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

[JuiceIsLoose]

Just now, MAXsenna said:

Pretty sure ED keeps 30% percent, and the rest to the dev, no matter how crappy the module is or how many copies are sold.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

And thats roughly what I understand too. But specific contracts may be different. But if you made business plans with that above agreement understood. Would you not struggle, with that fact that ED is keeping 100% percent, and 0% is going to the dev?

I understand there is a separate IP issue, but my point is they should have handled that as a separate issue, while still paying the dev what they were owed. If the IP issue gets resolved and RB has to pay ED back a huge portion of the revenue, so be it. But they chose to withhold payment, which they may very well be allowed to legally (again I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not debating what they can/can't do legally). But I feel it to be naive for ED to think that withholding payment entirely wouldn't cause larger issues down the line, which is where we are at now.

[MAXsenna]

And thats roughly what I understand too. But specific contracts may be different. But if you made business plans with that above agreement understood. Would you not struggle, with that fact that ED is keeping 100% percent, and 0% is going to the dev?
I understand there is a separate IP issue, but my point is they should have handled that as a separate issue, while still paying the dev what they were owed. If the IP issue gets resolved and RB has to pay ED back a huge portion of the revenue, so be it. But they chose to withhold payment, which they may very well be allowed to legally (again I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not debating what they can/can't do legally). But I feel it to be naive for ED to think that withholding payment entirely wouldn't cause larger issues down the line, which is where we are at now.

That has been discussed before. No need to go down that road again. We just don't know all the facts of what actually happened. And we probably never will.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[JuiceIsLoose]

Just now, MAXsenna said:

That has been discussed before. No need to go down that road again. We just don't know all the facts of what actually happened. And we probably never will.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

The only way things change is if companies feel pressure from their customers to change. That is why people/customers voice concerns over questionable practices. And I think it is great that ED has public forums that allow their customers to voice their concerns. Be it on a state of a module, or what they are doing. It allows ED to see the feedback from their community and customers. So I understand its been brought up before. But the voice on 10, 20, 100,1000 is much stronger than the voice of one.

[MAXsenna]

The only way things change is if companies feel pressure from their customers to change. That is why people/customers voice concerns over questionable practices. And I think it is great that ED has public forums that allow their customers to voice their concerns. Be it on a state of a module, or what they are doing. It allows ED to see the feedback from their community and customers. So I understand its been brought up before. But the voice on 10, 20, 100,1000 is much stronger than the voice of one.

Use the "like" or "thank you" button on those post. Repeats are just annoying. You see, I don't think we are in the same side of the fence on this one.
Have a nice day!

EDIT: I've had employees steeling contracts and customers from me. Makes me grudgy and it always gets messy.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Slippa]

Apparently, work was still being done for months while not being paid as well as communication from ED breaking down altogether? As I understood it this was what made RB start blowing their trumpet. They weren't being paid and weren't being answered. For Months. That's gonna lead to trouble.

The problem with all of this is none of us knows anything for certain unless we were party to it. We'll have opinions but we can only base those on whichever thread we're most convinced of. What JuiceIsLoose is saying makes a fair bit of sense to me but as I said, we're all trying to make sense of bits and pieces.

Besides RB, I can't imagine any of this would make a 3rd party team keen to get involved and that can't be a good thing for any of us. Contracts are gonna need to be tighter anyhow.

I'm hoping for some kind of settlement, despite everything. We could all do with some good news, I know I could, there's enough tosh on the planet.

17 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

EDIT: I've had employees steeling contracts and customers from me. Makes me grudgy and it always gets messy.

Had similar in the past. It isn't all about the money either for me, it's the twat letting you down for giving them the opportunity. Some people

-Ooh and a perfectly timed brightener, a Spit's flying overhead

[nessuno0505]

2 ore fa, JuiceIsLoose ha scritto:

The developers have stated that if they get paid they will immediately start supporting and providing updates to the modules.

This is not an official RB statement as far as I know, just internet chatter.

 

2 ore fa, JuiceIsLoose ha scritto:

From what I understand from the RB developers (this is where it gets murky and not confirmed by official sources), this IP issue is not related to the F-15E, or any DCS product. But rather another module, the Tucano.

If ED believes to be on credit from RB for IP matters, whatever it is, they're (hypothetically) entitled to retain what is owed. If, on the other hand, RB believes it owes nothing, from their point of view they're working for free.

 

2 ore fa, JuiceIsLoose ha scritto:

how did they think still selling the module would result in anything but the cluster we have now? That seems naive to me.

Undoubtedly.

However, the first to unleash this mess in public were those of RB, I hope they now realize the enormous damage they have done to themselves and to the whole shack.

Edited July 10, 2024 by nessuno0505

[Hammer1-1]

why are there still people complaining about both ED and Razbam selling the module still? PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY EXPECT A RESOLUTION, but what do I know?

[JuiceIsLoose]

8 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

why are there still people complaining about both ED and Razbam selling the module still? PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY EXPECT A RESOLUTION, but what do I know?

I don't think Razbam is selling the module. But rather just ED. RB deleted all links on their site pointing to ED to purchase modules. So I don't think its fair to say Razbam is still selling the module. You could interpret ED still selling the module as a sign they expect resolution. But they could also be doing it because of other reasons.

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

I don't think Razbam is selling the module. But rather just ED. RB deleted all links on their site pointing to ED to purchase modules. So I don't think its fair to say Razbam is still selling the module. You could interpret ED still selling the module as a sign they expect resolution. But they could also be doing it because of other reasons.

The only reason that we still sell the module is stated in the original post here. Thanks.

[MAXsenna]

1 hour ago, Slippa said:

Had similar in the past. It isn't all about the money either for me, it's the twat letting you down for giving them the opportunity. Some people

Correct! The money part will be handled by lawyers and paid by insurance anyways. The backstabbing is worse, and even then you have to tip toe around in the business so you don't scare off other/potential customers, while it's part of the game.  

1 hour ago, Slippa said:

-Ooh and a perfectly timed brightener, a Spit's flying overhead

Aces high!

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

10 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

why are there still people complaining about both ED and Razbam selling the module still? PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY EXPECT A RESOLUTION, but what do I know?

And, if they were to stop selling them, that'd be months of sales lost. What's the point of trying to get Razbam paid fairly if they're going to lose months of potential sales, regardless?

[tripod3]

By way of guessing, it can be assumed that if there is a legal dispute, then there are financial claims, for example from ED to RB (a fine for failure to maintain a module or for failure to perform some other work), and by selling the module, ED can retain their share, thus forcibly settling its claims. But this is just a rough guess.

Edited July 11, 2024 by tripod3

[deephack]

Not a lawyer but I would have to assume that ED "must" continue selling the Razbam modules as to not do so could prejeduce the outcome of the negotiations/court case.

[ustio]

Does ED, plan to make any more statement at all now that it's been proven that ED haven't paid/ paid them late of two 3rd party developer to regain costumer trust?

 

Cause i surely not planing to buy any more module if the module could potentially left unsupported. 

[BIGNEWY]

Folks please do not post drama here it is not helpful at all. 

Nothing has changed and we continue to wait for a resolution to the dispute. 

thank you 

[Esac_mirmidon]

Please, close this topic and both ED and RB  resolve the dispute. 

Keep arguing and pointing to the same statements actually is doing more damage.

[JuiceIsLoose]

13 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

Please, close this topic and both ED and RB  resolve the dispute. 

Keep arguing and pointing to the same statements actually is doing more damage.

Doing more damage to whom or what?

A lot of the posts have been respectfully conversation about the topic at hand. Yes, some posts have been out of line (and removed), but the majority has been respectful between users, even if they disagree.

[BIGNEWY]

16 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

Please, close this topic and both ED and RB  resolve the dispute. 

Keep arguing and pointing to the same statements actually is doing more damage.

People need a place to ask questions, we may tidy the thread up in the future like we did with the first one. 

But all the info we have to share is in the first post by @NineLine

[Esac_mirmidon]

Until official news are posted from both sides , right now is just going in circles. 

[cuchara]

En 9/7/2024 a las 3:05, wombat778 dijo:

Out of curiosity did you ask for a refund?

no

[MAXsenna]

Doing more damage to whom or what?
A lot of the posts have been respectfully conversation about the topic at hand. Yes, some posts have been out of line (and removed), but the majority has been respectful between users, even if they disagree.

I agree with you on this one!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Sinclair]

What if ED earns the trust buyers put in them and work out with Steam a restitution while working on a definitive solution? It is too convenient for them to hide behind legal excuses while keeping customers money hostage.

 

I propose free access to a module or a map of our choice until the dispute gets resolved.

[Guest]

I have a more technical question that I am wondering if the ED folks might be able to comment on.  With respect to the older modules, in the first post says "It is our commitment that no matter what happens we will do our best to make sure these continue to work into the future."  I think this is a very interesting statement, because before all this happened I was under the impression that all modules needed essentially continuous maintenance work from the original developer to remain working given all the constant changes to the DCS core (especially the big things like MT, DLSS, Vulkan, etc).  This need for constant maintenance from third parties is actually something that has always given me some concern about ED's development model.

But this statement suggests to me that post-Hawk ED has some mechanism in place to allow all feature complete third party modules to work with a new core. Can you elaborate any?  For example, does ED have source code access to those? some kind of sandboxing of the old code?  something else?  I know that ED had suggested there is some kind of source code escrow mechanism but my impression was that only applied if a developer actually went under (and only applied to products developed under contracts entered into post-Hawk). So I didn't expect that mechanism would apply to the older RazBam modules.  I mostly would like to know for my own interest and also because if there is something technical in place for feature complete third party modules it actually gives me more confidence in buying them than I did before this mess.   But also I totally understand if you can't comment.

Edited July 11, 2024 by wombat778

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, wombat778 said:

I have a more technical question that I am wondering if the ED folks might be able to comment on.  With respect to the older modules, in the first post says "It is our commitment that no matter what happens we will do our best to make sure these continue to work into the future."  I think this is a very interesting statement, because before all this happened I was under the impression that all modules needed essentially continuous maintenance work from the original developer to remain working given all the constant changes to the DCS core (especially the big things like MT, DLSS, Vulkan, etc).  This need for constant maintenance from third parties is actually something that has always given me some concern about ED's development model.

But this statement suggests to me that post-Hawk ED has some mechanism in place to allow all feature complete third party modules to work with a new core. Can you elaborate any?  For example, does ED have source code access to those? some kind of sandboxing of the old code?  something else?  I know that ED had suggested there is some kind of source code escrow mechanism but my impression was that only applied if a developer actually went under (and only applied to products developed under contracts entered into post-Hawk). So I didn't expect that mechanism would apply to the older RazBam modules.  I mostly would like to know for my own interest and also because if there is something technical in place for feature complete third party modules it actually gives me more confidence in buying them than I did before this mess.   But also I totally understand if you can't comment.

 

We have some solutions in place that we should now be able to keep older modules working even if no longer supported by a 3rd Party, I cannot go into detail on this as I do not have all the technical information, but the important thing is older modules which are abandoned by a 3rd Party should remain working as last left. Updates, improvements etc could not be done though. 

We do have a stipulation in place for source code, but if the contract is older than when that was added then we rely on the 3rd Party doing this, who has or hasn't I do not have any info on. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

the important thing is older modules which are abandoned by a 3rd Party should remain working as last left. Updates, improvements etc could not be done though

That is really great to hear, thank you.  At least with respect to the older Razbam modules, I would be pretty happy without further updates to the plane itself so long as it keeps working as-is as DCS continues to evolve.  So for example, that the plane works would work once Vulkan is introduced, but without upgraded visuals or feature related to the upgrade -- and that we wouldn't have to resort to using an older DCS build or hopefully disabling global features like Vulkan.  

Edit: im speculating, but I'm guessing that some kinds of global features like midgame saving and spherical earth could be tricky to backport into older modules without source code, but time will tell..

Edited July 11, 2024 by wombat778