waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[Oban]

3 minutes ago, mondo said:

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. 

Best response to this thread yet. 

[alejandr0]

Frustration among customers is growing, and it’s not hard to see why. For months now, all we’ve heard are vague reassurances: “We’re doing our best,” “We hope it works out,” “The modules still function.” But those words are starting to ring hollow.
People aren’t looking for vague promises anymore ... they’re asking for real action. Empty hope doesn’t fix the situation, and every day that passes without a resolution further damages the community’s trust in Eagle Dynamics.
This isn’t about drama... it’s about accountability. We’re not just going to quietly accept being left in this mess. If ED truly values its players, it’s time to step up and deal with this properly. Hope is not a solution. Silence is not support.
The longer this drags on, the harder it becomes to believe that anything will actually be done.

[Hammer1-1]

2 hours 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"

 

 

 

this was the one thing irritating me like a pair of wet tighty whities on a hot summer day:

"To avoid such issues in the future, all 3rd party agreements are now required to make the game files available to support their product..." What they didnt say was "for 3rd party creators who have signed contracts from here on out. Those currently in work cannot be enforced because of existing contracts; our attorneys dont want to open that can of worms for some reason or another because amending contracts is too hard big frowny face." FML for me not being able to read between the lines 7 years ago.

Edited 10 hours ago by Hammer1-1

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

3 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

FML for me not being able to read between the lines 7 years ago.

You aren't alone there, at least.

[Oban]

2 hours ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

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"

What makes you think this hasn't happened? 

Razbam products were more than likely before this course of action took effect. 

What makes you think that this isn't one of the reasons the agreement that was supposed to have been put in place end of 2024, and Razbam have said get lost? 

I'm more inclined to think that most of the Razbam modules were contracted prior to the sharing of game files came into effect. 

[Esac_mirmidon]

Then i want ED managers to rephrase that stament and specifically STATE what 3rd parties signed the files sharing and what developers didnt. 

Even just a list of "SAFE" modules covered with the files sharing could be enough for me.

I just want to make informed decisions about my future on ED shop.

I think is fair enough to know that in advance of any payment, dont you think? 

I dont care anymore about ED-RB issue, its over, i´ve admited im loosing all my RB modules when DCS pass 2.9 version. I want to know what content in DCS is protected in the future by the file sharing and what content is not. Because until yesterday the base common knowledge about this was "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 product"

ALL 3rd Party. NO exceptions mentioned, no modules mentioned. It says 3rd parties. ALL OF THEM

Edited 9 hours ago by Esac_mirmidon

[Oban]

37 minutes ago, alejandr0 said:

This isn’t about drama... it’s about accountability. We’re not just going to quietly accept being left in this mess. If ED truly values its players, it’s time to step up and deal with this properly. Hope is not a solution. Silence is not support.

It is if there's a confidentiality clause in place. 

I hope you're also holding Razbam to the same standards with regards to accountability and as to why they decided to break the agreement, and the confidentiality clause associated with it? 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

6 minutes ago, Oban said:

What makes you think this hasn't happened? 

Razbam products were more than likely before this course of action took effect. 

What makes you think that this isn't one of the reasons the agreement that was supposed to have been put in place end of 2024, and Razbam have said get lost? 

I'm more inclined to think that most of the Razbam modules were contracted prior to the sharing of game files came into effect. 

That's what I assume the case may be for the F-15E and Mirage, maybe the AV-8, but I have my doubts about that being the case with the MiG-19.

Still, in such case, that's cold comfort because that means *A LOT* of modules can be boned.

[Hammer1-1]

1 minute ago, Oban said:

It is if there's a confidentiality clause in place. 

I hope you're also holding Razbam to the same standards with regards to accountability and as to why they decided to break the agreement, and the confidentiality clause associated with it? 

^100%

[Oban]

1 minute ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

Then i want ED managers to rephrase that stament and specifically STATE what 3rd parties signed the files sharing and what developers didnt. 

Even just a list of "SAFE" modules covered with the files sharing could be enough for me.

I just want to make informed decisions about my future on ED shop.

I think is fair enough to know that in advance of any payment, dont you think?

I'm also wanting to know who Killed Jeffrey Epstien, but I'm not likely to have that information disclosed to me. 

There's no such thing as a safe module, or any other software, nobody can guarantee this, nothing even in life is guaranteed, except death and taxes, not even the mighty Bill Gates, with his windows upgrades... expectations v's reality can be brutal. 

[Esac_mirmidon]

Why is so hard to understand?

Right now there is an official statement: "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 product"

It seems "incorrect" as far as i know today.

So i want a CLARIFICATION from ED for this official statement about what 3rd party products are under that files sharing contract and what products are not

Im not asking about what could happen in the next 20 years, or any future guarantee for life. i want to know as we know what 3rd parties are in the ED miles program and what developers are not, what 3rd parties have signed that file sharing and what modules are involved within.

No so hard to provide from ED as we are costumers after all.

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Esac_mirmidon

[Hammer1-1]

3 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

Why is so hard to understand?

Right now there is an official statement: "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 product"

It seems "incorrect" as far as i know today.

So i want a CLARIFICATION from ED for this official statement about what 3rd party products are under that files sharing contract and what products are not

Im not asking about what could happen in the next 20 years, or any future guarantee for life. i want to know as we know what 3rd parties are in the ED miles program and what developers are not, what 3rd parties have signed that file sharing and what modules are involved within.

No so hard to provide from ED as we are costumers after all.

 

It technically isnt incorrect, its just very misleading. It absolutely should be made explicitly clear though as there is no such thing as too honest.

Edited 9 hours ago by Hammer1-1

[Vamp]

I don't get it. We've got one side saying it's completely over, giving heads up on the situation throughout the conflict and giving a full on explanation to most important details of the agreements both past and the most recent one mentioned yesterday, being open to community questions and literally showing receipts for being ready to cooperate instantly and share the updates and escrow. The other side is hiding behind supposed confidentiality, dodging every single in-depth question and even deleting their own statements  from social media, sharing messages that contradict each other and dropping their main claim which I don't think anyone believe by now with all that IP infringement trouble.

[Esac_mirmidon]

6 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

It technically isnt incorrect, its just very misleading. It absolutely should be made explicitly clear though. There is no such thing as too honest.

if is that so, then a clarification is indeed needed. 

Is easy to resolve: "Those 3rd party listed here have signed the file sharing program with us:" " Those modules listed here are included in the file sharing program" 

They can just add " Everything is subject to change" if they feel more confortable. But at least is something we as customers can ask for informed payment decisions within ED Store. Knowing nothing is granted in the mid-long future. But at least we all can know ED have those files from those developers if the worst case scenario someone are not able to keep developing the modules.

Edited 9 hours ago by Esac_mirmidon

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

4 minutes ago, Vamp said:

 The other side is hiding behind supposed confidentiality, dodging every single in-depth question and even deleting their own statements  from social media, sharing messages that contradict each other and dropping their main claim which I don't think anyone believe by now with all that IP infringement trouble.

Probably because, once again, legal counsel has told them to keep quiet.

Also, if IP infringement weren't involved, this would've been over long ago.

[Oban]

12 minutes ago, Vamp said:

I don't get it. We've got one side saying it's completely over, giving heads up on the situation throughout the conflict and giving a full on explanation to most important details of the agreements both past and the most recent one mentioned yesterday, being open to community questions and literally showing receipts for being ready to cooperate instantly and share the updates and escrow. The other side is hiding behind supposed confidentiality, dodging every single in-depth question and even deleting their own statements  from social media, sharing messages that contradict each other and dropping their main claim which I don't think anyone believe by now with all that IP infringement trouble.

Clearly you dont. 
What part of confidentiality, especially in business don't you understand? 
 

[Black-Dog]

I want a refund for F15E. Probably won't get it because their egos are too big. Won't ever buy RAZBAM ony any other flight platforms.

[Fran11player]

So, the clear thing we all get to understand is that, after all the Hawk mess, ED promised us that something like that will never happen again, and it is going to happen again unless a "positive outcome".

So, ED plainly lied to all of us.

GG ED.

[Hammer1-1]

18 minutes ago, Black-Dog said:

I want a refund for F15E. Probably won't get it because their egos are too big. Won't ever buy RAZBAM ony any other flight platforms.

dude...just open a support ticket and ask for one. Youll get store credit instead of a refund, but its 100% better than nothing. 

[Koziolek]

31 minutes ago, Fran11player said:

So, the clear thing we all get to understand is that, after all the Hawk mess, ED promised us that something like that will never happen again, and it is going to happen again unless a "positive outcome".

So, ED plainly lied to all of us.

GG ED.

Nope,  they did not promised us anything. It's just your wishful thinking. They just said that from now on, the future contracts would require the game files available to ED. Apparently RB contracts were not "future". So maybe, just maybe, this situation will not happen to some of the other modules. But I agree, it would be nice to know which ones

Edited 8 hours ago by Koziolek

[Vamp]

2 minutes ago, Oban said:

Clearly you dont. 
What part of confidentiality, especially in business don't you understand? 
 

The fact that you can literally go and ask one side any question you want and get a detailed response that is both straight to the point and coherent with the full picture they provide. On the other side you got pretty much nothing and constant signs of both vagueness and avoidance. Yet somehow I'm meant to believe that the first side is actively engaging in an anti consumer behaviour just because "you wouldn't get it and there's a hidden contractual thing that makes them unprofessional" that apparently only applies to one side that can't even get their statements together. I'm really starting to wonder if it's just a smoke and mirrors tactic especially when we're talking about companies that not that not so long ago used to made deals through a WhatsApp chat. How am I as a consumer that is going to lose their EA dream aircraft ment to somehow believe that every single thing which was laid out by RBs side, containing of some of the best in scene talent that has been left out to dry and financially and mentally pushed out of the scene, giving me in depth info about the entire BTS process and how it's now completely over, is a total lie without any proof claiming otherwise but some flash words.

[Hammer1-1]

1 minute ago, Koziolek said:

Nope,  they did not promised us anything. It's just your wishful thinking. They just said that from now on, the future contracts would require the game file available to ED. Apparently RB contracts were not "future". So maybe, just maybe, this situation will not happen to some of the other modules. But I agree, it would be nice to know to which ones

Its easy to figure out; those modules in development prior to 2017 are in jeopardy; UH1H, F5E, Mi-8, F-86, Mig15, Mig-21...probably only 2 or 3 of them are at risk, and even then not likely since the vast majority of them are Belsimtek and ED. OctopusG and Mag3...but thats only 2 aircraft that are under an early contract. 

[Hammer1-1]

7 minutes ago, Vamp said:

The fact that you can literally go and ask one side any question you want and get a detailed response that is both straight to the point and coherent with the full picture they provide. On the other side you got pretty much nothing and constant signs of both vagueness and avoidance. Yet somehow I'm meant to believe that the first side is actively engaging in an anti consumer behaviour just because "you wouldn't get it and there's a hidden contractual thing that makes them unprofessional" that apparently only applies to one side that can't even get their statements together. I'm really starting to wonder if it's just a smoke and mirrors tactic especially when we're talking about companies that not that not so long ago used to made deals through a WhatsApp chat. How am I as a consumer that is going to lose their EA dream aircraft ment to somehow believe that every single thing which was laid out by RBs side, containing of some of the best in scene talent that has been left out to dry and financially and mentally pushed out of the scene, giving me in depth info about the entire BTS process and how it's now completely over, is a total lie without any proof claiming otherwise but some flash words.

I really dont know what you're on about other than one side is talking while the other side is keeping quiet...its the age old gate keeper question: one of us tells the truth all the time, the other lies about everything. In order to find the correct door, you need to ask the right questions, and only one of them are going to tell you the truth because one of them has an official statement and sticking to it and not telling the full truth, while the other side hasnt really shown very much integrity in regards to both their customers and their employer. Just know that deep down that you should expect Razbam not to make a come-back to DCS; if they do, they do. If not, you wont be let down. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Hammer1-1

[Black-Dog]

25 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

dude...just open a support ticket and ask for one. Youll get store credit instead of a refund, but its 100% better than nothing. 

Honestly, thank you. Im still frustrated over this whole thing, better than nothing I guess.

Edited 8 hours ago by Black-Dog

[Tank50us]

13 minutes ago, Koziolek said:

Nope,  they did not promised us anything. It's just your wishful thinking. They just said that from now on, the future contracts would require the game file available to ED. Apparently RB contracts were not "future". So maybe, just maybe, this situation will not happen to some of the other modules. But I agree, it would be nice to know to which ones

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.#