waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[alejandr0]

11 minutes ago, rob10 said:

So you want a refund from ED through Steam.  OK, lets say Steam takes a 30% cut (no idea if that's the actual amount, but that seems to be what general consensus is) on every sale.  So ED is already out 30% on what you paid.  Now you want (presumably) 100% back.  I'd pretty much guarantee Steam isn't going to cover the 30%.  So now ED got 30% less for your original purchase in the first place AND has to pay you back a 30% premium (since Steam isn't going to cover that).  So for easy math let's say you paid $100.  ED got $70.  So it's flat out costing them at least $30 more for every refund the authorize through Steam, and the whole $100 is coming out of their pocket.  Like it or not, with the store credit they are offering ED store customers they still have the $100, it's just being moved around.  So trying to claim a "fairness" argument since they are giving ED store customers credit doesn't work.  Even if ED was giving full cash refunds, they'd still be paying an extra $30 to Steam users so where's the fairness even there?

I’m not asking ED to cover Steam’s cut. I’m asking them to acknowledge that Steam customers deserve the same basic fairness as E-shop customers.
They chose to sell on Steam, they benefited from the wider audience and visibility, and with that comes responsibility. If they can't offer a full refund, fine... but offering nothing while E-shop users get credit isn't right. We're not asking for special treatment, just equal respect as paying customers.

This isn’t just about money. It’s about trust.

[Aapje]

9 minutes ago, NineLine said:

That is all you need to remember. There is a confidentiality order in place on this. We have said what we can right now. Thanks

Yet allegedly you've written more on Discord than you have shared here:

So is that indeed a message that you wrote and if so, why can you explicitly state on Discord that the agreement is "not being implemented right now," but are not willing to write it here?

[Oban]

16 minutes ago, Aapje said:

This is not actually a direct answer to the question. 'Acting in good faith' can still mean that ED diverged from their obligations under the settlement agreement, but did so in a way that you consider to be for a good reason and thus still acting in good faith.

For example, let's say that I'm obligated to show up at work at 9 o'clock every day, but one day I get into a car accident and am not able to make it in time. Then I can argue that I got to work as soon as reasonably possible and I thus acted in good faith, but my employer would also have a point that the contract wasn't followed. So then you can get into the murky area of whether the situation truly was a 'force majeure' and the question how this has to be handled.

So did ED follow the settlement contract to the letter, or not?

 ......you're like a broken record. 

You and others are not going to get the answers you want no matter how many times you ask it. 

Once side seems to stick to that confidentiality agreement rigidly, and the and has buttoned up and the pro Razbam crowd hate them for that,  the other side has at least on 3 occasions in 2025 breached this alleged confidentiality clause, claimed there has been no communications, and no settlement/agreement reached and used the court of public opinion to fight their cause..the pro ED crowd hate them for that.

It's comedy gold really.   

[Esac_mirmidon]

Its over. If they dont want to say it now they will be forced by reality soon. Just people cant swallow all in one bite.

 

[ChuckJäger]

this whole thing has been handled so poorly.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Beeing extremely educated, yes, very poorly

[Hammer1-1]

17 minutes ago, Oban said:

 ......you're like a broken record. 

You and others are not going to get the answers you want no matter how many times you ask it. 

Once side seems to stick to that confidentiality agreement rigidly, and the and has buttoned up and the pro Razbam crowd hate them for that,  the other side has at least on 3 occasions in 2025 breached this alleged confidentiality clause, claimed there has been no communications, and no settlement/agreement reached and used the court of public opinion to fight their cause..the pro ED crowd hate them for that.

It's comedy gold really.   

You know what makes me the angriest about this whole thing? Having to defend ED. Those who know, know. ED is like Lockheed Martin: they dont care about your opinion so long as the job gets done and it sells.  I REALLY hate it when ED is in the right, so quit making me defend ED. But Id get mad if someone was using me to make money -on my dime, with my company vehicles and tools, with my customer contracts - as a side gig without my knowledge, blessing, or my benefit. 

[JuiceIsLoose]

5 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

You know what makes me the angriest about this whole thing? Having to defend ED. Those who know, know. ED is like Lockheed Martin: they dont care about your opinion so long as the job gets done and it sells.  I REALLY hate it when ED is in the right, so quit making me defend ED. But Id get mad if someone was using me to make money -on my dime, with my company vehicles and tools, with my customer contracts - as a side gig without my knowledge, blessing, or my benefit. 

You know what’s funny? The only group that’s made money through this entire ordeal is ED. 

Edited Friday at 10:14 PM by JuiceIsLoose

[nilpointer]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

This is not actually a direct answer to the question. 'Acting in good faith' can still mean that ED diverged from their obligations under the settlement agreement, but did so in a way that you consider to be for a good reason and thus still acting in good faith.

For example, let's say that I'm obligated to show up at work at 9 o'clock every day, but one day I get into a car accident and am not able to make it in time. Then I can argue that I got to work as soon as reasonably possible and I thus acted in good faith, but my employer would also have a point that the contract wasn't followed. So then you can get into the murky area of whether the situation truly was a 'force majeure' and the question how this has to be handled.

So did ED follow the settlement contract to the letter, or not?

This kind of armchair level, spurious legal expertise is why this thread is where it is every day. 

Time and time and time again it’s repeated here that what is going to be said has been said, yet you continue to regurgitate the same things as though by typing it for the 400th time you’ll force a change in reality. 
 

Do yourself a favour and go look at some sky.

Edited Friday at 10:25 PM by nilpointer

[Citizen]

3 minutes ago, nilpointer said:

Time and time and time again it’s repeated here that what is going to be said has been said, yet you continue to repeat the same things as though by typing it repeatedly you’ll force a change in reality. 

It's reasonable to doubt the validity of that.

If they're legally not able to discuss, why were they able to claim RB violated IP? If they're muzzled, why were they able to say they've signed an agreement? If the agreement hasn't been implemented as they claim on discord, why can't they discuss it? That cherrypicking more than anything else has soured my viewpoint of ED, and they've been doing it since the start.

[nilpointer]

17 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

You know what makes me the angriest about this whole thing? Having to defend ED. Those who know, know. ED is like Lockheed Martin: they dont care about your opinion so long as the job gets done and it sells.  I REALLY hate it when ED is in the right, so quit making me defend ED. But Id get mad if someone was using me to make money -on my dime, with my company vehicles and tools, with my customer contracts - as a side gig without my knowledge, blessing, or my benefit. 

Love it or hate it, that’s capitalism ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[Oban]

8 minutes ago, Citizen said:

It's reasonable to doubt the validity of that.

If they're legally not able to discuss, why were they able to claim RB violated IP? If they're muzzled, why were they able to say they've signed an agreement? If the agreement hasn't been implemented as they claim on discord, why can't they discuss it? That cherrypicking more than anything else has soured my viewpoint of ED, and they've been doing it since the start.

The confidentiality clause was part of the agreement... not too difficult to understand really. 

[ruxtmp]

This just solidifies my decisions to never buy third party products for this game and just wait till early access is closed. It already takes too long to get a module from a basic early access stage to a somewhat complete state with constant updates breaking third party modules there is too much risk. 

[Fran11player]

hace 1 hora, Aapje dijo:

Yet allegedly you've written more on Discord than you have shared here:

So is that indeed a message that you wrote and if so, why can you explicitly state on Discord that the agreement is "not being implemented right now," but are not willing to write it here?

Ok, then I consider my previous question clarified. No Razbam modules will work in version 3.X.XX unless an agreement is reached.

ED shall prepare huge refounds then.

[Esac_mirmidon]

They are not going to refund anything, except ED credits for the Strike Eagle bought in ED store, no steam refunds

 

[Hammer1-1]

38 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

You know what’s funny? The only group that’s made money through this entire ordeal is ED. 

You telling me that since the F-15E went to sale that Razbam didnt get paid one penny? I find THAT statement funny. Then again, if I caught you taking my customers and doing jobs for them with my tools and not my consent, I wouldnt pay you either. 

Edited Friday at 10:52 PM by Hammer1-1

[Citizen]

46 minutes ago, Oban said:

The confidentiality clause was part of the agreement... not too difficult to understand really. 

ED says the agreement hasn't been implemented. There should be no expectation of confidentiality on a agreement that hasn't been implemented.

[Horns]

2 hours ago, alejandr0 said:

If you find this funny, that’s your call. I’m not here for laughs.
I’m here because I (and others) were left in a mess, and doing nothing just accepts that as normal. I’m not okay with that.

So repeating yourself is your chosen form of protest? Go ahead, I can't wait to see this play out.

[Hammer1-1]

16 minutes ago, Horns said:

So repeating yourself is your chosen form of protest? Go ahead, I can't wait to see this play out.

Complaining serves its purpose. 

[JuiceIsLoose]

1 hour ago, Hammer1-1 said:

You telling me that since the F-15E went to sale that Razbam didnt get paid one penny? I find THAT statement funny. Then again, if I caught you taking my customers and doing jobs for them with my tools and not my consent, I wouldnt pay you either. 

That is literally the entire issue. And ED has admitted it publicly they have withheld payment from RB. They claim it is for alleged breach of IP. But the fact that RB has not been paid at all is not up for dispute by either party. 

[Horns]

17 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Complaining serves its purpose. 

Sure, complaining itself does - repeating oneself, complaining or otherwise, serves no purpose. It was a worthwhile question when he first asked it, but it's already been well and truly answered.

[Seal92]

While ED and RAZBAM throw their tantrums, the rest of us are watching the sim fall apart piece by piece. This isn’t drama—it’s sabotage. No more modules for me — I'm done watching ED and RAZBAM wreck this sim. I believe this company would benefit from new ownership or leadership that could provide the care and direction it currently lacks, won't be long looking at the desperate daily sales.

[NineLine]

36 minutes ago, Horns said:

Sure, complaining itself does - repeating oneself, complaining or otherwise, serves no purpose. It was a worthwhile question when he first asked it, but it's already been well and truly answered.

I am pretty sure the thread has been on repeat for well over a year, but that's what it's for, venting, and I do share feedback with management all the time.

[Horns]

4 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I am pretty sure the thread has been on repeat for well over a year, but that's what it's for, venting, and I do share feedback with management all the time.

Cool cool, I’ll sit back and watch silently 

[NineLine]

Blame us, blame RB, blame both of us, but be nice to each other even if your opinion differs from someone else.

I can't speak for RB (but I hope they feel the same) but we just want to see this resolved and if it were easy it would have been by now.