waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 minute ago, Tank50us said:

I mean... there is an option... one that's been brought up several times, and now has a whole thread in the wishlist section: Make new versions, and if someone hasn't gotten a refund, they get the new toy for free or significantly reduced cost

'Making new versions' is a very tall hurdle to cover. Who is going to do it?
The ED teams working on ED Projects?
The Third Party teams working on their projects?

Frankly, if RB going belly up were to delay my A-6 Intruder, I'd be ready to throw hands.

The ideal solutions are either store credits or getting RB back in, in some form. Beyond that is dicey. 

[Oban]

1 minute ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Frankly, if RB going belly up were to delay my A-6 Intruder, I'd be ready to throw hands.

Why would the imminent release of the AI A6E Intruder by heatblur be effected by any Razbam shenanigans? 

[Tank50us]

1 minute ago, Oban said:

Why would the imminent release of the AI A6E Intruder by heatblur be effected by any Razbam shenanigans? 

I think he means if HB were handed the MudHen and told to get it working again it'd delay the implementation of the player-drivern Intruder.

[Koziolek]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

If you don't own any you're late to the party.

Which means they are dead.  New customers are also ED customers, so if they cannot buy them it means these modules are not part of DCS World anymore. They are just on life support

Edited Sunday at 06:11 PM by Koziolek

[nessuno0505]

Razbam is Veao 2.0, the only difference is that they are administering it to us a little at a time, to make the pill less bitter. Razbam modules are lost, they are no longer for sale, they will never be updated. Razbam has no intention of returning to DCS, just as it never had any intention of returning to MSFS. Certainly, this whole story does not make me want to purchase new modules, I myself am not buying any; however no software lasts forever, we have to come to terms with it. This time it's Razbam's turn. Sooner or later we will have to go back to enjoying DCS for what it is, and let go of the past. Chi ha avuto ha avuto ha avuto, chi ha dato ha dato ha dato.

[alejandr0]

30 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

I mean... there is an option... one that's been brought up several times, and now has a whole thread in the wishlist section: Make new versions, and if someone hasn't gotten a refund, they get the new toy for free or significantly reduced cost

That sounds like a reasonable long-term option on paper ... but let’s be honest: with ED and other devs already stretched thin on current projects, creating entirely new versions of all four modules would likely take years. Especially if they aim for high quality and feature parity.
So while it might be a solution eventually, it doesn’t help those left in limbo right now. People paid for working products.

And will some people be able to trust ED to provide them with substitutes... which I cannot believe.

Edited Sunday at 06:32 PM by alejandr0

[Czar66]

28 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

I think he means if HB were handed the MudHen and told to get it working again it'd delay the implementation of the player-drivern Intruder.

I really hope no one makes that happen, and no one outside HB should have any authority to make that happen. This is fairy tale, imo.

Messing with Heatblur's project schedule/flow to introduce a foreign body into their workflow should be forbidden.
HB are currently the biggest beam of hope on 3rd party around and things get reaaally slow when projects are too much for teams to handle.

The SE is nice, but I'd rather leave the people in charge of maintaining the F-4E and the Tomcat alone.

Edited Sunday at 06:36 PM by Czar66

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

22 minutes ago, Oban said:

Why would the imminent release of the AI A6E Intruder by heatblur be effected by any Razbam shenanigans? 

Not the AI, but rather the full module of the A-6. Dumping a totally new module onto a third party is asking for trouble since those teams have their resources and workload allocated for their own projects. Plus, what if they got the MiG-19? Something that lacked the hype that the Mudhen got?

You're basically being asked to become the custodian of it, but without the benefit of potential returns.

[bfr]

21 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

I think he means if HB were handed the MudHen and told to get it working again it'd delay the implementation of the player-drivern Intruder.

Who is it to say they would be interested in taking it on anyway? 

[Jayhawk1971]

Hypothetically, should Heatblur indeed be able to obtain the rights (code, docs and all) for the F-15E, they could very well hire (full time or project-based) the devs that made the Mudhen for RB, and just be responsible for overall project management. That wouldn't interfere with their schedule all that much. Those devs could finally get paid fully for their hard work. And who knows, maybe the gentleman who re-created the AN/APG-70 might be able to take a look at its cousin, the APG-71 (wink wink, nudge nudge)?  

Hypothetically. 

[hitman]

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

This is, to me, absolutely on target.

We can establish either party is the dastardly villain, stroking their comical handle bar mustache, and stealing into the night all we want. It's been very well established that RB did breach contract. To try and weasel around this fact is to not understand business and what has to be done to protect a brand.

However, where does that get us, the consumers? We know who to blame, but that hardly gives us a measure of confidence. What's worse is the lack of actual solution that benefits the paying customer. We clearly need more than just "Well it'll work until an undetermined date in the future."

It's nice to know that they'll work, but what about the point at which they don't? What about the point in which they're removed from the software all together? Do we just get an apology? The BP episode of South Park comes to mind in that case: Soohhhrrreeehh.

We're going to need something, not much, really. I wonder how many would be satisfied if ED says they intend to do something to compensate us in the event of total module failure.

to be fair, these modules are probably well beyond their shelf life. How long can one expect to see these modules last per contract? Indefinitely is kind of pragmatic.

[Mizzy]

7 hours ago, Aapje said:

Because they are not actually facts. They are the claims by one party in the conflict, who obviously has a strong incentive to present the situation in a way where they look the best.

There has been no judge who has vetted those claims and established to what extent they are right or wrong, and what important details are being left out of that narrative, nor is there evidence given for most of EDs claims, so we can vet the claims ourselves.

Until you accept that you are biased and don't actually tell the truth, but simply parrot ED's claims, you are going to be continuously frustrated with those who won't just assume that one side of the conflict is 100% right and honest, and the other side is 100% wrong and dishonest.

I do have a tendency to put more stock into actual evidence, than claims that don't have any evidence behind them, although I am critical of which stuff is released and what evidence is not released.

This is simply a lie. I don't. Again, with your immense bias, it must seem like anyone who doesn't 100% buy into EDs narrative must instead believe Razbam, but that is a you problem.

This excessively broad confidentiality clause is not actually in the interest of us consumers, since it limits the extent to which we can hold the various parties accountable for their actions and make informed decisions. For example, there are people here who believe that they will be safe from such shenanigans if they don't buy product made by RB. There are also people who refuse to buy any third party module. And there are people making other choices yet again.

Yet for all of these choices, there is a lack of solid information to make a fully informed choice.

That you unquestionably back the confidentiality clause seems to be a case of Stockholm Syndrome, where you mistakenly believe that whatever is in EDs interest, must be in the interest of consumers.

This is simply a lie. Obviously a lot of stuff they have has not been leaked, beyond just the contracts.

Secondly, what was allegedly leaked is not a cease and desist letter, but a letter of demand.

How do you know that they didn't seek legal guidance from the beginning? An assumption with zero proof.

Which he may not be allowed to do due to the confidentiality clause. A lot of your arguments are some sort of bizarre bipolar vacillation between the claim that Razbam must obey the confidentiality clause and complaints that they are not leaking more than they are. You really need to make up your mind.

Also note that it's EDs position that as DCS customers, we are not supposed to care about or comment on what happens over on the commercial military side of ED. So why are you blaming RB for playing by EDs rules this time?

False. I'm very careful not to do that.

We have no hard evidence that RB broke their contract. So this is not fact, but an allegation.

We have no evidence of a cease and desist. You seem to be ignorant of the difference between a letter of demand and a cease and desist. Furthermore, the allegedly leaked letter of demand has not been confirmed as true by any of the parties involved and ED tells us to not to assume this (but ED also refuses to clarify whether the leaked documents are real). This is also a good example of your inconsistency, because you attack me for putting some stock in the leaked documents, but here you are clearly assuming that the leaked document is real. If you are allowed to assume that, then why would it be wrong for others to do so? Clearly you only object to people using the leaked documents as evidence for claims that you dislike.

We don't actually have hard evidence that (most of) the leaks are from Razbam, although it seems a very reasonable assumption. But still just an assumption. Note that ED has also made statements that most likely violate those very same confidentiality clauses, but you don't seem to care about that.

Your final sentence is again not a fact, since the claim by one side seems to be that they did accept the settlement agreement, but that ED didn't follow the agreement. Also, if you had any objectivity at all, you would realize that ED can also be accused of using the community as a weapon, based on how they communicate to the public.

I have just watched the most amazing game of football with England's Lionesses against Spain, real bad ass football, sorry, where was I. oh yes I remember, some of you just have far too much time on your hands. How long did it take you to write all that drivel ?  I'm only kidding 

Mizzy

[draconus]

42 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

Which means they are dead.  New customers are also ED customers, so if they cannot buy them it means these modules are not part of DCS World anymore. They are just on life support

They may be dead to you but not for many of us who still fly them and would gladly continue to do so in DCS.

[zerO_crash]

I seriously hope that ED finally fixes its business model and, in particular, the contract scheme with 3rd parties, as this is in fact ridiculous (so far). I am not even remotely confident that Razbam's modules will last through 2.9.X, let alone into a prospective 3.0 build (ED doesn't even make a promise past 2.9.X). Effectively, that means dead modules. If we consider how much time is invested into learning a module, getting stick time and onward, then it is time poorly invested if one is to figure "despite our best intentions, it is what it is"...

 

I really hope that third time's the charm for ED here, otherwise, it will become harder and harder for me to solidify expensive hardware investments (and continued sim support), if I'm to find out that future product lineup will shrink even more. This is not good at all!

Edited yesterday at 07:38 PM by zerO_crash

[bfr]

52 minutes ago, hitman said:

to be fair, these modules are probably well beyond their shelf life. How long can one expect to see these modules last per contract? Indefinitely is kind of pragmatic.

Not really. The Harrier is the oldest of them (and only the original A-10 is older in terms of full fidelity fixed wing DCS modules) but also had a significant amount of work done on it a few years back. Then comes the Mirage 2000, which again had quite a big rehash after a few years if memory serves. And the F-15E is no age at all and seemingly a solid foundation if someone did want to take it on and try and finish it.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, bfr said:

Who is it to say they would be interested in taking it on anyway? 

Yeah, that's a huge assumption and not one based on good evidence. 

1 hour ago, hitman said:

to be fair, these modules are probably well beyond their shelf life. How long can one expect to see these modules last per contract? Indefinitely is kind of pragmatic.

The MiG-21 is still here and is older than all of them. It's one thing to expect updates and new things, but we're really just asking for them to be made available and usable. There was absolutely no hope we were ever getting the MiG-19S since RB flip-flopped on that actual promise for years. But, that doesn't mean I'm willing to give up the -19P just because it's old. Same with the Mirage 2000. Even the older versions of the A-10C and KA-50 are still here.

No one is wanting free updates to their capabilities and content, they just want them functional.

Edited Sunday at 08:17 PM by MiG21bisFishbedL

[MAXsenna]

I have just watched the most amazing game of football with England's Lionesses against Spain, real bad ass football, sorry, where was I. oh yes I remember, some of you just have far too much time on your hands. How long did it take you to write all that drivel ?  I'm only kidding 
Mizzy

Congrats!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

I seriously hope that ED finally fixes its business model and, in particular, the contract scheme with 3rd parties, as this is in fact ridiculous (so far). I am not even remotely confident that Razbam's modules will last through 2.9.X, let alone into a propective 3.0 future (ED doesn't even make a promise past 2.9.X). Effectively, that means dead modules. If we consider how much time is invested into learning a module, getting stick time and onward, then it is time poorly invested if one is to figure "despite our best intentions, it is what it is"...
 
I really hope that third time's the charm for ED here, otherwise, it will become harder and harder for me to solidify expensive hardware investments (and continued sim support), if I'm to find out that future product lineup will shrink even more. This is not good at all!

Agree 100%!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Beirut]

43 minutes ago, draconus said:

They may be dead to you but not for many of us who still fly them and would gladly continue to do so in DCS.

 

Indeed. I will fly my Strike Eagle and Harrier until the last possible moment.

 

And after that last possible moment, if they are unusable, I'd like to see some ED love come my way as a kind of "apology". But I can't imagine what form that would take. A beer would be nice. 

[bfr]

3 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Yeah, that's a huge assumption and not one based on good evidence. 

And one that seems to be a common one in threads like this.

Firstly it would seem unlikely the RB/DCS relationship is truly gone that the IP for the modules will just be handed over to someone. Whether the code was given away or bought from RB, it is still a business decision for DCS or one of the external developers whether to take it on or not.  Mostly will they ever make more back  in sales than it costs them in reallocated/acquired resource to take a module on or not?

[BittuCNGT]

Just asking are ED and Razbam paying the lawyers by the hour of them dealing with the issue or wholly for the issue? (just out of curiosity)

[MAXsenna]

Just asking are ED and Razbam paying the lawyers by the hour of them dealing with the issue or wholly for the issue? (just out of curiosity)

You're not seriously thinking you'll get an answer?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[BittuCNGT]

1 minute ago, MAXsenna said:

You're not seriously thinking you'll get an answer?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

I know that there wont be a reply, but trying is not bad right?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

11 minutes ago, bfr said:

And one that seems to be a common one in threads like this.

Firstly it would seem unlikely the RB/DCS relationship is truly gone that the IP for the modules will just be handed over to someone. Whether the code was given away or bought from RB, it is still a business decision for DCS or one of the external developers whether to take it on or not.  Mostly will they ever make more back  in sales than it costs them in reallocated/acquired resource to take a module on or not?

It's one made out of (an understandable) ignorance of the gears that grind away in software development. Were it that simple, ED would've sought out to hire more developers capable of supporting these modules and brought them in house long ago. If they had the legal ability to do so? I'm not sure we'd be seeing outfits like Heatblur, Orbx, or even Razbam involved in the first place.

2 minutes ago, BittuCNGT said:

I know that there wont be a reply, but trying is not bad right?

I'm a firm believer in cynicism being a lazy position, so kudos for the optimism!

Then again, you're hoping you get an answer from a person. Are lawyers even human anymore? 

[Kang]

It is, to be fair, one of the more amusing questions to repeat.

[BittuCNGT]

here is my hypothetical suggestion

Let both the heads (only the heads or whole team excluding lawyers) of ED and RB meet at a coffee shop in the morning then let them both discuss the issue, come to a mutual agreement (good or bad not an issue) then discuss with their respective teams , meet again and share opinions and finalise what to do in words between the 2 and then bring the legal people into the matter to legalise it (staying together or breaking up as i think these are only the options they will be having).

just saying.