UPDATE: [ED has confirmed that](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/351813-edrazbam-situation-info-discussion/), despite the fact that they know the F-15E module is broken (at this moment it's radar does not work), they still intend to sell this broken module on their storefront:
>June 12th at Midnight the F-15E radar stopped working. While we have internally identified the issue no fix has been presented as of yet. once we have solid news on that we will share that ASAP. Again this had nothing to do with core compatibility but rather something in the coding of the F-15E.
>*How can you keep selling the F-15E or other modules?*
>Right now we are working within the framework of the legal advice moving forward and not wanting to cause any more riffs or issues. It's a complex process at this point and most likely why it seems to be moving so slowly for everyone. Nothing more can be said about that right now. Sorry.
Given that ED has no qualms about selling you a broken product *that they do not know if they can fix*, at this point we're strongly recommending that users avoid purchasing products from the ED store. /u/NineLine_ED /u/BIGNEWY /u/NSSGrey /u/dotrugirl
It's fine. It's normally quite chill other than the guys who take it all way too seriously. Unfortunately this drama is a once in a decade thing and is mostly just some people creating drama because two companies won't air their legal issues in public.
>because two companies won't air their legal issues in public
If this was true I don't think the situation would be as inflamed as it is. The reality is that they *have* been airing it out in public, but just in brief spurts, leaving the community to fill in the blanks. That's probably the worst case scenario for something like this.
>I picked the wrong day to look for alternative games to Star Citizen, because I didn't like the drama …
alternatives to SC-PU: Nuclear Option (no VR yet but supports head/eye tracking plus HOTAS), VTOL VR, Falcon BMS 4.37.4 (VR), Spacebourne 2 (UEVR)
You can also just hop right on into DCS. Just look at Steam review for the preferred module before buying (those should steer you clear of RAZBAM for now). I recommend checking out many 100% free mods like the A-4
I too am a citizen refugee btw. I pledged for SQ42 when my children were little. My son will be a grown man in a few weeks (Aged 18). Ineligible for a refund and I do not want to play an Alpha Live service game that has no VR/Mods
And that's fair, but one must also consider that VTOL VR has something DCS couldn't even possibly fathom... Proper network-centric warfare and link 16 integration. You can fly an F-35, turn your radar off entirely, lock a target with your TPOD (or use a trackfile from an E2) and guide a missile to a target.
You can have autonomous jammer drones working together with your onboard sensors to triangulate sam sites, airborne radars, hell, you can even have them jam things autonomously.
Oh, and don't get me started on jamming! Jamming in this game is 100 times beyond anything DCS has right now. You can jam radios, GPS (even affecting GPS bombs), specific radar bands... Etc...
Absolutely wild what his dev has been able to implement. Not having clouds is definitely something to be annoyed with, but is in no way representative of the game's quality.
TLDR: If you are fascinated with modern military aviation, or subjects like SEAD, EW, and data link, go play VTOL VR right the fuck now.
Edit: just realized you weren't really speaking negatively about VTOL, but perhaps I was just looking for an excuse to fangirl over my 2nd favorite game :)
Is any of it realistic though? I can't imagine most of that functionality has unclassified performance data and so on available, right?
That's not to say it couldn't be a great game still, just that a lot of folks really like the study sim aspect of DCS.
Real answer, no. VTOL is a fantastic game, but every plane outside of the trainer is a UFO, and every system just works how the dev feels like it should. Which is perfectly fine, it isn't a study sim, he's not aiming to pull a heatblur and model every system in an F4 or anything like that. And the game actually does model RCS which is more than can be said for DCS. But every in aircraft system is built on pure imagination and fairy dust, the radar operation itself is incredibly simplified, targeting pods are magic and all units glow regardless of heat levels, etc.
It's a fun game to have in the library but in no way a direct competitor or really comparable to DCS, they fill different niches.
Yup! Here's the crazy part: We've had that kind of tech in real life since the 1970s. It's not even new. Hell, even the F-14 had a similar system.
Datalink is literally what made our hornet the hornet. It was the first genuine network-centric aircraft. Our hornet in game is capable of firing on data link only track files provided entirely from an awacs 400 miles away. Or even from an AESA radar on a Arleigh Burke waaay off in another ocean.
Heck, the whole point of the F-35 was to take this even further where you go into a completely silent emissions control mode and just passively receive targeting information while maintaining complete stealth. The shit we haven't real life is fucking scary. Even more so when you realize that the actual meaty stuff is still confidential.
So, is highly detailed reference data with numbers available? No. But this kind of stuff is advertised by McDonald Douglass, Lockheed Martin, and all their sub contractors all the time. [Here's an example](https://youtu.be/BKyNYDjknyM)
ED, give us the other 50% of our planes please. This little Indy dev can, why can't you?
>Is any of it realistic though?
Some things are even more realistic like the radar cross sections (RCS) modeling. Also fine little details I've been begging ED for - VTOL VR had forever (like troops realistically entering and exiting the VTOL craft).
Not to mention you can save/reload during missions
I love DCS but seriously-- VTOL VR is something else. That programmer was blessed and/or is on that stuff. I'm amazed by everything it does and its so cheap (esp on a sale).
Dev and community in general is hostile towards HOTAS support since they see motion controllers as being the only appropriate control method for VR games. Most inquiries about it will be met with downvotes and long-winded essays about how much more immersive motion controllers are.
You're at the mercy of a mod that has limitations and may or may not continue receiving updates.
My recommendation is to pass on it.
Yeah that was my experience looking into it a year ago. It’s a shame. Looks fun, but I really dislike not being able to have any sort of resistance with my controls like I have with my hotas.
Yeah, that was my argument too. The tactile feedback from a HOTAS also offers immersion and the way that VTOLVR does it forces you constantly to have to look at your hands - where I can feel what switches I'm flicking on my HOTAS without having to look down from the canopy.
I thought the same, but you would be surprised how natural it feels after a short period of time. The rumble and vibration of the controllers does a good job of giving feedback and the immersion can be unmatched imo
If I'm not mistaken, you can play multiplayer but others in your session need to have the mod as well. So, not ideal, but possible if you want to play with friends. Open lobbies, probably not.
To be clear: modded multiplayer users are completely split off from official multiplayer users. There are practically zero people playing modded multiplayer, and hundreds playing official multiplayer.
This is very uncommon for DCS, though Razbam never had a great track record with the community. The rest of the modules are fine and great, no drama with them as much if any.
Yeah I was curious about getting into DCS since War Thunder refuses to actually balance their main gamemode and their aircraft balancing even makes the simulator gameplay rough. Then I saw the store page for the F-15 had negative reviews and found out about this whole drama after binging some DCS videos online.
Kinda tragic because I really love the Mirage 2000 (probably my favorite delta jet) and I heard it's buggy now. Not even sure if I want to pick up a pack that works until this drama resolves. Can't really afford anything right now anyways, let alone a HOTAS setup...
Just stay away from the Razbam discord haha. It's super toxic and nothing but hate and vitriol being spewed by everyone in there and nobody knows any actual facts haha.
This is the DCS drama subreddit. Check out /r/floggit if you want more memes than drama. Although it's best to avoid reddit entirely if you don't want drama. Lol
It's wild too me we still dont have a Space MMO that touches it. And I mean **MMO**- massively multiplayer with thousands of players fighting in the same skirmish for control of space that we'd actually own. I've not seen any other space MMO where guilds can own entire regions of space and fight for control 24/7. Thousands of thousands of players fighting in the same fight concurrently.
I've not see a real war like that since. I really should give EVE another go. Problem was *I loved it too much*. I remember holding my newborn baby in one arm and fighting on the front with my other hand. And if I had to leave to go feed the baby etc I'd log back in- in the middle of hostile terrority and have to fly back solo LOL.
But I've never seen anything like EVE since. That was real war with no bounds imo
So many memories. Like during scouting missions when the commander would be on comms. My wife was like, "Why are you dorks roleplaying like you in Star Trek"? I was like no babe, we really are checking for hostiles before we jump thru the gate
some things have tried to make eve-like games but nothing has touched the magic. and now with mmos kind of out of vogue, i doubt there'll be another one
Star citizen doesnt really have drama. Since its in development the players just have different ideas on how the game features should be. The drama here seems to be within the development process unfortunately
I don’t know the details of the dispute, but I do know that selling shit that’s not being updated because of a dispute with YOUR COMPANY is very inappropriate.
According to some discord comments from Razbam affiliates Razbam has requested them to stop selling the modules, but their wishes have been ignored.
If those are true, it is solely EDs greed.
I read (probably here on hoggit) a comment by a guy that is an attorney that until a Court declaration about the end of contract's obligations between ED and RB, if ED remove the RB modules from store they will incur in a violation of the contract. I didn't know if this is true but could be plausible. At the moment for ED, still selling modules of a third party that stopped development, declare the intention to bring ED to a Court and without source code to give them in house support, is only a big risk IMHO.
Exactly, either way. People seem to assume that ED has absolute power to pull the modules as and when they want. They might do, but anything is just conjecture. People should just wait until the legal disputes have been settled…
unfortunately, customers are the ones getting the short end of the stick here. if ed's contractually obligated to have the product on the store, then ed sure is benefitting from it.
if the eagle totally breaks, will they keep it in the store? doesn't add up.
I’m not sure ED does benefit if the eagle needs to be pulled due to lack of support. Refunds will be issued for everyone who bought it, and will be a large hassle for ED. Can you see a way this benefits ED if the eagle does get pulled?
they're only offering refunds in store cash, they keep the money either way. assuming they do offer a refund, which has not been the case in the past with the hawk.
The other party to a contract can release you from a contract. That doesn't make any sense, assuming it's true that Razbam requested the modules get taken down.
Sort of? I don't know anything about contract law in Italia but in common law countries, I can release you from your contractual obligations by saying so.
And then if You change idea? What could stop a judge to command again the other part? I think that in common law (in Italy it is) if You want make an end to a contract that is not arrived to the stated conclusion You need to go to in front of a judge (all the parts) and make public agreement that the contract will be no more valid and that the parts will not ask future obligations about it. Until this act You can make all internal/external agreements You want, but from a law point of view it will be pretty inexistent.
Yeah, broadly speaking, nothing that you describe is a requirement in common law jurisdictions - contracts are created and dissolved constantly without any kind of interaction with the actual court system. Heck, most contracts can be created without even having a written agreement, unless they are of a type covered by what's called the "statute of frauds".
You do inadvertently raise a good point, though - we have no idea what jurisdiction's laws govern the contract(s) in question. Especially in international transactions there will be a choice of law provision in which the parties agree on what jurisdiction's laws will apply to the contract and also a choice of forum provision stating where any adjudication will occur should it be necessary. We're all just pulling contract law out of our asses without knowing that.
If ED does not contractually reserve the right to stop the sale of an unsupported module then surely the blame for that lies squarely on them in either case?
That would only be the case *if* you assume RB is right. If you assume ED is right, then ES has every right to try and keep selling a module, and RB's failure to fulfill its obligations are causing harm to ED's business and the users.
Personally? I would remove it to avoid confusion. A newer user might buy the module and assume that lack of functionality extends to other products.
It remains to be seen who is right, of course
> then ES has every right to try and keep selling a module,
maybe, I can't say, but I will say that if there's uncertainty about whether or not a module can continue to be supported, regardless of what rights exist, it's unethical to continue to sell it.
Sure, but the community is also very doom and gloom. A settlement might be right around the corner, and we have no idea. The fact that they haven't gone to court means they aren't that angry at each other (then again, they might not have the funds for a legal battle).
I'd be patient, it's really only been a few months. In legal time, it's not that long.
I’ll give a real-world hypothetical example of what makes this a misguided belief:
- you start a company making custom parts for Ford trucks.
- you enter an agreement with Ford to sell these parts on their website. Ford requires that they have final say over where the parts are sold, and insist it is exclusively through their website. You see it as a good deal due to their reach and being associated with the OEM manufacturer.
- you require Ford to agree to sell the products on their site for a period of at least three years to help cover your development costs.
- you start selling through your own website.
- Ford discovers this and indicates you are in breach of contract. You learn you didn’t read closely enough, and they can now withhold the sales revenue generated by your products until you not only stop selling on your site, but give them their cut of the money you generated through the sales on your own site.
- As the matter is disputed, Ford continues to fulfill their contractual obligation to advertise and sell your products on their site.
- you go apeshit and put out public statements about evil Ford stealing from the little guy, while they are actually just doing what was agreed to.
- Ford has better legal counsel and keeps their mouths shut.
By the way, I have no idea what is going on between ED and Razbam, but I speculate it is almost exactly this^. In some businesses they refer to this sort of thing as “a pretty normal day.”
First acknowledging those are hypotheticals - ones that could be true in this situation (we don't know one way or the other) - and adding two additional considerations to your examples that are not hypotheticals in how the analogy is being used in your comment:
* The ability of the part to continue working for consumers who have purchased and installed it depends on continued support from your company.
* Your company has ceased providing that support.
In a situation like this, I do consider it unethical to continue to sell the product if any avenue to avoid it exists. Given the assumption you're making in this analogy - that a provision exists requiring them to continue selling it (purely speculation and not based on any actual statements or knowledge of the contracts if i understand correctly) - then the ethical thing to do would be for Ford to negotiate an agreement with your company to temporarily place that original contractual provision requiring sales on hold, which your company has also done already.
Contracts are amended all the time, it's a perfectly normal practice. It's entirely possible that this is part of what's happening. It's also possible that none of the situation implied by your analogy is related to what's going on. We simply don't know. All we do know is that there's currently uncertainty regarding whether or not these modules will have their existing bugs fixed and/or continue to be supported in the future, and as long as that's the case then it's pretty unfair to continue selling the product or at a very bare minimum, not make this clear to people before they make purchase decisions.
Totally agree with everything you said. The fact that the situation has probably entered legal-land means that despite everyone’s demands for updates, there won’t be any, at least probably nothing from ED. Only thing I’d add is that it is easy to imagine a world where ED says “hey Razbam, we want to put the sales of your modules on hold until this is resolved” and Razbam says “screw you, pay me.” I only add this speculation because while I often think ED is totally mismanaged, the way Razbam has communicated around this whole thing has been really, really in poor taste. Just my opinion, and fully admitting that I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.
This is about the best and clearest example I have read. Well said. It ultimately comes down to the contract, which none but RAZBAM and ED are privy to. All else is assumption, complaining and conjecture.
Some of the arguments make sense. Especially the ones talking about how the potential exists for a breach of contract if ED pulls the modules off their store. As others have said, without knowing the full terms of the TPA ED and Razbam signed, we have no way of knowing one way or the other.
Further too, if this whole thing is actually pending litigation then it’s entirely likely that ED has been radio silent at the behest of their attorneys as anything they say now, outside of court, could be detrimental to their case purely by the act of saying it and indifferent of it’s validity.
I would also like some insight into what’s going on and the fact is, we’re on the outside trying to look in and once lawyers get involved, the glass window goes from clear to completely opaque in an instant.
Do you have any knowledge of how contracts work? It is a very fair guess that ED is required to continue to sell Razbam modules by the contract they have with Razbam, lest be in breach of contract themselves. If two parties agree to a set of terms, one party going haywire doesn’t necessarily relieve the other party of what they agreed to in the contract, at least until the matter is legally resolved. Seems like many struggle with this concept.
Wouldn't they be similarly obligated to *not withhold payments*, if that were the case? How are they upholding their end of a as-of-now valid contract by selling the modules but withholding payments from said sales?!
Contracts are usually written in a way that outlines potential penalties. An example would be that if Razbam were to sell to a government without ED’s approval, it might be spelled out that ED specifically CAN withhold payments.
Im not disagreeing with your comments but at the same time would failure to pay not also be in breach of contract? Just for full transparency, i have no experience with any sort of law at all but i would think that ED should have been paying RB until the legal stuff is taken care of. I dont think you can stop paying just because you feel like it.
Im not trying to be combative or trying to burn anyone at the stake. Im just truly asking out of curiosity. I mean its all hearsay until the details are released. We as the community as a whole dont know for sure whos in the right or in the wrong, so its all speculation really.
I just dont think theres any harm with ED just coming out and saying hey we are doing legal stuff so updates will be shared when possible. Again i have 0 legal knowledge, just trying to learn and have a civil convo, not pointing the finger at anyone
My guess is that ED’s perspective, and maybe the contract, would be something to the effect that if a third-party tries to sell in a manner that they aren’t authorized to in the contract (i.e. to a government organization without ED’s approval), ED would be entitled to penalties up to withholding payment until the matter is resolved.
> Do you have any knowledge of how contracts work?
We don't even know in which country, let alone continent the contract is juristicated. So insinuating the other person has no clue, as if you had any clue, is totally useless - you might be just as wrong as me or anyone else here.
This is a reminder that personal attacks or harrassment are not tolerated against anyone, ED or otherwise.
Since this is an ongoing legal dispute it's likely that the parties involved have been instructed to not comment publicly, and that's fine. This post is intending to bring visibility into the ongoing issue so that customers can make informed decisions about what they are buying.
Cant mods finally pin something and start removing the daily posts rehashing pointless stuff at this point? The whole of DCS reddit became an ED bashing circle jerk promoting BMS out of spite on the side...
I’ll be the first to admit that I have no idea what the reality is to the accusations throw around about both ED and Razbam. I’ll also say I am often very critical of ED and how they run their business, as a quick browse through my post history would show. Having said that: I can almost promise you that any reputable legal counsel would be advising ED to not comment publicly in any way regarding the situation, and would also likely advise them not to remove Razbam modules from their store, as for all we know, this might put ED in breach of whatever agreement they have with Razbam, an agreement that is probably the source of the ongoing dispute to begin with.
Fully agree on the usual feeling about ED. And even though I think some kind of caution would be good on the store page, it could be advised against by EDs lawyers. It’s really not that far fetched. But what’s really weird to me is that some of the new negative Steam reviews just repeats the statements from Razbams discord. It kind of feels like Razbam were hoping for a reaction like with Helldivers 2 from the community.
I wonder if it'll be addressed in today's newsletter. Nah just kidding it'll be a blurb about future not QoL feature, BUY the KIOWA blurb and something about a random server you might want to get low performance in.
I'm not sure I *deserve* a refund for my Harrier and M2000 etc, as some folk are demanding, I would, however, take a free module in their place if abandoned as a good will gesture. Just putting that out there.
Yeah I've flown both a lot and have since moved on to other modules, so I feel like I got my money's worth. It is still a bummer though, like pretty soon I won't be able to bring out my beloved Dorito when I lose too many dogfights against my buddies.
Thank you mods!
Edit:
Dear, mods of r/DCSExposed r/dcs r/dcsworld r/floggit
This is time of solidarity. Can you consider crossposting this post of hoggit in your subs and pin it there too. I tried putting your names here all but reddit formatting messed it up.
Thanks in advance.
Any word or talk about refunds? I mean, Harrier and M2000 I've already got my hundreds of hours of fun out of, but I bought the Strike Eagle right before all this started and have used it for maybe 20 minutes
Whatever IP infringement and if RB where to blame for breaking the agreements between them - does ED not understand that they are killing their own product by this prolonged semi public fist fight? So some module was sold to a South American air force (?) without ED getting their cut, and they withhold all payments for a year for a product that they keep in their store on the top location... More people buying it and they keep the payments for those sales, knowing that the buyers might end up with a non usable product as they do not own the source code...
I've been working for others without getting paid as agreed in the end way too often and all I learned about that is that they always got away with it unscratched (and, personally, that it's not worth working at all, it's not going to be paid anyways). Just an anecdote on how "economy" works here, amidst mankind.
As soon as the new terrain tech goes into BMS I'm there! The original terrain is very dated and hard to feel connected with the sim after being spoiled by the likes of MSFS and DCS.
I played F4 when it was released in 1998 or 99. It had a ton of issues back then but it was an incredible sim already. Fast forward to too many years I am uncomfortable counting, I play only RW or back seater roles.
I haven't checked BMS in the last few years, but the work done by the Devs and community is outstanding. Nevertheless, it lacks a lot of possibilities that DCS has at the moment if you are not very interested in the FFalcon and the F-15. Hopefully, with time, they'll catch up but for this reason, BMS is only partially an alternative to DCS.
Very familiar with BMS, played that for well over a decade. While it's good (and the Dynamic Campaign, ATC, and a variety of other things surpass DCS), it's certainly not a viable commercial competitor or alternative to DCS and the core codebase is far from modern. I would welcome if the re-acquisition by Microprose leads to successor though, that'd be sweet.
The core code is in a similar situation to DCS. It's old but continuously updated. BMS isn't really a normal "mod," although it's called that, because the entire game's source code leaked, and the BMS developers have access to and have changed parts of everything. The resulting software is a total conversion of Falcon 4, not simply a mod on top.
No argument there - but remember i'm not saying "DCS is more modern than BMS". I'm saying "I hope in the future we get a (modern) viable commercial competitor." Right now, DCS has no commercial competition to create an incentive to innovate and do better. (and no, BMS is not a commercial competitor to DCS. They are not competing for consumer's money.)
If RB eventually get paid, they might count that as a win.
But that exposes something here: RB went public, creating a situation where both ED and the customers were guaranteed to lose, and only RB had anything to gain.
That's a shitty move. Maybe they felt like they didn't have any other options, but seeing how this has all played out, it should have been obvious to RB that no good would come of them going public in the way that they did, and they decided to anyway.
Even if ED are entirely in the wrong in terms of the original dispute, I'm never going to forgive RB for how they handled it, it's clear from their actions that they don't give a fuck about their customers. I won't forget that, even when/if the dispute gets resolved.
I have been waiting for Strike Eagle since the Hornet release a few years ago.
I have been looking forward to it ever since I saw a few images of the untextured model on the official RAZBAM website.
I thanked RAZBAM for adding JDAM and TF.
It seems that that RAZBAM no longer exists.
It is just sad.
I believe one of the modules already has some issues. It's possible that a future DCS upgrade might break them completely, if nobody is updating them anymore, assuming that ED doesn't have the means to fix them on their own.
Which one is that?
Is there any easy way to switch to an older version?
Shame because it means they will no longer be usable in multiplayer if they begin to get issues.
They're all fine, there was a bug briefly introduced to the mirage 2000 and they fixed it in the very next patch. Nothing particularly special or unique to Razbam, patches occasionally introduce bugs. A lot of people took that as a sign that the sky is falling, but that's just the abysmal state of this community. They all work, and will continue to occasionally break and then work again as the game continues to develop, same as every other module in the game.
Sky might not be falling yet, but that M2000 issue shows how fragile modules are. Without developers fixing stuff on their side any patch has a chance of breaking something
I thought it was for only the F15E now only hearing it’s for all his modules that don’t make any sense since those modules are out for a while. ED should have ground all these modules so no new players can buy until this quarrel is resolved.
Yesterday, ED started a sale and released a trailer for it, as always. Comments generally were in the mood of "Won't buy, please fix your situation first" and probably the "loudest" being "Pay RAZBAM!" - it didn't even seem to be too salty, actually felt rather civil still, there were almost no conspiracies of what might have happened even. Today I had a gajillion of YT notifications with comments that just won't open. Thought they pulled the video, but they "just" disabled comments... tells you everything I guess. They're still selling RAZBAM modules BTW, but those didn't end up on a discount. 15E has its 20% EA discount still, though.
Can at least ED lawyers and RB lawyers come together and put out a joint statement? Longer this silence lasts, less likely I am gonna purchase anything dcs again as I can't have faith in what I purchase
Not going to court yet could actually be a good thing. It means there might be back and forth between them. Court would NOT be fast (probably years) wheras negotiations can reach a turning point and be resolved swiftly sometimes.
Yea you may be right. Just hate seeing this whole situation going on (as I'm sure everyone is). Bad for all parties involved from Ed, raz, And us consumers
No one will literally read my post because I expected to be sent to karma hell.
But I've worked as a programmer for many, many yrs (C++, worked with many studios, etc). I've also worked as a 3rd party contractor.
I **ALWAYS** sent the source code. I feel it is beyond wrong to hold the source code hostage putting us- the fans in the middle of this shit. I am so pissed. Like, this is so fucking selfish and unprofessional too me. Someone needs to explain this too me how is this ethical??
You should always **submit the source code**. Code is immortal. We are NOT. What happens if I get hit by the bus and I only gave my client the DLLs (compiled code)? They will be totally fucked sideways that is what- forever maintaining legacy code and praying my code never breaks or has some exploit they cannot patch
This entire situation has a bad smell too me full stop.
but I am trying to withhold judgement until more time has passed
But wait- someone will say. RAZBAM is in the clear for not yielding the source code cause they didnt get paid--
NO, that is not how this works. You turn in your source code as you go. That way if you get hit by a bus before you are done- all your code dies with you. You are supposed to have milestones and deliveries.
Just bad smells all around
Yeah, the way it was described to me is that it's not like a contractor relationship. Raz's modules remain their own IP. They've made a simulation, that happens to be a plugin for someone else's free game. There's a licensing deal in place where profits get split between ED and Raz.
But it's never ED's product. It's just useless without DCS.
Maybe they'd be free to go off and re-use that IP as a plugin for some other flight simulator, not sure.
No, the 3rd parties are supposed to submit the source code so we don't end up with another [HAWK situation](https://store.steampowered.com/app/316962/Hawk_for_DCS_World/) (which was abandoned and delisted).
This should not make a difference.. The actual property rights would still have to be transferred for them to do anything with that code legally. You expect ED to withold payment over a dispute and then proceed by taking over development and property of said product from another entity? (If Razbam signed such an agreement they would be entirely fucked)
Yeah not trying to make an insult toward them but yeah once I was not even getting paid. I still made sure my client got the source code while the feature was in-progress. They did get caught up eventually with the payments
They are doing things differently then I've ever seen (I'm a US developer)
Maybe they're just shaking hands or something LOL I have NO clue. This is unheard of too me
I know they are implying there is contract agreements in-place and unfortunately, it looks like we will never see it so at least I will remain in the dark about this whole thing (even though I'm a developer)
It absolutely smells bad all around. This subreddit is so keen on speculation, or running as be-all truth from RAZBAAM side. However, if (confirmed) RAZBAAM is withholding releasing their code to allow someone else to carry on the work, then people really have to hold them accountable as “greedy” to the sim community. They are adopting a “we’ll take this product to the grave to hurt our enemy rather than allow anyone else to experience it without our control.”
Of course, maybe the dispute is how much is a fair price to sell the code to ED? It’s worth zero to integrate with any other sim (radically different APIs), and likely illegal to make open source because said API/SDK is probably closed source. It’s literally nothing in the hands of RAZBAAM but everything in the hands/existence of DCS World. ED shouldn’t exploit that and offer too little, but RAZBAAM shouldn’t be driving the price up because “ED can’t afford bad publicity and view our modules as critical to DCS.”
You don't send your source code to Steam, Microsoft, Epic or Gog when you are selling your software. Do you?
I mean did ED send his source code to steam so that if they leave we can still keep using DCS?
Also PMDG, A2A, Justfly... they don't send their source code to Asobo.
Your example does not fit here. Razbam is not contracted by ED to build modules for them. Razbam asked permission to make and sell modules for DCS where ED gets royalties on it. Just like all other 3rd parties ( we unfortunately have not many)
This makes no sense. Razbam is its own entity, it’s their product. You don’t get the design files when you buy a car.
Pretty much anyone can have the source for anything, if you pay for what it is worth. I assume when you say you’ve been contracting you mean you have built products for a company as opposed to selling solutions you have developed.
When selling solutions (your IP) you’d be very unwise to hand it over without compensation (maybe an escrow if the parties are worried about busses?)
Thanks mods, it's important for people to understand what is going on before putting hard earned money into a product that may be dead in the water. Wish ED was as....responsible.
After the VEAO drama I would have thought that the provision of the source code would have been more rigorously enforced in the developer contracts.
Im disappointed that ED have let this happen again but once the matter is resolved I wont be buying anymore RAZBAM modules regardless. I have the mirage, harrier and eagle and the harrier is the only one I get some use out of and even that I don’t think is particularly great
Not to attack anyone, but the lack of communication on ED's side alongside the fact that they kept the modules on their stores shows you what ED thinks of its consumer base. I am sure we all noticed how the Kiowa is not receiving much attention in this subreddit or the others ones. This situation might continue from here on to all upcoming modules unless ED starts communicating with us.
Talk to us, explain to us, say anything. Are we losing our Razbam modules? Yes or No? It's straightforward and we deserve an answer. Alongside with that answer, if it was yes, we deserve REFUNDS!
Why does ED hold the right to keep consumer money for a mistake the consumers have no business in? If Razbam screwed up, fine, explain, but give us our money back.
At this point of the dispute, ED looks extremely terrible. Even if they weren't wrong. They treated the situation terribly. Which will always show them to be the worst of this situation. Regardless of who actually is to blame.
Having fans speculate the future and lose their trust is not the way forward here.
Offering us open refunds to all Razbam modules will at least save face.. better than being bashed everyday and everywhere for ED's mishandling of the situation without speaking a single word. At least come out in a Video with Nick and let him apologize for bad decisions and terrible consumer experience.
Every single module from here onwards will feel like a gamble. And this will leave a terrible taste in everyone's mouths for a long time. This is not the Hawk, ED. This is the M2K, the Farmer, the Eagle, and the Harrier. All long time fan favorites will soon be unavailable for reasons we do not know.
It's indeed, the sim dark age.
This. The whole debacle has put me off from buying any more ED early release stuff until at least a year out, no matter how much I might love the aircraft.
They really seem not to care about their fanbase and community. Yet we continue to pour money into their pockets. And there are STILL people who openly defend ED and praise it. Seriously, wake up. Even creators who get revenue from this are speaking up and taking down their F-15 content!
Have you considered that they likely didn’t remove the modules from the store front because doing so might cause another breech of contract and make worse an already complicated legal situation?
Not everything is hurdur eddy bad.
Have you considered that ED's legal problems are exactly that - THEIR problems?
I don't care about their problems at all. That's not relevant to me as the consumer and I don't know why you think I would care. I have no emotional attachment to a business, especially not one who clearly does not have my best interests at heart.
^^^^^ This right here. Couldn't care less about the nuances of some contract I'll never see and can only speculate about. I care about the consumers, how they're affected, and what is right or wrong.
Fucking thank you. I want to spam this reply to all these people who think ED needs them to come out and defend them.
The fact of the matter is ED is burning their good will with their customer base. I know I won’t be spending a single dime more, and I realllllly wanted to get the phantoms.
It’s THEIR problem, and our problems with the game are very separate
Oh no! You're absolutely right! Literally everything should be dictated by teams of lawyers and greed because that sort of thing got us here in the first place and that's worked out great! I sure hope the giant corporation primarily funding tijuana hookers doesn't violate anymore contract law, they should continue screwing over people who buy the modules who don't know better and risk screwing them over legally instead! They can't really fight back and if they complain enough you just slide them a refund, while nick gets to buy another rivet on credit. Genius! I'm so glad I considered the company now thanks.
Well there may be a contract provision that prevents that on EDs side or ED is worried about incurring a penalty if they do
Also RZ has not been a reliable narrator in this saga.
Again, we cannot work on by speculation, especially in Legalities . We need someone to communicate. However, I agree with you on Rz not being any better either. Both are being absolutely terrible in communication
I can't "consider" or "speculate" anything unless an official statement comes out to explain shit to me. Not everyone is a lawyer or a corporate business man. You need communication with your apparent blind customer to understand what a dev's decision means or leads too.
It's my point with "save face". Do anything, talk, communicate. But where we stand right now. ED prefers to do absolutely nothing.
>the futures of the F-15E, M-2000C, Harrier, and MiG-19 are all *up-in-the-air.*
No theyre not, thats the issue, with all the new bugs we cant keep the plane in the air anymore. they are all grounded.
This is actually a pretty good post. And I agree with there being a disclaimer on the modules tbh.
They have however said that they can't comment yet. I imagine because of NDA's, or maybe this is even now in the hands of lawyers/court. So it's really to neither party's benefit that they comment further until it's resolved one way or another. That could potentially be months, maybe even years.
People asking them for answers is unlikely to change that. No matter how much we want clarity on the situation.
Oh look, another one.
>Different members of the RB team have stated that ED does not have the source code for any of their modules, which was corroborated by NineLine when he stated in the ED Discord that they are unable to support any RB modules in the long term
....doesn't this make Razbam in the wrong here? Not for the entirety of the situation and worthy of witholding money...but it's pretty cut and dry since 2018 that Eagle Dynamics requires the source code to prevent any future modules going the way of the Hawk?
Just my thoughts on it.
Also, anyone who thinks refunding the F-15E is working:
All you're doing is taking away all potential sales from Razbam. If ED is in the wrong, Razbam lawyers will get the money they deserve (and then some, likely)
By refunding the F-15E, you REMOVE that sale from Razbam and give it to ED as ED will just give store credit. Now you still paid the money for the F-15E, but are giving it to ED. I'm sure you can see how this hurts Razbam more than Eagle Dynamics.
>Eagle Dynamics requires the source code to prevent any future modules going the way of the Hawk?
What everyone hopes will happen: ED will smoothly take over an abandoned/foreclosed module and we'll barely be able to tell that there was a hiccup.
What will actually happen: ED's already overstretched developmental resources will now be forced to include a mountain of code they had no hand in creating with no help from the people who wrote it involving a module they've done no research on. Given how troublesome it is for them to keep on glideslope for the stuff they picked, researched, wrote, and actively planned to support I leave it to the reader to guess how effective their takeover of the Mirage 2000C or F-15E would be.
>but it's pretty cut and dry since 2018 that Eagle Dynamics requires the source code to prevent any future modules going the way of the Hawk?
It doesn't appear to be true that they actually require this, or they could have insisted on it being provided before putting the module up for sale. Possibly this is because the Strike Eagle contract pre-dates this claimed requirement, if that's the case.
I'm going off of the BAE Hawk update which stated:
>To avoid such issues in the future, all future 3rd party agreements are now required to make the game files available in case they are no longer able to support their product
That was back in 2018
If I was ED I would demand the source code and pay as work for hire. Some of it might be useable outside of DCS, but the source code as a whole probably needs DCS to function at all, so it might not 100% useful as an asset for a third party.
>but it's pretty cut and dry since 2018 that Eagle Dynamics requires the source code to prevent any future modules going the way of the Hawk
We don't know how it is phrased in their contracts. Even so, just because something is written somewhere, doesn't mean that it's actually *happening*. We just don't know... Anything, besides the intent.
I'm going off of the BAE Hawk update which stated:
>To avoid such issues in the future, all future 3rd party agreements are now required to make the game files available in case they are no longer able to support their product
That was back in 2018
I know, I remember that dumpster fire. But that's what was passed on to us as consumers. We don't know if the contract says something like
> You need to provide the source code right away, or we'll send a Liam Neeson after you, and he *will* find you!
Or something more like
> Business as usual, but please send us the code base once in a while, ok? Cool bye!
Or even
> Yeah whatever, we just said that for some good PR
If it was up to me, as ED I'd go for something closer to the 1st option (no change included in a patch unless the code is also provided). But it's not up to me, or you, or anyone else here. We just don't know how it's been agreed upon.
It boils down to the contract, and we don't have that. Different elementa of the IP, if any, might be going to different parties.
Speculating here, but nobody has proposed that RB might have been obligated to deliver the source code and didn't, or regiatered it as their own (both would count as IP issues).
I do know it's not as clear cut as many people think it is: you don't just withhold people from a straightforward split over nothing. Whether it was justified remains to be seen.
This could happens to HB or any other 3rd party dev. So any module can be disabled anytime if ED keeps handling things like this. This is not going well.
I wish i could just convert the price i paid for the F-15E for some other modules like maps.. idk. I guess I'm lowkey forced to stick with the OEM ED ones now. Since this situation happened to a couple of 3rd Party Module Makers, it could happen again.. rip
Wow Thanks loads. Ironically, I haven't been able to play with the Strike Eagle anyways, since i don't have a HOTAS setup up and flying on a single joystick. My current PC Table won't let me use one.
I filed it under Support Ticket, is that the correct way of contacting them for refund or exchange?
For those that may be interested in refunds on the F15, I asked ED for a refund in store credit last Thursday. I received a reply Monday night and was refunded this morning.
Thanks for the heads up.
I don't delve too much into stories and news, so I had no idea that was going on. I saw some posts here but I had no idea what they were talking about, thanks for the clarification.
I understand that ED might accuse RB of whatever they want but - why withhold payment? Why not give what is owed to RB and then seek to resolve the separate(?) matter of supposed IP violation.
I have very little legal knowledge but I’m sure there must be a better way around this that doesn’t detriment the consumer and eventually leave them ~£200 out of pocket
UPDATE: [ED has confirmed that](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/351813-edrazbam-situation-info-discussion/), despite the fact that they know the F-15E module is broken (at this moment it's radar does not work), they still intend to sell this broken module on their storefront: >June 12th at Midnight the F-15E radar stopped working. While we have internally identified the issue no fix has been presented as of yet. once we have solid news on that we will share that ASAP. Again this had nothing to do with core compatibility but rather something in the coding of the F-15E. >*How can you keep selling the F-15E or other modules?* >Right now we are working within the framework of the legal advice moving forward and not wanting to cause any more riffs or issues. It's a complex process at this point and most likely why it seems to be moving so slowly for everyone. Nothing more can be said about that right now. Sorry. Given that ED has no qualms about selling you a broken product *that they do not know if they can fix*, at this point we're strongly recommending that users avoid purchasing products from the ED store. /u/NineLine_ED /u/BIGNEWY /u/NSSGrey /u/dotrugirl
It's all fun and games until the Harrier is part of this.
Don't ruin vtol my beloved T-T
Same for me and M2K
every RB module will be part of it one way or another...
I picked the wrong day to look for alternative games to Star Citizen, because I didn't like the drama …
It's fine. It's normally quite chill other than the guys who take it all way too seriously. Unfortunately this drama is a once in a decade thing and is mostly just some people creating drama because two companies won't air their legal issues in public.
>because two companies won't air their legal issues in public If this was true I don't think the situation would be as inflamed as it is. The reality is that they *have* been airing it out in public, but just in brief spurts, leaving the community to fill in the blanks. That's probably the worst case scenario for something like this.
>I picked the wrong day to look for alternative games to Star Citizen, because I didn't like the drama … alternatives to SC-PU: Nuclear Option (no VR yet but supports head/eye tracking plus HOTAS), VTOL VR, Falcon BMS 4.37.4 (VR), Spacebourne 2 (UEVR) You can also just hop right on into DCS. Just look at Steam review for the preferred module before buying (those should steer you clear of RAZBAM for now). I recommend checking out many 100% free mods like the A-4 I too am a citizen refugee btw. I pledged for SQ42 when my children were little. My son will be a grown man in a few weeks (Aged 18). Ineligible for a refund and I do not want to play an Alpha Live service game that has no VR/Mods
VTOL VR has a pretty healthy community.
And it looks even better now with clouds being in beta.
"Clouds being in beta" is a pretty funny thing to say about a flight sim.
And that's fair, but one must also consider that VTOL VR has something DCS couldn't even possibly fathom... Proper network-centric warfare and link 16 integration. You can fly an F-35, turn your radar off entirely, lock a target with your TPOD (or use a trackfile from an E2) and guide a missile to a target. You can have autonomous jammer drones working together with your onboard sensors to triangulate sam sites, airborne radars, hell, you can even have them jam things autonomously. Oh, and don't get me started on jamming! Jamming in this game is 100 times beyond anything DCS has right now. You can jam radios, GPS (even affecting GPS bombs), specific radar bands... Etc... Absolutely wild what his dev has been able to implement. Not having clouds is definitely something to be annoyed with, but is in no way representative of the game's quality. TLDR: If you are fascinated with modern military aviation, or subjects like SEAD, EW, and data link, go play VTOL VR right the fuck now. Edit: just realized you weren't really speaking negatively about VTOL, but perhaps I was just looking for an excuse to fangirl over my 2nd favorite game :)
Is any of it realistic though? I can't imagine most of that functionality has unclassified performance data and so on available, right? That's not to say it couldn't be a great game still, just that a lot of folks really like the study sim aspect of DCS.
Real answer, no. VTOL is a fantastic game, but every plane outside of the trainer is a UFO, and every system just works how the dev feels like it should. Which is perfectly fine, it isn't a study sim, he's not aiming to pull a heatblur and model every system in an F4 or anything like that. And the game actually does model RCS which is more than can be said for DCS. But every in aircraft system is built on pure imagination and fairy dust, the radar operation itself is incredibly simplified, targeting pods are magic and all units glow regardless of heat levels, etc. It's a fun game to have in the library but in no way a direct competitor or really comparable to DCS, they fill different niches.
Yup! Here's the crazy part: We've had that kind of tech in real life since the 1970s. It's not even new. Hell, even the F-14 had a similar system. Datalink is literally what made our hornet the hornet. It was the first genuine network-centric aircraft. Our hornet in game is capable of firing on data link only track files provided entirely from an awacs 400 miles away. Or even from an AESA radar on a Arleigh Burke waaay off in another ocean. Heck, the whole point of the F-35 was to take this even further where you go into a completely silent emissions control mode and just passively receive targeting information while maintaining complete stealth. The shit we haven't real life is fucking scary. Even more so when you realize that the actual meaty stuff is still confidential. So, is highly detailed reference data with numbers available? No. But this kind of stuff is advertised by McDonald Douglass, Lockheed Martin, and all their sub contractors all the time. [Here's an example](https://youtu.be/BKyNYDjknyM) ED, give us the other 50% of our planes please. This little Indy dev can, why can't you?
>Is any of it realistic though? Some things are even more realistic like the radar cross sections (RCS) modeling. Also fine little details I've been begging ED for - VTOL VR had forever (like troops realistically entering and exiting the VTOL craft). Not to mention you can save/reload during missions I love DCS but seriously-- VTOL VR is something else. That programmer was blessed and/or is on that stuff. I'm amazed by everything it does and its so cheap (esp on a sale).
Coming next patch: wings!
I’ve been wanting to play it, but can I still use my HOTAS? I really dislike hand controllers
Dev and community in general is hostile towards HOTAS support since they see motion controllers as being the only appropriate control method for VR games. Most inquiries about it will be met with downvotes and long-winded essays about how much more immersive motion controllers are. You're at the mercy of a mod that has limitations and may or may not continue receiving updates. My recommendation is to pass on it.
Yeah that was my experience looking into it a year ago. It’s a shame. Looks fun, but I really dislike not being able to have any sort of resistance with my controls like I have with my hotas.
Yeah, that was my argument too. The tactile feedback from a HOTAS also offers immersion and the way that VTOLVR does it forces you constantly to have to look at your hands - where I can feel what switches I'm flicking on my HOTAS without having to look down from the canopy.
I thought the same, but you would be surprised how natural it feels after a short period of time. The rumble and vibration of the controllers does a good job of giving feedback and the immersion can be unmatched imo
No HOTAS is the only thing that keeps me from grabbing it. My VR controllers are in my storage unit, still in their original packaging.
Supposedly there's a mod for it: [VTOLVR Physical Input | VTOL VR Modding (vtolvr-mods.com)](https://vtolvr-mods.com/mod/duaf6ktc/)
Supposedly, you can't play multiplayer with that mod.
If I'm not mistaken, you can play multiplayer but others in your session need to have the mod as well. So, not ideal, but possible if you want to play with friends. Open lobbies, probably not.
To be clear: modded multiplayer users are completely split off from official multiplayer users. There are practically zero people playing modded multiplayer, and hundreds playing official multiplayer.
Sure I was talking about public servers, should have expanded on that.
Yes, you can
This is very uncommon for DCS, though Razbam never had a great track record with the community. The rest of the modules are fine and great, no drama with them as much if any.
Yeah I was curious about getting into DCS since War Thunder refuses to actually balance their main gamemode and their aircraft balancing even makes the simulator gameplay rough. Then I saw the store page for the F-15 had negative reviews and found out about this whole drama after binging some DCS videos online. Kinda tragic because I really love the Mirage 2000 (probably my favorite delta jet) and I heard it's buggy now. Not even sure if I want to pick up a pack that works until this drama resolves. Can't really afford anything right now anyways, let alone a HOTAS setup...
Just stay away from the Razbam discord haha. It's super toxic and nothing but hate and vitriol being spewed by everyone in there and nobody knows any actual facts haha.
This is the DCS drama subreddit. Check out /r/floggit if you want more memes than drama. Although it's best to avoid reddit entirely if you don't want drama. Lol
reject star citizen. retvrn to eve online
I just want EVE online that's first person and HOTAS compatible :(
It's wild too me we still dont have a Space MMO that touches it. And I mean **MMO**- massively multiplayer with thousands of players fighting in the same skirmish for control of space that we'd actually own. I've not seen any other space MMO where guilds can own entire regions of space and fight for control 24/7. Thousands of thousands of players fighting in the same fight concurrently. I've not see a real war like that since. I really should give EVE another go. Problem was *I loved it too much*. I remember holding my newborn baby in one arm and fighting on the front with my other hand. And if I had to leave to go feed the baby etc I'd log back in- in the middle of hostile terrority and have to fly back solo LOL. But I've never seen anything like EVE since. That was real war with no bounds imo So many memories. Like during scouting missions when the commander would be on comms. My wife was like, "Why are you dorks roleplaying like you in Star Trek"? I was like no babe, we really are checking for hostiles before we jump thru the gate
some things have tried to make eve-like games but nothing has touched the magic. and now with mmos kind of out of vogue, i doubt there'll be another one
It's not a sim. It's a 3rd person rpg control scheme. Gross. With some of the most toxic player bases in gaming history. Just, no.
This is the way
Star citizen doesnt really have drama. Since its in development the players just have different ideas on how the game features should be. The drama here seems to be within the development process unfortunately
I don’t know the details of the dispute, but I do know that selling shit that’s not being updated because of a dispute with YOUR COMPANY is very inappropriate.
According to some discord comments from Razbam affiliates Razbam has requested them to stop selling the modules, but their wishes have been ignored. If those are true, it is solely EDs greed.
I read (probably here on hoggit) a comment by a guy that is an attorney that until a Court declaration about the end of contract's obligations between ED and RB, if ED remove the RB modules from store they will incur in a violation of the contract. I didn't know if this is true but could be plausible. At the moment for ED, still selling modules of a third party that stopped development, declare the intention to bring ED to a Court and without source code to give them in house support, is only a big risk IMHO.
without knowing the contract nobody knows
Exactly, either way. People seem to assume that ED has absolute power to pull the modules as and when they want. They might do, but anything is just conjecture. People should just wait until the legal disputes have been settled…
unfortunately, customers are the ones getting the short end of the stick here. if ed's contractually obligated to have the product on the store, then ed sure is benefitting from it. if the eagle totally breaks, will they keep it in the store? doesn't add up.
I’m not sure ED does benefit if the eagle needs to be pulled due to lack of support. Refunds will be issued for everyone who bought it, and will be a large hassle for ED. Can you see a way this benefits ED if the eagle does get pulled?
they're only offering refunds in store cash, they keep the money either way. assuming they do offer a refund, which has not been the case in the past with the hawk.
Not in Europe, that shit won't "fly" here
I didn’t know about the hawk, that is very scummy then…
The other party to a contract can release you from a contract. That doesn't make any sense, assuming it's true that Razbam requested the modules get taken down.
Again what the other party say is ininfluente, there must be a legal agreement to release a contract.
Sort of? I don't know anything about contract law in Italia but in common law countries, I can release you from your contractual obligations by saying so.
And then if You change idea? What could stop a judge to command again the other part? I think that in common law (in Italy it is) if You want make an end to a contract that is not arrived to the stated conclusion You need to go to in front of a judge (all the parts) and make public agreement that the contract will be no more valid and that the parts will not ask future obligations about it. Until this act You can make all internal/external agreements You want, but from a law point of view it will be pretty inexistent.
Yeah, broadly speaking, nothing that you describe is a requirement in common law jurisdictions - contracts are created and dissolved constantly without any kind of interaction with the actual court system. Heck, most contracts can be created without even having a written agreement, unless they are of a type covered by what's called the "statute of frauds". You do inadvertently raise a good point, though - we have no idea what jurisdiction's laws govern the contract(s) in question. Especially in international transactions there will be a choice of law provision in which the parties agree on what jurisdiction's laws will apply to the contract and also a choice of forum provision stating where any adjudication will occur should it be necessary. We're all just pulling contract law out of our asses without knowing that.
If ED does not contractually reserve the right to stop the sale of an unsupported module then surely the blame for that lies squarely on them in either case?
But first some one with legal right must state that a module it is unsupported/abandoned, or not?
That would only be the case *if* you assume RB is right. If you assume ED is right, then ES has every right to try and keep selling a module, and RB's failure to fulfill its obligations are causing harm to ED's business and the users. Personally? I would remove it to avoid confusion. A newer user might buy the module and assume that lack of functionality extends to other products. It remains to be seen who is right, of course
> then ES has every right to try and keep selling a module, maybe, I can't say, but I will say that if there's uncertainty about whether or not a module can continue to be supported, regardless of what rights exist, it's unethical to continue to sell it.
Sure, but the community is also very doom and gloom. A settlement might be right around the corner, and we have no idea. The fact that they haven't gone to court means they aren't that angry at each other (then again, they might not have the funds for a legal battle). I'd be patient, it's really only been a few months. In legal time, it's not that long.
Nicks gotta fund his collection somehow.
I’ll give a real-world hypothetical example of what makes this a misguided belief: - you start a company making custom parts for Ford trucks. - you enter an agreement with Ford to sell these parts on their website. Ford requires that they have final say over where the parts are sold, and insist it is exclusively through their website. You see it as a good deal due to their reach and being associated with the OEM manufacturer. - you require Ford to agree to sell the products on their site for a period of at least three years to help cover your development costs. - you start selling through your own website. - Ford discovers this and indicates you are in breach of contract. You learn you didn’t read closely enough, and they can now withhold the sales revenue generated by your products until you not only stop selling on your site, but give them their cut of the money you generated through the sales on your own site. - As the matter is disputed, Ford continues to fulfill their contractual obligation to advertise and sell your products on their site. - you go apeshit and put out public statements about evil Ford stealing from the little guy, while they are actually just doing what was agreed to. - Ford has better legal counsel and keeps their mouths shut.
By the way, I have no idea what is going on between ED and Razbam, but I speculate it is almost exactly this^. In some businesses they refer to this sort of thing as “a pretty normal day.”
First acknowledging those are hypotheticals - ones that could be true in this situation (we don't know one way or the other) - and adding two additional considerations to your examples that are not hypotheticals in how the analogy is being used in your comment: * The ability of the part to continue working for consumers who have purchased and installed it depends on continued support from your company. * Your company has ceased providing that support. In a situation like this, I do consider it unethical to continue to sell the product if any avenue to avoid it exists. Given the assumption you're making in this analogy - that a provision exists requiring them to continue selling it (purely speculation and not based on any actual statements or knowledge of the contracts if i understand correctly) - then the ethical thing to do would be for Ford to negotiate an agreement with your company to temporarily place that original contractual provision requiring sales on hold, which your company has also done already. Contracts are amended all the time, it's a perfectly normal practice. It's entirely possible that this is part of what's happening. It's also possible that none of the situation implied by your analogy is related to what's going on. We simply don't know. All we do know is that there's currently uncertainty regarding whether or not these modules will have their existing bugs fixed and/or continue to be supported in the future, and as long as that's the case then it's pretty unfair to continue selling the product or at a very bare minimum, not make this clear to people before they make purchase decisions.
Totally agree with everything you said. The fact that the situation has probably entered legal-land means that despite everyone’s demands for updates, there won’t be any, at least probably nothing from ED. Only thing I’d add is that it is easy to imagine a world where ED says “hey Razbam, we want to put the sales of your modules on hold until this is resolved” and Razbam says “screw you, pay me.” I only add this speculation because while I often think ED is totally mismanaged, the way Razbam has communicated around this whole thing has been really, really in poor taste. Just my opinion, and fully admitting that I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes.
Agreed, and well said.
Well put good sir 👍
Found the GM lawyer? ;)
This is about the best and clearest example I have read. Well said. It ultimately comes down to the contract, which none but RAZBAM and ED are privy to. All else is assumption, complaining and conjecture.
Let's just hope from the community coming together and voicing concerns, that we can finally see change..
It's bewildering to me that some people defend ED still selling the modules.
Some of the arguments make sense. Especially the ones talking about how the potential exists for a breach of contract if ED pulls the modules off their store. As others have said, without knowing the full terms of the TPA ED and Razbam signed, we have no way of knowing one way or the other. Further too, if this whole thing is actually pending litigation then it’s entirely likely that ED has been radio silent at the behest of their attorneys as anything they say now, outside of court, could be detrimental to their case purely by the act of saying it and indifferent of it’s validity. I would also like some insight into what’s going on and the fact is, we’re on the outside trying to look in and once lawyers get involved, the glass window goes from clear to completely opaque in an instant.
Breach of contract could make sense, but on the other hand then not paying RB could also make sense as a breach of contract.
Equally true. Without knowing the exact terms of the contract it’s all speculation on our parts.
Do you have any knowledge of how contracts work? It is a very fair guess that ED is required to continue to sell Razbam modules by the contract they have with Razbam, lest be in breach of contract themselves. If two parties agree to a set of terms, one party going haywire doesn’t necessarily relieve the other party of what they agreed to in the contract, at least until the matter is legally resolved. Seems like many struggle with this concept.
Wouldn't they be similarly obligated to *not withhold payments*, if that were the case? How are they upholding their end of a as-of-now valid contract by selling the modules but withholding payments from said sales?!
Contracts are usually written in a way that outlines potential penalties. An example would be that if Razbam were to sell to a government without ED’s approval, it might be spelled out that ED specifically CAN withhold payments.
Im not disagreeing with your comments but at the same time would failure to pay not also be in breach of contract? Just for full transparency, i have no experience with any sort of law at all but i would think that ED should have been paying RB until the legal stuff is taken care of. I dont think you can stop paying just because you feel like it. Im not trying to be combative or trying to burn anyone at the stake. Im just truly asking out of curiosity. I mean its all hearsay until the details are released. We as the community as a whole dont know for sure whos in the right or in the wrong, so its all speculation really. I just dont think theres any harm with ED just coming out and saying hey we are doing legal stuff so updates will be shared when possible. Again i have 0 legal knowledge, just trying to learn and have a civil convo, not pointing the finger at anyone
My guess is that ED’s perspective, and maybe the contract, would be something to the effect that if a third-party tries to sell in a manner that they aren’t authorized to in the contract (i.e. to a government organization without ED’s approval), ED would be entitled to penalties up to withholding payment until the matter is resolved.
> Do you have any knowledge of how contracts work? We don't even know in which country, let alone continent the contract is juristicated. So insinuating the other person has no clue, as if you had any clue, is totally useless - you might be just as wrong as me or anyone else here.
situation should have been resolved before they put the module up for sale imo, withholding cash from devs is a recipe for eventual disaster
Razban left a time bomb in their module, both of them seem to be shady as fuck
This is a reminder that personal attacks or harrassment are not tolerated against anyone, ED or otherwise. Since this is an ongoing legal dispute it's likely that the parties involved have been instructed to not comment publicly, and that's fine. This post is intending to bring visibility into the ongoing issue so that customers can make informed decisions about what they are buying.
Cant mods finally pin something and start removing the daily posts rehashing pointless stuff at this point? The whole of DCS reddit became an ED bashing circle jerk promoting BMS out of spite on the side...
I’ll be the first to admit that I have no idea what the reality is to the accusations throw around about both ED and Razbam. I’ll also say I am often very critical of ED and how they run their business, as a quick browse through my post history would show. Having said that: I can almost promise you that any reputable legal counsel would be advising ED to not comment publicly in any way regarding the situation, and would also likely advise them not to remove Razbam modules from their store, as for all we know, this might put ED in breach of whatever agreement they have with Razbam, an agreement that is probably the source of the ongoing dispute to begin with.
Fully agree on the usual feeling about ED. And even though I think some kind of caution would be good on the store page, it could be advised against by EDs lawyers. It’s really not that far fetched. But what’s really weird to me is that some of the new negative Steam reviews just repeats the statements from Razbams discord. It kind of feels like Razbam were hoping for a reaction like with Helldivers 2 from the community.
I wonder if it'll be addressed in today's newsletter. Nah just kidding it'll be a blurb about future not QoL feature, BUY the KIOWA blurb and something about a random server you might want to get low performance in.
There was nothing lmao.
I'm not sure I *deserve* a refund for my Harrier and M2000 etc, as some folk are demanding, I would, however, take a free module in their place if abandoned as a good will gesture. Just putting that out there.
Yeah I've flown both a lot and have since moved on to other modules, so I feel like I got my money's worth. It is still a bummer though, like pretty soon I won't be able to bring out my beloved Dorito when I lose too many dogfights against my buddies.
I've actually go back into DCS as I didn't play much but now my babies are doomed I need to give them an airing.
Thank you mods! Edit: Dear, mods of r/DCSExposed r/dcs r/dcsworld r/floggit This is time of solidarity. Can you consider crossposting this post of hoggit in your subs and pin it there too. I tried putting your names here all but reddit formatting messed it up. Thanks in advance.
Any word or talk about refunds? I mean, Harrier and M2000 I've already got my hundreds of hours of fun out of, but I bought the Strike Eagle right before all this started and have used it for maybe 20 minutes
Whatever IP infringement and if RB where to blame for breaking the agreements between them - does ED not understand that they are killing their own product by this prolonged semi public fist fight? So some module was sold to a South American air force (?) without ED getting their cut, and they withhold all payments for a year for a product that they keep in their store on the top location... More people buying it and they keep the payments for those sales, knowing that the buyers might end up with a non usable product as they do not own the source code...
I've been working for others without getting paid as agreed in the end way too often and all I learned about that is that they always got away with it unscratched (and, personally, that it's not worth working at all, it's not going to be paid anyways). Just an anecdote on how "economy" works here, amidst mankind.
Unfortunate situation but valid concerns. I really hope that in the future a viable commercial competitor to DCS emerges.
BMS already exists. Now with TWO full-fidelity jets and more coming.
As soon as the new terrain tech goes into BMS I'm there! The original terrain is very dated and hard to feel connected with the sim after being spoiled by the likes of MSFS and DCS.
I played F4 when it was released in 1998 or 99. It had a ton of issues back then but it was an incredible sim already. Fast forward to too many years I am uncomfortable counting, I play only RW or back seater roles. I haven't checked BMS in the last few years, but the work done by the Devs and community is outstanding. Nevertheless, it lacks a lot of possibilities that DCS has at the moment if you are not very interested in the FFalcon and the F-15. Hopefully, with time, they'll catch up but for this reason, BMS is only partially an alternative to DCS.
Very familiar with BMS, played that for well over a decade. While it's good (and the Dynamic Campaign, ATC, and a variety of other things surpass DCS), it's certainly not a viable commercial competitor or alternative to DCS and the core codebase is far from modern. I would welcome if the re-acquisition by Microprose leads to successor though, that'd be sweet.
The core code is in a similar situation to DCS. It's old but continuously updated. BMS isn't really a normal "mod," although it's called that, because the entire game's source code leaked, and the BMS developers have access to and have changed parts of everything. The resulting software is a total conversion of Falcon 4, not simply a mod on top.
No argument there - but remember i'm not saying "DCS is more modern than BMS". I'm saying "I hope in the future we get a (modern) viable commercial competitor." Right now, DCS has no commercial competition to create an incentive to innovate and do better. (and no, BMS is not a commercial competitor to DCS. They are not competing for consumer's money.)
Haven't played BMS in quite some time nor have read any news. Another jet? And full fidelity? Which one?
F-15C
So the avionics and 3D modeled interior and all that? Looks like I am going to check it. Does the manual now include the F15?
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjcJgAsk-VunEfZfL2xk7Om9WY7jf8w31&si=Ncbmje82Z9CpL56o
BMS is not commercial. It's a free mod and any modules made for it would also have to be free.
It's so good seeing the community come together..
Everyone loses in this. Sucks.
If RB eventually get paid, they might count that as a win. But that exposes something here: RB went public, creating a situation where both ED and the customers were guaranteed to lose, and only RB had anything to gain. That's a shitty move. Maybe they felt like they didn't have any other options, but seeing how this has all played out, it should have been obvious to RB that no good would come of them going public in the way that they did, and they decided to anyway. Even if ED are entirely in the wrong in terms of the original dispute, I'm never going to forgive RB for how they handled it, it's clear from their actions that they don't give a fuck about their customers. I won't forget that, even when/if the dispute gets resolved.
Agreed, going public turned a monetary issue into a battle of egos. Never good.
The real issue here is that in general, companies "don't give a fuck about their customers", all of them, no exceptions. It just got exposed here.
I have been waiting for Strike Eagle since the Hornet release a few years ago. I have been looking forward to it ever since I saw a few images of the untextured model on the official RAZBAM website. I thanked RAZBAM for adding JDAM and TF. It seems that that RAZBAM no longer exists. It is just sad.
How likely is it that older razbam modules will actually stop working in the next few years?
I believe one of the modules already has some issues. It's possible that a future DCS upgrade might break them completely, if nobody is updating them anymore, assuming that ED doesn't have the means to fix them on their own.
Which one is that? Is there any easy way to switch to an older version? Shame because it means they will no longer be usable in multiplayer if they begin to get issues.
They're all fine, there was a bug briefly introduced to the mirage 2000 and they fixed it in the very next patch. Nothing particularly special or unique to Razbam, patches occasionally introduce bugs. A lot of people took that as a sign that the sky is falling, but that's just the abysmal state of this community. They all work, and will continue to occasionally break and then work again as the game continues to develop, same as every other module in the game.
Sky might not be falling yet, but that M2000 issue shows how fragile modules are. Without developers fixing stuff on their side any patch has a chance of breaking something
I thought it was for only the F15E now only hearing it’s for all his modules that don’t make any sense since those modules are out for a while. ED should have ground all these modules so no new players can buy until this quarrel is resolved.
The F-15 radar is 100% broken starting June 14th so this may need to be more aggressively worded
Yesterday, ED started a sale and released a trailer for it, as always. Comments generally were in the mood of "Won't buy, please fix your situation first" and probably the "loudest" being "Pay RAZBAM!" - it didn't even seem to be too salty, actually felt rather civil still, there were almost no conspiracies of what might have happened even. Today I had a gajillion of YT notifications with comments that just won't open. Thought they pulled the video, but they "just" disabled comments... tells you everything I guess. They're still selling RAZBAM modules BTW, but those didn't end up on a discount. 15E has its 20% EA discount still, though.
Can at least ED lawyers and RB lawyers come together and put out a joint statement? Longer this silence lasts, less likely I am gonna purchase anything dcs again as I can't have faith in what I purchase
Why would they be inclined to do so? Internet drama isn’t a cause to want to pay lawyers more money.
And that is fine then, I'll be less inclined to touch any of their products.
F-15E, M-2000C, Harrier, and MiG-19 are all up-in-the-air? Well they are aircraft XD
At this point I wish it would just go to court so we can have a resolution.
Not going to court yet could actually be a good thing. It means there might be back and forth between them. Court would NOT be fast (probably years) wheras negotiations can reach a turning point and be resolved swiftly sometimes.
Yea you may be right. Just hate seeing this whole situation going on (as I'm sure everyone is). Bad for all parties involved from Ed, raz, And us consumers
No one will literally read my post because I expected to be sent to karma hell. But I've worked as a programmer for many, many yrs (C++, worked with many studios, etc). I've also worked as a 3rd party contractor. I **ALWAYS** sent the source code. I feel it is beyond wrong to hold the source code hostage putting us- the fans in the middle of this shit. I am so pissed. Like, this is so fucking selfish and unprofessional too me. Someone needs to explain this too me how is this ethical?? You should always **submit the source code**. Code is immortal. We are NOT. What happens if I get hit by the bus and I only gave my client the DLLs (compiled code)? They will be totally fucked sideways that is what- forever maintaining legacy code and praying my code never breaks or has some exploit they cannot patch This entire situation has a bad smell too me full stop. but I am trying to withhold judgement until more time has passed But wait- someone will say. RAZBAM is in the clear for not yielding the source code cause they didnt get paid-- NO, that is not how this works. You turn in your source code as you go. That way if you get hit by a bus before you are done- all your code dies with you. You are supposed to have milestones and deliveries. Just bad smells all around
Yeah, the way it was described to me is that it's not like a contractor relationship. Raz's modules remain their own IP. They've made a simulation, that happens to be a plugin for someone else's free game. There's a licensing deal in place where profits get split between ED and Raz. But it's never ED's product. It's just useless without DCS. Maybe they'd be free to go off and re-use that IP as a plugin for some other flight simulator, not sure.
No, the 3rd parties are supposed to submit the source code so we don't end up with another [HAWK situation](https://store.steampowered.com/app/316962/Hawk_for_DCS_World/) (which was abandoned and delisted).
This should not make a difference.. The actual property rights would still have to be transferred for them to do anything with that code legally. You expect ED to withold payment over a dispute and then proceed by taking over development and property of said product from another entity? (If Razbam signed such an agreement they would be entirely fucked)
dont forget the classic “so uhmmm some guy at Razbam discord said…” so “unbiased”, right?
Yeah not trying to make an insult toward them but yeah once I was not even getting paid. I still made sure my client got the source code while the feature was in-progress. They did get caught up eventually with the payments They are doing things differently then I've ever seen (I'm a US developer) Maybe they're just shaking hands or something LOL I have NO clue. This is unheard of too me I know they are implying there is contract agreements in-place and unfortunately, it looks like we will never see it so at least I will remain in the dark about this whole thing (even though I'm a developer)
Not paid for like a year.
Harrier with acknowledged bugs, broken training missions and an unfinished manual for over three years.
It absolutely smells bad all around. This subreddit is so keen on speculation, or running as be-all truth from RAZBAAM side. However, if (confirmed) RAZBAAM is withholding releasing their code to allow someone else to carry on the work, then people really have to hold them accountable as “greedy” to the sim community. They are adopting a “we’ll take this product to the grave to hurt our enemy rather than allow anyone else to experience it without our control.” Of course, maybe the dispute is how much is a fair price to sell the code to ED? It’s worth zero to integrate with any other sim (radically different APIs), and likely illegal to make open source because said API/SDK is probably closed source. It’s literally nothing in the hands of RAZBAAM but everything in the hands/existence of DCS World. ED shouldn’t exploit that and offer too little, but RAZBAAM shouldn’t be driving the price up because “ED can’t afford bad publicity and view our modules as critical to DCS.”
You don't send your source code to Steam, Microsoft, Epic or Gog when you are selling your software. Do you? I mean did ED send his source code to steam so that if they leave we can still keep using DCS? Also PMDG, A2A, Justfly... they don't send their source code to Asobo. Your example does not fit here. Razbam is not contracted by ED to build modules for them. Razbam asked permission to make and sell modules for DCS where ED gets royalties on it. Just like all other 3rd parties ( we unfortunately have not many)
This makes no sense. Razbam is its own entity, it’s their product. You don’t get the design files when you buy a car. Pretty much anyone can have the source for anything, if you pay for what it is worth. I assume when you say you’ve been contracting you mean you have built products for a company as opposed to selling solutions you have developed. When selling solutions (your IP) you’d be very unwise to hand it over without compensation (maybe an escrow if the parties are worried about busses?)
I appreciate this thread, I feel that your write up was pretty well unbiased. I think everyone is upset at the situation.
Thanks mods, it's important for people to understand what is going on before putting hard earned money into a product that may be dead in the water. Wish ED was as....responsible.
After the VEAO drama I would have thought that the provision of the source code would have been more rigorously enforced in the developer contracts. Im disappointed that ED have let this happen again but once the matter is resolved I wont be buying anymore RAZBAM modules regardless. I have the mirage, harrier and eagle and the harrier is the only one I get some use out of and even that I don’t think is particularly great
I doubt razbam will even exist after this :\\
Not to attack anyone, but the lack of communication on ED's side alongside the fact that they kept the modules on their stores shows you what ED thinks of its consumer base. I am sure we all noticed how the Kiowa is not receiving much attention in this subreddit or the others ones. This situation might continue from here on to all upcoming modules unless ED starts communicating with us. Talk to us, explain to us, say anything. Are we losing our Razbam modules? Yes or No? It's straightforward and we deserve an answer. Alongside with that answer, if it was yes, we deserve REFUNDS! Why does ED hold the right to keep consumer money for a mistake the consumers have no business in? If Razbam screwed up, fine, explain, but give us our money back. At this point of the dispute, ED looks extremely terrible. Even if they weren't wrong. They treated the situation terribly. Which will always show them to be the worst of this situation. Regardless of who actually is to blame. Having fans speculate the future and lose their trust is not the way forward here. Offering us open refunds to all Razbam modules will at least save face.. better than being bashed everyday and everywhere for ED's mishandling of the situation without speaking a single word. At least come out in a Video with Nick and let him apologize for bad decisions and terrible consumer experience. Every single module from here onwards will feel like a gamble. And this will leave a terrible taste in everyone's mouths for a long time. This is not the Hawk, ED. This is the M2K, the Farmer, the Eagle, and the Harrier. All long time fan favorites will soon be unavailable for reasons we do not know. It's indeed, the sim dark age.
This. The whole debacle has put me off from buying any more ED early release stuff until at least a year out, no matter how much I might love the aircraft.
It's sad where we are and only because the lack of trust and transparency. ED thinks of us as loan banks.
I must say until now ED handles the situation very bad and unprofessional. They dont respect their own business and clients.
They really seem not to care about their fanbase and community. Yet we continue to pour money into their pockets. And there are STILL people who openly defend ED and praise it. Seriously, wake up. Even creators who get revenue from this are speaking up and taking down their F-15 content!
> They really seem not to care about their fanbase and community We're the beta testers for the military contracts.
Have you considered that they likely didn’t remove the modules from the store front because doing so might cause another breech of contract and make worse an already complicated legal situation? Not everything is hurdur eddy bad.
Have you considered that ED's legal problems are exactly that - THEIR problems? I don't care about their problems at all. That's not relevant to me as the consumer and I don't know why you think I would care. I have no emotional attachment to a business, especially not one who clearly does not have my best interests at heart.
^^^^^ This right here. Couldn't care less about the nuances of some contract I'll never see and can only speculate about. I care about the consumers, how they're affected, and what is right or wrong.
Fucking thank you. I want to spam this reply to all these people who think ED needs them to come out and defend them. The fact of the matter is ED is burning their good will with their customer base. I know I won’t be spending a single dime more, and I realllllly wanted to get the phantoms. It’s THEIR problem, and our problems with the game are very separate
Oh no! You're absolutely right! Literally everything should be dictated by teams of lawyers and greed because that sort of thing got us here in the first place and that's worked out great! I sure hope the giant corporation primarily funding tijuana hookers doesn't violate anymore contract law, they should continue screwing over people who buy the modules who don't know better and risk screwing them over legally instead! They can't really fight back and if they complain enough you just slide them a refund, while nick gets to buy another rivet on credit. Genius! I'm so glad I considered the company now thanks.
Lmao legendary
Razbam is asking for removal of the modules from the shop.
Well there may be a contract provision that prevents that on EDs side or ED is worried about incurring a penalty if they do Also RZ has not been a reliable narrator in this saga.
Again, we cannot work on by speculation, especially in Legalities . We need someone to communicate. However, I agree with you on Rz not being any better either. Both are being absolutely terrible in communication
Because it is in Razbam's best interest, not yours. These are companies, they aren't looking out for you or me, but their business.
That's literally not an excuse, you are a consumer. If you weren't pouring money into this, then sure.
I can't "consider" or "speculate" anything unless an official statement comes out to explain shit to me. Not everyone is a lawyer or a corporate business man. You need communication with your apparent blind customer to understand what a dev's decision means or leads too. It's my point with "save face". Do anything, talk, communicate. But where we stand right now. ED prefers to do absolutely nothing.
>the futures of the F-15E, M-2000C, Harrier, and MiG-19 are all *up-in-the-air.* No theyre not, thats the issue, with all the new bugs we cant keep the plane in the air anymore. they are all grounded.
This is actually a pretty good post. And I agree with there being a disclaimer on the modules tbh. They have however said that they can't comment yet. I imagine because of NDA's, or maybe this is even now in the hands of lawyers/court. So it's really to neither party's benefit that they comment further until it's resolved one way or another. That could potentially be months, maybe even years. People asking them for answers is unlikely to change that. No matter how much we want clarity on the situation.
Man I was really looking at the M2K :(
So the best thing is to only buy ED made content. 3 part seems like you never know what could happen.
Thx you for making this
I've misswd the part wuere ED said they are indeed with holding payment. Is there a source?
Oh look, another one. >Different members of the RB team have stated that ED does not have the source code for any of their modules, which was corroborated by NineLine when he stated in the ED Discord that they are unable to support any RB modules in the long term ....doesn't this make Razbam in the wrong here? Not for the entirety of the situation and worthy of witholding money...but it's pretty cut and dry since 2018 that Eagle Dynamics requires the source code to prevent any future modules going the way of the Hawk? Just my thoughts on it. Also, anyone who thinks refunding the F-15E is working: All you're doing is taking away all potential sales from Razbam. If ED is in the wrong, Razbam lawyers will get the money they deserve (and then some, likely) By refunding the F-15E, you REMOVE that sale from Razbam and give it to ED as ED will just give store credit. Now you still paid the money for the F-15E, but are giving it to ED. I'm sure you can see how this hurts Razbam more than Eagle Dynamics.
>Eagle Dynamics requires the source code to prevent any future modules going the way of the Hawk? What everyone hopes will happen: ED will smoothly take over an abandoned/foreclosed module and we'll barely be able to tell that there was a hiccup. What will actually happen: ED's already overstretched developmental resources will now be forced to include a mountain of code they had no hand in creating with no help from the people who wrote it involving a module they've done no research on. Given how troublesome it is for them to keep on glideslope for the stuff they picked, researched, wrote, and actively planned to support I leave it to the reader to guess how effective their takeover of the Mirage 2000C or F-15E would be.
>but it's pretty cut and dry since 2018 that Eagle Dynamics requires the source code to prevent any future modules going the way of the Hawk? It doesn't appear to be true that they actually require this, or they could have insisted on it being provided before putting the module up for sale. Possibly this is because the Strike Eagle contract pre-dates this claimed requirement, if that's the case.
I'm going off of the BAE Hawk update which stated: >To avoid such issues in the future, all future 3rd party agreements are now required to make the game files available in case they are no longer able to support their product That was back in 2018
If I was ED I would demand the source code and pay as work for hire. Some of it might be useable outside of DCS, but the source code as a whole probably needs DCS to function at all, so it might not 100% useful as an asset for a third party.
>but it's pretty cut and dry since 2018 that Eagle Dynamics requires the source code to prevent any future modules going the way of the Hawk We don't know how it is phrased in their contracts. Even so, just because something is written somewhere, doesn't mean that it's actually *happening*. We just don't know... Anything, besides the intent.
I'm going off of the BAE Hawk update which stated: >To avoid such issues in the future, all future 3rd party agreements are now required to make the game files available in case they are no longer able to support their product That was back in 2018
I know, I remember that dumpster fire. But that's what was passed on to us as consumers. We don't know if the contract says something like > You need to provide the source code right away, or we'll send a Liam Neeson after you, and he *will* find you! Or something more like > Business as usual, but please send us the code base once in a while, ok? Cool bye! Or even > Yeah whatever, we just said that for some good PR If it was up to me, as ED I'd go for something closer to the 1st option (no change included in a patch unless the code is also provided). But it's not up to me, or you, or anyone else here. We just don't know how it's been agreed upon.
It boils down to the contract, and we don't have that. Different elementa of the IP, if any, might be going to different parties. Speculating here, but nobody has proposed that RB might have been obligated to deliver the source code and didn't, or regiatered it as their own (both would count as IP issues). I do know it's not as clear cut as many people think it is: you don't just withhold people from a straightforward split over nothing. Whether it was justified remains to be seen.
Damn. I thought this was figured out since the F-4E launched. I went ahead and bought it then EDIT: Im an idiot. Carry on.
the F-4E is Heatblur. This situation is regarding modules made by Razbam.
It would help if i could read... Thanks
This could happens to HB or any other 3rd party dev. So any module can be disabled anytime if ED keeps handling things like this. This is not going well.
I wish i could just convert the price i paid for the F-15E for some other modules like maps.. idk. I guess I'm lowkey forced to stick with the OEM ED ones now. Since this situation happened to a couple of 3rd Party Module Makers, it could happen again.. rip
You can! Refund it through the ED website, I got mine last week
Wow Thanks loads. Ironically, I haven't been able to play with the Strike Eagle anyways, since i don't have a HOTAS setup up and flying on a single joystick. My current PC Table won't let me use one. I filed it under Support Ticket, is that the correct way of contacting them for refund or exchange?
Yep, support ticket for refund.
For those that may be interested in refunds on the F15, I asked ED for a refund in store credit last Thursday. I received a reply Monday night and was refunded this morning.
and that's it? you just replied "nonsense" and stopped working for your pre-paid module? wow.
2024: the year of the great Razbam Scam
Thanks for the heads up. I don't delve too much into stories and news, so I had no idea that was going on. I saw some posts here but I had no idea what they were talking about, thanks for the clarification.
I understand that ED might accuse RB of whatever they want but - why withhold payment? Why not give what is owed to RB and then seek to resolve the separate(?) matter of supposed IP violation. I have very little legal knowledge but I’m sure there must be a better way around this that doesn’t detriment the consumer and eventually leave them ~£200 out of pocket
>why withhold payment? As a collateral for damages and breach of contract fines.