waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[MAXsenna]

28 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

ED is not refunding money.

Is giving store credits.

I can't believe how many people fail to grasp this. I do understand the frustration of Steam users, while I don't understand why most of them seems to believe that the E is refunded for cash, when it's not. (I wonder who pays the 3rd parties, if a refunded user chooses to get a non-ED module).

 

[Aapje]

8 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Why should ED give Razbam a PENNY if RB violated the contract?

Even if RB violated a contract, that doesn't mean that the damages are greater than money that RB is supposed to get.

For example, imagine that you broke a laptop charger at work and you are liable to pay the cost. Then it would not be reasonable for the company to dock you many thousands of dollars/euros, when the charger costs way less than that.

8 hours ago, Tank50us said:

We do know this. Not just from EDs statement, but a few people who were vocal about it BEFORE the lid was closed. While we may not know the EXACT wording of the contracts and legal agreements, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's in them.

Ah, so you KNOW* things.

* = making stuff up

8 hours ago, Tank50us said:

ED has stated they had a contract ready for RB to sign, and they'd have had the money coming in again. One E-Sign, and none of this would be happening. And yet it is. And the only reason people are shaking the pompoms for RB is because Ron went public claiming to be the victim.

But RB seems to have signed the settlement agreement, so you are again saying things that go against the facts.

8 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Why is it so hard for people to understand that when someone is in breach of contract, they don't. get. paid. Employers do it all the time with employees. Do something wrong with your contract (IE, what they're paying you to do), ya don't get paid.

Except that is also not how it works, except in your mind.

Edited Sunday at 10:47 AM by Aapje

[Esac_mirmidon]

And only for the Strike Eagle.

The other three modules are not for refunds, because they are considered "finished" and working as intended with the "disclaimer": Only on DCS 2.9 or previous versions

So the circle is closed. No refunds on steam, no refunds for other modules, 3 versions of DCS installed to play all modules you have paid for. Still waiting for any update on the statement about file sharing with 3rd party.

[Gizmo03]

vor 53 Minuten schrieb Esac_mirmidon:

And there is no money in any escrow account as the oficial statement says. 

I'd really like to see the source of this information please.

[Esac_mirmidon]

From the first post:

"We are still hoping to be able to implement the settlement agreement and to find a satisfactory outcome to the current situation, in the best interests of our valued community."

As i´ve said. There is a signed agreement from both parts from 2024 but as TODAY this agreement is not implemented. So no money on any escrow, no files neither.

 

Edited Sunday at 11:05 AM by Esac_mirmidon

[AbuMuqawama]

16 hours ago, WipeUout said:

What DCS and the community need is commercial competition.  DCS is basically the only product in the realistic combat flight sim market.

I'm going to say this as a whale, as someone that's bought pretty much every aircraft and map that has come out. At this point, having about $200 in aircraft that I can't fly come 3.0, unless there's some form of restitution, any other flight sim is getting my money from now on. I was willing to take the VEAO thing as a one off, but this is ridiculous. 

[Gizmo03]

vor 25 Minuten schrieb Esac_mirmidon:

From the first post:

"We are still hoping to be able to implement the settlement agreement and to find a satisfactory outcome to the current situation, in the best interests of our valued community."

As i´ve said. There is a signed agreement from both parts from 2024 but as TODAY this agreement is not implemented. So no money on any escrow, no files neither.

 

Ok, thanks. Yes, the first line of your quote is from the first post of this thread but doesn't have anything to do with an escrow. 
How do you know that there is no escrow? Just because there is an agreement which is not imlemented yet? Sorry, maybe i'm a bit lost but i don't get it.
 

[FriedrichNix]

Another thing ...

What about South Atlantic? A RAZBAM Map still up for sale and maybe not updated or worked on any more? Will it also cease to exist? Will there be optimization passes? Is it not from RAZBAM?

[Aapje]

6 hours ago, Oban said:

The Facts are on the first page, why do you always dismiss those?

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.

6 hours ago, Oban said:

and cherry pick the stuff Razbam released believing those to be factual?

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.

6 hours ago, Oban said:

Since you seem to believe Razbam in all of this

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.

6 hours ago, Oban said:

and try to come across as some sort of SME when dealing with contracts, care to explain why Razbam on at least 3 occasions since the agreement was allegedly signed late 2024, broke the confidentiality cause that went allong with said agreement? 

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.

6 hours ago, Oban said:

Razbam have leaked everything, including the C&D letters from ED, and yet, never leaked the actual contracts signed... why do you think that is? 

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.

6 hours ago, Oban said:

Why did Razbam not seek legal guidance from the beggining, instead use the court of public opinion? 

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

6 hours ago, Oban said:

Not once has Ron Zambrano put his hand up and apologised to his customers aknowledging his wrongdoings.

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?

6 hours ago, Oban said:

You state you don't know the contents of the contract, yet you cosntantly comment as if you do.. 

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

6 hours ago, Oban said:

FACT Razbam broke their contract
FACT Razbam were issued cease and decists
FACT Razbam breached the confidentiality clauses (on more than one occasion) 

FACT Razbam clearly did not accept the aggreement and continue to use the community as their weapon(s)

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.

[MAXsenna]

2 minutes ago, Griefhard said:

Another thing ...

What about South Atlantic? A RAZBAM Map still up for sale and maybe not updated or worked on any more? Will it also cease to exist? Will there be optimization passes? Is it not from RAZBAM?

No! As repeated and repeated in this exact thread. SA map is NOT Razbam! It's been licensed/published whatever under the Razbam name. It's a completely different team that now work on the Kola map published/licensed under ORBX. 

Cheers! 

[Esac_mirmidon]

16 minutes ago, Gizmo03 said:

Ok, thanks. Yes, the first line of your quote is from the first post of this thread but doesn't have anything to do with an escrow. 
How do you know that there is no escrow? Just because there is an agreement which is not imlemented yet? Sorry, maybe i'm a bit lost but i don't get it.
 

The terms of the agreement are not disclosed in public yet but on Discord, ED and Razbam sites, you can read more or less between the lines or just directly mentioned that the signed agreement is to create an independent escrow account to send the money from ED and send the files from RB. That agreement is not implemented yet as the official statement says.

Of course you can think whatever about this terms, if this is true or not. Im just throwing here what im reading. But taking in count thats all about the VEAO incident consequences, a new file sharing system to be signed by all 3rd party, for me it makes sense thats exactly what both parts signed late 2024.

Edited Sunday at 11:55 AM by Esac_mirmidon

[Gizmo03]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb Esac_mirmidon:

The terms of the agreement are not disclosed in public yet but on Discord, ED and Razbam sites, you can read more or less between the lines or just directly mentioned that the signed agreement is to create an independent escrow account to send the money from ED and send the files from RB. That agreement is not implemented yet as the official statement says.

Of course you can think whatever about this terms, if this is true or not. Im just throwing here what im reading. But taking in count thats all about the VEAO incident consequences, a new file sharing system to be signed by all 3rd party, for me it makes sense.

Yeah if it's true or not is another story. I could imagine that it's true but what if there is already an escrow with the money on it but the settlement is not yet implemented because RB still refuses to send the files? Could also be the other way around - they are willing to send the files but there is still no money. 
In my opinion this is the biggest problem and most exhausting part of all this. Both sides are claiming different things and except from the directly involved persons no one knows what really is true. On the one side there is RB and it seems these guys think the one screaming the loudest is the one who is right and on the other side there is ED - still acting professional and silent but suddenly had to admit on last friday that one of the "screams" of the other party is actually true.... In the meanwhile there are the customers with absolutely no clue about whats really happening and.... yes it's time again to take a break from reading this thread as i did before last friday's newsletter.....
 

[Ignition]

19 hours ago, Tank50us said:

I have a sneaking suspicion that this is why RB pushed the Strike Eagle out... they knew they were gonna get busted, tried to get it out and get what they could from it... take the money and take off... only... the contract stopped that from happening.

That said... It could be just that even if they agreed to the new policy... Ron might just be enough of a petulant child that he's basically refusing to give it up. It should be an open and shut court case. "You agreed to the new terms, now deliver"... but unless ED hires someone to fast-rope into the dudes house and retrieve that flash drive (and, well, any computer it might be on)... there's few ways for them to get the source code.

The only other option would be to put all of the modules in front of teams to basically reverse engineer them, rebuild the code from scratch, and PRAY it works in 3.#

Or ED allowed Razbam to release the F-15E so ED could take the money from their IP dispute claim. We will never know.

In the end it was ED who allowed the sell of the F-15E after all.

Edited Sunday at 12:22 PM by Ignition

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Something to keep in mind is the Stop Killing Games proceedings and the legal ramifications that will have.

Seems to me that individual modules also count and not just DCS in general. 
I’m aware that the legal procedure only just started, but the required amount of votes was reached in both the EU and UK and thus there *will* be legal consequences

[Esac_mirmidon]

Thats what i understand about " not implemented yet" 

Both, one side or the other didnt apply to the agreement "yet". Not taking sides here but the official statement says "We are still hoping to be able to implement the settlement agreement and to find a satisfactory outcome to the current situation, in the best interests of our valued community."

So 8 months before we are here, still waiting.

[tzui]

59 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

No! As repeated and repeated in this exact thread. SA map is NOT Razbam! It's been licensed/published whatever under the Razbam name. It's a completely different team that now work on the Kola map published/licensed under ORBX. 

Cheers! 

This is correct, but what should I do with a Flakland map if there is no Harrier?

Edited Sunday at 12:46 PM by tzui

[Gizmo03]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb Esac_mirmidon:

Thats what i understand about " not implemented yet" 

Both, one side or the other didnt apply to the agreement "yet".

That's how i understand it as well. I was just curious because in your first post i've quoted you wrote: "And there is no money in any escrow account as the oficial statement says."
That sounded to me like it's a fact and you have some insider information and not just how you understood it or what you've read between the lines. And that's also why i asked you for a source.

[Shibbyland]

I wish I’d never spent so much on DCS. This has really highlighted the fragility of it and whilst it’s true lots of gaming works this way nowadays, with dcs it’s sort of an “all your eggs in one basket” situation.

Many others have already said this but it wouldn’t be so bad if modules were reasonably cheap but they’re not. As we know, each module is the price of a full price game and it looks highly likely that in the not too distant future we’ll lose several of them with no compensation.

Ive enjoyed my time playing DCS but probably not enough to warrant the expense. 
 

[Schmidtfire]

3 minutes ago, tzui said:

This is correct, but what should I do with a Flakland map if there is no Harrier?

Fly another aircraft on the same map? AV-8B-NA never flew in the Falklands conflict anyways. A proper Sea Harrier would make much more sense. 

[Gizmo03]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb tzui:

This is correct, but what should I do with a Flakland map if there is no Harrier?

Why do you need the Harrier for the Falklands map? Did you ever use the A-10C with the Caucasus map?

[Esac_mirmidon]

12 minutes ago, Gizmo03 said:

That's how i understand it as well. I was just curious because in your first post i've quoted you wrote: "And there is no money in any escrow account as the oficial statement says."
That sounded to me like it's a fact and you have some insider information and not just how you understood it or what you've read between the lines. And that's also why i asked you for a source.

Well follow this logical sequence:

ED and RB signed and agreement

RB is asking for a payment. ED is asking for a file sharing policy

ED STATES the agreement is not implmented yet ant THEY-ED are hoping to BE ABLE to implement that agreement

So no money has been provided, they are hoping to be able to do so in his words. 

Also that situation induce to think RB didnt shared the files yet. I dont know about that

Is a logical deduction that i think is reasonable. I dont know how the payments must be done, in steps, one payment, the files shared also all together, by stpes. But we know the agreement has been signed, and is not yet implemented. If one side had fullfiled his part the other should be commited to do so under threat of breaking the agreement. Because ED STILL HOPES to be able to implemented and OFFICIALY the agreement is not cancelled, the logical assumption is the money and the files didnt moved to the escrow yet.

I´ve read also RB had retired his support to the agreement, a statement made by Ron himself, but this is not official yet here in ED house, so we should keep waiting.

Edited Sunday at 01:04 PM by Esac_mirmidon

[Oban]

1 hour 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.

[Aapje]

23 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Something to keep in mind is the Stop Killing Games proceedings and the legal ramifications that will have.

[...]
I’m aware that the legal procedure only just started, but the required amount of votes was reached in both the EU and UK and thus there *will* be legal consequences

All it means that the EU legislature has to respond to it, which in itself is huge, since they have huge legitimacy problems. So if there is an initiative that actually comes from the populace, instead of the lobbyists or the elite, they have a chance to show that they are not 100% anti-democratic.

[Oban]

7 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

Well follow this logical sequence:

ED and RB signed and agreement

RB is asking for a payment. ED is asking for a file sharing policy

ED STATES the agreement is not implmented yet ant THEY-ED are hoping to BE ABLE to implement that agreement

So no money has been provided, they are hoping to be able to do so in his words. 

Also that situation reveals RB didnt shared the files yet.

Is a logical deduction that i thibk is reasonable. I dont know how the payments must be done, in steps, one paymente, the files shared also all together, by stpes. But we know the agreement has been signed, and is not yet implemented. If one side had fullfiled his part the other should be commited to do so under threat of breaking the agreement. Because ED STILL HOPES to be able to implemented and OFFICIALY the agreement is not cancelled, the logical assumption is the money and the files didnt moved to the escrow yet.

You missed out the part where Razbam, or parties thereof have already on at least 3 occasions in recent months breached the confidentiality clause that was allegedly part of said agreement, twice by Ron Zambrano himself. 


Personally I don't wish to see Razbam go out of business, but can they afford to write off what's owed to them by ED? 

Both parties need to be sat at a table and force fed shyt sandwiches by their customers until both agree to end this situation and get back to making great modules  

[MAXsenna]

This is correct, but what should I do with a Flakland map if there is no Harrier?

You invade it of course!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk