waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[Tank50us]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

I can't speak for RB (but I hope they feel the same) but we just want to see this resolved and if it were easy it would have been by now. 

Yeah, when you're dealing with someone who's got an ego the size of Jupiter, things are NEVER easy....

This should've been an easy thing: "Either give us the code so we can keep this module working, or sign this new contract and get paid and we can continue selling like normal."

But no... the head of RB seems to think that he can do whatever he wants... while the people who worked for him go unemployed, and the people who bought his product get stiffed with products that have an uncertain future now. Let's just hope that SOMETHING breaks, and we get to keep flying those modules. I'm holding onto them for that very hope.

[Mad Dog 762]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

 

I can't speak for RB (but I hope they feel the same) but we just want to see this resolved and if it were easy it would have been by now. 

This is what is frustrating and puzzling....if there was an agreement reached 8 or 9 months ago why is the issue not resolved?  That is what agreements are supposed to do, right?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

9 minutes ago, Mad Dog 762 said:

This is what is frustrating and puzzling....if there was an agreement reached 8 or 9 months ago why is the issue not resolved?  That is what agreements are supposed to do, right?

They've yet to agree to enact the agreement. I know, it's like something out of the minds of Monty Python.

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

Blame us, blame RB, blame both of us, but be nice to each other even if your opinion differs from someone else.

I can't speak for RB (but I hope they feel the same) but we just want to see this resolved and if it were easy it would have been by now. 

It's great and all, but honestly? Some assurances in a worst case going beyond "It'll work in 2.9.x" would be REALLY appreciated. I don't think a legacy version is going to cut it in the event of 4 modules going the way of the dodo. This wasn't a small install base like the Hawk was. ED's going to have to do something very, very big for consumers in that worst case scenario.

I'd be a lot more gunshy about DCS in that case. I would not be alone. That's money I can put into cycling or flying.

[Oban]

4 hours ago, Citizen said:

ED says the agreement hasn't been implemented. There should be no expectation of confidentiality on a agreement that hasn't been implemented.

And if one side has breached said agreement, repeatedly, why would you wanto to implement it? 

Timelines and attention to things  and details being said and done outside of the box are important here.. 
6 months ago on various platforms one of the main protagonists in all of this stated that ED hadn't even been in communications and/or were not responding to communications, and shouting to all who listened that ED actually went back on a deal that had been made.. IIRC this was about a release of funds... first breach of said confidentiality clause

twice in the past 4 months Ron Zambarano has gone to the court of public opinion stating more or less the same thing, and that they had exhausted all measures... more breaches of the confidentiality clause... 

Do you not see a pattern here? Ron and his subcontractors should have stuck to "Less said, soonest mended" 

If the confidentiality clause kept being broken, why would you implement whatever agreement was put in place... 

Ron needs to take a close look at himself and realise his ego is one of the main issues here. Notice that by all accounts, he still has accesss to ED's SDK after it removed, he's not mentioned anything recently about it having been removed again...so that's the glimmer of light in this shyshow..  

Nick Grey also needs to do similar. 

[tzui]

After the drama with the Hawk you promised that from now on you would own the source code of all third-party modules so that this can never happen again. Obviously that was a lie.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

53 minutes ago, tzui said:

After the drama with the Hawk you promised that from now on you would own the source code of all third-party modules so that this can never happen again. Obviously that was a lie.

Yeah, this is bugging me. We were assured something like the Hawk wouldn't occur again, and now we're staring at something far worse. FAR worse.

[YoYo]

10 hours ago, Aapje said:

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?

So, if the modules aren't compatible with DCS 3.0, will I get my money back like with F-15E? Even in ED miles?

Of course, DCS 3 is a very distant period, it seems that the aspherical earth was supposed to enter here, so I don't think it will be earlier than 2027, but the question will still be valid.

[alejandr0]

8 hours ago, Horns said:

So repeating yourself is your chosen form of protest? Go ahead, I can't wait to see this play out.

Standing up for something doesn't always look exciting from the outside.
If repeating the facts is the only way to keep the issue visible, then yes... I’ll repeat myself.
It may not change everything, but staying silent definitely changes nothing.

[Silver_Dragon]

Mother o god... The drama...

Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

[NineLine]

21 minutes ago, YoYo said:

So, if the modules aren't compatible with DCS 3.0, will I get my money back like with F-15E? Even in ED miles?

Of course, DCS 3 is a very distant period, it seems that the aspherical earth was supposed to enter here, so I don't think it will be earlier than 2027, but the question will still be valid.

All we have to go on is the announcement in this thread, and it only mentions them working in 2.9.x, even after 3.0.x is here, we will keep an older version of DCS available for those that still want to use those IF this dispute is not solved. The preferred outcome is that something changes, and those modules can be updated to continue on with the future DCS major versions. 

As you said, 3.0 is most likely a ways off, and things can change between now and then. We will try to keep you as updated as possible, just like this statement we released yesterday. 

21 minutes ago, alejandr0 said:

Standing up for something doesn't always look exciting from the outside.
If repeating the facts is the only way to keep the issue visible, then yes... I’ll repeat myself.
It may not change everything, but staying silent definitely changes nothing.

This is fine, within reason, and while we are a little more lax in this specific thread, repetitive posts and threads of already answered questions are frowned upon. Thanks

[freehand]

Snippets of information from ED here & there which translates into get ready to be bent over lol.

Edited Saturday at 08:39 AM by freehand

[alejandr0]

Thanks for the clarification. I understand the need to avoid repetition, but please also understand that when people feel ignored or brushed off, they will keep asking. It’s not about spam, it’s about accountability.
I (and others) still believe this situation deserves better resolution. I’m kindly asking you and the team to escalate this issue internally... specially since it affects paying customers who no longer have access to proper support for what they bought.

Doing nothing only deepens the frustration. Please, help push this matter forward.

[tzui]

25 minutes ago, NineLine said:

we will keep an older version of DCS available for those that still want to use those IF this dispute is not solved.

So the tiny DCS user base will be cut in two, right? I wonder if this will be the end of multiplayer sessions.

[razo+r]

47 minutes ago, tzui said:

So the tiny DCS user base will be cut in two, right?

No

47 minutes ago, tzui said:

I wonder if this will be the end of multiplayer sessions.

No, not at all

[Esac_mirmidon]

So resuming.

The VEAO issue that will not happen again is hapenning again multiplied 4 times.

No refunds for anything except F-15E in ED credits ( no steam refunds at all ).

Double DCS Installation to be able to fly RB modules. From 2.10.X-3.X RB modules are out of DCS

All assets from RB gone. No Tarawa. No more basket refuel for any module except the S-3B Viking or the IL-78 ( DCS Core doesnt have any blue basket tanker apart from the Viking if RB assets are removed )

Missing anything else?

Ahh ,yes, we can still wait and hope for a positive outcome.

Edited Saturday at 10:27 AM by Esac_mirmidon

[Scylla]

hace 1 hora, NineLine dijo:

As you said, 3.0 is most likely a ways off

Hi, and sorry if its is posted in other threat, but I want to ask a silly question.

When is planned the 3.0?

And I mean something like... 2 weeks, next year, or 5 years from now.

Because ED can call the new update whatever they want, like implement the vulkan and call it like 2.9.9999 or fix the Ch 47 radio presets page and call it 5.0

[Oban]

4 hours ago, tzui said:

After the drama with the Hawk you promised that from now on you would own the source code of all third-party modules so that this can never happen again. Obviously that was a lie.

IIRC The contract agreement for the F15E preceeded before the ending of the Hawk situation, and therefore wasn't applicable.

How do you know that this very issue, the ownwership of the source code, isn't one of the major issues preventing agreements to be concluded  here? Wouldn't using ED's SDK to create their modules actually prevent RZ from using their modules on other flight sim platforms ? 

[Bruce_D]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

All we have to go on is the announcement in this thread, and it only mentions them working in 2.9.x, even after 3.0.x is here, we will keep an older version of DCS available for those that still want to use those IF this dispute is not solved. The preferred outcome is that something changes, and those modules can be updated to continue on with the future DCS major versions. 

After what happened to VEAO this was the solution that ED gave at the time. For me this is not a opition, I'm not going to buy a single module again. I'm telling my friends not to buy from ED and to play another game.

Find a better solution, I don't care who is responsible for this mess.

[primus_TR]

1 hour ago, Bruce_D said:

I'm telling my friends not to buy from ED and to play another game.

lol

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, Oban said:

IIRC The contract agreement for the F15E preceeded before the ending of the Hawk situation, and therefore wasn't applicable.

How do you know that this very issue, the ownwership of the source code, isn't one of the major issues preventing agreements to be concluded  here? Wouldn't using ED's SDK to create their modules actually prevent RZ from using their modules on other flight sim platforms ? 

But, then what about the other 3? I can buy it for the F-15E, but what about the others? Did ED waive that requirement for those, too? If that's the case, ED has done a poor job of controlling its ecosystem. It'd become more difficult to buy third party with any measure of confidence at that point.

[Gizmo03]

This all is really strange. All the time i thought this "There was a settlement signed by everyone" thing was just the "normal" trash talk by Razbam. Now it's confirmed to be true. Ok, that doesn't mean anything. 
I'm just a bit worried about the fact that it was already signed at least 7 or maybe even 8 month ago and nothing changed. One might think that a settlement means that both parties agree to something and stick to it.... How can you sign a settlement and then.... what? Pull back and just don't stick to the conditions? And how can you still call it a settlement?
Already signed end of 2024? Was it by coincidence at the same time when Kate Perederko wrote these "MiG-23 will be a thing" and "Don't worry about your F-15. The Strike Eagle will see developement - this way or the other..." stuff?
But what really, really disappoints me is the fact that we went from:
"We will do our best to keep the RB modules working as they are"
through:
"We will do our best to keep the RB modules working until DCS 2.9x
to:
"we will keep an older version of DCS available for those that still want to use those IF this dispute is not solved."

It also pi**es me off that we went from:
"We set up a new contract with the third party devs in order to avoid another disaster like with the Hawk."
through:
"What happened to the Hawk will not happen to the RB modules except from the SE since the other modules are already out of EA."
to:
....yeah - same as above - keeping an older version for the RB modules availabe.... so in the future we might need a third DCS install to play with all our modules we have paid for?

I was always hoping for a post in this thread about a settlement and the continuation of the cooperation between ED and RB.
But now i think there will be the day when the announcement is just like: "We are pleased to announce that we will release DCS 3.0 with the next update. All RB users please make sure to make a copy of the current version in order to keep your RB modules working...."

That's all weird - really weird.
To me it is obvious that ED expects to loose all 4 RB modules in DCS.
Great, well done guys, well done (both parties). 
Get your stuff together!!

Edited Saturday at 12:59 PM by Gizmo03

[Esac_mirmidon]

Maybe its me but whoever at ED thinks about 3 DCS versions to be able to fly the Hawk, Razbam Modules and keep having updates beyond 2.9 is a fair solution...

This is absurd at a biblical dimension.

"Hey dear costumers, not a problem here, you can fly your favourite modules. Just keep 2.5.3 DCS, 2.9 DCS and 3.0 DCS version in your computer" 

Thanks for you passion and support.

If this situation wasnt advertised false by ED years ago, i didnt believe it. 

Remember: This is still an oficial statement not changed yet " To avoid such issues in the future all 3d party are now required to make the game files available in case they are no longer able to support their products"

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 01:03 PM by Esac_mirmidon

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

18 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

Maybe its me but whoever at ED thinks about 3 DCS versions to be able to fly the Hawk, Razbam Modules and keep having updates beyond 2.9 is a fair solution...

This is absurd at a biblical dimension.

"Hey dear costumers, not a problem here, you can fly your favourite modules. Just keep 2.5.3 DCS, 2.9 DCS and 3.0 DCS version in your computer" 

Thanks for you passion and support.

If this situation wasnt advertised false by ED years ago, i didnt believe it. 

Remember: This is still an oficial statement not changed yet " To avoid such issues in the future all 3d party are now required to make the game files available in case they are no longer able to support their products"

 

It was one thing when it was VEAO's Hawk, but now it's 4 aircraft and their solution (at the present) is keep a legacy version installed. 

I cannot underline how absurd that is when we're looking at 200+ gig installs. This is an absolutely untenable position for ED to give us. Granted, there's a lot that can change in this timeframe since we're talking quite a bit of time in the future, but it's still there. 

ED will have to bite the bullet, some how, if it wants to maintain positive customer will. It needs to also reconsider how it on boards third parties. This requirement to make game files available seems awfully wishy-washy. Is that the case for ALL third parties or was Razbam afforded special treatment because of how long they've been here? Quite a few uncomfortable questions need to be answered.

Edited Saturday at 01:18 PM by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Esac_mirmidon]

I hope some manager from ED could update that statement about 3rd party files shared with ED so future customers should make better informed decisions when buying things at ED store.

Edited Saturday at 01:19 PM by Esac_mirmidon

[mondo]

12 hours ago, NineLine said:

Blame us, blame RB, blame both of us, but be nice to each other even if your opinion differs from someone else.

I can't speak for RB (but I hope they feel the same) but we just want to see this resolved and if it were easy it would have been by now. 

It sounds pretty easy to resolve from what ED and what Ron has said but from an outsiders viewpoints it seems like egos are the issue here. Certainly RBs performance has been very unprofessional - I've worked for years in software engineering and games development and never seen anyone behave like that - but it's gone on so long now that even a stalwart DCS fan since day 1 like myself is really not understanding how this has spiralled out of control or why a resolution hasn't happened within weeks of these issues between you coming to light and entirely outside of the public sphere.