd parties for DCS, it'll be in early-access. You don't really have another choice to buying early-access other than to not play the game / sim.

Yep, no argument here. Of course, I believe the trend toward ever more detailed modules results in longer development time.

Edited July 18 by Cab

[Czar66]

31 minutes ago, Cab said:

I didn't say anything like "you asked for it". More like "that's the chance you take".

Right. I take it back those "you asked for it", but still was in no ones card Razbam, which is a sizeable studio with important products commercially proven, to contribute to such bizarre situation.

Exploiting other's IP is a probability no one could of have predicted.

Sorry for that.

Also, this trend of others blaming customers for producers, managers and developers wackiness leads to nothing.

Edited July 18 by Czar66

[Aapje]

33 minutes ago, Cab said:

I would be curious to read what you think determines their legal obligations in this matter. 

Consumer law is about what are reasonable expectations on the part of the consumer and whether those expectations are met. Those expectations can be contextual, but also created by the seller.

When something is sold as early access, with the promise that certain functionality will be added later, then it seems to me that a reasonable expectation is indeed that this functionality will be added. And in many jurisdictions, the law will probably recognize these as obligations that have to be met, or else the customer can ask for legal remedies.

[Cab]

20 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

Right. I take it back those "you asked for it", but still was in no ones card Razbam, which is a sizeable studio with important products commercially proven, to contribute to such bizarre situation.

Exploiting other's IP is a probability no one could of have predicted.

Sorry for that.

Also, this trend of others blaming customers for producers, managers and developers wackiness leads to nothing.

No worries. And for the record, I'm just trying to keep things in perspective as I see it, not to blame anyone. 

4 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Consumer law is about what are reasonable expectations on the part of the consumer and whether those expectations are met. Those expectations can be contextual, but also created by the seller.

When something is sold as early access, with the promise that certain functionality will be added later, then it seems to me that a reasonable expectation is indeed that this functionality will be added. And in many jurisdictions, the law will probably recognize these as obligations that have to be met, or else the customer can ask for legal remedies.

Okay, fair enough. But I imagine EULA takes that into account.  The fact that I, and probably most other people, haven't read it wouldn't be an excuse, I think.

Edited July 18 by Cab

[Czar66]

2 minutes ago, Cab said:

No worries. And for the record, I'm just trying to keep things in perspective as I see it, not to blame anyone. 

I see, no problem. There are a few posts from others* that tries to point the blame at the complete wrong direction.

[Cab]

1 minute ago, Czar66 said:

I see, no problem. There are a few posts from others* that tries to point the blame at the complete wrong direction.

Yep. Not me. If I came across that way, I apologize.

[Aapje]

5 minutes ago, Cab said:

Okay, fair enough. But I imagine EULA takes that into account.  The fact that I, and probably most other people, haven't read it wouldn't be an excuse, I think.

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that one can get away in all jurisdictions with making promises and then tucking 'we don't have to keep any promises' away in the EULA.

I consider the fact that ED has been doing semi-refunds to be an admission that they are legally obliged to do so.

PS. Apparently we can't discuss certain things here, so that makes it even more pointless to talk here.

[Dragon1-1]

Maybe we can talk under Ron's comment on X (well, some of us, I don't have an account and keep well clear of that cesspool). Seeing as Musk allows pretty much anything there, I doubt he'd have issues with my preferred terms for Ron, or with discussing certain things.  

Judging from the comments so far, the vast majority seem to be in torches and pitchforks mode, and for most part not directed against ED, so to speak.

Edited July 18 by Dragon1-1

[Mike Force Team]

Since ED has not released any new updates, there is likely more than is being revealed. 

I agree with everyone expressing the frustration over the lack of clarity. Using gossip and questionable sources for questionable information is not managing customers' expectations. 

Edited July 18 by Mike Force Team

[Oban]

9 minutes ago, Aapje said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that one can get away in all jurisdictions with making promises and then tucking 'we don't have to keep any promises' away in the EULA.

I consider the fact that ED has been doing semi-refunds to be an admission that they are legally obliged to do so.

PS. Apparently we can't discuss certain things here, so that makes it even more pointless to talk here.

I highly doubt the word "promise" appears on any EULA from Eagle Dynamics, the only time I've heard Nick Grey use this word is when he's been describing the year ahead on his first video of the year... "This year ahead looks promising" Is not a statement of fact, but a statement of hope and expectation... It certainly does not mean they will 100% deliver.. 

The weatherman states this weekends weather looks promising doesn't mean there's a 100% guarantee the weather will be, does the weatherman get sued for stating a falsehood? 

[freehand]

Windmills of your mind.

[Oban]

5 minutes ago, Mike Force Team said:

Since ED has not released any new updates, there is likely more than is being revealed. 

I agree with everyone expressing the frustration over the lack of clarity. Using gossip and questionable sources for questionable information is not managing customers' expectations. 

 

What lack of clarity? Everything that can be said, in such a dispute is all on the 1st page, and that stance hasn't changed since the whole <profanity> show unfolded. 

There's no law out there that states companies in dispute with each other has to inform the consumer of every conversation that takes place relating to said dispute, company practices and grivences are rarely digressed to the public, if ever.. 

Does it suck ? Only if you let it. 

Whilst the two kids in the playground duke it out with each other, and steal each others packed lunch I'm going to continue flying my modules till they completely break, and get removed from the core engine. 
 

[Mike Force Team]

@Oban When there is a private disagreement between businesses, which one aired grievances, became public interest in DCS community. 

For a problem to persistent over a year, something seems amiss. Razbam airs an announcement on X or in discord while ED stays silent.

Two CEOs that have been in business together for years can't solve their problems? This situation is not passing the smell test. 

Also, people who purchased Razbam's modules do not know if their planes might be deprecated from the DCS platform or not.

What is done in darkness eventually comes to light. In the meantime, it is a matter of waiting to see what happens next.

Edited July 18 by Mike Force Team

[Oban]

13 minutes ago, Mike Force Team said:

@Oban When there is a private disagreement between businesses, which one aired grievances, became public interest in DCS community. 

For a problem to persistent over a year, something seems amiss. Razbam airs an announcement on X or in discord while ED stays silent.

Two CEOs that have been in business together for years can't solve their problems? This situation is not passing the smell test. 

Also, people who purchased Razbam's modules do not know if their planes might be deprecated from the DCS platform or not.

What is done in darkness eventually comes to light. In the meantime, it is a matter of waiting to see what happens next.

MFT, such disputes can take years to resolve... 

Nobody knows what the conditions are that has been set by either side to resolve this dispute, what does seem a little  clearer to me, and this is purely my opinion,is that Razbam doesn't have a solid case of having been wronged when ED withheld its remuneration for services rendered. 

There isn't a court or trubunal out there who would side with any organisation or corporation who just decided to not pay their subcontractors for shyts and giggles. 

To that end, this issue is far from being that simple.