waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[JuiceIsLoose]

1 hour ago, Kang said:

Would it be possible to have a little official clarification on whether not the 'HAWK Clause' does or does not apply to any Razbam-made modules? Or is in general applicable or not?

I think it's pretty clear it doesn't apply to any of the Razbam Modules, seeing as the following is in the first post by 9L:
"All modules continue to function 'as is' and despite not receiving any access to source codes or cooperation from Razbam and its external developers, Eagle Dynamics will do its best to ensure that these modules continue to function in 2.9.X.".

I would take from that statement that ED does not have access to the source code of any Razbam module, they plainly spell it out.

Edited yesterday at 05:24 PM by JuiceIsLoose

[Esac_mirmidon]

And other 3rd parties?

We still dont know.

[aaronwhite]

3 hours ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

I think it's pretty clear it doesn't apply to any of the Razbam Modules, seeing as the following is in the first post by 9L:
"All modules continue to function 'as is' and despite not receiving any access to source codes or cooperation from Razbam and its external developers, Eagle Dynamics will do its best to ensure that these modules continue to function in 2.9.X.".

I would take from that statement that ED does not have access to the source code of any Razbam module, they plainly spell it out.

In fairness, as with most things like this, we have to infer a bit. I don't know that we will ever know for sure if Razbam was or wasn't required by their contract to provide the source code. ED withholding payment from the only 3rd party dev that we have had confirmed wasn't providing their source code makes me think that maybe the lack of source code sharing for the modules was kind of the crux of the whole issue, but like I said before, that's just a lot of inferring on my part while not really having the whole picture.

The hope is that the bridges aren't permanently burned, and maybe at the end of all of this, ED can at least get the source code in exchange for whatever agreement they make, but that feels optimistic given the way things have played out so far. 

[JuiceIsLoose]

1 hour ago, aaronwhite said:

In fairness, as with most things like this, we have to infer a bit. I don't know that we will ever know for sure if Razbam was or wasn't required by their contract to provide the source code. ED withholding payment from the only 3rd party dev that we have had confirmed wasn't providing their source code makes me think that maybe the lack of source code sharing for the modules was kind of the crux of the whole issue, but like I said before, that's just a lot of inferring on my part while not really having the whole picture.

The hope is that the bridges aren't permanently burned, and maybe at the end of all of this, ED can at least get the source code in exchange for whatever agreement they make, but that feels optimistic given the way things have played out so far. 

I mean I think it’s obvious RB isn’t going to do anything unless they get paid. And seeing as ED for some reason doesn’t seem to be willing to pay, even with this last agreement that was signed in 2024, I don’t see anything ever happening. Thus, the agreement getting withdrawn. 
 

The reasoning why ED isn't willing to pay is only known to them, they seem pretty tight lipped about it, which is their choice. 
 

And it’s not like another third party is gonna buy the source code from RB like people keep hoping for. One, I doubt RB would just sell of their source code. And twoWhy would another third party take the risk to buy it? They’d then be fighting with ED for payments too. No way a third party would sign up for that. 

[Hammer1-1]

3 hours ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

 And two; Why would another third party take the risk to buy it? They’d then be fighting with ED for payments too. No way a third party would sign up for that. 

Why would they be fighting ED for payments as well? You follow your contractual agreements, you get paid. You can treat your employer like crap and they still have to abide the contract; if your product is worth it then you can get away with things most people cant. If Razbam were to sell to another 3rd party they would only inherit the problems with the module, not the financial issues.

[freehand]

7 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Why would they be fighting ED for payments as well? You follow your contractual agreements, you get paid. You can treat your employer like crap and they still have to abide the contract; if your product is worth it then you can get away with things most people cant. If Razbam were to sell to another 3rd party they would only inherit the problems with the module, not the financial issues.

It's just another little hidden dig at ED.

[Aapje]

7 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Why would they be fighting ED for payments as well? You follow your contractual agreements, you get paid.

If only it were that easy (in general).

[freehand]

4 minutes ago, Aapje said:

If only it were that easy (in general).

Are you a third party developer ? only I am wondering how you know.

[JuiceIsLoose]

You would think after how long this has been and ED stating that eventually these planes will be deprecated (from their latest statement about them trying to ensure them to stay function only up to 2.9.X), that ED would provide an actual reason for why they chose and are continuing to choose to not pay the third party developer. 
 

If the modules we purchased are going to be deprecated because ED is not paying RB then I think we should at least know why ED chose this route of not paying their third party. Otherwise what accountability and trust can we have in ED? I don’t think it’s crazy to ask to know why a product will be end of life. ED thanks us for passion and support, just please try to earn it for a large portion of the community that has been soured by EDs handling of this issue. 
 

I’m not demanding anything. I’m simply asking ED to show they actually care about a customer base that has felt abandoned by them and their decisions. 

[AndyJWest]

2 hours ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

You would think after how long this has been and ED stating that eventually these planes will be deprecated (from their latest statement about them trying to ensure them to stay function only up to 2.9.X), that ED would provide an actual reason for why they chose and are continuing to choose to not pay the third party developer. 

From NineLine's post at the start of this thread:

Quote

...the current disagreement is the result of improper actions that have been taken by Razbam Simulations, in breach of its contractual obligations towards our company and of our legally protected IP rights, and for which we are seeking a reasonable and forward-looking commercial outcome rather than entertaining legal claims.

That is an explanation: Razbam acted in breach of contract. As to whether it is true or not, we can't really say for sure, but it is an explanation. And if it is valid, ED's contractual obligation to pay Razbam was contingent on Razbam complying with the terms of the contract. That's how contracts work. That's what a contract is - 'you do this, and I'll do that'. 

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by AndyJWest

[aaronwhite]

15 hours ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

I mean I think it’s obvious RB isn’t going to do anything unless they get paid. And seeing as ED for some reason doesn’t seem to be willing to pay, even with this last agreement that was signed in 2024, I don’t see anything ever happening. Thus, the agreement getting withdrawn. 
 

The reasoning why ED isn't willing to pay is only known to them, they seem pretty tight lipped about it, which is their choice. 
 

And it’s not like another third party is gonna buy the source code from RB like people keep hoping for. One, I doubt RB would just sell of their source code. And twoWhy would another third party take the risk to buy it? They’d then be fighting with ED for payments too. No way a third party would sign up for that. 

Sure, I don't think there's any question that Razbam wouldn't work for free...but I think the thing people don't factor in is the assumption that this all only started when Razbam didn't get paid. 

If Razbam was supposed to be providing the source code, and ED said "Hey, we really need you guys to move your source code to the repo" and Razbam said something like "Oh, for sure! We're just working on the F-15E really hard right now, once we get it pushed out we'll move all of that source code over" and ED says "Okay, sure". Then we fast forward a few months, the F-15E is out, ED's still nagging them to get the source code moved, and they say they're going to, but don't...for whatever reason. If that's the way things played out, then I can understand why a company would then go to taking legal measures and withholding payments...because you really don't have any other option if someone's making money off of your platform but not upholding their end of the agreement. 

Now, all of that said, that all makes a lot of assumptions about the requirements on Razbam, and that's something we don't know for sure, and with the whole legal agreement, likely won't ever. 

At this point, it feels like this is all in the past, and not really worth spending time worrying about, because in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter going forward. The only thing left for people to do is to put pressure on Razbam to work on an agreement where ED can at least get the source code. All I've seen from ED's public statements is that they are continuing to work and open to finding a solution, and it makes sense that they would want to get the source code so they can at least maintain the modules in their current state, even if they aren't able to invest the time into any upgrades or improvements. But that would require Razbam to be open to the idea. I have to imagine the bridges are likely burned beyond Razbam coming back to work with ED. It just seems thoroughly unlikely, at least unless there's a bit change in leadership at Razbam. But it's still possible that Razbam and ED can find a reasonable agreement to turn over the source code. 

So my only hope is that the people who are here and angry with ED are also over on Razbam's Discord saying they are upset and telling Razbam they really want to see Razbam work hard to find a middle ground with ED that at least lets ED continue to support the modules, even if it's in a pretty reduced capacity.

[Horns]

41 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

From NineLine's post at the start of this thread:

That is an explanation: Razbam acted in breach of contract. As to whether it is true or not, we can't really say for sure, but it is an explanation. And if it is valid, ED's contractual obligation to pay Razbam was contingent on Razbam complying with the terms of the contract. That's how contracts work. That's what a contract is - 'you do this, and I'll do that'. 

 

 

Exactly. ED have already stated their reasons in black and white.

As for the modules being deprecated, that statement was simply stating the limitations of ED’s current commitment (ie worst-case scenario). DCS 3.0 is still some time away, in the meantime there is nothing preventing ED from extending their current commitment.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Reasons nobody can verify. Because Razbam deny this version and no court resolution has beeing taken.

We have "versions" of the dispute. Nothing else

[GUCCI]

20 minutes ago, aaronwhite said:

burned beyond Razbam coming back to work with ED

In a recent message on RB discord, for what its worth- Ron said if RB gets payment, they will happily return full force to finish out and complete

the promises for the module, as well as support it. Despite everything, he is willing to make it happen and uphold the modules. 

For all our sakes, I hope something positive can happen. The F15E is a fantastic gem of a module, I pray it gets resolved.

[JuiceIsLoose]

13 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

Reasons nobody can verify. Because Razbam deny this version and no court resolution has beeing taken.

We have "versions" of the dispute. Nothing else

ED can absolutely provide what this "breach of contract" was. They are choosing not to. I for one, don't just blindly accept their statement.

ED should absolutely OWN their part in this disagreement and not hide behind silence. That would be the right thing to earn back trust. They can stay silent sure. But when those modules get left behind with no explanation, not sure how they expect that to go.

 

21 minutes ago, Horns said:

Exactly. ED have already stated their reasons in black and white.

As for the modules being deprecated, that statement was simply stating the limitations of ED’s current commitment (ie worst-case scenario). DCS 3.0 is still some time away, in the meantime there is nothing preventing ED from extending their current commitment.

Should note that ED was careful in their wording of their latest announcement: "...Eagle Dynamics will do its best to ensure that these modules continue to function in 2.9.X". That statement doesn't even guarantee they will work in 2.9.X, just that they will "do their best". And sure 3.0 may be far away, 2.10 might be around the corner. 

Edited 8 hours ago by JuiceIsLoose

[Horns]

46 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

ED can absolutely provide what this "breach of contract" was. They are choosing not to. I for one, don't just blindly accept their statement.

 

Should note that ED was careful in their wording of their latest announcement: "...Eagle Dynamics will do its best to ensure that these modules continue to function in 2.9.X". That statement doesn't even guarantee they will work in 2.9.X, just that they will "do their best". And sure 3.0 may be far away, 2.10 might be around the corner. 

Yes agreed that there’s no guarantee, which is the smart move - I’ll rephrase what I was saying about support: ED’s commitment to support ceasing beyond 2.9.X is simply a statement of ED’s position now; it does not rule out support being extended beyond that.

Edited 7 hours ago by Horns
“ED’s commitment to” originally omitted

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

ED can absolutely provide what this "breach of contract" was. They are choosing not to. I for one, don't just blindly accept their statement.

ED should absolutely OWN their part in this disagreement and not hide behind silence. That would be the right thing to earn back trust. They can stay silent sure. But when those modules get left behind with no explanation, not sure how they expect that to go.

 

Should note that ED was careful in their wording of their latest announcement: "...Eagle Dynamics will do its best to ensure that these modules continue to function in 2.9.X". That statement doesn't even guarantee they will work in 2.9.X, just that they will "do their best". And sure 3.0 may be far away, 2.10 might be around the corner. 

You have been told repeatedly why we are not commenting on this. It's a legal matter and will continue to address it through the proper channels. I understand that can lead to all these assumptions you continue to post, but none of that should be taken as fact, but rather your 'feelings' on the subject. Turning this into a public fight, trying to leverage public support as a weapon, is NOT the proper way to handle this, and what you suggest would only do that. 

[JuiceIsLoose]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

You have been told repeatedly why we are not commenting on this. It's a legal matter and will continue to address it through the proper channels. I understand that can lead to all these assumptions you continue to post, but none of that should be taken as fact, but rather your 'feelings' on the subject. Turning this into a public fight, trying to leverage public support as a weapon, is NOT the proper way to handle this, and what you suggest would only do that. 

I'm not asking for a public fight, I'm asking for transparency about why (4) of the modules are about to be deprecated. Asking you to put yourself in others shoes, try to understand where the community that you manage is coming from. 

[plott1964]

I concur. Is this matter even settled in court yet? When will it be? ...and what does ED plan to do with those mods in the future? Why can't these questions be answered?

[JuiceIsLoose]

3 minutes ago, plott1964 said:

I concur. Is this matter even settled in court yet? When will it be? ...and what does ED plan to do with those mods in the future? Why can't these questions be answered?

Why do you think anything has gone to court?

Edited 5 hours ago by JuiceIsLoose
*correct how to has

[plott1964]

Oh, well I thought it did. I thought that was why ED was being so quiet about it.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, plott1964 said:

So ED reps (you guys know who I mean)...

How much of this post is BS?

 

This is a pretty naive POV. This isn't a criminal case with a single charge so it's a zero-sum game. It's a business dispute. The problem with ED splitting the difference is that it sets precedence for exploitation. It also assumes that DCS is the only line of revenue ED has.

Also, given the literal trail of abandoned Razbam products and burned customers out there since the FSX days, how could one specify a single actor here as the 'bad guy?' That is, unless you get informed through a constant stream of unfunny memes. As a business dispute, ED will shoulder some fault. That's how it almost always goes with business disputes of this nature. That's just how it is. But to shovel blame entirely onto one party? That's the mark of someone who has never been privy to running anything. 

 

I have noticed that these kinds of individuals will state something as fact when when I've asked them to back it up by providing a source? Silence. In this very thread, someone mentioned Boeing, I asked them about it and crickets. 

Edited 4 hours ago by MiG21bisFishbedL

[JuiceIsLoose]

7 minutes ago, plott1964 said:

Oh, well I thought it did. I thought that was why ED was being so quiet about it.

I have seen no comment from ED about this being in any court. They have stated that lawyers are involved. Which may be why they say it is a "legal matter". But that does not mean there is an active lawsuit or that there is any court proceedings of any kind. If ED would like to correct this by saying there is an active lawsuit or court case, I would welcome the transparency. 

[NineLine]

32 minutes ago, plott1964 said:

Oh, well I thought it did. I thought that was why ED was being so quiet about it.

It doesn't have to be in court to be a legal matter, therefore making sense not to talk about it in public.

1 hour ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

I'm not asking for a public fight, I'm asking for transparency about why (4) of the modules are about to be deprecated. Asking you to put yourself in others shoes, try to understand where the community that you manage is coming from. 

It would end up being the same thing. All we can say is we are working on it. As we have said many times already. 

[AndyJWest]

Plott1964, If you want to believe random attack posts from Reddit, that'd your choice. Just don't expect anyone else to. As for what you think EDs quote implies, pure speculation, nothing more. Coming from someone intent on assuming the worst. And as for 'transparency', you aren't entitled to it. You aren't a party to the dispute. You aren't a shareholder. You are a customer. Customers don't get to sit in on Ford Motor Company boardroom meetings. They don't get to read the contracts that Boeing has with its subcontractors. NVidia doesn't ask its customers along to meetings where the discuss the-year-after-next's graphic card developments.  Maybe a world where that went on would be a better place, but it isn't like that now. Expecting ED to answer endless questions from people who think that random attack posts from Reddit are a good starting place for an honest conversation is pure chutzpah.

I'm as frustrated with this mess as anyone else. As a result of it, I've stopped buying new DCS content. I don't however see why I should have to tag along with this ridiculous 'RazBam did nothing wrong' line when it is self-evident that they have behaved in a thoroughly unprofessional manner in the way they have posted random misleading and often contradictory self-serving spin, and in doing so no doubt made negotiations more difficult. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the contract dispute, that bit of nonsense is entirely sufficient to make me never want to buy another RazBam product.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by AndyJWest