waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[bfr]

7 hours ago, Aapje said:

We have no idea what they did during that period.

From a consumer's POV then precisely nothing changed. No comms that work would be resuming. No updates to modules. Not even them going back on sale in their current state.  Bear in mind that even if RB intended to start work again at the earliest opportunity then they would have to get people back on board and the lead time (assuming their previous devs even wanted to come back) for that could be above and beyond that six month period.

Edited yesterday at 06:34 AM by bfr

[Goetsch]

1 hour ago, Dangerzone said:

It's frustrating to potentially lose access to something you've paid for and used for years. 

But realistically, for 3 of the 4 modules, they've been available and widely used for a long time. Issuing refunds for long-used products is complicated — especially when there's no clear consensus on who's responsible. Is ED, after passing on payment to Razbam supposed to refund what they've already paid Razbam and pay out of their own pockets? 

The F-15E is a unique case, and credit to ED for offering store credits. That shows some accountability. But for the rest...

I get it - as a consumer, it sucks too. But the situation is that this is bad for all involved. No one is going to win out of this. It's going to hurt everyone. And that's the reality of it. We're all going to lose, consumer, ED, and Razbam. Expectations should be adjusted accordingly.

But it's also worth noting that the 'other sim' doesn't support module support between major versions and people may need to buy new modules for the newer versions. 3rd party devs may or may not support updates between - but that's up to the 3rd party dev's, not the 'big name company' that can't be mentioned here. Really, if ED drops support come 3.0 - they're actually only doing what 'the other sim' does anyway. If they carry on the majority of modules through 3.0 - that's actually unusual. If anything - shouldn't that be recognised for the good will that it is? If anything - DCS supporting their modules through major versions deserves recognition that it's more unusual. I'd hate to see ED do a good deed, and it being used as a rod for their back. 

On the other hand... I would happily pay for a Huey v2 in DCS 3.0 if it was updated. 

I’m not opposed to refunds being issued as store credit, but since I use the Steam version, that option isn’t available to me.

Most of my RB aircraft were purchased after the release of the F-15E, so I’ve only had them for about a year. And to be honest, the quality and state of RB’s modules have been quite poor for a significant portion of that time.

Now, let’s imagine the worst-case scenario actually happens—how many of us would still feel enthusiastic or confident enough to continue buying aircraft from third-party developers? We never know when an unexpected dispute might arise, potentially leading to development being halted entirely. Even if we continue playing DCS, the only way to avoid this kind of risk would be to stick to buying modules developed by ED themselves.

This would clearly result in losses for everyone involved.

[bfr]

12 minutes ago, Goetsch said:

I’m not opposed to refunds being issued as store credit, but since I use the Steam version, that option isn’t available to me.

Most of my RB aircraft were purchased after the release of the F-15E, so I’ve only had them for about a year. And to be honest, the quality and state of RB’s modules have been quite poor for a significant portion of that time.

Now, let’s imagine the worst-case scenario actually happens—how many of us would still feel enthusiastic or confident enough to continue buying aircraft from third-party developers? We never know when an unexpected dispute might arise, potentially leading to development being halted entirely. Even if we continue playing DCS, the only way to avoid this kind of risk would be to stick to buying modules developed by ED themselves.

This would clearly result in losses for everyone involved.

There is always an element of risk in such purchases.   For example I had a couple of mid-priced add-ons for FS9 back in the day and the publisher for those (Phoenix) went under and their products were lost to me the moment I had to reinstall them (the validation servers for the installers went with them).

If DCS themselves went under we'd also all be screwed pretty quickly. Which isn't entirely beyond reason as its a relatively niche product at the end of the day and everyone seems to live somewhat hand to mouth.

[PhantomHans]

3 hours ago, Oban said:

Sounds a lot like buying a car, then leaving it in the garage for 10 years and expecting it to work as it did on day one, then after 10 years of depreciation decide that because you never used it, expect to get the same value back... 

Sure, sure...

 

Ofc I didn't buy in until 2023 so it's not a 10 year old car to me, and I'm not the guy who decided to break the car.

[bfr]

24 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

Sure, sure...

 

Ofc I didn't buy in until 2023 so it's not a 10 year old car to me, and I'm not the guy who decided to break the car.

Would you be happier with a base platform that was constrained by never ever being able to cause a breaking change to a now unmaintained third party module?  No one broke your car, its more the case that no one is willing to maintain the RB modules currently to keep step with the underlying DCS platform.

[MAXsenna]

Sure, sure...
 
Ofc I didn't buy in until 2023 so it's not a 10 year old car to me, and I'm not the guy who decided to break the car.

Well, it sort of is. The model was made ten years ago, and the subcontractors that made the special necessary mandatory parts to keep it running doesn't exists anymore. Tough luck!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, bfr said:

From a consumer's POV then precisely nothing changed. No comms that work would be resuming. No updates to modules. Not even them going back on sale in their current state.  Bear in mind that even if RB intended to start work again at the earliest opportunity then they would have to get people back on board and the lead time (assuming their previous devs even wanted to come back) for that could be above and beyond that six month period.

We actually don't know if any work has been done. For example, one possibility is that Razbam has a patch ready, but that they are unwilling to give it to ED because they feel that the conditions are not met. Another possibility is that no work has been done yet. We don't know.

[PhantomHans]

11 minutes ago, bfr said:

Would you be happier with a base platform that was constrained by never ever being able to cause a breaking change to a now unmaintained third party module?  No one broke your car, its more the case that no one is willing to maintain the RB modules currently to keep step with the underlying DCS platform.

It seems like RB is quite willing to maintain them in order to keep selling them, but ED is unable or unwilling to pay them.

7 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Well, it sort of is. The model was made ten years ago, and the subcontractors that made the special necessary mandatory parts to keep it running doesn't exists anymore. Tough luck!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

I'm just going to add you to my ignore list.  Go ahead and add me to yours.  We'll both be happier.

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, bfr said:

If DCS themselves went under we'd also all be screwed pretty quickly.

Honestly, if that happened, the sim would simply be frozen at a given point in development, with no further official updates. It'd be a highly flawed, but still enjoyable experience, which is what it is right now. I suspect the community would attempt to fix some issues by modding, and eventually means of dubious legality would be applied to patch the underlying engine. 

The problem here is 3rd party modules being left behind as the sim develops. This is a very different thing from sim development itself stopping.

17 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

It seems like RB is quite willing to maintain them in order to keep selling them, but ED is unable or unwilling to pay them.

ED has been quite clear they have a settlement of some nature, and that they're adhering to it in good faith. While we don't know the terms, I don't think it's ED dragging their feet.

[bfr]

16 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Honestly, if that happened, the sim would simply be frozen at a given point in development, with no further official updates. It'd be a highly flawed, but still enjoyable experience, which is what it is right now. I suspect the community would attempt to fix some issues by modding, and eventually means of dubious legality would be applied to patch the underlying engine. 

The problem here is 3rd party modules being left behind as the sim develops. This is a very different thing from sim development itself stopping.

ED has been quite clear they have a settlement of some nature, and that they're adhering to it in good faith. While we don't know the terms, I don't think it's ED dragging their feet.

You'd potentially have no licence servers though if they went under. So it'd be dead to everyone in a week or whatever the maximum offline period is.

[tzui]

45 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

It seems like RB is quite willing to maintain them in order to keep selling them, but ED is unable or unwilling to pay them.

I'm just going to add you to my ignore list.  Go ahead and add me to yours.  We'll both be happier.

I also think that the reason there is no information at all is most likely because they cannot afford to pay them. The fact that they had to extend the summer sale also leads me to believe that this may not just be the end of the Razbam modules.

[Shibbyland]

2 minutes ago, tzui said:

I also think that the reason there is no information at all is most likely because they cannot afford to pay them. The fact that they had to extend the summer sale also leads me to believe that this may not just be the end of the Razbam modules.

Yea I also thought the number of sales is getting excessive. At this point they may as well just make the sale price the actual price of their products and not have sales.

It's a bit suss.

[BIGNEWY]

4 minutes ago, Shibbyland said:

Yea I also thought the number of sales is getting excessive. At this point they may as well just make the sale price the actual price of their products and not have sales.

It's a bit suss.

We have always had lots of sales, you are reading to much into it or to much reddit. DCS continues to grow and we continue to develop.

thanks  

[Oban]

3 hours ago, PhantomHans said:

Sure, sure...

 

Ofc I didn't buy in until 2023 so it's not a 10 year old car to me, and I'm not the guy who decided to break the car.

And the Garage didn't break them either. 

[Aapje]

13 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

ED has been quite clear they have a settlement of some nature, and that they're adhering to it in good faith. While we don't know the terms, I don't think it's ED dragging their feet.

Keep in mind that this is merely what they are claiming and that 'good faith' is one of these vague terms that is rather meaningless unless it comes from an independent third party like a judge. People tend to see it as good faith on their part even if they put their own interests above those of others, because that's just how people are.

Do you think that ED (or anyone else) would ever say about themselves that they acted in bad faith? Since almost no one ever says that they acted in bad faith, it is also not worth that much if people say that they acted in good faith.

[Dragon1-1]

36 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Do you think that ED (or anyone else) would ever say about themselves that they acted in bad faith? 

They'd be more reluctant to say that they are, indeed, adhering to the settlement. If they made such a claim it would, if it was false, be a potential liability and something for RAZBAM's lawyers to bite into. Note that Ron's ramblings, for all their skewedness, had not contained any statement of fact that wasn't true. ED had made a statement of fact here, and there's no reason to doubt it.

2 hours ago, bfr said:

You'd potentially have no licence servers though if they went under. So it'd be dead to everyone in a week or whatever the maximum offline period is.

In such situations, the IP typically gets sold off (see the other sim, minus the source leak). It'd likely go to some shady corporation only interested in continuing to get money from module sales while putting absolutely zero effort into maintenance other than keeping the license servers running. As long as no serious competition arises, sales will continue at some level, which, once the small cost of acquiring the IP at a bankrupcy auction is paid off, are basically free money.

[Oban]

46 minutes ago, Aapje said:

People tend to see it as good faith on their part even if they put their own interests above those of others, because that's just how people are.

Thats how business's act never mind people, they put their own interests above others. 

ED put their own interests above others
Razbam put their own interests above others
 

[bfr]

2 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

In such situations, the IP typically gets sold off (see the other sim, minus the source leak). It'd likely go to some shady corporation only interested in continuing to get money from module sales while putting absolutely zero effort into maintenance other than keeping the license servers running. As long as no serious competition arises, sales will continue at some level, which, once the small cost of acquiring the IP at a bankrupcy auction is paid off, are basically free money.

Yes it might get sold off and taken on as a going concern by someone else but it isn't an absolute given.

[bfr]

4 hours ago, Aapje said:

We actually don't know if any work has been done. For example, one possibility is that Razbam has a patch ready, but that they are unwilling to give it to ED because they feel that the conditions are not met. Another possibility is that no work has been done yet. We don't know.

You're right, we don't. No evidence work hadn't resumed and no evidence it did either. And given RBs previous comms style of trying to steer the narrative then I'd be astounded if they had some work ready to ship and hadn't mentioned it.

[spacefox]

The legal gymnastics are hilarious on this thread.  The entertainment value is gold.

 

Software gets old and things happen and vendors change (disagreement/drama can happen).  I mean is anyone using Windows XP these days (why aren't people banging MS's door for 20 yr operating system).  Yeah, I had 3 or 4 of their planes but I never got to it as they didn't update regularly and for me that was a flag.  Anyway, other epic modules work and DCS is one hell of an amazing simulation product especially in VR.

 

Mastery of one aircraft just for simulation will take years for me.

 

 

 

 

[Gizmo03]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb spacefox:

The legal gymnastics are hilarious on this thread.  The entertainment value is gold.

 

Software gets old and things happen and vendors change (disagreement/drama can happen).  I mean is anyone using Windows XP these days (why aren't people banging MS's door for 20 yr operating system).  Yeah, I had 3 or 4 of their planes but I never got to it as they didn't update regularly and for me that was a flag.  Anyway, other epic modules work and DCS is one hell of an amazing simulation product especially in VR.

 

Mastery of one aircraft just for simulation will take years for me.

 

 

 

 

Maybe it's not that entertaining anymore for you when one of the epic modules you mastered after years suddenly gets abandoned and might stop to work soon.

Edited yesterday at 04:44 PM by Gizmo03

[Dragon1-1]

28 minutes ago, spacefox said:

I mean is anyone using Windows XP these days (why aren't people banging MS's door for 20 yr operating system).

Sure they are, many XP machines are kept around for various reasons, usually off the internet (which was not a core feature back in the day). Because there's nothing that will magically stop XP from working just because it's 20 years old, nobody is banging on MS's door about it. What's more, most XP programs work on newer Windows versions, an approach explicitly taken by MS. If you have a program written on XP, it might not conform to modern best practices (not that modern devs always do so, some still can't get it in their heads that "My Documents" is not for putting game files into), but it'll most likely run on 11. If those cases were even remotely comparable, we'd still be able to fly the Hawk.

The real thing that's hilarious in this thread is the sheer ignorance some people display.

Edited yesterday at 05:05 PM by Dragon1-1

[spacefox]

23 minutes ago, Gizmo03 said:

Maybe it's not that entertaining anymore for you when one of the epic modules you mastered after years suddenly gets abandoned and might stop to work soon.

I know that part sucks...but you get to learn a new aircraft.  Think about the F-14 Pilots, when Navy got rid of them - they had to type trained on new craft like F-18 or F-35 (I am making assumptions here)

Even in Top Gun movie - Maverick was flying F-14 and in part two he is rated for F-18.

 

You know in FSX/P3D/MSFS world - developers will discard the same module from FSX and pay again for P3D and then pay again for MSFS (not naming devs here but it is quite common practice).  FSX 32bit to P3D 32bit (up to V3.4) were quite compatible but at least on this sim you got years and years of mileage on some addons.  For me this is quite crazy to see.  I have spend more $$$ for same aircraft multiple times in FSX/P3D/Xplane10-12

Edited yesterday at 05:10 PM by spacefox

[SkateZilla]

On 7/27/2025 at 12:27 PM, alejandr0 said:

You know what’s truly frustrating about this whole situation? That everything still seems to rely on just hoping things work out.
People have asked repeatedly: what happens if the four modules stop functioning? Will ED simply say, “Well, go reinstall an old version where it still works”? That’s not a solution... it’s a shrug.
The constant “for now the modules still work” and “we hope for a resolution” messaging isn’t enough. At some point, hope runs out... and customers deserve to know: what is the actual plan if that happens? Is there even one? Will you prevent the fire from breaking out, or will you try to put it out once it breaks out?
Let’s not forget... the VEAO Hawk was one module. This time, it’s four, and the proposed “solution” seems even weaker.
That won't be progress... it’ll regression.

VEAO Was 2, there were pre-orders taken for the P-40F

[Gizmo03]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb spacefox:

I know that part sucks...but you get to learn a new aircraft.  Think about the F-14 Pilots, when Navy got rid of them - they had to type trained on new craft like F-18 or F-35 (I am making assumptions here)

Even in Top Gun movie - Maverick was flying F-14 and in part two he is rated for F-18.

Yeah that part is really nasty. But many of the people here own every module and use them all but don't want to miss a single one.
And the guys in the Navy didn't have to pay for their F-14