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

[Horns]

So one CEO has sounded off yet again about an ongoing negotiation on social media. I agree with him on one thing, clearly one party finds it difficult to cooperate.

[Aapje]

11 hours ago, Oban said:

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.

Absurd logic. How does the way that Ron deals with his employees legitimize ED's decision to not pay Razbam? Are you under the impression that ED is a subcontractor of Razbam? Because otherwise this makes zero sense.

Also, the reason why Ron doesn't have the money to pay his employees is because ED stopped paying, so you are mixing up cause and effect.

Besides, one of the consistent things we see in the leaked stuff is ED not paying their subcontractors on time for no apparent reason. So by your logic, a court or tribunal would side with Razbam, but of course your logic is illogical and not based on fact (since they is no court or tribunal that we know of).

[LordOrion]

So, this is the end...

2025: The year of the RazScam.

[Oban]

9 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Absurd logic. How does the way that Ron deals with his employees legitimize ED's decision to not pay Razbam? Are you under the impression that ED is a subcontractor of Razbam? Because otherwise this makes zero sense.

Also, the reason why Ron doesn't have the money to pay his employees is because ED stopped paying, so you are mixing up cause and effect.

Besides, one of the consistent things we see in the leaked stuff is ED not paying their subcontractors on time for no apparent reason. So by your logic, a court or tribunal would side with Razbam, but of course your logic is illogical and not based on fact (since they is no court or tribunal that we know of).

Here we go again.. 
RB 3rd party contractors = RB's responsibility to pay. 

Every company has the right to withhold payments to their subcontractors if there has been a breach of contract/internal dispute, most don't exercise this, but in ED's case they did.. 

RB employee's internal pay disputes lie solely at their CEO's responsibility, not with the contractor, in this case ED. They should have gone to their own legal representatives to resolve their disputes, NOT chops off on social media. 

Ron was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but blames the party who put the cookies there to begin with. 

I do believe Heatblur was the only 3rd party who were in a similar situation, that was resolved and HB have refused to be dragged into the issue between RB, I guess you are within HB's corporate team to state "for no apparent reason" otherwise your comment would be defamatory in nature, how do you know with 100% certainty that is was for "No Apparent reason" ? 

You refer to "leaked stuff" , which wasn't done by ED, all of the leaked stuff was generated by.......yeah by individuals closely associated with the party at the centre of the issue. Imagine that? 

One of the other consistent things that you fail to mention is the breach of contract by Razbam/RZ and the allegations of IP infringment.. 

And yes, if ED decided to withhold several Million $$$$ for zero reason whatsover, just because the CEO decided he didn't want to, absolutley 99.9% of the time, courts and tribunals would side with the plaintiff and order payment to be made. 

If this was the case here, the entire community would be 100% behind and in agreement with Razbam.... 

But it isn't the case at all.. 

[cfrag]

32 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Razbam doesn't have a solid case of having been wronged when ED withheld its remuneration for services rendered

Let's disregard the particulars of this situation and look at a purely hypothetical one: Imagine I hire you to create a marble statue for 1000 USD. You deliver, I owe you 1000 USD. Now I claim that one day you parked your vehicle on my lawn, and that that has caused me damage, and that therefore I withhold that payment of 1000 to you. 
Most courts in the world would tell me that I can't combine things that aren't contractually connected, and they will order me to first pay the 1000 USD to you (settling the 'marble statue' issue), and only then, in a separate procedure they will settle the damages that you owe me for parking on my lawn. I cannot unilaterally impose sanctions upon you simply because I feel it to be just nor adequate. Separate things must stay separate. 

So it may well be that RZ impinged, or broke some contract(s). If ED have a contract schedule to pay RZ for services rendered, they would be well advised to pay those fees under the contract, and sue separately for damages for the broken contracts else they open themselves up for litigation. Now, we don't know the facts of what happened here, except that there was a lot of unnecessary, unhelpful and probably self-serving public exposure (highly inappropriate and unprofessional). So let's not speculate nor believe any public missive that was put into public view - they are irrelevant to the proceedings.

As a customer of ED who owns all modules that currently are under dispute, I'm not interested in learning who was at fault. I'm interested to learn that my modules will be kept up to date and the Early Access promises are going to be kept. I don't care how this is accomplished, and I hold ED accountable for looking out for their customers - especially after they broke their promise to me in the Hawk debacle, and I decided to give ED the benefit of doubt with the Harrier, Mudhen, Mirage, Farmer and Falklands.

Edited July 19 by cfrag

[Lucidus]

51 minutes ago, cfrag said:

As a customer of ED who owns all modules that currently are under dispute, I'm not interested in learning who was at fault. I'm interested to learn that my modules will be kept up to date and the Early Access promises are going to be kept. I don't care how this is accomplished, and I hold ED accountable for looking out for their customers - especially after they broke their promise to me in the Hawk debacle, and I decided to give ED the benefit of doubt with the Harrier, Mudhen, Mirage, Farmer and Falklands.

It seems that there is a risk if you buy 3rd party modules. If Razbam says it is over, how ED will handle the situation? Maybe they just tell us to use old version of DCS with Razbam modules. I don't know if they give any compensation to clients if they have bought early access modules.

[LordOrion]

It seems that there is a risk if you buy 3rd party modules. If Razbam says it is over, how ED will handle the situation? Maybe they just tell us to use old version of DCS with Razbam modules. I don't know if they give any compensation to clients if they have bought early access modules.

you can ask for a refund for the f-15E cause is still il EA, but the good Ron has "declared" all other RB modules as "complete" so no way you can get your money back for them.


Tapatalk is a crap.

[Lucidus]

59 minutes ago, LordOrion said:

you can ask for a refund for the f-15E cause is still il EA, but the good Ron has "declared" all other RB modules as "complete" so no way you can get your money back for them.


Tapatalk is a crap.

I have only Harrier, so completeness of the different modules aren't know for me. I am ready that it will be unusable some day. It is sad and I think I will not buy 3rd parties anymore. Maybe Kola from OrbX later although. 

[draconus]

On 7/18/2025 at 4:15 PM, Czar66 said:

All the modules that are big are in early access.

What does it even mean? Hornet is not big?! Viper is not either? (it leaves EA with next update) A-10C? Also many helicopters and warbirds to choose from as released modules and including 3 Razbam jets.

On 7/18/2025 at 4:45 PM, av8orDave said:

You don't really have another choice to buying early-access other than to not play the game / sim.

Read above and think again.

On 7/18/2025 at 4:48 PM, Czar66 said:

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

Are these your favorite? Surprisingly short list for such early release. It proves how good it is.

[Gizmo03]

I saw the discord post of Prowler and it's always the same.
"WE did everything possible while ED is doing nothing"..... same sh*t, different day.
I don't like Discord at all but i visit RBs discord from time to time and just search for posts from Prowler to see if he wrote something new. The one on thursday was no surprise in my opinion. The same attempt of putting pressure on ED as so many times since April '24.
I mean come on.... yesterday someone was talking about all the other modules which were announced especially the MiG-23 and his answer was:
"MiG-23? 2 months for being sent to ED for testing" .... the same user asked if that means that we might have had it right now already and he answered "most defintely".... Really?????
Is there anyone here taking this guy still serious? The "statement" from thursday is just another move in his strange game he's playing....
But as i said - just my opinion.

[Czar66]

32 minutes ago, draconus said:

What does it even mean? Hornet is not big?! Viper is not either? (it leaves EA with next update) A-10C? Also many helicopters and warbirds to choose from as released modules and including 3 Razbam jets.

You seriously need to improve some reading skills man. Read my comment once again. Hornet and Viper are huge modules and are in Early Access.

33 minutes ago, draconus said:

Are these your favorite? Surprisingly short list for such early release. It proves how good it is.

As I pointed out, 'from the top of my head'. Now you chose to belittle others with a joke that shows what you're all about. Not the first time either.

See the SE threads on bugs and glitches, once again as you post there often and still are unable to see the lack of polish that remains on it.

[draconus]

4 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

You seriously need to improve some reading skills man. Read my comment once again. Hornet and Viper are huge modules and are in Early Access.

Same to you. Hornet is not EA and Viper is out of EA this month. Oh, you really didn't know?

7 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

See the SE threads on bugs and glitches, once again as you post there often and still are unable to see the lack of polish that remains on it.

Every module has such sub. I don't see a difference.

[av8orDave]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

What does it even mean? Hornet is not big?! Viper is not either? (it leaves EA with next update) A-10C? Also many helicopters and warbirds to choose from as released modules and including 3 Razbam jets.

Read above and think again.

Are these your favorite? Surprisingly short list for such early release. It proves how good it is.

My man, the Hornet was released in 2018 and the Viper in 2019. My point stands that these modules are all released early access and remain that way for an excessive amount of time, 7 years in the case of the Hornet and 6 in the case of the Viper.

[Horns]

On 7/18/2025 at 10:45 PM, 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.

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.

 

3 hours ago, draconus said:

What does it even mean? Hornet is not big?! Viper is not either? (it leaves EA with next update) A-10C? Also many helicopters and warbirds to choose from as released modules and including 3 Razbam jets.

Read above and think again.

Are these your favorite? Surprisingly short list for such early release. It proves how good it is.

 

59 minutes ago, av8orDave said:

My man, the Hornet was released in 2018 and the Viper in 2019. My point stands that these modules are all released early access and remain that way for an excessive amount of time, 7 years in the case of the Hornet and 6 in the case of the Viper.

It’s fair to say one has to choose between buying EA and enduring a long development time, but it’s difficult to argue one has to buy EA modules in order to play DCS given the excellent selection of non-EA (and imminently so) modules available.

Apologies to all for the loss of context due to quotes of quotes not coming through.

[LordOrion]

6 hours ago, Lucidus said:

I have only Harrier, so completeness of the different modules aren't know for me. I am ready that it will be unusable some day. 

I own M2000C, Harrier and F-15E: I will do the same cursing Zambrano and his gang all the times.

6 hours ago, Lucidus said:

 It is sad and I think I will not buy 3rd parties anymore. Maybe Kola from OrbX later although. 

Well, the decision is up to you, but not all third parties are that unreliable.

Edited July 19 by LordOrion

[Hammer1-1]

7 hours ago, Lucidus said:

I have only Harrier, so completeness of the different modules aren't know for me. I am ready that it will be unusable some day. It is sad and I think I will not buy 3rd parties anymore. Maybe Kola from OrbX later although. 

So far the 3rd party creators have a really high retention rate around here. Some people cant handle the workload, others see $$$ in the eyes while they hold a shovel in one hand and a knife in the other. The only way to not get screwed is to wait until products come out of early access and that could take the better part of a decade to do so. Some of these aircraft are far more in depth that it closely resembles GTA6 in some regards.

[Aapje]

@cfrag

Can you please not attribute words to me that I didn't write? I was very confused about your response until I realized that you were quoting someone else, but attributing it to me.

[cfrag]

49 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Can you please not attribute words to me that I didn't write? I was very confused about your response until I realized that you were quoting someone else, but attributing it to me.

My apologies, that was not intentional. 

[Aapje]

11 hours ago, Oban said:

Every company has the right to withhold payments to their subcontractors if there has been a breach of contract/internal dispute, most don't exercise this, but in ED's case they did..

At which university did you study Swiss law? The 'I make stuff up that suits me' University? Or can you provide the evidence that Swiss law allows this?

11 hours ago, Oban said:

Ron was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but blames the party who put the cookies there to begin with.

So what did he do wrong exactly? Please give specifics, not vague waffle about 'violating IP' or such? I understand that EDs words may be enough for people with immense bias, but some people actually look critically at everything.

11 hours ago, Oban said:

I do believe Heatblur was the only 3rd party who were in a similar situation, that was resolved and HB have refused to be dragged into the issue between RB, I guess you are within HB's corporate team to state "for no apparent reason" otherwise your comment would be defamatory in nature, how do you know with 100% certainty that is was for "No Apparent reason" ?

Razbam was allegedly also not paid on time, and I'm not talking about this dispute, but in 2023 before this dispute started.

And the reason why I say for no apparent reason is because in the allegedly leaked conversations I don't see people talking about ED refusing to pay for a reason, but rather, using the classic stall techniques like alternating promises for the future, and making excuses, while the other side has to keep begging for an actual payment.

Also, threatening me with defamation is a weird move, since you obviously have no idea how defamation law actually works. Fact is that I've been extremely careful with my words, much more that you.

11 hours ago, Oban said:

You refer to "leaked stuff" , which wasn't done by ED, all of the leaked stuff was generated by.......yeah by individuals closely associated with the party at the centre of the issue. Imagine that? 

This is just a classic bias-justification technique where evidence is discounted for coming from one side, as if one-sided evidence does not have value to a critical mind. And your argument is clearly unprincipled, as you have shown absolutely no issue with just assuming that one-sided claims from the side you favor are correct.

Note that ED is consistently dismissing evidence and preventing it to be posted here, by using arguments that are not a lie if the evidence is actually true, which itself suggests that the evidence is actually true, because if the evidence was doctored, then pointing that out would be a very strong argument. Much stronger than the arguments that they are actually using.

11 hours ago, Oban said:

One of the other consistent things that you fail to mention is the breach of contract by Razbam/RZ and the allegations of IP infringment..

The reason is that I care about facts, not about justifying my biases, and I haven't seen any actual evidence that, and how Razbam would have breached the contract or infringed on IP. As I've explained before, 'IP infringement' is so vague that there is little that can be said about it, even if we allow conjecture. Because there are simply too many ways in which one infringe on IP. This is even worse for 'breach of contract.'

I have tried to discuss that alleged breach of contract based on allegedly leaked information coupled with what I think are reasonable inferences, but that was removed, so...

Note that I've not assumed that certain claims by Ron are true, but of course I don't get any credit for that, or even just a recognition that I do the same for both sides.

11 hours ago, Oban said:

And yes, if ED decided to withhold several Million $$$$ for zero reason whatsover, just because the CEO decided he didn't want to, absolutely 99.9% of the time, courts and tribunals would side with the plaintiff and order payment to be made.

You can make the same kind of argument that "absolutely 99.9% of the time, courts and tribunals would side with the plaintiff and order payment to be made" if Razbam actually violated the contract, to imply that a lack of court case means that Razbam is innocent.

So again, that you just use this flawed logic in one direction, shows your bias.

You are also completely ignoring the power dynamics at play here.

11 hours ago, Oban said:

If this was the case here, the entire community would be 100% behind and in agreement with Razbam....

If what was the case? You have proven absolutely nothing, other than that you will believe ED without any actual evidence.

Edited July 19 by Aapje

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

The reason is that I care about facts, not about justifying my biases, and I haven't seen any actual evidence that, and how Razbam would have breached the contract or infringed on IP. As I've explained before, 'IP infringement' is so vague that there is little that can be said about it, even if we allow conjecture. Because there are simply too many ways in which one infringe on IP. This is even worse for 'breach of contract.

Why should anyone even bother with you? For someone just interested in the truth, you sure dont like looking for it yourself let alone bothering to search for claims backing your opinions up. Having bought stuff from Razbams stuff from other platforms, I can tell you firsthand some of the trash he's done but that aint proof for you. Neither is everything else in this long conversation where you can put 2+2 together and see for yourself, but you arent going to waste your time because you just know. My advice is to just....stop. You arent going to believe anything you see anyways. If you had, you would have come to the same conclusion the rest of us level headed customers have.

Edited July 19 by Hammer1-1

[Kang]

In the end, I believe, it should be less of a drab court drama and more of a rousing musical number. A little West Side Story, I reckon. That is not in any way precluding either of the actors to work in a satisfying Nicholson, I just think it would do us good to put it in an overall livelier setting is all.

[Dragon1-1]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

At which university did you study Swiss law? The 'I make stuff up that suits me' University? Or can you provide the evidence that Swiss law allows this?

It's contract law 101, regardless of jurisdiction. If the terms of the contract are violated, then the contract is rendered void, and the penalty clauses (if present) kick in. Since the contract is what tells ED company to pay RAZBAM, should it be violated by either party, there would be no basis to pay out any money that is not already due. 

You're free to read up on the particulars on some Swiss government website, however I highly doubt that it's very different from how contract law works in the EU. In any case, this could be further complicated by the exact wording of the contract, which we aren't privy to.

I suggest you stop getting high on hopium and actually look at all the evidence, including Ron's past antics, not only ED's. You're the one showing bias here, steadfastly refusing to see that RAZBAM's statements are pretty obviously designed to manipulate the audience, and ignoring facts that you find inconvenient. Thankfully, you seem to be the only one who actually bought into that. 

[nilpointer]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… this thread is pure comedy.

Anyway back to studying Swiss law in the absence of anything else more interesting to do

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

18 hours ago, Oban said:

Here we go again.. 
RB 3rd party contractors = RB's responsibility to pay. 

Every company has the right to withhold payments to their subcontractors if there has been a breach of contract/internal dispute, most don't exercise this, but in ED's case they did.. 
 

We're honestly at a point where it's clear that certain individuals who keep having to be reminded of this really seem like they're acting in bad faith.

[Oban]

9 hours ago, Aapje said:

At which university did you study Swiss law? The 'I make stuff up that suits me' University? Or can you provide the evidence that Swiss law allows this?

So what did he do wrong exactly? Please give specifics, not vague waffle about 'violating IP' or such? I understand that EDs words may be enough for people with immense bias, but some people actually look critically at everything.

Razbam was allegedly also not paid on time, and I'm not talking about this dispute, but in 2023 before this dispute started.

And the reason why I say for no apparent reason is because in the allegedly leaked conversations I don't see people talking about ED refusing to pay for a reason, but rather, using the classic stall techniques like alternating promises for the future, and making excuses, while the other side has to keep begging for an actual payment.

Also, threatening me with defamation is a weird move, since you obviously have no idea how defamation law actually works. Fact is that I've been extremely careful with my words, much more that you.

This is just a classic bias-justification technique where evidence is discounted for coming from one side, as if one-sided evidence does not have value to a critical mind. And your argument is clearly unprincipled, as you have shown absolutely no issue with just assuming that one-sided claims from the side you favor are correct.

Note that ED is consistently dismissing evidence and preventing it to be posted here, by using arguments that are not a lie if the evidence is actually true, which itself suggests that the evidence is actually true, because if the evidence was doctored, then pointing that out would be a very strong argument. Much stronger than the arguments that they are actually using.

The reason is that I care about facts, not about justifying my biases, and I haven't seen any actual evidence that, and how Razbam would have breached the contract or infringed on IP. As I've explained before, 'IP infringement' is so vague that there is little that can be said about it, even if we allow conjecture. Because there are simply too many ways in which one infringe on IP. This is even worse for 'breach of contract.'

I have tried to discuss that alleged breach of contract based on allegedly leaked information coupled with what I think are reasonable inferences, but that was removed, so...

Note that I've not assumed that certain claims by Ron are true, but of course I don't get any credit for that, or even just a recognition that I do the same for both sides.

You can make the same kind of argument that "absolutely 99.9% of the time, courts and tribunals would side with the plaintiff and order payment to be made" if Razbam actually violated the contract, to imply that a lack of court case means that Razbam is innocent.

So again, that you just use this flawed logic in one direction, shows your bias.

You are also completely ignoring the power dynamics at play here.

If what was the case? You have proven absolutely nothing, other than that you will believe ED without any actual evidence.

Everything in your rebuttal shows that you're far from interested in the truth, and that you too have a very clear bias, which is perfectly fine.. 

I never threatened you with defamation, as soon as I read that comment, I realised that you are trying to belittle those who disgree with you, and think you come across as some sort of SME when it comes to Business law... News Flash... you're far from it, you're just another consumer with an opinion just like the rest of us.. 

I said your comments are defamatory in nature, not to me, but towards ED, you clearly stated "for no apparent reason" and unless you're privy to contracts etc, since you act like a lawyer, look up the definition of defamation. Leaked documents are not facts, those can be edited with photoshop very easlily... you want to be factual, but just ignore everything on the front page. 

Good luck in Law school. 

On 7/18/2025 at 8:48 PM, 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.

Show me those promises.... clearly defined within the EULA's of all the released modules currently supported by ED.