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

[stonewall197922]

2 часа назад, Blackeye сказал:

I disagree. Solving this doesn't get easier or harder with public knowledge - keeping it private may make the involved parties look better but there isn't any possible solution that they have to exclude because of public knowledge.

Plus going public allows customers to make informed decisions when buying a module - I'd like to know if a module is essentially abandoned before I buy it. So while it may not be great for ED (or RB), as a customer I appreciate transparency.

Well holding payments is common practice among business. Someone violated terms, other delivered defective or not working goods. And customer forced to hold payments. its normal. But it should stay between parties. Sometimes going public only worsen everything. How many potential customers made decision not to buy RB modules? How many refunded? Such thing strike heavily at parties finances and especially at developer.  And I didn`t said that customers shouldn`t be informed. I said if shop has encountered problems and there`s  chances  product will not leave EA customers should  be notified. Notifying customers of about problems and going public is a different things. When someone going public and saying "Look he`s not paying me" - that`s means he`s trying to transfer its guilt to other. Its doesn`t mean he`s an angel. We don`t know all circumstances and agreement terms even development doesn`t know everything. Full picture available only to management. 

20 минут назад, VpR81 сказал:

Exactly this. IMPO, Razbam management is just leaving ED to hold the baby. I came to the conclusion, that RB management is not honest to their customers. But that is, as i said, just my personal opinion.

Exactly my point someone is holding truth from public and trying to pretend innocence. No one works for a year without payment. Gosh, when at my work we forced to hold payments, suppliers stop deliveries on the next day.

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2024 by stonewall197922

[GomesPT]

In my opinion, this situation is very serious and has greatly reduced customer confidence in ED and in the future purchase of new modules.
I don't know who is right in this case and I don't have anything to do with it.
As we are beginning to realize, the problem begins to involve all modules made by Razbam and critical bugs are beginning to appear in modules other than the F-15.
As a result, there are also campaigns purchased for these modules, which can no longer be played and completed.
I don't know what the conclusion of this sad situation will be, but in my opinion, ED should provide a clear explanation of how the situation of the modules will be, even if there is no agreement with Razbam, which is what interests customers for they see if the money they invested is safe or if it is a loss.

[WipeUout]

11 hours ago, VpR81 said:

As a sidenote, Metal2Mesh said they offered ED a payment plan, but he deleted that message a few seconds later. Propably something RB didn´t want to share with the public. I was just too slow to take a screenshot...

Well this sounds pretty good.  It is an indication that negociations are ongoing at least, and there is a path to solving the issue. 

[stonewall197922]

3 минуты назад, WipeUout сказал:

Well this sounds pretty good.  It is an indication that negociations are ongoing at least, and there is a path to solving the issue. 

Theres always negotiation's, the problems is how critically violated agreement terms and what each party trying to achieve. Bad reputation earlier and now this? I`d better stay away from RB modules.

[LordOrion]

11 minutes ago, GomesPT said:

In my opinion, this situation is very serious and has greatly reduced customer confidence in ED and in the future purchase of new modules.

As per myself, all this mess has reduced my confidende in RB to below 0.

3 minutes ago, stonewall197922 said:

... I`d better stay away from RB modules.

/this: no more RB modules for me too.

Edited June 2, 2024 by LordOrion

[Silver_Dragon]

4 minutes ago, GomesPT said:

In my opinion, this situation is very serious and has greatly reduced customer confidence in ED and in the future purchase of new modules.
I don't know who is right in this case and I don't have anything to do with it.

By? Remember that situation was started by Razbam, publicizing their dispute, no ED, and that has a Contractual issues, with surely finished on lawyers hand....

[LordOrion]

2 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

By? Remember that situation was started by Razbam, publicizing their dispute, no ED, and that has a Contractual issues, with surely finished on lawyers hand....

/this

Moreover, it was RB who blocked the releases of developments and bugfixes for their modules, thus using customers discontent against ED.

[Blackeye]

54 minutes ago, LordOrion said:

Moreover, it was RB who blocked the releases of developments and bugfixes for their modules

And it was ED who blocked the payments causing RB to block the development... and maybe that was caused by RB.... It's hard to tell who's to blame for what in this incident without knowing all the details.

But it doesn't really matter to me as customer either, because it's quite clear who is to blame for continuing to sell the modules without any mention of those problems and no (communicated) plan for such an event. So for me it's "no more modules at all" until I feel confident that a business dispute between ED and their partners isn't something I have to bear all the consequences of.

[Airbusjoerg]

This almost sounds as if someone is using the customers as leverage against the other. 
Which brings me to the question: are those involved really acting in the interests of the customers or is it just a power play?

[JAPman]

Is this a topic that RAZBAM is struggling with, using Mirage 2000 and Strike Eagle military simulators for business without ED's permission?

https://www.razbamjapan.com/訓練用シミュレーター/

It may be better to limit add-on aircraft to those that appeared by the 20th century at the latest.

[stonewall197922]

56 минут назад, JAPman сказал:

Is this a topic that RAZBAM is struggling with, using Mirage 2000 and Strike Eagle military simulators for business without ED's permission?

https://www.razbamjapan.com/訓練用シミュレーター/

It may be better to limit add-on aircraft to those that appeared by the 20th century at the latest.

It`s better limit  license distribution of modules developed under agreement with ED by developer (maybe this term already included in agreements). e.g. Not to use results of development under agreement with ED without permission of the last. If ED invested some funds in development or agreement has terms about distribution to 3rd party. Violating such terms is serious.

[Rhinozherous]

Razbam is dead for me. Even IF they continue (which I do not believe) I will never ever give them one cent of my money. 

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, stonewall197922 said:

It`s better limit  license distribution of modules developed under agreement with ED by developer (maybe this term already included in agreements). e.g. Not to use results of development under agreement with ED without permission of the last. If ED invested some funds in development or agreement has terms about distribution to 3rd party. Violating such terms is serious.

Remember the core simulator and your tools has property by ED, and the "military/training" versions, dont use the "normal" DCS World license... that will be a very hard problem if RB has used them whitout ED clearance. (Remember ED has denay all colaboration or use of DCS on that "Training" simulators).

The DCS EULA has very clear:

Quote

1. LIMITED USE LICENCE
In consideration of you agreeing to abide by the terms of this Licence, Eagle Dynamics SA hereby grants to you a non-transferable, limited right and licence to install the Program and the Documentation solely and exclusively for your personal use on the terms of this Licence. All rights not specifically granted under this Licence are reserved by Eagle Dynamics SA and, as applicable, Eagle Dynamics's licensors. GOVERNMENT AND COMMERCIAL ENTITIES MAY NOT USE THIS SOFTWARE UNDER THIS EULA. Government and commercial entities wishing to use this software in conjunction with training or demonstrator applications must obtain a license directly from Eagle Dynamics SA under a separate pricing structure and terms of use.

3 hours ago, Blackeye said:

And it was ED who blocked the payments causing RB to block the development... and maybe that was caused by RB.... It's hard to tell who's to blame for what in this incident without knowing all the details.

But it doesn't really matter to me as customer either, because it's quite clear who is to blame for continuing to sell the modules without any mention of those problems and no (communicated) plan for such an event. So for me it's "no more modules at all" until I feel confident that a business dispute between ED and their partners isn't something I have to bear all the consequences of.

We dont know the license agretmetns of ED (Main company) and RB (3rd Party), but have a rules to comply and RB has only has "show on public" a dispute, remember that has a legal case... no only "get me the money" with RB, has open the Thunder box, and that will be sancionate by broken licensing agreements ("miranda warning").

Edited June 2, 2024 by Silver_Dragon

[JuiceIsLoose]

8 hours ago, NineLine said:

The longer it goes the tougher it seems, but we are trying to stay positive and focused on getting back to normal. 

Management has said all they can right now. Right now we can only let them work on things and hope for the best.

ED management is aware of these forum topics and all of the talk in Discord then, correct? And ED management truly believes their best course is to provide no update to their customers? ED management then must realize, by providing no information or update for 2 months that they are forcing customers to look into every other source of information. DCS users are passionate about their modules, ED management always thanks the customers for their PASSION and support. Yet, it seems ED management is no longer thankful for that passion, by remaining silent. ED management is selling multiple products which have no support at this time. And there is no statement from ED management stating there be will continued support, regardless of how the situation is resolved. 

Please note, I am using ED management as the target of my questions, as I don’t feel this burden to provide updates or commitments should be put on you community managers. To be honest, I feel ED management is not only failing its customers, but also you as community managers by remaining silent. 

[LorenLuke]

22 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

ED management is aware of these forum topics and all of the talk in Discord then, correct? And ED management truly believes their best course is to provide no update to their customers? ED management then must realize, by providing no information or update for 2 months that they are forcing customers to look into every other source of information. DCS users are passionate about their modules, ED management always thanks the customers for their PASSION and support. Yet, it seems ED management is no longer thankful for that passion, by remaining silent. ED management is selling multiple products which have no support at this time. And there is no statement from ED management stating there be will continued support, regardless of how the situation is resolved. 

Please note, I am using ED management as the target of my questions, as I don’t feel this burden to provide updates or commitments should be put on you community managers. To be honest, I feel ED management is not only failing its customers, but also you as community managers by remaining silent. 

You should probably ask RazBam, given they 1) Are the ones who have the choice to fix bugs or not, 2) Are equal party to the negotiations, 3) collectively had a whole hell of a lot to say two months ago. 

[JuiceIsLoose]

12 minutes ago, LorenLuke said:

You should probably ask RazBam, given they 1) Are the ones who have the choice to fix bugs or not, 2) Are equal party to the negotiations, 3) collectively had a whole hell of a lot to say two months ago. 

Customers bought from ED. Not from RB. 

[LorenLuke]

6 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Customers bought from ED. Not from RB. 

RB's the one who's not supporting the module they said they'd support. RB is the one whose code it is. RB is the one who puts out bugfixes. RB is the one who's saying they're going to fold their arms and pout rather than do anything for the people who bought the product they made.

[Romandv]

Caught myself thinking that everybody loses:

1) Users with nervousness. For example, I am very offended that all 3 Razbam modules are birthday presents to me. I rarely worry about my money, but I am very trepidatious about any gifts. It's reminiscent of the Middle Ages when everything you bought may not work tomorrow. I believe that one such occasion opens a pandora's box.
2) ED reputation, which said (at least I saw that other users wrote such things) that they have the code and if anything, they will finalize the module themselves. As a result, the money is refunded only to a select few, and there will be no refund in styme for sure. I don't want to write again “no pre-orders”, as ED modules are definitely not worth worrying about - everything will be fine with them, but I consider third party modules, not their own, to be their strong point.
3) The reputation of RB, which has not received money for a year. Ok, if you didn't get the money, why did you wait YEARS? Why couldn't this have been said before the release of F15E? I think there were a lot of sales during that year. 

The only way I see to solve the overall problem is to actually provide the code to ED and it would be nice to get an answer to the question: will ED work on the RB modules? If not, why can't I get my money back? Oh and in general, why are these modules still being sold in the store? 

I'd be happy to get any answers at all if only for the sake of freeing my “D” drive of useless products.

(sorry, English is not my native language).

[Blackeye]

17 minutes ago, LorenLuke said:

RB's the one who's not supporting the module they said they'd support. RB is the one whose code it is. RB is the one who puts out bugfixes. RB is the one who's saying they're going to fold their arms and pout rather than do anything for the people who bought the product they made.

None of that matters - we're customers of ED.

Also I'd wager ED said they'd pay RD for the work on the module and the bugfixes and since they're not paying, you can't really call it "pouting" when RB don't want to work for free.

[LorenLuke]

18 minutes ago, Blackeye said:

None of that matters - we're customers of ED.

Also I'd wager ED said they'd pay RD for the work on the module and the bugfixes and since they're not paying, you can't really call it "pouting" when RB don't want to work for free.

None of that matters- work isn't being done, so I'm asking the peeps who are supposed to be doing the work. 

I also wager RB said they'd abide by a contract and then didn't, and since there's a breach of contract you can't really call it 'lack of payment' when you don't follow the terms of your payment.

[Blackeye]

19 minutes ago, LorenLuke said:

None of that matters- work isn't being done, so I'm asking the peeps who are supposed to be doing the work. 

That's not quite correct - the contract is between you and ED and that is what matters and defines who you should talk to. I mean you're free to ask whoever you want, but you don't really have any basis for demands from someone you don't have a contract with.

19 minutes ago, LorenLuke said:

I also wager RB said they'd abide by a contract and then didn't, and since there's a breach of contract you can't really call it 'lack of payment' when you don't follow the terms of your payment.

Well RB thinks they should get paid and ED doesn't - so that's the contested part. And since ED is selling the product I'd call not paying your suppliers lack of payment.

Now if ED wants to withhold money because they claim other damages then they run the risk of RB stopping the work - likely not even by choice because employees will eventually stop working without pay.

But as stated before none of that really matters for us as customers (other than maybe forming personal opinions about those entities) as we deal exclusively with ED.

 

Edited June 2, 2024 by Blackeye

[LorenLuke]

2 minutes ago, Blackeye said:

But as stated before none of that really matters for us as customers (other than maybe forming personal opinions about those entities) as we deal exclusively with ED.

https://store.heatblur.com/products/dcs-f-4-phantom-1

[VpR81]

15 minutes ago, Blackeye said:

Well RB thinks they should get paid and ED doesn't - so that's the contested part. And since ED is selling the product I'd call not paying your suppliers lack of payment.

If RB would be in the right here, they would´ve sued ED over that issue (if it is even true, that they haven´t been payed for almost a year now). They don´t. The arguement i´ve read on the RB discord was "lawyers cost money" while A) there are insurances for these cases EVERY reasonable company has and B) if you sue somebody and win, the other side has to pay your lawyer and all your expenses regarding this case. So in conclusion, i´d say RB does exactly know they are not in the right here and are scared of taking legal actions because they know they would lose any trial. Otherwise they would´ve taking legal actions without anyone noticing in public, instead they choosed the way of going to public and tried to put pressure on ED by using the community as lever. 

And as someone else here in the thread already mentioned, holding back payment is very common in the buisness world when a contractor violates the terms of a contract.

Edited June 2, 2024 by VpR81

[Blackeye]

9 minutes ago, LorenLuke said:

https://store.heatblur.com/products/dcs-f-4-phantom-1

I doubt that's where you bought any Razbam module. You should have used Steam as example but in that case, yes, talk to Steam about a refund.

[Pipe]

If ED has the code for these modules they should be keeping them patched, no if ands or buts. 
They keep selling them as DCS level products so they should maintain them at DCS level, don’t tell me it’s not that simple. 
It seems easy enough for them to keep taking peoples money for them