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

[Nightdare]

22 hours ago, StarLiner said:

These wounds weren't meant to heal

This pain is just too real 

 

And who is CptSmiley? Does he have any official relation with Razbam?

[Pipe]

5 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

And who is CptSmiley? Does he have any official relation with Razbam?

flight models I think

Edited December 4, 2024 by Pipe

[Citizen]

3 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

And who is CptSmiley? Does he have any official relation with Razbam?

He's a contractor that has done a bunch of flight models.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

5 hours ago, msi1411 said:

Razbam doesn't operate like that, it's a common misconception.

CptSmiley and the others get a direct share of the sales from the modules. Ron doesn't touch their money at any point afaik. It's basically a team of different devs working together on a project under a common name.

If he's not employed, but still a contractor, then that's still on him.

 

 

4 hours ago, Pipe said:

Which had a dynamic campaign from day 1

Neato, I'm sure it's fun.

Edited December 4, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[draconus]

11 hours ago, ebabil said:

I am not thinking of buying 3rd party planes anymore, maybe only from HB

Why so personal? If you value a product you buy it, that simple. I've neved regretted buying F-15E and would happily buy F-15C from any 3rd party, esp. Razbam, since they've already proven they can deliver high quality modules. I'll wait and let them settle "issues".

[Nightdare]

13 hours ago, msi1411 said:

Razbam doesn't operate like that, it's a common misconception.

CptSmiley and the others get a direct share of the sales from the modules. Ron doesn't touch their money at any point afaik. It's basically a team of different devs working together on a project under a common name.

 

So who pays that money directly to those guys? ED?

Or it's an open account and they can just go in and grab their share?

I sincerely doubt that

 

Especially since some people mentioned that certain devs were not paid by Razbam because ED withheld payment to RB

[Oban]

15 hours ago, msi1411 said:

Razbam doesn't operate like that, it's a common misconception.

CptSmiley and the others get a direct share of the sales from the modules. Ron doesn't touch their money at any point afaik. It's basically a team of different devs working together on a project under a common name.

So they have never received a monthly income from Razbam?

I have a hard time believing that they are remunerated in the manner in which you've said.

If that's the case, then their beef should have been with Razbam, and not with ED, they should have sought legal recourse against RB for the failure to uphold their terms and conditions.

I've said this from day 1, Razbam devs recourse should have been with their contractor, of whom should have had a system in place that prevented his contracted staff to go unpaid, why couldn't he (RZ) not have gone to his financial team and said "we need to get a bridging loan, and pay these guys until this situation is over, and everything goes back to normal"

Puting all your eggs in one basket springs to mind.

Totally get their (devs) frustration, not being paid as per their "contracts" (which nobody has seen, and despite them airing all the other leaked content, not one has shared their terms and conditions they had with Razbam)

[Shot]

I still like to fly the F15E, no matter how much is discussed here who is right or wrong. My only concern is that a multi-year long court house visit will result in a lot of $$$ to be paid by one of the two parties.  So in either way, whoever wins will put the other one in a lot of financial issues, right?

[Pipe]

9 hours ago, Oban said:

So they have never received a monthly income from Razbam?

I have a hard time believing that they are remunerated in the manner in which you've said.

If that's the case, then their beef should have been with Razbam, and not with ED, they should have sought legal recourse against RB for the failure to uphold their terms and conditions.

I've said this from day 1, Razbam devs recourse should have been with their contractor, of whom should have had a system in place that prevented his contracted staff to go unpaid, why couldn't he (RZ) not have gone to his financial team and said "we need to get a bridging loan, and pay these guys until this situation is over, and everything goes back to normal"

Puting all your eggs in one basket springs to mind.

Totally get their (devs) frustration, not being paid as per their "contracts" (which nobody has seen, and despite them airing all the other leaked content, not one has shared their terms and conditions they had with Razbam)

I guess since they are all still working together (which is great!), they all believe ED is in the wrong of this dispute 

I wish them the best of luck with their new projects..

 

[Oban]

7 minutes ago, Pipe said:

I guess since they are all still working together (which is great!), they all believe ED is in the wrong of this dispute 

I wish them the best of luck with their new projects..

 

It doesn't matter what they believe, it matters what the contractual obligations there was between them, and RB, and between RB and ED.

Their contracted employer was RB, so their pay dispute should have been directed towards RB, funny how there's been zero "leaked communications" between them and RB, but they've leaked heaps between other parties. Not one has shared what "royalties" they were suposed to have received from RB had ED not witheld the payment towards RB.

Don't get me wrong, I feel for them, but their constant leaking and choppsing off on various platforms where they're only too happy to share selective excerpts of confidential material(s) but have kept their own information confidential.. and decry transparency... which seems to be a one way street in this situation.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

10 minutes ago, Oban said:

It doesn't matter what they believe, it matters what the contractual obligations there was between them, and RB, and between RB and ED.

Their contracted employer was RB, so their pay dispute should have been directed towards RB, funny how there's been zero "leaked communications" between them and RB, but they've leaked heaps between other parties. Not one has shared what "royalties" they were suposed to have received from RB had ED not witheld the payment towards RB.

Don't get me wrong, I feel for them, but their constant leaking and choppsing off on various platforms where they're only too happy to share selective excerpts of confidential material(s) but have kept their own information confidential.. and decry transparency... which seems to be a one way street in this situation.

Bolded for emphasis, it's a total lack of professionalism. To those reading these leaks, it becomes a sort of soap opera only middle aged man children could love.

If I'm hiring software devs and had I seen this little outburst? I'd see to it that none involved have a resume cross my desk. I'm not sure I feel for them anymore considering this could be a case of FAFO.

And yeah, why wasn't a bridging loan considered? Why are they so guarded about that kind of information? Well, the answer is that it's their right. It's too bad they've chosen not to respect others desiring similar confidentiality.

[Pipe]

38 minutes ago, Oban said:

It doesn't matter what they believe, it matters what the contractual obligations there was between them, and RB, and between RB and ED.

Their contracted employer was RB, so their pay dispute should have been directed towards RB, funny how there's been zero "leaked communications" between them and RB, but they've leaked heaps between other parties. Not one has shared what "royalties" they were suposed to have received from RB had ED not witheld the payment towards RB.

Don't get me wrong, I feel for them, but their constant leaking and choppsing off on various platforms where they're only too happy to share selective excerpts of confidential material(s) but have kept their own information confidential.. and decry transparency... which seems to be a one way street in this situation.

Only they know whats in the contracts, it is possible your speculation is way off. As for respect both sides have lost alot of it, from the community and each other. They should have recieved 70% of the money I paid for the SE, what did happen was not that.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Pipe

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

7 minutes ago, Pipe said:

They should have recieved 70% of the money I paid for the SE, what did happen was not that.

Gee wilikers, I wonder what could prompt that? Maybe a breach of contract?

[Pipe]

21 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Gee wilikers, I wonder what could prompt that? Maybe a breach of contract?

As a consumer I was mislead, thought I was buying the SE. Instead a new Spitfire for NG? If the dispute was ongoing, the SE should never have been released. Wouldn't you agree

Edited December 5, 2024 by Pipe

[Ramsay]

10 hours ago, Oban said:

So they have never received a monthly income from Razbam?

I have a hard time believing that they are remunerated in the manner in which you've said.

If that's the case, then their beef should have been with Razbam, and not with ED, they should have sought legal recourse against RB for the failure to uphold their terms and conditions.

AFAIK profit sharing is a common arrangement for small (independent) software developers.

There are various ways these can be arranged and sometimes coders and artists receive initial payment(s) to cover their time and expenses with the expectation that they will receive a larger amount once income from sales is received.

34 minutes ago, Oban said:

Their contracted employer was RB, so their pay dispute should have been directed towards RB, funny how there's been zero "leaked communications" between them and RB, but they've leaked heaps between other parties. Not one has shared what "royalties" they were supposed to have received from RB had ED not withheld the payment towards RB.

AFAIK ED failed to pass on RB's share from DCS Aircraft sales and strung RB along promising payment "soon", after 9 months RB decided to let their coders and artists seek other work/projects that would pay them (as RB was not receiving any income/profit to share).

As a result, RB went public to let owners and prospective purchasers of their Modules know that existing support/development was going to be adversely effected.

AFAIK some unpaid work is still done by RB's artist(s) and coder(s) to keep their modules functional but it's unclear how sustainable the current situation is.

[Ramsay]

56 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

... why wasn't a bridging loan considered?

Only speculating but it seems obvious - bridging loans only work if you are certain you are going to be paid and know when, AFAIK RB still don't know when or if they'll be paid.

 

[Oban]

4 minutes ago, Ramsay said:

Only speculating but it seems obvious - bridging loans only work if you are certain you are going to be paid and know when, AFAIK RB still don't know when or if they'll be paid.

 

Why would they not expect to be paid? They keep claiming they've done nothing wrong, and if they had such a strong case against ED, then such a bridging loan would have been a simple process.

This is why we're not getting the full story as it really isn't as clear cut as what some people seem to believe it is.

ED, despite consumer backlash have taken the legal route, which will ensure this drags on longer, we, as consumers see things in black and white, whereas there's quite a few different shades of grey areas in this debacle.


If only it was a case of company A owes company B remuneration for services rendered, and company B has taken legal action to receive those funds,  IF it was clear cut, then no court would ever side with company A for witholding payment for "no apparent reason"

It's a mess...

[msi1411]

3 hours ago, Oban said:

If only it was a case of company A owes company B remuneration for services rendered, and company B has taken legal action to receive those funds,  IF it was clear cut, then no court would ever side with company A for witholding payment for "no apparent reason"

It is exactly that...

[Nightdare]

9 hours ago, Ramsay said:

AFAIK ED failed to pass on RB's share from DCS Aircraft sales and strung RB along promising payment "soon", after 9 months RB decided to let their coders and artists seek other work/projects that would pay them (as RB was not receiving any income/profit to share).

 

No they didn't

They actively withheld payment to force RB to acquiesce to their demands

You make it sound like ED had some sinister plot to disadvantage RB for the fun of it without RB catching on

 

9 hours ago, Ramsay said:

As a result, RB went public to let owners and prospective purchasers of their Modules know that existing support/development was going to be adversely effected.

 

As a result of RB sticking to their guns, they ran out of money for their devs which logically entailed that existing support/development was going to be adversely effected.

 

9 hours ago, Ramsay said:

AFAIK some unpaid work is still done by RB's artist(s) and coder(s) to keep their modules functional but it's unclear how sustainable the current situation is.

 

Says who? all we know is that the Map team still does work, but AFAIK they aren't  'official' RB Devs, we also do not know how they are getting paid, perhaps those guys do directly get the royalties from Map sales

[Nightdare]

5 hours ago, msi1411 said:

It is exactly that...

 

If it 'exactly that', RB would already have their money

You are willfully or ignorantly forgetting the "Why"

Because that's what makes the difference between "justification" or "crime"

 

I'd love to be YOUR contractor and screw you over, I'm sure you'll keep on paying me until it's resolved,.... right?

 

10 hours ago, Oban said:

Their contracted employer was RB, so their pay dispute should have been directed towards RB, funny how there's been zero "leaked communications" between them and RB, but they've leaked heaps between other parties. Not one has shared what "royalties" they were suposed to have received from RB had ED not witheld the payment towards RB.

 

To add on this, if these Devs were not under RB contract, ED could just pay them to keep development going and withhold only RB's share

 

[msi1411]

50 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

If it 'exactly that', RB would already have their money

You are willfully or ignorantly forgetting the "Why"

Because that's what makes the difference between "justification" or "crime"

 

I'd love to be YOUR contractor and screw you over, I'm sure you'll keep on paying me until it's resolved,.... right?

The "Why", as claimed by ED, is an alleged IP violation by Razbam.

My question is now, why didn't ED go to court over this and kept paying Razbam until a court decision was made? Many lawsuits work like that and it wouldn't have affected the customers then.

Is the Strike Eagle and its contract even related to that IP breach and if not why hasn't Razbam received any money from its sales.

And should it turn out in court, that Razbam is innocent, it wouldn't have damaged the game, as development could have continued as usual, not affecting the customers (us) and sales.

The part that bugs me personally the most, is the fact, that ED is withholding Razbams money while continuing to sell their products. The legality of this action is questionable at least and can result in legal repercussions for ED, in case this action wasn't legal, no matter if ED wins in court or not.

The "why" doesn't matter imho, as the legality of withholding payment itself is questionable, unless we don't have more official info about that my questions remain.

Edited December 5, 2024 by msi1411

[Nightdare]

14 minutes ago, msi1411 said:

My question is now, why didn't ED go to court over this and kept paying Razbam until a court decision was made? Many lawsuits work like that

 

No they don't

First you send a Cease and Desist letter, then you (must) "remind the offending party a few times and inform them that "if our demands aren't met by *x* date, we will [insert method of pressure here]"

This is the cheapest solution to try and fix disputes (apart from "Hey you! stop!", "oh sorry didn't realize I was out of bounds, will do!")

This "method of pressure" is where the lawyers of the demanding party dig up what is allowed and what not, because the last thing you want, when you need to escalate the dispute in a full on lawsuit, is a pissed off judge telling you you were too draconian in the means used to protect your rights and decide(more) in favor of the accused

Edited December 5, 2024 by Nightdare

[msi1411]

5 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

This "method of pressure" is where the lawyers of the demanding party dig up what is allowed and what not, because the last thing you want, when you need to escalate the dispute in a full on lawsuit, is a pissed off judge telling you you were too draconian in the means used to protect your rights and decide in favor of the accused

This is of course valid, but then it's sad ED chose a risky method of pressure that jeopardized the trust of the customers and other 3rd parties.

Razbam, according to them, never saw any money from the Strike Eagle sales, so the dispute is at least going on since its release, maybe even longer.

Why did ED accept the Strike Eagle and sold it in the first place then? They could have terminated their contract with Razbam instead for example. It wouldn't have affected other modules.

Let me rephrase it: Why accepting a new product from a party, while such party is in violation of a contract?

[BIGNEWY]

9 minutes ago, msi1411 said:

This is of course valid, but then it's sad ED chose a risky method of pressure that jeopardized the trust of the customers and other 3rd parties.

Razbam, according to them, never saw any money from the Strike Eagle sales, so the dispute is at least going on since its release, maybe even longer.

Why did ED accept the Strike Eagle and sold it in the first place then? They could have terminated their contract with Razbam instead for example. It wouldn't have affected other modules.

Let me rephrase it: Why accepting a new product from a party, while such party is in violation of a contract?

you are assuming to much, 

I am sorry we can not discuss the dispute, but this back and forth here isn't going to help. 

thank you 

[msi1411]

1 minute ago, BIGNEWY said:

I am sorry we can not discuss the dispute, but this back and forth here isn't going to help.

Understood, but I am a bit confused what is the purpose of this thread then?