waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[Hammer1-1]

17 hours ago, Pipe said:

Because their not holding the gun..

Uh...right.

[Esac_mirmidon]

55 minutes ago, Neil Gardner said:

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be adversarial but no commercial organisation knows what’s coming around the corner. They don’t exist for you and I, they exist to compete in a market for money, one that may or may not grace them with its favour. Tomorrow the proverbial might hit the fan and it could be 2007 or 1923 again and then our little worries about whether or not there will be a little digital model of an F15 working in a months time will have become a little besides the point. To state the obvious we really do, sometimes, need to remind ourselves that anyone in one of the world’s numerous war zones at the moment may take quite a dim view of the worries thar exercise you and I. 
So, the answer is count as a plus what you have today and enjoy it whilst you have it because tomorrow you, me and everything else might have been reduced to a load of dust in a fall out cloud - not be too over dramatic am I?

You have missed global earthquake, alien invasion, asteroid hitting the earth and a zombie invasion. 

I will fly the Harrier as much as possible, you never know. I hope a thermonuclear war doesnt stop me to fly the Fulcrum in September.

Edited Friday at 08:44 PM by Esac_mirmidon

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

30 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

I hope a thermonuclear war doesnt stop me to fly the Fulcrum in September.

Don't worry about that. There are forces at work that will never allow that to happen. We've come too far

[gunterlund]

how can I get a refund on the Strike eagle. The support page is not clear. 

[Aapje]

3 hours ago, Mizzy said:

You mean we are still waiting to hear if zambrano has fulfilled his obligations under the agreement. Remember the problem was caused by him in the first place. However, ED has stated the agreement is confidential and you don't quite grasp the concept of what confidential mean.

I can't really answer this without getting another penalty, I think, so...

[Mizzy]

33 minutes ago, Aapje said:

I can't really answer this without getting another penalty, I think, so...

Have you thought your posts are simply antagonistic and without a shred of official evidence against ED or even evidence to support Zambrano?

As for the very poor excuse that you can't answer my post because you have received penalty points, let me tell you, if you have received penalties that is a private matter, read the forum rules! If you wish to answer me, make it factual and only cite official statements. I am not interested in your unwaning support for Zambrano unless you have official support from him, do you understand !

[Hammer1-1]

12 minutes ago, Mizzy said:

Have you thought your posts are simply antagonistic and without a shred of official evidence against ED or even evidence to support Zambrano?

As for the very poor excuse that you can't answer my post because you have received penalty points, let me tell you, if you have received penalties that is a private matter, read the forum rules! If you wish to answer me, make it factual and only cite official statements. I am not interested in your unwaning support for Zambrano unless you have official support from him, do you understand !

I think he just automatically disregards information he disagrees with regardless of fact or fiction.

[rob10]

13 hours ago, jeventy26 said:

Still wondering if anyone has thoughts on this... because unless I'm missing something, ED did say they'd retain the files, and now we're finding out they don't.  That's not a legal gray area, and unless I am missing something that seems like a broken promise to customers?  

You're right, it's not a legal gray area.  They said "ALL FUTURE 3rd PARTY AGREEMENTS".  F-15 (and likely the others) were by all reports already underway by that point, so they weren't "future agreements".  They may not have been officially announced, but that doesn't mean they weren't signed.

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

I can't really answer this without getting another penalty, I think, so...

Please read the rules, especially 1.3. Thanks

[Nightdare]

7 hours ago, Neil Gardner said:

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be adversarial but no commercial organisation knows what’s coming around the corner. They don’t exist for you and I, they exist to compete in a market for money, one that may or may not grace them with its favour. Tomorrow the proverbial might hit the fan and it could be 2007 or 1923 again and then our little worries about whether or not there will be a little digital model of an F15 working in a months time will have become a little besides the point. To state the obvious we really do, sometimes, need to remind ourselves that anyone in one of the world’s numerous war zones at the moment may take quite a dim view of the worries thar exercise you and I. 
So, the answer is count as a plus what you have today and enjoy it whilst you have it because tomorrow you, me and everything else might have been reduced to a load of dust in a fall out cloud - not be too over dramatic am I?

 

Nice platitude

 

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, Mizzy said:

Have you thought your posts are simply antagonistic and without a shred of official evidence against ED or even evidence to support Zambrano?

As for the very poor excuse that you can't answer my post because you have received penalty points, let me tell you, if you have received penalties that is a private matter, read the forum rules! If you wish to answer me, make it factual and only cite official statements. I am not interested in your unwaning support for Zambrano unless you have official support from him, do you understand !

We won't change what each other thinks, no matter how hard we try, unless we all meet up for a pint at a local bar. 

[Tank50us]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

We won't change what each other thinks, no matter how hard we try, unless we all meet up for a pint at a local bar. 

since I don't drink, I'll be the Designated Driver

[some1]

5 hours ago, rob10 said:

They said "ALL FUTURE 3rd PARTY AGREEMENTS".  F-15 (and likely the others) were by all reports already underway by that point, so they weren't "future agreements".  They may not have been officially announced, but that doesn't mean they weren't signed.

Makes you wonder what other important bits of information ED leaves out of their press announcements.

[Oban]

26 minutes ago, some1 said:

Makes you wonder what other important bits of information ED leaves out of their press announcements.

Stuff that's confidential, what's so difficult to understand about all of this? 

[some1]

2 minutes ago, Oban said:

Stuff that's confidential, what's so difficult to understand about all of this? 

How convenient. And who do you think made that stuff confidential in the first place?

Ultimately ED controls which information they decide to share with the public.

 

[Horns]

52 minutes ago, some1 said:

Makes you wonder what other important bits of information ED leaves out of their press announcements.

There was nothing left out of that, 'new third-party agreements' by definition would not include existing third-party agreements. Unless you think the Oxford Dictionary is conspiring with ED. Hey wait a second, Nick Grey is English...

[MicroShket]

22 минуты назад, some1 сказал:

And who do you think made that stuff confidential in the first place?

Why are you so insistent about "official use only" information? I don't know of any company that puts its internal affairs on public display. We are not subcontractors even.

[Kang]

While it is obviously correct that any such ideas can't be worked into previously signed contracts, I tend to agree that the way it was published - in the light of what we now seem to experience - has been quite misleading to the community.

At which point does the whole Hawk Prevention Clause™ actually start working? Any of the 3rd party modules that are currently available? Any of the ones that are currently announced?

 

Quite frankly, the whole 'well, this was not announced, but the contract had been signed long before that' line of argumentation - even if factually correct - makes the whole thing nothing but smoke and mirrors, as the supposed guarantee may or may not be applicable to anything with nobody knowing.

[Hammer1-1]

3 hours ago, Kang said:

While it is obviously correct that any such ideas can't be worked into previously signed contracts, I tend to agree that the way it was published - in the light of what we now seem to experience - has been quite misleading to the community.

At which point does the whole Hawk Prevention Clause™ actually start working? Any of the 3rd party modules that are currently available? Any of the ones that are currently announced?

 

Quite frankly, the whole 'well, this was not announced, but the contract had been signed long before that' line of argumentation - even if factually correct - makes the whole thing nothing but smoke and mirrors, as the supposed guarantee may or may not be applicable to anything with nobody knowing.

the whole premise was for 3rd parties "from here on out" rather than everyone. amending existing contracts was apparently.....really really REALLY hard.

[Mizzy]

9 hours ago, NineLine said:

We won't change what each other thinks, no matter how hard we try, unless we all meet up for a pint at a local bar. 

Haha, I am up for that, maybe not a pint thought unless it's a pint of wine . Actually this is an interesting point, I doubt any of us would be so argumentative if we all met in the real world. Online forums are not representative of our personal character, so let's not be too harsh with each other, it's not people's real character represented in forum posts. I seldom play DCS these days but the Mig 29 may change that 

Mizzy

[Mike Force Team]

What would give us, the DCS community, calm and reassurance would be knowing where we stand for Razbam's modules. The lack of information means we don't know if the Razbam's modules will be updated or deprecated. The uncertainty continues to fuel the this on-going debate. 

I know the strike eagle has worked even though no updates in over a year. 

Mike Force Team 

[some1]

3 hours ago, Kang said:

While it is obviously correct that any such ideas can't be worked into previously signed contracts

Even that seems a bit of a stretch. Contracts can be amended if both parties agree. Publishing rules for new products can be changed. Steam and other webstores change the publishing requirements for developers all the time, doesn't matter how long your product was in development, or when you've signed up the first project on Steam. You work by the current rules, not the ones that existed 20 years ago, just because you've made your first game when Half-Life 2 was a new thing. If ED decided an Escrow was now a requirement to sell a new aircraft in their store, that would be it.

Yet, it was not done in this case, and seemingly noone thought about that possibility before they took an open action against Razbam. Actually, when this thing first blew up more than a year ago, Chizh and other devs on the Russian forum were pretty firm in their statements that they're just a webstore for 3rd parties, not responsible if the module is completed or not, and have no means of picking up the development after 3rd party is not able to do so. Interesting to see how the narration changes over time, and we're now at "we'd like to continue but Razbam doesn't want to give us the codes".

36 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

the whole premise was for 3rd parties "from here on out" rather than everyone

So a serious question. Which 3rd party modules are actually protected from something like that happening again? Corsair - that thing was in development for a very long time, signed ages ago. Kiowa - Polychop has been around since the early days. Tomcat? Your guess is as good as mine. All confidential information of course, at least until another 3rd party goes belly up.

 

12 minutes ago, Mike Force Team said:

The lack of information means we don't know if the Razbam's modules will be updated or deprecated.

At this point I doubt even ED knows themselves. And if they know, it's not the answer the community would like to hear.

Edited yesterday at 01:27 PM by some1

[Dragon1-1]

17 minutes ago, some1 said:

Actually, when this thing first blew up more than a year ago, Chizh and other devs on the Russian forum were pretty firm in their statements that they're just a webstore for 3rd parties, not responsible if the module is completed or not, and have no means of picking up the development after 3rd party is not able to do so. Interesting to see how the narration changes over time, and we're now at "we'd like to continue but Razbam doesn't want to give us the codes".

Seeing as ED is, besides being the publisher, also an aircraft developer, it's fairly obvious that they always had the ability to work on modules. Presumably, taking over RAZBAM stuff wasn't considered back then, since everyone expected the dispute to be promptly resolved (this kind of early optimism is far from rare). That they are unable to take over was fundamentally true and it seems that it still is.

In fact, if they did manage to secure the things necessary to develop those modules, this would amount to enormous leverage. They'd basically be able to tell Ron to either make up or get out, either his studio works on the modules, or they just do it themselves, possibly even hiring RAZBAM staff out from under him (to say nothing of the subcontractors). They'd be holding all the cards and Ron probably figured that out, too.

22 minutes ago, some1 said:

At this point I doubt even ED knows themselves. And if they know, it's not the answer the community would like to hear.

I strongly suspect they're trying to make it so that it's the former and not the latter. Whether they'll succeed, that's another matter.

[ruxtmp]

This issue has brought the whole 3rd party developer risk to light. Anyone that thinks a third party will just hand over code to another party if they go belly up is deceiving themselves. If you believe any of the 3rd parties agreed to this supposed new contractual agreement I have a few bridges to sell you, or to the third party if they actually agreed to it. If a business goes belly up for any reason they are not going to just give up their work for free for another business entity to continue making profit off of their base work. All these 3rd party modules and maps are completely dependent on the original developer unless sold off. Razbam modules are going to either work and die a slow death or ED will just break them all in one version upgrade and be done with the issue and we won’t be able to do anything about it. The only way to prevent this is to have ED buy the rights to a developed module using the 3rd party as a sub contractor. The problem with this is ED can barely keep up with their own work let alone any extra modules being pushed out by other developers. 

[Esac_mirmidon]

After all this mess, almost 2 years of waiting for a resolution, we as customers, already dont know since 2018 what modules are inside de ED sharing files policy, speaks volumes about the importance of customers concernings for DCS and 3rd Parties, ED has.

Something so easy to listed that will give customers some kind of relief and confidence are still unknown. 

This situation makes me believe not only Razbam is out of this policy, but more 3rd parties are not signing it, involving more modules. If thats not the case i dont know why we are still beeing ignored.