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

[NineLine]

6 hours ago, happyhappy said:

When have you said something that you could understand? 

 

 

Yes I understand everything I say.

 

1 hour 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.  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.

As others have said already and I said before we are working on the situation with in the legal confines laid out.

I am not sure how us continuing to work on our products relates to any of this. We want RB back, and their modules fully supported, if we didn't we would not continue on the current path.

[Mateo]

@UmamusumeMirage

If you were able to travel in time then, and move forward for 1 year you'd be surpriced what the hell...  

Aim for getting sniper pod and lost all module 

[Japo32]

2 hours ago, some1 said:

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.

Yes, I know ED don't have enough men to work in others modules in case of a "Razbam" situation, but at least they could borrow some extra external people to handle with that problem. Or they could continue the F15E instead of making a new F15C. 
But hope everything is going well. Or if not, allow us, to refund if Razbam or other people modules don't work anymore.

[rob10]

5 hours 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. 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.

The plausible educated guesses from back when this started by people who checked out the timelines is that Razbam's agreement on the F-15 was likely signed before the Hawk fiasco happened.  It would be difficult to reopen and revise the contracts at that point and I doubt ED ever figured they would actually need to use the option anyway.  I suspect it's different now.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

38 minutes ago, rob10 said:

The plausible educated guesses from back when this started by people who checked out the timelines is that Razbam's agreement on the F-15 was likely signed before the Hawk fiasco happened.  It would be difficult to reopen and revise the contracts at that point and I doubt ED ever figured they would actually need to use the option anyway.  I suspect it's different now.

It does raise the question of fairness, to me.

If that's the case for every subsequent module, then why does the F-15E gets special treatment? Just because it's been in dev for so long? That, to me, is extremely unfair to the other third parties. If a meteorite strikes Heatblur's headquarters or Deka gets pulled into an alternate dimension where they find themselves fighting dragons, do the F-4E, F-14, JF-17, etc. all get turned over to ED? But the F-15E doesn't?

 

Not a fan.

Edited April 5 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[AndyJWest]

Any 'handing over sources' clause in an ED-third party developer contract is unlikely to permit their use by ED in circumstances where the developer wishes to continue development (as RazBam has stated), but is in dispute over payments etc. 

 

 

Edited April 5 by AndyJWest

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

38 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Any 'handing over sources' clause in an ED-third party developer contract is unlikely to permit their use by ED in circumstances where the developer wishes to continue development (as RazBam has stated), but is in dispute over payments etc. 

 

 

Absolutely true, since they're still a partner and still intend to do business here.

[Horns]

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

It does raise the question of fairness, to me.

If that's the case for every subsequent module, then why does the F-15E gets special treatment? Just because it's been in dev for so long? That, to me, is extremely unfair to the other third parties. If a meteorite strikes Heatblur's headquarters or Deka gets pulled into an alternate dimension where they find themselves fighting dragons, do the F-4E, F-14, JF-17, etc. all get turned over to ED? But the F-15E doesn't?

 

Not a fan.

I don't think the source code issue has anything to do with ownership transfer. I think the idea was that if ED was in possession of the source code they could continue to service modules for free, but they wouldn't be taking ownership in the process.

It's moot for the mudhen, but hypothetically, if ED did have the source code and Razbam left, ED could then potentially maintain the module - but ownership would stay with Razbam.

This is *very* vague even as a third person memory goes, so please take with a grain of salt, but I think I remember a conversation where it was suggested that ED requiring the source code would be part of the overall third-party agreement, not the agreement for a particular module. But Razbam and the other devs who were here before the Hawk incident were operating under an older agreement that didn't require the source code to be handed over. If that's true, to take your example, then Heatblur's modules' source code may not be available, but Deka's may be.

Again, please take that at your own risk.

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, NineLine said:

As others have said already and I said before we are working on the situation with in the legal confines laid out.

That's about what you said a year ago. Even with lawyers involved, I'd have expected some progress by this point. If both sides are working so hard to get this resolved, then what's the holdup? Bureaucracy is slow, but usually not that slow. So that makes me suspect something, or someone, is not quite as cooperative as we're being led to believe.

The real question is, are we going to keep hearing the same broken record a year from now, or will things actually move forward before then? I do hope RAZBAM's message is an indicator of them losing the tug of war over whatever is the bone of contention, if only because we can then put all this behind us.

[NineLine]

28 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That's about what you said a year ago. Even with lawyers involved, I'd have expected some progress by this point. If both sides are working so hard to get this resolved, then what's the holdup? Bureaucracy is slow, but usually not that slow. So that makes me suspect something, or someone, is not quite as cooperative as we're being led to believe.

The real question is, are we going to keep hearing the same broken record a year from now, or will things actually move forward before then? I do hope RAZBAM's message is an indicator of them losing the tug of war over whatever is the bone of contention, if only because we can then put all this behind us.

You will hear what we can share (as you have), we won't get into details, we want a healthy ED and RB when this is done, pitting you against one side or the other by share bits and pieces is not healthy for the long term, even if it feels like us being quiet is not what you want.

Bottomline, and I know it's a broken record now, lawyers don't want this open for public debate, we are doing it the professional and way described by this process. 

 

[Aapje]

11 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

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.

I do see a bunch of developers that make modules for DCS diversify into making MSFS modules as well. Whether that is due to lack of trust in ED or MSFS being a good opportunity we don't know.

[Aapje]

8 hours 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.

Just because it is written in a contract, doesn't mean that it actually happened.

These kind of things are just a chore for everyone involved, and as long as there is no conflict, it is effort without a payoff. So it makes sense for ED's developers to have just ignored this, and the same for the Razbam developers. And once there was a conflict, it was of course no longer in Razbam's interest to share the source code, because it is leverage.

I'm a programmer and I have to escrow some of our code, but for this we use a third party whose specific job it is to badger me to do it.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

57 minutes ago, Horns said:

I don't think the source code issue has anything to do with ownership transfer. I think the idea was that if ED was in possession of the source code they could continue to service modules for free, but they wouldn't be taking ownership in the process.

It's moot for the mudhen, but hypothetically, if ED did have the source code and Razbam left, ED could then potentially maintain the module - but ownership would stay with Razbam.

This is *very* vague even as a third person memory goes, so please take with a grain of salt, but I think I remember a conversation where it was suggested that ED requiring the source code would be part of the overall third-party agreement, not the agreement for a particular module. But Razbam and the other devs who were here before the Hawk incident were operating under an older agreement that didn't require the source code to be handed over. If that's true, to take your example, then Heatblur's modules' source code may not be available, but Deka's may be.

Again, please take that at your own risk.

I think you raise valid points, regardless. Something worth considering, at least.

[NineLine]

16 minutes ago, Aapje said:

I do see a bunch of developers that make modules for DCS diversify into making MSFS modules as well. Whether that is due to lack of trust in ED or MSFS being a good opportunity we don't know.

Why would they not if they have the time and resources? Makes sense to me as MSFS has a huge base and offers a different experience.

[Aapje]

54 minutes ago, NineLine said:

You will hear what we can share (as you have), we won't get into details, we want a healthy ED and RB when this is done, pitting you against one side or the other by share bits and pieces is not healthy for the long term, even if it feels like us being quiet is not what you want.

Bottomline, and I know it's a broken record now, lawyers don't want this open for public debate, we are doing it the professional and way described by this process. 

But it is very strange.

If ED and RB can agree on a new contract that will satisfy both parties, then there is no reason why it has to drag on for over a year. At a certain point the contract has been examined in detail and all the arguments have been made, and you simply need to agree on a compromise that everyone can live with, or pull the plug.

If they cannot (fully) agree, then you'd expect a court case to sort things out.

ED is still selling the F-15E for $63.99 as Early Access, so if development doesn't resume, then I would call that deceptive trade practices. And you can argue that it's already rather deceptive to market it as Early Access, with no actual development ongoing.

Quote

Why would they not if they have the time and resources? Makes sense to me as MSFS has a huge base and offers a different experience.

Due to the lack of transparency all around we don't actually know what the reasons are, and it is also very hard to guess at the reasons. For example, we don't know how profitable it is to make a DCS module vs a MSFS module, for a developer like Heatblur. Perhaps they are choosing to earn less by putting effort into MSFS, just to diversify their product line, so they don't suddenly lose all their income if the DCS income falls away.

It's a very risky situation for any company to be fully dependent on a single other company for their income, and regardless of whether they still trust ED, I would advise any such company to diversify if reasonably possible.

Edited April 6 by Aapje

[Pipe]

31 minutes ago, Aapje said:

 

It's a very risky situation for any company to be fully dependent on a single other company for their income, and regardless of whether they still trust ED, I would advise any such company to diversify if reasonably possible.

And open their own store like Heatblur did, presto no missing funds

I have purchased all HB products from their store since it opened

Edited April 6 by Pipe

[AndyJWest]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

I do see a bunch of developers that make modules for DCS diversify into making MSFS modules as well. Whether that is due to lack of trust in ED or MSFS being a good opportunity we don't know.

It's a bit of a two-way street. And from a business point of view, diversifying your sources of income is always a good idea, as others have said. Plus, the development cycle for MSFS is probably a fair bit shorter, which should help with cash flow, though it may not actually pay any better long-term - there is a lot of competition.

I wouldn't read anything more than that into it. Not without access to information we clearly aren't going to get.

 

[jojyrocks]

As everyone here, eagerly waiting for this to get all sorted with a positive resolution. It's been a year...

 

Holding off on the Iraq and the Afghan map as the F-15E is a core module for these maps. Currently holding off on flying RAZBAM modules coz If I fly and get attached to it and then out of all of a sudden we get a negative resolution, that's is going to really be very painful for the money we have payed to buy this, and I happen to be a steam user, so no prospect of refunds. If not supported, at some point those Modules are very likely to be unusable.

 

I have all the RAZBAM modules...

 

 

 

 

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

ED is still selling the F-15E for $63.99 as Early Access

This is explained in the first post.

[rob10]

2 hours ago, Aapje said:

I do see a bunch of developers that make modules for DCS diversify into making MSFS modules as well. Whether that is due to lack of trust in ED or MSFS being a good opportunity we don't know.

In fairness, there are also "MSFS" devs that have moved into DCS - i.e. Orbx.  In fact RAZBAM started as a MSFS dev before moving to DCS.

[NineLine]

It's really off-topic here, but there is no issue with devs wanting to spread out, and we welcome anyone who wants to come to DCS. It's a non-issue.

[happyhappy]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

これは本当に話題から外れますが、開発者が分散したいという要望には問題はなく、DCS に来たい人は誰でも歓迎します。これは問題ではありません。

Yes, we like DCS and F-15ES.

That's why I want a complete module.

That's it

Of course I'll wait until it's resolved.

 

 

[bfr]

14 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

It's a bit of a two-way street. And from a business point of view, diversifying your sources of income is always a good idea, as others have said. Plus, the development cycle for MSFS is probably a fair bit shorter, which should help with cash flow, though it may not actually pay any better long-term - there is a lot of competition.

I wouldn't read anything more than that into it. Not without access to information we clearly aren't going to get.

 

Exactly.  Less complexity to simulate and a much larger potential customer base in MSFS.

[MAXsenna]

I've always thought of it as publishing in MSFS to make money to finance the fun stuff that can be done in DCS.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

2 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

I've always thought of it as publishing in MSFS to make money to finance the fun stuff that can be done in DCS.
 

Yes exactly. Seems to be that making DCS modules is a passion project for the (smaller) 3rd parties, but passion alone doesn’t put food on the table and with the community having ever increasing expectations of quality, costs are also increasing