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

[Horns]

8 minutes ago, Rifter said:

According to your wording this would imply that Razbam could have used a highly emotional accusation merely as a pretext for a calculated strategy for the impending legal battle. Which in turn would make Razbam look even worse than it has already achieved with its unfortunate action.

I don’t see any point in fueling the torch and pitchfork crowd even more.

It might be an unpopular opinion in this thread, but: This is not about someone who did something terribly wrong and now needs to be held accountable. It's about a communication disaster that damaged all parties involved, regardless of who was to blame.

And that is what makes me as a DCS aficionado really sad.

I do believe Razbam's initial statement explaining their decision to suspend support for their modules may have been calculated to try to shift blame for their modules being unsupported to ED. If you see a reason to exclude that as a possibility please say so.

I don't feel any need to stay silent on what I see as a possible motivation for an action simply because it might encourage or validate people who think badly about one party or the other. I understand that you see that differently. I'm not trying to incite any kind of mob action, simply exercising the opportunity to voice my opinion.

In terms of the non-payment vs IP infringement thing, I don't see an obvious villain there, so perhaps we're agreed on that. Razbam's decision to suspend support is a different matter IMO, but I've already had plenty of chance to voice my opinion on that.

[Pipe]

[HWasp]

54 minutes ago, Oban said:

I never stated they hadn't been paid for 5 plus years, I said the development took 5+ years, there's a difference.

Once again, the payment of Razbam employees and subcontractors is a Razbam issue, not an ED one, their terms and conditions of employement were not written and drawn up by ED.

Again, I asked why none of the employees went public about not getting paid by their employee, the same as what RZ did when he stated ED has withheld funds ?

I asked why none of the RB emloyees didn't seek their own legal advice if they claimed they have been working for free for several months, were they still receiving a salary as per their terms and conditions between employer and employee.

There was no evidence presented that employees salaries were tied to payments from clients/3rd parties.

That's not spin, it's asking valid questions on why would you continue to work for several months, without seeking personal legal advice as to your rights?

The spin was the post I originally replied to and not your reply.

Obviously, It's RB's official responsibility to pay their employees, but how does that matter if the root cause is that they simply don't have the money because their primary income was cut?

RB likely communicated to their employees what happened early (an employer would not want to be in a position for a second, where the employees would think, they are not getting their due because of the employer's deliberate decision).

We are talking about a very small company, where everybody likely knows everybody, there are personal ties. Why would they react like that?

Why would an RB employee go legal against RB, knowing the money is simply not there?

The reason for not leaving immidiately is likely, that they actually liked their job, and hoped to be able to continue... If they were not really commited to this, they weren't DCS devs in the first place. Does not seem like easy money to me.

[PhantomHans]

3 hours ago, Mizzy said:

Razbam motives for going public are VERY evasive as to the real reason why ED apparently won't pay them. You are not portraying anything other than your speculation and to say Razbam were being informative is ludicrous in the extreme. Greetings.

Mizzy

I eagerly await ED's explanation of the real true reason why they will not pay Razbam.  I hear only silence.

I eagerly await ED's more informative commentary.  I hear only silence.

[exhausted]

3 hours ago, Mizzy said:

That doesn't appear to be a true reflection at all, a one sided argument in fact. Ask yourself this, why only Razbam ?!!. There are numerous 3rd Parties involved with DCS development, so why just Razbam have they picked on ! your opinion is non sequitur. You are refusing to accept Razbam went public to cause threads like this and their reputation is now doomed, who on earth is ever going to buy another product from them !.

"Razbam went public to be informative" sounds like you have a vested interest in the Company and hardly objective. I signed a NDA with ED several years ago and it was clear what the Contract was. I fell foul of a clause in the NDA and received a polite notice of the breach, they pointed out to me the agreement I signed and settled without dispute. Razbam know full well what they signed and implications if broken directly or indirectly. Razbam motives for going public are VERY evasive as to the real reason why ED apparently won't pay them. You are not portraying anything other than your speculation and to say Razbam were being informative is ludicrous in the extreme. Greetings.

Mizzy

How does it not seem true at all? To answer your question, did you forget about VEAO? Why not Razbam? If my opinion appears to be nonsequitur, it may be that your framing may be so far off base that any reasonable possibility has to follow another track. You can't bring speculation when you yourself are telling others not to speculate, and then use a composition fallacy that just because something was true one time it is true all the time -- everything about the ED-Razbam dispute is entirely different than what you claim to have experienced.

Edited June 16, 2024 by exhausted

[exhausted]

4 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

yeah it only makes you look petty and vindictive. doenst weaken a claim at all...

I don't think it "only" does anything, and same could be said for ED's tightlipped rebuttal. If someone could possibly read ED's response in a positive light, then we sure as heck could find the reasonableness in Razbam's own statement.

[Hammer1-1]

15 minutes ago, exhausted said:

I don't think it "only" does anything, and same could be said for ED's tightlipped rebuttal.

What do you expect them to say?

[unlikely_spider]

14 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

What do you expect them to say?

At the very least, something on the store page for a broken module that as of this point doesn't have specific operational features that are advertised.

[Oban]

50 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

I eagerly await ED's explanation of the real true reason why they will not pay Razbam.  I hear only silence.

I eagerly await ED's more informative commentary.  I hear only silence.

You've been told umpteen times, that ED will not make a statement whilst the dispute is ongoing.

What you want, and what ED's lawyers have said are not compatible.

You're flogging a dead horse.

[draconus]

7 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

At the very least, something on the store page for a broken module that as of this point doesn't have specific operational features that are advertised.

E-shop is not a place for bug trackers but I'd expect some hotfix. What's the plan @BIGNEWY?

[Pipe]

5 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

At the very least, something on the store page for a broken module that as of this point doesn't have specific operational features that are advertised.

If you think about it, brilliant strategy on ED's part. Milk the unsuspecting customer for every dime you can. Ask forgiveness later by offering store credit. Take the money, keep the money = win/win

[Oban]

5 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

At the very least, something on the store page for a broken module that as of this point doesn't have specific operational features that are advertised.

A module that was released in early access, that after each update often breaks things as well as fixing them?

That is the nature of early access, modules are not perfect from the beggining, all that's happening right now is that the updates on the module have been suspended for the time being, the radar freeze suddenly happening from the 13th June I can agree on, but the rest is part and parcel of purchasing an early access module, you're paying for something that's work in progress.

[unlikely_spider]

3 minutes ago, Oban said:

A module that was released in early access, that after each update often breaks things as well as fixing them?

That is the nature of early access, modules are not perfect from the beggining, all that's happening right now is that the updates on the module have been suspended for the time being, the radar freeze suddenly happening from the 13th June I can agree on, but the rest is part and parcel of purchasing an early access module, you're paying for something that's work in progress.

This is not an early access issue.

[Rifter]

1 hour ago, Horns said:

I do believe Razbam's initial statement explaining their decision to suspend support for their modules may have been calculated to try to shift blame for their modules being unsupported to ED. If you see a reason to exclude that as a possibility please say so.

I don't feel any need to stay silent on what I see as a possible motivation for an action simply because it might encourage or validate people who think badly about one party or the other. I understand that you see that differently. I'm not trying to incite any kind of mob action, simply exercising the opportunity to voice my opinion.

In terms of the non-payment vs IP infringement thing, I don't see an obvious villain there, so perhaps we're agreed on that. Razbam's decision to suspend support is a different matter IMO, but I've already had plenty of chance to voice my opinion on that.

I really have no motivation to stop you or others from expressing their opinions. But what I do notice is that rival camps have formed, each working on one side or the other to settle the question of guilt. As if that would change it for the better.
Having one side being very loud and the other side being very quiet causes damage that is even greater than the loss of a 3rd party developer and its modules or than his possible misconduct in the matter and the legal consequences - this damage is the tremendous loss of trust in the DCS ecosystem itself.
Restoring that trust on the customer side will not be accomplished with an encouraging letter from Nick Grey. It will cost a lot of time and money to iron this out.
Our biggest concern should not be whether the modules can be kept alive and whether Ron will be nailed to the cross (after grabbing into his empty pockets). Our biggest concern should be how many resources are left on ED side for further development in the coming period while trying to straighten out this communication disaster. ED is a company of a couple of hundreds of people. This all hurts them a lot. Some people here seem to seriously believe that ED has extra-wide suspenders in comparison to Razbam and that they only need to snap them to solve the problem.

My own mistake in this discussion is that i am often blind to many people's need for drama and soap opera (= speculation). Should have grabbed that bag with popcorn instead…

 

Edited June 16, 2024 by Rifter

[Nightdare]

1 hour ago, PhantomHans said:

I eagerly await ED's explanation of the real true reason why they will not pay Razbam.  I hear only silence.

I eagerly await ED's more informative commentary.  I hear only silence.

 

Why don't you ask RB why? They're the ones that threw that statement out in the open

No context, no evidence, nothing, just "ED is bad to us, as a result we need to be bad to ED and use their customers as punishment by proxy"

[Oban]

23 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

This is not an early access issue.

"At the very least, something on the store page for a broken module that as of this point doesn't have specific operational features that are advertised. "

It's not out of early access, so there's lots of things are are not operational and will be addedd according to the roadmap, is what I meant.

lets see what it says on the F15E page shall we?

The subject of this study level simulation is the F-15E Suite 4E+ software installed in F-15E's in around 2003.

Key Features include:

• Advanced Flight Model that provides realistic performance and flight characteristics for the F-15E with P&W F100-PW-229 engines. --- Currently working as advertised
• Highly detailed external 3D model and textures for the most accurate F-15E currently available in any simulation software. --- Currently as advertised
• Highly detailed and accurate 6 DOF cockpit based on 3D scanned objects with high-resolution textures, specular and bump mapping, and mouse-interactive controls. -- as advertised
• Detailed and thorough simulation of the F-15E’s AN/APG-70 Radar. -- currently borked due to out of date dll
• Includes a free copy of Be Afraid of the Dark by Steve Davies about the inception, development, and operational history of the F-15E up to 2002. -- as advertised

Training material includes:

• A set of interactive training missions covering all the most important instruments, weapons and aspects of using the aircraft. -- as advertised
• Full manual for the aircraft. -- as advertised
• A set of single missions for Singleplayer, Multiplayer and Multicrew. -- as advertised

During Early Access:

• Additional interactive training missions covering the most important aircraft systems. -- as advertised
• Additional chapters for the DCS: F-15E flight manual -- as advertised
• A free story-driven campaign built by Baltic Dragon -- as advertised
• More Instant Action missions, Single Missions, and network missions. -- as advertised
  
  So which specific operational features are you talking about that were advertised, are not working ( I acknowledged the radar already) ??

 

[nessuno0505]

7 ore fa, Rifter ha scritto:

in the end you are helpless anyway and cannot change the situation.

I can let ED know I'm no more interested in having RB as a 3rd party.

4 ore fa, Mizzy ha scritto:

who on earth is ever going to buy another product from them !.

Moreover. Even if they stay, they are doomed anyway.

4 ore fa, Mizzy ha scritto:

ED will undoubtedly be in a better position to protect their IP, it's their core business afterall.

At least I can be sure that as long as DCS exists their modules will remain.

 

At the end it doesn't matter who's right. Even if RB was right, they made the first public move deciding to discontinue support, and this can be a breach of contract. If ED removes the modules from the store, it also commits an anti-contractual action. Why should they, if they have a legal advantage at this point? Keeping this discussion open on the forum is also a way of warning potential buyers: if ED can't, we can. Of course, if the modules continue to lose parts and are not fixable, perhaps at some point the situation will change; for the SE ED is already giving some sort of refund.

Edited June 16, 2024 by nessuno0505

[unlikely_spider]

7 minutes ago, Oban said:

So which specific operational features are you talking about that were advertised, are not working ( I acknowledged the radar already) ??

The radar. Why does there have to be two? This is a fundamental component that is advertised that is not working.

[nessuno0505]

11 minuti fa, nessuno0505 ha scritto:

Why should they, if they have a legal advantage at this point?

In addition to this, even assuming the first anti-contractual action has been ED to stop payments, why should RB, having the advantage, have responded with another breach of contract? 

Edited June 16, 2024 by nessuno0505

[Oban]

1 minute ago, unlikely_spider said:

The radar. Why does there have to be two? This is a fundamental component that is advertised that is not working.

At the time of the dispute and cesation of updates , the radar was working, as were all the other features advertised, nobody expected the .dll to expire on the 14th, and I don't believe Razabm would have know this was going to happen either ( it wouldn't help their situation if they did)

You're talking about something that happened on Friday, and it's also the weekend, where on Friday/Saturday ED were aware, and were looking to find a solution, but you want them to put a disclaimer on the page immediately , when there's a workaround for the time being that works ?

It's frustrating for sure, but patience clearly isn't a virtue for many, if it doesn't work as you want it, why not delete it, ask for a refund ?

I'm pretty sure that even with the borked radar, there's still plenty of things to practice that don't need the radar, don't know about you, but I can still practice basics, god knows, I need to practice those !!

I'm optimistic that all will be resolved, and things will get back to normal.


On a different note, ED's last 2 updates borked missiles and weapons on many 3rd party modules such as currenthills , they're not quittiing or throwing their teddies out of prams, they're working on solutions, and being patient

[unlikely_spider]

1 minute ago, Oban said:

At the time of the dispute and cesation of updates , the radar was working, as were all the other features advertised, nobody expected the .dll to expire on the 14th, and I don't believe Razabm would have know this was going to happen either ( it wouldn't help their situation if they did)

You're talking about something that happened on Friday, and it's also the weekend, where on Friday/Saturday ED were aware, and were looking to find a solution, but you want them to put a disclaimer on the page immediately , when there's a workaround for the time being that works ?

It's frustrating for sure, but patience clearly isn't a virtue for many, if it doesn't work as you want it, why not delete it, ask for a refund ?

I'm pretty sure that even with the borked radar, there's still plenty of things to practice that don't need the radar, don't know about you, but I can still practice basics, god knows, I need to practice those !!

I'm optimistic that all will be resolved, and things will get back to normal.


On a different note, ED's last 2 updates borked missiles and weapons on many 3rd party modules such as currenthills , they're not quittiing or throwing their teddies out of prams, they're working on solutions, and being patient

The difference between other issues and this is the fact that this is a module that is in worse than in stasis. This is exactly what many predicted as soon as the Razbam issue came to light - a module that is not only being ignored each update, but one that will actually get worse with each update. And the predictions are proving correct at this moment.

I think you know the difference between the typical early access experience and this situation.

[Oban]

4 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

The difference between other issues and this is the fact that this is a module that is in worse than in stasis. This is exactly what many predicted as soon as the Razbam issue came to light - a module that is not only being ignored each update, but one that will actually get worse with each update. And the predictions are proving correct at this moment.

I think you know the difference between the typical early access experience and this situation.

The last update had nothing to do with the F15E radar though, all was working fine after the last update.

Feel free to be a moral hoover and be full of doom and gloom, I'm going to hold onto the hope that common sense and cool heads prevail, and we get a resolution that doesn't pit us against each other on the forums, but rather in the air in our favourite modules !!

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, unlikely_spider said:

At the very least, something on the store page for a broken module that as of this point doesn't have specific operational features that are advertised.

why? its listed as early access, you get what you get. that means you get the good with the bad at your own risk.

Edited June 16, 2024 by Hammer1-1

[unlikely_spider]

7 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

why? its listed as early access, you get what you get. that means you get the good with the bad at your own risk.

 

Like I said to the other guy, I think you know the difference between this situation and the normal early access experience.

[afnav130]

6 hours ago, Oban said:

How about this Instead of the slanging match that unfolded ?

DISCLAIMER:
"Dear Customers, after seeking legal advice due to situation outwith our control, we have been advised to suspend all activity in the updating of our products until further notice.
We deeply regret having to take this action, and are hopeful that the matter can be resolved as quickly as possible "

Yours sincerley
Ron Zambrano
CEO Razbam LLC


That would have put the ball in their court, there would have been no finger pointing, no hearsay, no speculation, no public spat.

And their lawyers would have dealt with their grievance.

Not all the lawyers posting here in the court of public opinion.

You only know what you think you know.

I know what I know based upon the facts. I have former and some current .mil members and also commissioned officers in the USAF former and current who are saying they haven't been paid. Now, who didn't pay them? ED or RB? Nobody knows the truth to that without all the cards out on the table. I will tend to take their word since I was an AF Officer as well and usually lean towards trusting them and certainly more than you or quite frankly anyone defending ED to the hilt. 

Now as I said all this could be rendered moot if one party would plainly show in detail something that 100 percent refutes that. So yes, I know what I know based upon all available information.