waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[alejandr0]

11 minutes ago, rob10 said:

So you want a refund from ED through Steam.  OK, lets say Steam takes a 30% cut (no idea if that's the actual amount, but that seems to be what general consensus is) on every sale.  So ED is already out 30% on what you paid.  Now you want (presumably) 100% back.  I'd pretty much guarantee Steam isn't going to cover the 30%.  So now ED got 30% less for your original purchase in the first place AND has to pay you back a 30% premium (since Steam isn't going to cover that).  So for easy math let's say you paid $100.  ED got $70.  So it's flat out costing them at least $30 more for every refund the authorize through Steam, and the whole $100 is coming out of their pocket.  Like it or not, with the store credit they are offering ED store customers they still have the $100, it's just being moved around.  So trying to claim a "fairness" argument since they are giving ED store customers credit doesn't work.  Even if ED was giving full cash refunds, they'd still be paying an extra $30 to Steam users so where's the fairness even there?

I’m not asking ED to cover Steam’s cut. I’m asking them to acknowledge that Steam customers deserve the same basic fairness as E-shop customers.
They chose to sell on Steam, they benefited from the wider audience and visibility, and with that comes responsibility. If they can't offer a full refund, fine... but offering nothing while E-shop users get credit isn't right. We're not asking for special treatment, just equal respect as paying customers.

This isn’t just about money. It’s about trust.

[Aapje]

9 minutes ago, NineLine said:

That is all you need to remember. There is a confidentiality order in place on this. We have said what we can right now. Thanks

Yet allegedly you've written more on Discord than you have shared here:

So is that indeed a message that you wrote and if so, why can you explicitly state on Discord that the agreement is "not being implemented right now," but are not willing to write it here?

[Oban]

16 minutes ago, Aapje said:

This is not actually a direct answer to the question. 'Acting in good faith' can still mean that ED diverged from their obligations under the settlement agreement, but did so in a way that you consider to be for a good reason and thus still acting in good faith.

For example, let's say that I'm obligated to show up at work at 9 o'clock every day, but one day I get into a car accident and am not able to make it in time. Then I can argue that I got to work as soon as reasonably possible and I thus acted in good faith, but my employer would also have a point that the contract wasn't followed. So then you can get into the murky area of whether the situation truly was a 'force majeure' and the question how this has to be handled.

So did ED follow the settlement contract to the letter, or not?

 ......you're like a broken record. 

You and others are not going to get the answers you want no matter how many times you ask it. 

Once side seems to stick to that confidentiality agreement rigidly, and the and has buttoned up and the pro Razbam crowd hate them for that,  the other side has at least on 3 occasions in 2025 breached this alleged confidentiality clause, claimed there has been no communications, and no settlement/agreement reached and used the court of public opinion to fight their cause..the pro ED crowd hate them for that.

It's comedy gold really.   

[Esac_mirmidon]

Its over. If they dont want to say it now they will be forced by reality soon. Just people cant swallow all in one bite.

 

[ChuckJäger]

this whole thing has been handled so poorly.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Beeing extremely educated, yes, very poorly

[Hammer1-1]

17 minutes ago, Oban said:

 ......you're like a broken record. 

You and others are not going to get the answers you want no matter how many times you ask it. 

Once side seems to stick to that confidentiality agreement rigidly, and the and has buttoned up and the pro Razbam crowd hate them for that,  the other side has at least on 3 occasions in 2025 breached this alleged confidentiality clause, claimed there has been no communications, and no settlement/agreement reached and used the court of public opinion to fight their cause..the pro ED crowd hate them for that.

It's comedy gold really.   

You know what makes me the angriest about this whole thing? Having to defend ED. Those who know, know. ED is like Lockheed Martin: they dont care about your opinion so long as the job gets done and it sells.  I REALLY hate it when ED is in the right, so quit making me defend ED. But Id get mad if someone was using me to make money -on my dime, with my company vehicles and tools, with my customer contracts - as a side gig without my knowledge, blessing, or my benefit. 

[JuiceIsLoose]

5 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

You know what makes me the angriest about this whole thing? Having to defend ED. Those who know, know. ED is like Lockheed Martin: they dont care about your opinion so long as the job gets done and it sells.  I REALLY hate it when ED is in the right, so quit making me defend ED. But Id get mad if someone was using me to make money -on my dime, with my company vehicles and tools, with my customer contracts - as a side gig without my knowledge, blessing, or my benefit. 

You know what’s funny? The only group that’s made money through this entire ordeal is ED. 

Edited 20 minutes ago by JuiceIsLoose

[nilpointer]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

This is not actually a direct answer to the question. 'Acting in good faith' can still mean that ED diverged from their obligations under the settlement agreement, but did so in a way that you consider to be for a good reason and thus still acting in good faith.

For example, let's say that I'm obligated to show up at work at 9 o'clock every day, but one day I get into a car accident and am not able to make it in time. Then I can argue that I got to work as soon as reasonably possible and I thus acted in good faith, but my employer would also have a point that the contract wasn't followed. So then you can get into the murky area of whether the situation truly was a 'force majeure' and the question how this has to be handled.

So did ED follow the settlement contract to the letter, or not?

This kind of armchair level, spurious legal expertise is why this thread is where it is every day. 

Time and time and time again it’s repeated here that what is going to be said has been said, yet you continue to regurgitate the same things as though by typing it for the 400th time you’ll force a change in reality. 
 

Do yourself a favour and go look at some sky.

Edited 10 minutes ago by nilpointer

[Citizen]

3 minutes ago, nilpointer said:

Time and time and time again it’s repeated here that what is going to be said has been said, yet you continue to repeat the same things as though by typing it repeatedly you’ll force a change in reality. 

It's reasonable to doubt the validity of that.

If they're legally not able to discuss, why were they able to claim RB violated IP? If they're muzzled, why were they able to say they've signed an agreement? If the agreement hasn't been implemented as they claim on discord, why can't they discuss it? That cherrypicking more than anything else has soured my viewpoint of ED, and they've been doing it since the start.

[nilpointer]

17 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

You know what makes me the angriest about this whole thing? Having to defend ED. Those who know, know. ED is like Lockheed Martin: they dont care about your opinion so long as the job gets done and it sells.  I REALLY hate it when ED is in the right, so quit making me defend ED. But Id get mad if someone was using me to make money -on my dime, with my company vehicles and tools, with my customer contracts - as a side gig without my knowledge, blessing, or my benefit. 

Love it or hate it, that’s capitalism ¯\_(ツ)_/¯