waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[Joe1978]

hace 29 minutos, Shibbyland dijo:

What prevents other 3rd party modules becoming unusable for whatever reason. Let's say one of the other developers had an issue where they couldn't continue their operation, would we end up in the same position as with the Hawk and now RAZBAM modules?

The 3rd party stuff is some of the best available, particularly Heatblur but I don't have confidence DCS at the moment in order to continue making purchases. Need to see some commitment from ED as to how consumers are going to be protected. Even if ED is a victim (and I don't know what's gone on), ultimately the buck stops with them.

If ED wants to thrive and stay in business long-term, they should clearly communicate this to the community and ensure it’s included in the contract we agree to when buying any module from their store.

[BIGNEWY]

7 minutes ago, Joe1978 said:

If ED wants to thrive and stay in business long-term, they should clearly communicate this to the community and ensure it’s included in the contract we agree to when buying any module from their store.

We have been here over 16 years already with DCS, DCS continues to grow and development will continue no matter the outcome of the dispute. 

We can not discuss contracts, they have confidentiality clauses and we are bound by NDA's.

All we can do is continue to wait until the dispute is resolved, we all hope for the best for everyone. 

thank you 

[Shibbyland]

6 minutes ago, Joe1978 said:

If ED wants to thrive and stay in business long-term, they should clearly communicate this to the community and ensure it’s included in the contract we agree to when buying any module from their store.

I rarely read ToS start to end (I doubt many people do). I will occasionally read the privacy stuff and choose not to use a service because of it but that's quite rare.

My attitude is a company can write whatever they want in the ToS but ultimately if you irritate your customers en masse then ToS or no, they won't be in business very long.

[Shibbyland]

2 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

We have been here over 16 years already with DCS, DCS continues to grow and development will continue no matter the outcome of the dispute. 

We can not discuss contracts, they have confidentiality clauses and we are bound by NDA's.

All we can do is continue to wait until the dispute is resolved, we all hope for the best for everyone. 

thank you 

Appreciate the prompt reply Newy, not asking for a copy of the contracts you have with your business partners or third parties. I'm not asking for details of whatever is still going on with RAZBAM specifically. I'm asking for a description of the mechanism that protects customers from third party developers. 

I can't speak for other users but at least for the country I live in, my protections are provided by an Act of Parliament. In this case "if a purchased online service stops working, you have rights under the consumer guarantees act to seek a remedy, such as a repair, replacement, or refund". Rights under the act can't be negated by terms of service and if a company is trading here, they must comply with the law.

Now I'm not suggesting I'd go chasing an overseas company using this act as I suspect it'd be pointless. What I am saying is I think it's fair for customers to expect compensation should the RAZBAM modules be unable to be brought along with the core of DCS as development continues.

[BIGNEWY]

7 minutes ago, Shibbyland said:

Appreciate the prompt reply Newy, not asking for a copy of the contracts you have with your business partners or third parties. I'm not asking for details of whatever is still going on with RAZBAM specifically. I'm asking for a description of the mechanism that protects customers from third party developers. 

I can't speak for other users but at least for the country I live in, my protections are provided by an Act of Parliament. In this case "if a purchased online service stops working, you have rights under the consumer guarantees act to seek a remedy, such as a repair, replacement, or refund". Rights under the act can't be negated by terms of service and if a company is trading here, they must comply with the law.

Now I'm not suggesting I'd go chasing an overseas company using this act as I suspect it'd be pointless. What I am saying is I think it's fair for customers to expect compensation should the RAZBAM modules be unable to be brought along with the core of DCS as development continues.

But it has not stopped working, we have ensured the modules work as is with DCS 2.9 for over a year already. 

Please ensure you have read our EULA that you agreed to when making your purchase. 

Again all we can do is wait until there is a resolution to the dispute. 

thank you 

[Joe1978]

hace 15 minutos, BIGNEWY dijo:

We have been here over 16 years already with DCS, DCS continues to grow and development will continue no matter the outcome of the dispute. 
 

Of course, and I hope to be there for the next 16 years... I think you've misunderstood my point: Without a clear consumer policy for third-party products, ED ensures that we only purchase modules endorsed by ED... 

 

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, Joe1978 said:

Of course, and I hope to be there for the next 16 years... I think you've misunderstood my point: Without a clear consumer policy for third-party products, ED ensures that we only purchase modules endorsed by ED... 

 

I hope once this is all over we can share more with you. What you are suggesting about making things clearer about third party products has already been discussed internally. But of course as mentioned there are confidentially agreements that need to be considered, maybe in the future we can add some more clarity. 

Thank you 

[Esac_mirmidon]

It seems impossible to get a simple list of 3rd parties inside the file sharing policy since 2018.

Something so simple, no contractual reveals, just Developer X-Y-Z have signed the file sharing.

Developer A-B-C didnt.

So because It seems impossible for ED to list that, for me is impossible to buy anything else.

[LancerVI]

ED is responsible. Period. "Be patient" is not a customer service strategy. It just isn't.

May be time to move on to something else. I've been burned by every issue, including the Hawk. Time to park entertainment dollars elsewhere. 

[BIGNEWY]

18 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

So because It seems impossible for ED to list that, for me is impossible to buy anything else.

Sorry to hear that, but please understand we can not list this currently, as mentioned above there are confidentiality considerations. 

I hope in the future you will have confidence in us again. 

I wish you all the best. 

 

[BIGNEWY]

12 minutes ago, LancerVI said:

ED is responsible. Period. "Be patient" is not a customer service strategy. It just isn't.

May be time to move on to something else. I've been burned by every issue, including the Hawk. Time to park entertainment dollars elsewhere. 

Its frustrating for you and us for sure. But until there is a resolution all we can do is wait. 

thanks 

[Esac_mirmidon]

Then why is possible to have an oficial statement about the new file sharing policy that ALL 3rd parties should sign but we cant know who signed?

Then we know Razbam is not inside the program just because the "issue" arose, not because ED shared that info to have customers informed.

For me that not make sense

 

[BIGNEWY]

18 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

Then why is possible to have an oficial statement about the new file sharing policy that ALL 3rd parties should sign but we cant know who signed?

Then we know Razbam is not inside the program just because the "issue" arose, not because ED shared that info to have customers informed.

For me that not make sense

 

I understand, but we can not talk about specifics of different contracts. If that changes in the future we will let you know. 

[OmasRachE]

Maybe for the future it would be a solution to mark 3rd Party products with a lable, like "Source Code Secured" or something like that. Making it obvious for any customer if a product will be supported even in case a developer shuts down its business or leaves his modules abandoned. That could be a sales booster for such modules and an inducement for developers to accept contracts which force them to give the source code to ED, when publishing a module. 

 

The big problem I have is not, that there is a dispute between ED and Razbam, since things can happen and we don´t know who ist right or wrong. My problem is that I can not tell if something like this happens to any other of my beloved modules. I woul´d be very dissapointed, if the Strike Eagle stops working but when something like this heapens to my Phantom I would go crazy. There are several modules upcomming I am interrested in like Thyphoon or Tornado but the situation leaves me with a bad feeling about purchasing them.

[Shibbyland]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

But it has not stopped working, we have ensured the modules work as is with DCS 2.9 for over a year already. 

Please ensure you have read our EULA that you agreed to when making your purchase. 

Again all we can do is wait until there is a resolution to the dispute. 

thank you 

Yes, DCS has been around 16 years and yes, it's still a very cool bit of software. However, I reckon this is a defining moment for ED. There's been controversy but this ones big, probably the biggest.

I'm not questioning the current state of the modules. Like many, I'm foreseeing these modules being unusable in future versions of DCS as was the case with the Hawk and I'm asking what ED has in place to prevent this type of thing occurring with the remaining 3rd party devs. It's a pretty reasonable question.

In terms of the EULA, the most relevant thing I can see says  ED can simply walk away from any of it's obligations under the section I quote below: 

"9.1 Eagle Dynamics SA may transfer, assign, charge, sub-contract or otherwise dispose of this Licence, or any of our rights or obligations arising under it, at any time during the term of this Licence."

It's not much of an agreement when one of the parties can just walk away from it's obligations and, as I say, EULA doesn't mean a company can ignore it's legal obligations set out by the nation it's trading in. Really, it's all meaningless. I highly doubt an individual is going to put all this to the test, it simply isn't worth the effort so we can forget all that nonsense.

It boils down to this. I, and I suspect many others have lost or are losing confidence in the product because of this situation. If you can be bothered to have a look at my profile, you will see the sharp decline in purchases. This is almost entirely due to the situation with RAZBAM. It's not that I care about RAZBAM as such, it's that there's a lot of third party content, it's expensive and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that some of the smaller 3rd party devs could fall over for any number of reasons. I want to know what protections customers have should products stop working.

What's the policy, if any? If there isn't one, maybe there should be. 

If it's just a matter of "read the EULA, this is what you signed up for" then ok, I guess we'll see how that works out long term.

 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Shibbyland

[BIGNEWY]

6 minutes ago, Shibbyland said:

Yes, DCS has been around 16 years and yes, it's still a very cool bit of software. However, I reckon this is a defining moment for ED. There's been controversy but this ones big, probably the biggest.

I'm not questioning the current state of the modules. Like many, I'm foreseeing these modules being unusable in future versions of DCS as was the case with the Hawk and I'm asking what ED has in place to prevent this type of thing occurring with the remaining 3rd party devs. It's a pretty reasonable question.

In terms of the EULA, the most relevant thing I can see says  ED can simply walk away from any of it's obligations under the section I quote below: 

"9.1 Eagle Dynamics SA may transfer, assign, charge, sub-contract or otherwise dispose of this Licence, or any of our rights or obligations arising under it, at any time during the term of this Licence."

It's not much of an agreement when one of the parties can just walk away from it's obligations and, as I say, EULA doesn't mean a company can ignore it's legal obligations set out by the nation it's trading in. Really, it's all meaningless. I highly doubt an individual is going to put all this to the test, it simply isn't worth the effort so we can forget all that nonsense.

It boils down to this. I, and I suspect many others have lost or are losing confidence in the product because of this situation. If you can be bothered to have a look at my profile, you will see the sharp decline in purchases. This is almost entirely due to the situation with RAZBAM. It's not that I care about RAZBAM as such, it's that there's a lot of third party content, it's expensive and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that some of the smaller 3rd party devs could fall over for any number of reasons. I want to know what protections customers have should products stop working.

What's the policy, if any? If there isn't one, maybe there should be. 

If it's just a matter of "read the EULA, this is what you signed up for" then ok, I guess we'll see how that works out long term.

 

 

 

I have answered all I can for now. The team are watching the feedback, again in the future maybe we can say more. All we can do is wait. 

thank you 

[Baldrick33]

22 minutes ago, OmasRachE said:

The big problem I have is not, that there is a dispute between ED and Razbam, since things can happen and we don´t know who ist right or wrong. My problem is that I can not tell if something like this happens to any other of my beloved modules. I woul´d be very dissapointed, if the Strike Eagle stops working but when something like this heapens to my Phantom I would go crazy. There are several modules upcomming I am interrested in like Thyphoon or Tornado but the situation leaves me with a bad feeling about purchasing them.

I have a much more relaxed view based on the small number of occurrences over many years and see this is a an exceptional event. Compared with multiplayer titles that can die due to lack of participation or online racing titles where the car you have bought and want to race loses participation and simply becomes unavailable to race most of the time or simply ends then DCS module purchases seems a reasonably safe choice.

There will always be an element of risk with any computer game purchases as to whether it will be supported long term. Unlike some others ED is privately owned and not at the behest of shareholders, parent companies or publishers. So the risk of the company being bought for its tech and changing direction to a more profitable arcade product seems negated. Of course there are third party relationships to consider but in comparison to many computer game studios the core development seems to have a more strategic long term. Having experienced the outcome of some of my favourite race and flight sim dev studios getting swallowed up by the big players I feel more confident ED will be producing stuff I want for the foreseeable future.

[OmasRachE]

vor 38 Minuten schrieb Baldrick33:

I have a much more relaxed view based on the small number of occurrences over many years and see this is a an exceptional event. Compared with multiplayer titles that can die due to lack of participation or online racing titles where the car you have bought and want to race loses participation and simply becomes unavailable to race most of the time or simply ends then DCS module purchases seems a reasonably safe choice.

There will always be an element of risk with any computer game purchases as to whether it will be supported long term. Unlike some others ED is privately owned and not at the behest of shareholders, parent companies or publishers. So the risk of the company being bought for its tech and changing direction to a more profitable arcade product seems negated. Of course there are third party relationships to consider but in comparison to many computer game studios the core development seems to have a more strategic long term. Having experienced the outcome of some of my favourite race and flight sim dev studios getting swallowed up by the big players I feel more confident ED will be producing stuff I want for the foreseeable future.

My view on ED and DCS as a whole is quite similar. I realy appreciate the fact that DCS is not a pay to win, lootbox, skinbyers mess like other online games. I like EDs Idea of what they want to build with it. Although I´m sometimes disappointed about the delvelopment speed or certain decissions (e. g. Dynamic Campaign, F35) DCS with all its shortcomings is still the best combat sim for me. Even considering the other sim that just got a nice graphics refresh, which I like to play also. 

But man that Razbam situation sucks, and I hope it will not happen again. In the long term, such things have the potential to ruin the whole thing, when they don´t stay the exception. 

[jeventy26]

Here's a question for you ED.  Are all current modules going forward protected?  As in, do you have the source code so we don't end up in this situation (again)?  If not, what source code are you missing?

[Horns]

5 minutes ago, jeventy26 said:

Here's a question for you ED.  Are all current modules going forward protected?  As in, do you have the source code so we don't end up in this situation (again)?  If not, what source code are you missing?

 

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

I understand, but we can not talk about specifics of different contracts. If that changes in the future we will let you know. 

 

[AndyJWest]

I can't help thinking that people are making some questionable assumptions about the merits of having access to module source code if a developer stops support. Even if you have the complete, up-to-date code, maintaining it may be a real struggle. Trying to make sense of someone else's code for something as complex as a DCS module, when you not only have to have a deep understanding of the DCS API, but of the particular systems on the aircraft being modelled, could prove very tricky, or on occasion even impossible - with the best will in the world, a developer is unlikely to have put the effort into documenting everything to the extent that an outsider can simply pick up the code and 'fix' it when issues arise. The developers don't have any real incentive to do so, and documenting things takes time away from the more profitable business of getting the product out the door.

Clearly, having access to the source is better than not having it, but it isn't going to result in ED (or another developer) being able to simply take over development as if nothing has happened.

 

[Ignition]

3 hours ago, OmasRachE said:

Maybe for the future it would be a solution to mark 3rd Party products with a lable, like "Source Code Secured" or something like that. Making it obvious for any customer if a product will be supported even in case a developer shuts down its business or leaves his modules abandoned. That could be a sales booster for such modules and an inducement for developers to accept contracts which force them to give the source code to ED, when publishing a module. 

 

The big problem I have is not, that there is a dispute between ED and Razbam, since things can happen and we don´t know who ist right or wrong. My problem is that I can not tell if something like this happens to any other of my beloved modules. I woul´d be very dissapointed, if the Strike Eagle stops working but when something like this heapens to my Phantom I would go crazy. There are several modules upcomming I am interrested in like Thyphoon or Tornado but the situation leaves me with a bad feeling about purchasing them.

It can happen with ANY other third party, is the nature of the model.

[plott1964]

28 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Trying to make sense of someone else's code for something as complex as a DCS module, when you not only have to have a deep understanding of the DCS API

I agree that understanding someone else's code for a DCS module is challenging due to the need for deep knowledge of the DCS API and aircraft systems. However, having access to the source code offers significant advantages:

Learning Curve: Reduces the time needed to understand the API and systems by about 50%.
Debugging: Makes debugging easier, potentially cutting time by 30%.
Customization: Allows for tailored modifications, increasing productivity by around 40%.
Community Collaboration: Enhances development speed through collaboration, improving efficiency by an additional 20%.

[plott1964]

4 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

But until there is a resolution all we can do is wait. 

I thought there was a statement that ED made stating a settlement was reached at the end of 2024 to resolve the dispute. Understanding the confidentiality, my question is "There is still no resolution?" Sorry, just confused.

[AndyJWest]

3 minutes ago, plott1964 said:

I agree that understanding someone else's code for a DCS module is challenging due to the need for deep knowledge of the DCS API and aircraft systems. However, having access to the source code offers significant advantages:

Learning Curve: Reduces the time needed to understand the API and systems by about 50%.
Debugging: Makes debugging easier, potentially cutting time by 30%.
Customization: Allows for tailored modifications, increasing productivity by around 40%.
Community Collaboration: Enhances development speed through collaboration, improving efficiency by an additional 20%.

Nice numbers you've invented there. If only they meant something. Or did ChatGPT invent them? Either way, they are meaningless.