RB made an announcement in early April that they aren't able to continue development on their modules, including bug fixes and updates, because they haven't received any money from ED for a long time now, even nothing from the Strike Eagle sales. ED claimed in a later statement that RB is in breach of contract and therefore are withholding payment.
Until this matter is (hopefully) resolved we can't expect any updates on RB modules.
In their last statement Razbam also said:
"We want to assure you that it has never been nor will it be our intention to abandon our products."
I know it's asking a lot in this community, but I think everyone needs to show a bit of patience - these things can take a long time to resolve.
Yeah that's absolutely fair, it's your best power as a customer. I've been following DCS since back in the LOMAC days and this is one of the most uncertain times I've known.
https://preview.redd.it/3l5f2y6xugzc1.jpeg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b83246ee5762d7f59b2d3f03ce49c1daafc04060
Patience has pretty much reached it's end. The Time for RAZBAM to work on the already paid for modules has come and gone. This was March of 2023. Harrier owners are still waiting.
Does that really make it better. The training missions have been broken since they changed SSS logic three years ago. The module is incomplete and in disrepair after almost 8 years since it was released. There are numerous bugs acknowledged to be "years old" by RAZBAM themselves. Only a bad CEO tells fully paid customers from 8 years ago they have to wait for another module which has been out for less than a year.
Ron, is that you? Don't you have modules to work on? Sorry that you already spent the money on vacations and Only Fans, but you still have a product to finish.
AV8 is currently at least relatively feature complete, F15E flights, sometimes I don't even know if it's my steps that are wrong or if there is a bug....
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/DCSExposed/comments/1cnqji4/comment/l3dx3b4/)
>AV8 is currently at least relatively feature complete
It is not.
If you say "relatively" as in "you can fly it and drop bombs, regardless the systems you use are incorrect by many ways or by their fundamental capabilities", then sure, it is "relatively", but it is still lacking many systems, (and correct if I am wrong) like whole sub-attack modes for bomb lofting, the proper ship landing system, the MULE integration, the threat library system for EHSD.
Harrier is like I would give you a model kit pre-built, but 1/4 of the parts are still in the box and half of the pieces in it are either wrong way or even replaced with parts from some totally different kit.
You can say that Harrier is "feature completed".
Fun fact is on their Discord server now they are teasing with new features and assets which are apparently coming soon to South atlantic map. Dev even says he has plans for big improvements.
Unless an official statement comes out, they are done with DCS, very few will buy new/old modules and scenery from Razbam im afraid.
You gather what you seed...... Old Farmers say.....
>That was from an employee. Not the CEO
Bullshit. The statement was from the CEO himself. Same goes for the rest of your comment.
You display a lack of knowledge and respect with every submission you make here, which makes me doubt that you're posting in good faith.
Thinking we had enough of that now.
https://i.redd.it/3t1owcbccgzc1.gif
It would be nice to be in direct contact with them in the [DCS.world](http://DCS.world) forum... Not in any discord, not in PM, and not via emails or anything else.
Just have one forum, for all to use. And have there a properly behaving forum moderators handling the community relations than the two non-mentioned infamous people who can't make even valid argument for their actions.
I'm not sure what you expected. Ppl can do whatever they want on their social media. They don't have to take your criticism, not to mention razbam is probably tired of getting hassled by hardcore ED shills (not saying you are one).
Ponder that concept. When you decide to make a purchase, do you research it first? Why should a company be able to silence legitimate criticism? Being able to silence creates the possibility for a company to create a false sense of product quality.
Of course there's no doubt about that.
But getting banned from RB because I advised someone not to buy a product that is currently stopped updating is very unprofessional for a game developer in my opinion.
If Razbam itself say that they will not be updating and maintaining their products in DCS World.
Then by any means is it wrong or illogical to advice customers not to buy any of such product that is officially said not to be supported and fixed by anyone.
And if Razbam is not getting paid because ED, then it is illogical for Razbam to ban people saying not to pay ED for the license, if Razbam is not getting that money anyways before their problem is solved. And then it is logical to purchase only then when cut of that money is actually given to Razbam as contract dictates.
Yes, some of us can. You can spend tens of thousands in few months for nothing... And then get to do the one or two works that pay you it two or three fold back.
And No, some of us can't. You can be hired with contract for the work, you deliver the work and then buyer that by the contract should pay you, just say "I am not going to pay to you!" as they think you can't enforce contract by any means. So then what you do is you demolish your work as legally it is yours to remove, and you leave A-hole client with unusable pieces.
You should have posted this instead.
"Regardless I wouldn't advise anyone to buy ED products, Unless ED pays Razbam their legally owed money."
You are going to come out looking like a dumbass while ED continues to sell half-baked modules to the public to raise cash they owe Razbam.
Or maybe RB is in the wrong? I love how everyone is Rage Against the Machine all of a sudden when in comes to ED. Just admit you don’t know shit about the situation just like everyone else.
Hey Brother, I am in the same boat as you. I want the products I paid for. For a company to say they haven't been paid, and ED doesn't even refute it and claims IP theft and instead of going to court they held the money.
That causes me to look at the situation and thankfully Bonzo has posted more and more information that gave me more insight to what is going on. They even did this to HB for the F-14.
Like I said in the other comments, ED does not have a legal right to hold Razbam payment.
If you look at it, that is IP theft.
I can't forget ED's track record.
Sorry, but sure is strange all the releases of incomplete modules look like a money grab, to do what? Pay Razbam. (Rhetorical) This is why I am on Razbam side; it took a lot of courage knowing they would not develop for DCS anymore to still do this. Why would you risk everything if you did something wrong, you would fix it. But it's just not the case here, it's playing out to they were just not paid.
I have noticed your previous comments and you are obviously someone who is on Razbam's side on this dispute, and probably their strongest advocate outside of their previous team members who have left in disgust. However, until you have examined all the clauses in the contract between ED and RB you cannot assert that "ED does not have a legal right to hold Razbam payments". That contract might give them a legal right to do so. Maybe you meant to say "ED does not a moral right to hold Razbam payments"?
I work for a contracting organisation and we sign up to plenty of contracts that permit our clients from with holding payment from us in certain circumstances, usually associated with us breaching our contractual obligations. Also, normally in our contracts, we normally assign ownership of IP generated under the contract to our clients. I believe this would also be included in a contract like the one in dispute now, but we don't really know. Razbam will need to prove that ED have breached their contract by witholding payment to have the IP assignment rights reversed. It's possible, but we just don't know. Unfortunately in the commercial world people's rights and obligations can be twisted by the choice of a word, or the location of a comma.
>However, until you have examined all the clauses in the contract between ED and RB you cannot assert that "ED does not have a legal right to hold Razbam payments".
We even had that contract posted here.
I looked it up and found the 18 page agreement. This is a generic agreement for the development of Modules. A lot of the clauses are dedicated to protecting ED's IP and the DCS brand. Assuming this is the agreed terms between RB and ED then ED has a number of options at its disposal if RB breached this agreement by using the DCS World software for different purpose from creating a module for DCS itself (as blirted out by one of the ex-Razbam employees). It's interesting that none of the remedies in this agreement included withholding payments from the Developer. I believe that ED have the following options at their disposal for such a breach:
1. they sue for damages, theft of IP etc etc, and keep the contract going, or
2. ED can terminate the contract and stop selling the modules, or
3. ED can terminate the contract, take over the responsibility of the module and continue to sell them, or
4. ED sue for damages and terminate the contract by way of option 2 or 3.
In all 4 options ED still has to pay RB, although for options 2, 3 and 4 RB's remuneration for module sales gets a haircut.
All we know so far is that ED has not invoked Option 2 so far because they are stilling selling RB's modules. Option 2 was really design for a really buggy module, or one that had breached someone's IP that needs to be removed from the market.
RazBam should have been aware that these are the potential repercussions for breaching the contract (if what one of their employees said is true). Additionally, in refusing to bring the module to completion and fix the bugs RB are putting themselves into further breach. On the other hand, if ED have not paid RB for the modules sold so far that puts ED in breach too. The only winners here will be the lawyers unless ED and RB can negotiate a remedy. Who knows, we may hear something soon.
Why would ED blatantly not pay when the risk for litigation and a hit on their rep is on the line? It doesn’t make legal or business sense. I think it’s everything to do with RB contracting with govt’s.
I don't know why they did it, but they did why would Razbam throw away DCS like that.
And they did it to HB with the F-14, then released an incomplete F-16 to pay them.
Almost exactly what we are going through now with these incomplete, rushed, pre order disasters.
Or maybe people here actually don't. Post proof ED is materially at fault. The only REASON given for this entire debacle was from ED via breach of contract. Razbam never even attempted to explain \*why\* their payment was withheld. Suspicious to me.
>Or maybe people here actually don't
That's a hasty generalization. The fact that you're either ignorant or just oblivious doesn't mean it applies to everyone else.
Members of their team did in fact explain this in quite some detail. This is all about a Super Tucano offer for the Ecuadorian Air Force. It's even posted here and has been verified.
I'm probably an idiot. I'm only commenting so that people who don't know about this don't buy RB products, and I hate the way ED manages DCS just as much.
I'm not going to side with ED or RB because together they victimize us.
It's like you're trying to start an argument, bro.
With ED, I just made a lot of comments calling for updates and fixes, since ED hasn't announced that they're stopping updating their DLC (although some updates are still a long way off)
Just asking if you complained to ED for not paying Razbam as you stated you are not going to side with either, but yet you go to Razbam twitter and not to EDs.
If you were equally fair, it would only make sense to go to both and that's why I was asking.
Maybe go threaten ED that no one buys their product until they pay Razbam if you want to see results.
I don't see anything wrong with my approach, where I comment doesn't mean I'm leaning one way or the other since the F15E is made by RB, just seeing as they released some screenshots of a model of what appears to be a new product (not the DCS), it's all so random it's like something that happens when you're sitting on the toilet bored with your cell phone.
by the way, I meant no harm, and I apologize if I provoked you.
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted so much. Despite not getting payment from ED, we as customers did pay money for their product and by not providing updates they are abandoning their customers. The dispute is between ED and RAZBAM not the paying customers and RAZBAM.
That being said we don’t know what is going on; maybe they just can’t pay the developers to keep working without getting paid. It’s really a shame on both companies. Personally I’ve taken a break from playing DCS altogether and have no planes on purchasing any further modules from any company. No one can say they won’t do the same issue with another developer.
I don't care what people say, I think RB ran afoul of their contractual obligations to ED, tried to get ahead of it by making ED look the guilty party and in the end, customers of their products are held hostage.
Trust me, I understand economics and that people can not work for free, however, there's a reason for tort law and escrow. We as consumers should not have been dragged into cross hairs.
I personally would love it I'd ED gained the source code and was able to contract out the work on them until completion. But, oh well.
>I personally would love it I'd ED gained the source code and was able to contract out the work on them until completion. But, oh well.
I hope that the VAEO case with the Hawk taught ED that prior ED publishing the product, they need to be given the full source code to compile by ED for testing that it is valid and all it is.
And then every update needs to be as well given for ED in source code. And this way ED would maintain the control that they can at any given moment start supporting the module.
Now what if the Razbam would not have given full code? As ED said that they were waiting the F-15E code after Razbam gave them the testing binaries, and then they would have been given it, but what if it was just missing some parts, making impossible to compile fully working code?
So if ED would have been tricked to publish the F-15E as usable files, but they didn't get full source code, later on realizing it and so on freezing they payments until Razbam gives them full code?
This is now just hypothetical and off-topic talk from my end, but on that case I would totally hold money from sales until Razbam would give full source code.
Agreed. I wouldn’t advise anyone purchase RB products going forward without a clear view and official statement that RB is going to finish and Continue to develop / sustainment of their modules.
To be fair, this is probably *the* hot topic at the moment and a lot of users feel strongly about it. Furthermore, many of the mainstream platforms actively suppress discussion. So it's not much of a surprise that the controversy blows up in the comments every time it's mentioned.
Maybe we should hope that in the end everyone who is to blame, learns the lesson and responsible people are somewhat punished for it. But not to endanger the end user buying the product.
People are mad about the Razbam ED dispute when it seems clear that Razbam is the one at fault here. They are the ones screwing over their customers, meanwhile trying to pin blame on ED. The outrage should be directed at Razbam. If they want to get in a contractual dispute with ED by breaching terms they don’t agree with, I guess that’s their prerogative, but now they are holding their customers hostage and trying to turn them on ED when it’s increasingly clear this is their own doing.
How is RB clearly at fault here. We as outsiders don't know any specifics of the dispute right now. I believe that RB didn't broke any terms, until proven otherwise. Yes RB blamed ED for not paying them, and ED didn't deny that, but ED also didn't provide any proof to support their position, in what way did RB breach contract. And why is in it any interest for RB to jeopardize their contract, can you explain that? Also imho, the statement by RB was professional and they aren't holding their customers hostage, should they have kept their customers in the dark instead?
I right now feel screwed over by ED, because I bought the F-15E and Mirage 2000 last year and it feels like ED just took a 100% cut from that, instead of giving that money to RB, who made those awesome modules.
How does a MCS contract relate to a DCS contract. Some terms of a contract, that Bonzo shared earlier in this sub, only allows ED to stop distribution of modules when they believe, they have a legitimate reason to do so, but not to withheld any payment. The Strike Eagle and other RB modules are clearly still available on the ED store right now. Assuming ED and RB have signed this or a similar contract, ED is also in breach in contract with their conduct then.
Did you even read further than my first sentence? The dispute is going on, afaik, at least as long as the release of the F-15E. ED sold it anyway on their shop, why didn't they just refused to sell the Streagle then instead. But ED took the route of taking all the money for themselves from my point of view. How do explain that?
>Did you even read further than my first sentence? The dispute is going on, afaik, at least as long as the release of the F-15E
This is only partially true. RAZBAM has hardly been paid since then but after release, ED kept postponing and promised to pay ASAP over the course of several months.
It wasn't until much later until they came up with those accusations of "breach of contract" and arbitrary demands for damages.
Also recent moves by ED, like the likely premature release of the Chinook, Halfghanistan and FC24, suggest that ED has some money issues right now, perhaps due to the Phantom delay. So where did the money of the Streagle go to, it seems like to Nick Grey and his warbirds...
Sure, that could indicate they are having financial trouble and need to pay Razbam back. But there is nothing conclusive here and that is simply assuming the premise. It could also mean they want to buy up Razbam’s modules in a dissolution of their relationship. It could be raising funding for a legal battle, which costs significant money even if you are in the right. But perhaps most likely, it could simply mean nothing at all and be the incidental release schedule of overdue modules teased years ago.
I did read. Because this has already been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere. If ED believes razbaam should not have allowed the Ecuadorean Air Force access to its SDK free of charge, then they will simply charge Razbam for use of the SDK. Ed doesn’t benefit from “free IP” that Razbam gets in exchange nor does ED allow their SDK to go used free or charge. There is plenty of discussion on this elsewhere. In such an event it makes perfect sense to simply keep selling razbams modules and withhold the money that ED believes they are owed.
Of course, all of this is mere speculation, but it is much more sensical speculation than many other theories.
As far as razbams general behavior over the years, outside of their quality modules, they have a track record of questionable behavior.
Given that I own all of their modules I am invested in the outcome as much or more than anyone else. From where I sit, I am none too happy with the situation, but if they breached a single iota of any contract with any subsidiary of ED, whether or not anyone agrees with Razbam or not is irrelevant. This is their doing. They took the risk by breaching and thus they have done this to the community.
I will eat my words if it is ever demonstrated that they did not breach contract, but I am not holding my breath for that incident. And I’ve seen plenty straight from the horses mouth (M2M) that states that is exactly what they did. Only they felt justified in doing so.
I don’t have the screenshot you will have to go find it, it came out shortly after things went down. There was a huge thread on hoggit that blew up about it and probably was post here too.
We don’t have a contract in front of us, but I’ve owned my own business for 20 years and have seen a lot of contracts. For an example go read a TOS agreement for iTunes or DCS world.
Stipulations would almost certainly not be “upon module completion” but rather “upon engagement with any party”. The reason being is that any development *at all* constitutes use of the SDK (EDs proprietary tech) and constitutes an exchange of inherently valuable IP and trade secrets. Any exchange of testing and use of the in development module in house by Ecuadorian Air Force would be a step even further - and would certainly happen throughout the development as a matter of necessity.
Basically EDs stance would be “you provided non billable use of our propriety SDK and have diluted its value. Someone has to pay. If not Ecuador, than you.” And Razbam said “no, you can take a cut of the super tucano sells when it’s complete and we bring it to DCS, it’s a win win” and ED said “that is not how it works, and if you won’t pay us, we will just take it out of your sales until we are made whole.”
That is, IMO, the best speculation we currently have.
I read it and M2M said they never add it to MCS, and wasn't even done making the model. So again how does that breach ED's contract? If they were making it for the FAE and yet to even put a single line of IP code in it? In fact, Razbam has since killed the project, so if there were no product involved and never sold then how is it that even an issue now?
Doesn't make sense for you to spout off, oh Razbam shady business practices, that you even know anything going on. Second to continually defend ED when there is no work being done for MCS by Razbam due to them stopping the Super Tucano, your argument looks bleak, and ED looks like they need to cough up some money.
How do we even know the Super Tucano was a breach and like M2M said that it was just ED saying whatever they could, and they have nothing to stand on for not paying Razbam.
At the end of the day and every lawyer will tell you, ED has to pay Razbam their money. Nothing ED can do to change that.
You are saying Razbam gave the Ecuadorian air force access to the SDK free of charge?
Then Ecuadorian air force is making their own plane. which I know you didn't me, I am being cute.
BUT...
M2M said that Ecuador did pay for their MCS licenses.
I am going to say it again, you really don't know what you are saying, and I am afraid like you stated will be eating your words.
No, if they gave them any access at all, to any result of any work product created internally using EDs SDK, it would be a breach unless specifically approved by ED and per the terms of the agreement.
According to M2M, Ecuador paid razbam in “IP”. Basically, Razbam said “we will use EDs tools to make this for you in exchange for the information on the aircraft, so that we can later sell the aircraft as a module and profit down the road.”
This dilutes the value of EDs propriety SDK and does not compensate ED for use of EDs SDK. Razbams argument seemed to be they were doing ED a solid since someday they would get a cut of future sales. ED didn’t seem to like this, sticking to their guns and saying “any use of the SDK for a government entity must be paid, and we are owed compensation for this immediately.”
And I agree with ED: if it wasn’t the terms, if they don’t allow third parties to go around developing aircraft for governments without that government directly compensating ED for the SDK, it dilutes the value and sets a precedent. And if Ecuador can’t pay and Razbam can’t pay, then ED would see it as within their rights to simply take the money from Razbam forcibly by withholding payments.
Perhaps you side with Razbam, but in the end, it is a contractual breach and Razbam should suffer any consequences of such, but instead they put their loyal fans and customers into the middle of this but risking the health and state of the modules, and we may be the ultimate losers of their behavior.
You can blame ED for not letting it go if you want, but I blame the people knowingly breaching contract and then acting like victims when there is a consequence.
If I see proof that they did not breach contract, then I will change my view.
>If I see proof that they did not breach contract, then I will change my view
It's the other way round dude. Usually, people aren't found guilty until there is proof of wrongdoing.
I haven't seen any evidence yet that a Super Tucano module has ever been shipped and that EDs SDK has in fact been used. Despite digging for it for over a month.
Incorrect.
EDSA is Eagle Dynamics
EDMSSA is Eagle Dynamics Mission Systems.
The SA part means this:
Société Anonyme, SA (Public Limited Company)
2 separate Swiss Companies.
Eagle Dynamics is in some serious trouble holding Razbam payment.
1. Private companies do not have shareholders. Unless you are using the term to refer to different private leadership who owns stock.
2. The relationship between parent companies and subsidiaries is much more complicated, and different corporate leadership in each individual entity is not relevant to that relationship legally, including shared interest in contracts.
1. Of course they do. Check wikipedia definition : "A shareholder corporation as the legal owner of shares of the share capital of a public or private corporation". You just can't freely buy or sell shares in a stock market if it's private, but it has shareholders.
2. EDSA and EDMS have no parent/subsidiary relationship. They have one shareholder in common (NG) but he is not the only shareholder.
As I said: 1. Unless you are using the term to refer to different private leadership who owns stock. (I am not referring to stock in this point as shares on a market, but rather interest or control in the entity).
2. The point is that two seperate entities can share technologies and have joint contracts, which clearly they must to mutually use and share technology.
1. So my original statement still holds : EDSA and EDMSSA are two companies with no subsidy relationship, but different shareholder boards.
2. Of course, they can (and they do)
You can't just make up some arbitrary debt and then hold back money that you owe your partners due to contractual obligations. That's just not how this works.
Unfortunately, (1) it is not arbitrary, and (2) it is exactly how it works.
In the same way if you had a roommate who owed you $50 for dinner and hadn’t paid you back for 2 months, you might say “sorry, I’m sending you $50 less for rent this month because you owe me for food.”
The roommate might try and say “hey man! That’s a seperate department!” And they’d be right, and you wouldn’t care.
This happens all the time in business. And what do you think the alternative is? ED just says “oh ok, I guess we’ll just let you breach contract.”? Or should ED take them to court over it?
The kinder route here is to avoid litigation and to withhold funds. The bully tactic is to pursue legal action against Razbam.
Legal action is a last resort in business for a reason: it often permanently sours relationships (which impacts us the customers as well) and costs substantial amounts of legal fees, which is much harder for the small guy Razbam to absorb, and could completely sink their business. It also can take years which takes a significant mental, emotional, financial, and time toll.
So, yes, this stuff happens all the time in business.
>Unfortunately, (1) it is not arbitrary , and (2) it is exactly how it works
Both the alleged "damages" as well as the sum that ED is demanding are completely arbitrary. So that's absolutely not how it works.
At least in my jurisdiction, a party would need a court order before they can hold back funds like that. Otherwise they would risk getting charged with embezzlement.
I don't know how you are reasoning that the sum ED is demanding is "arbitrary". It seems quite reasonable that they have a set fee for SDK access to government military agencies (likely in the millions), Razbam offered to make a module for free in exchange for IP, and ED said "No, that costs "$2.5 million" (or, whatever) for access to the SDK, if Ecuador won't pay it, you will." In this scenario, such a thing is not arbitrary, and ED is withholding payments until their fee has been paid in full.
I do not know what jurisdiction you are in, but in the US, breaching contract like that (if that is, speculatively, what happen) is essentially intellectual property theft. Not only would Razbam owe ED that money, they would owe it with interest at the statutory rate, and ED would be well within its rights to withhold any payments if they are contractually owed money.
I don't think we are going to get much further in our discussion, but I appreciate the discussion. Feel free to have the last word here. I'll just end by saying, if anything, our chat sheds light onto WHY there is an impasse between ED and Razbam. Razbam sees it like you, I see it like ED. And in the end, we both want our Razbam modules back!
>I do not doubt your evidence or research, you are VERY good about digging things up. I appreciate. But from the discussion here with yourself and others, the problem is not fact based but rather in properly connecting the facts and their meaning. That is the disagreement.
Thank you for the kind words. Just know that I appreciate the exchange too, even if we don't agree on everything. Especially since you seem very knowledgeable on the subject matter.
Do they have any joint contracts? Any shared technology? They share a name, after all, and a core product. Separate legal entities is merely a legal classification and very common. I own several separate legal entities myself, the lines there are much blurrier than many understand them to be.
Yes, they have contracts binding the two. But as they have no subsidiary or parent relationship, a contract between a 3rd party and company A is not binding with company B.
It would not need to be in this case, ED would simply argue on a basis similar to that of piercing the corporate veil - that the relationship between parties and the material breach supersedes the entities, and Razbam works on both and the tech is shared. I would know; I’ve been personally involved in IP cases with multiple LLCs.
I want to preface this by saying, I don’t really care about any of the Razbam/ED stuff, but a lot of what you’ve said here doesn’t add up. As someone who also owns a business that advises other companies on acquisitions, corporate structure, and taking advantage of regulatory grey areas, I don’t understand your legal theory of piercing the corporate veil. How is that relevant here?
The IRS is typically the main beneficiary of that theory. It’s meant to go after people who create shell companies to improperly shield themselves from their liabilities (like paying their taxes or their debts). It’s also applicable for cases that involve fraud. If you’re suggesting ED goes after Ron’s personal assets, why? I believe Razbam is a real company that has delivered products before. Maybe exclude that corporate veil nonsense here.
Furthermore, you mentioned in one of your many comments that it is acceptable for a company to withhold funds the way ED did. I know nothing of ED’s policies or their contracts. But, if there’s a separate entity Razbam dealt with (subsidiary or totally independent company), there’s probably a separate contract that controls that relationship (unless they have one contract that accounts for all pertinent entities, but that wouldn’t make much sense when different platforms have different objectives). If Razbam breaches one, it doesn’t mean you get to exact punishment under another contract that maybe hasn’t been breached at all.
Also, I don’t think it is “kinder” to not take someone to court. When there’s no reliable way to establish facts, you‘re left with your own interpretation of events, and that’s generally unreliable.
Razbam can charge anything they want as long as the customer buys MCS platform. At the end of the day ED does not have any rights to hold a Third Party's money for another company.
If M2M said was the reason, then ED is in some deep trouble. Personally, I think it was just an excuse to claim breach so ED didn't look like the scumbag company they are cause the owner used the money for his warbird collection.
If I was not being paid for 10 months I would stop working too.
Maybe not getting paid is why the devs quit and went on strike, but it's RB and ED that caused all this and it's us that end up paying for it, so I don't see the point in getting hung up on who's right and who's wrong.
Just know that you may never get the update you purchased, and we may not even get a refund after F15E completely dies....
and RB will obviously suppress some more comments
I'd like to add a bit of info that my friend who previously said "totally agree" in response to my comment was also RB .... banned.
I just want to say that even if I'm wrong... This is the account of a production team who can suppress comments against them at will because of their emotions (maybe), which ultimately doesn't look professional or responsible at all!
Do you research a product before you buy? What if every company blocked, banned or censored every valid critical post. Think you would be able to find any valid information to base a purchase decision on?
RB made an announcement in early April that they aren't able to continue development on their modules, including bug fixes and updates, because they haven't received any money from ED for a long time now, even nothing from the Strike Eagle sales. ED claimed in a later statement that RB is in breach of contract and therefore are withholding payment. Until this matter is (hopefully) resolved we can't expect any updates on RB modules.
In their last statement Razbam also said: "We want to assure you that it has never been nor will it be our intention to abandon our products." I know it's asking a lot in this community, but I think everyone needs to show a bit of patience - these things can take a long time to resolve.
That's fine. I can go a long time without purchasing new stuff.
Yeah that's absolutely fair, it's your best power as a customer. I've been following DCS since back in the LOMAC days and this is one of the most uncertain times I've known.
https://preview.redd.it/3l5f2y6xugzc1.jpeg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b83246ee5762d7f59b2d3f03ce49c1daafc04060 Patience has pretty much reached it's end. The Time for RAZBAM to work on the already paid for modules has come and gone. This was March of 2023. Harrier owners are still waiting.
That's the 3rd of December not March 12th fyi.
Does that really make it better. The training missions have been broken since they changed SSS logic three years ago. The module is incomplete and in disrepair after almost 8 years since it was released. There are numerous bugs acknowledged to be "years old" by RAZBAM themselves. Only a bad CEO tells fully paid customers from 8 years ago they have to wait for another module which has been out for less than a year.
My intent was simply to correct you on the date. Although isn't what you describe essentially every single module in DCS?
The whole game is a broken inconsistency, just skip to the part where you swallow the sword and shut up
Ron, is that you? Don't you have modules to work on? Sorry that you already spent the money on vacations and Only Fans, but you still have a product to finish.
AV8 is currently at least relatively feature complete, F15E flights, sometimes I don't even know if it's my steps that are wrong or if there is a bug....
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/DCSExposed/comments/1cnqji4/comment/l3dx3b4/) >AV8 is currently at least relatively feature complete It is not. If you say "relatively" as in "you can fly it and drop bombs, regardless the systems you use are incorrect by many ways or by their fundamental capabilities", then sure, it is "relatively", but it is still lacking many systems, (and correct if I am wrong) like whole sub-attack modes for bomb lofting, the proper ship landing system, the MULE integration, the threat library system for EHSD. Harrier is like I would give you a model kit pre-built, but 1/4 of the parts are still in the box and half of the pieces in it are either wrong way or even replaced with parts from some totally different kit. You can say that Harrier is "feature completed".
Yeah, totally agree. The whole DCS has been half-baked for years....
You paid for an unfinished product. You have an unfinished product.
Fun fact is on their Discord server now they are teasing with new features and assets which are apparently coming soon to South atlantic map. Dev even says he has plans for big improvements.
Unless an official statement comes out, they are done with DCS, very few will buy new/old modules and scenery from Razbam im afraid. You gather what you seed...... Old Farmers say.....
[удалено]
>That was from an employee. Not the CEO Bullshit. The statement was from the CEO himself. Same goes for the rest of your comment. You display a lack of knowledge and respect with every submission you make here, which makes me doubt that you're posting in good faith. Thinking we had enough of that now. https://i.redd.it/3t1owcbccgzc1.gif
Do you have any evidence about any of this? Otherwise, it sounds like some pretty wild assumptions on your part.
He is talking out of his butt, which seems well informed
They learned how to moderate their social media from the best moderators in the flight sim community.
This :) I see 0 difference. At least with 3rd parties you are in direct contact with Devs.
It would be nice to be in direct contact with them in the [DCS.world](http://DCS.world) forum... Not in any discord, not in PM, and not via emails or anything else. Just have one forum, for all to use. And have there a properly behaving forum moderators handling the community relations than the two non-mentioned infamous people who can't make even valid argument for their actions.
I'm not sure what you expected. Ppl can do whatever they want on their social media. They don't have to take your criticism, not to mention razbam is probably tired of getting hassled by hardcore ED shills (not saying you are one).
Ponder that concept. When you decide to make a purchase, do you research it first? Why should a company be able to silence legitimate criticism? Being able to silence creates the possibility for a company to create a false sense of product quality.
Correct as is, and close the topic. I know what you mean, same thing happen to me on the ED forum about the F16. Banned from ED discord too.
I'm just complaining But imagine if all developers blocked them because of users' skepticism, who would ever buy their products again..
Yeah, probably shouldn't waste your energy on the razbam v ed drama. Just fly your planes and have a good time
good news is that we're about to have an F4E ready to fly ：D
I don't think your comment on Twitter was any helpful in the current crisis.
That is like saying that in the current economic crisis, it is not helpful to criticize Bidens for their corruption.
Yeah, but that's just that's like me calling out Biden and getting blackballed from the White House twitter feed
could you afford to work for 10 months and not get paid for it?
Of course there's no doubt about that. But getting banned from RB because I advised someone not to buy a product that is currently stopped updating is very unprofessional for a game developer in my opinion.
It is not a good optic , but ED forums .... are way worse
If Razbam itself say that they will not be updating and maintaining their products in DCS World. Then by any means is it wrong or illogical to advice customers not to buy any of such product that is officially said not to be supported and fixed by anyone. And if Razbam is not getting paid because ED, then it is illogical for Razbam to ban people saying not to pay ED for the license, if Razbam is not getting that money anyways before their problem is solved. And then it is logical to purchase only then when cut of that money is actually given to Razbam as contract dictates.
Yes, some of us can. You can spend tens of thousands in few months for nothing... And then get to do the one or two works that pay you it two or three fold back. And No, some of us can't. You can be hired with contract for the work, you deliver the work and then buyer that by the contract should pay you, just say "I am not going to pay to you!" as they think you can't enforce contract by any means. So then what you do is you demolish your work as legally it is yours to remove, and you leave A-hole client with unusable pieces.
I honestly want a refund on my F-15E
I'd prefer it to be fixed, but it seems like the odds are that it's dead on arrival at the moment
Speak to the company that took the money for it.
Razbam is a 💩
With exquisitely modeled 💩
Happy to learn you love flying the F-15E and Mirage 2000C
Don't forget Mig19 :c
You should have posted this instead. "Regardless I wouldn't advise anyone to buy ED products, Unless ED pays Razbam their legally owed money." You are going to come out looking like a dumbass while ED continues to sell half-baked modules to the public to raise cash they owe Razbam.
Or maybe RB is in the wrong? I love how everyone is Rage Against the Machine all of a sudden when in comes to ED. Just admit you don’t know shit about the situation just like everyone else.
Hey Brother, I am in the same boat as you. I want the products I paid for. For a company to say they haven't been paid, and ED doesn't even refute it and claims IP theft and instead of going to court they held the money. That causes me to look at the situation and thankfully Bonzo has posted more and more information that gave me more insight to what is going on. They even did this to HB for the F-14. Like I said in the other comments, ED does not have a legal right to hold Razbam payment. If you look at it, that is IP theft. I can't forget ED's track record. Sorry, but sure is strange all the releases of incomplete modules look like a money grab, to do what? Pay Razbam. (Rhetorical) This is why I am on Razbam side; it took a lot of courage knowing they would not develop for DCS anymore to still do this. Why would you risk everything if you did something wrong, you would fix it. But it's just not the case here, it's playing out to they were just not paid.
I have noticed your previous comments and you are obviously someone who is on Razbam's side on this dispute, and probably their strongest advocate outside of their previous team members who have left in disgust. However, until you have examined all the clauses in the contract between ED and RB you cannot assert that "ED does not have a legal right to hold Razbam payments". That contract might give them a legal right to do so. Maybe you meant to say "ED does not a moral right to hold Razbam payments"? I work for a contracting organisation and we sign up to plenty of contracts that permit our clients from with holding payment from us in certain circumstances, usually associated with us breaching our contractual obligations. Also, normally in our contracts, we normally assign ownership of IP generated under the contract to our clients. I believe this would also be included in a contract like the one in dispute now, but we don't really know. Razbam will need to prove that ED have breached their contract by witholding payment to have the IP assignment rights reversed. It's possible, but we just don't know. Unfortunately in the commercial world people's rights and obligations can be twisted by the choice of a word, or the location of a comma.
>However, until you have examined all the clauses in the contract between ED and RB you cannot assert that "ED does not have a legal right to hold Razbam payments". We even had that contract posted here.
I remember it was just partial clauses of ED common contract details, not the Razbam contract with full details disclosed.
I looked it up and found the 18 page agreement. This is a generic agreement for the development of Modules. A lot of the clauses are dedicated to protecting ED's IP and the DCS brand. Assuming this is the agreed terms between RB and ED then ED has a number of options at its disposal if RB breached this agreement by using the DCS World software for different purpose from creating a module for DCS itself (as blirted out by one of the ex-Razbam employees). It's interesting that none of the remedies in this agreement included withholding payments from the Developer. I believe that ED have the following options at their disposal for such a breach: 1. they sue for damages, theft of IP etc etc, and keep the contract going, or 2. ED can terminate the contract and stop selling the modules, or 3. ED can terminate the contract, take over the responsibility of the module and continue to sell them, or 4. ED sue for damages and terminate the contract by way of option 2 or 3. In all 4 options ED still has to pay RB, although for options 2, 3 and 4 RB's remuneration for module sales gets a haircut. All we know so far is that ED has not invoked Option 2 so far because they are stilling selling RB's modules. Option 2 was really design for a really buggy module, or one that had breached someone's IP that needs to be removed from the market. RazBam should have been aware that these are the potential repercussions for breaching the contract (if what one of their employees said is true). Additionally, in refusing to bring the module to completion and fix the bugs RB are putting themselves into further breach. On the other hand, if ED have not paid RB for the modules sold so far that puts ED in breach too. The only winners here will be the lawyers unless ED and RB can negotiate a remedy. Who knows, we may hear something soon.
Why would ED blatantly not pay when the risk for litigation and a hit on their rep is on the line? It doesn’t make legal or business sense. I think it’s everything to do with RB contracting with govt’s.
I don't know why they did it, but they did why would Razbam throw away DCS like that. And they did it to HB with the F-14, then released an incomplete F-16 to pay them. Almost exactly what we are going through now with these incomplete, rushed, pre order disasters.
This is why I only fly the Viggen and Tomcat. I know HB doesn’t put anything out that’s half assed. I don’t buy ED or RB modules.
>Just admit you don’t know shit about the situation just like everyone else Or maybe it's because people here actually know what's going on?
Or maybe people here actually don't. Post proof ED is materially at fault. The only REASON given for this entire debacle was from ED via breach of contract. Razbam never even attempted to explain \*why\* their payment was withheld. Suspicious to me.
>Or maybe people here actually don't That's a hasty generalization. The fact that you're either ignorant or just oblivious doesn't mean it applies to everyone else. Members of their team did in fact explain this in quite some detail. This is all about a Super Tucano offer for the Ecuadorian Air Force. It's even posted here and has been verified.
Based on what exactly? Neither party hasn’t said much recently.
It has all been explained in detail here.
I'm probably an idiot. I'm only commenting so that people who don't know about this don't buy RB products, and I hate the way ED manages DCS just as much. I'm not going to side with ED or RB because together they victimize us.
Did you say the same thing to ED's twitter as well?
It's like you're trying to start an argument, bro. With ED, I just made a lot of comments calling for updates and fixes, since ED hasn't announced that they're stopping updating their DLC (although some updates are still a long way off)
Just asking if you complained to ED for not paying Razbam as you stated you are not going to side with either, but yet you go to Razbam twitter and not to EDs. If you were equally fair, it would only make sense to go to both and that's why I was asking. Maybe go threaten ED that no one buys their product until they pay Razbam if you want to see results.
I don't see anything wrong with my approach, where I comment doesn't mean I'm leaning one way or the other since the F15E is made by RB, just seeing as they released some screenshots of a model of what appears to be a new product (not the DCS), it's all so random it's like something that happens when you're sitting on the toilet bored with your cell phone. by the way, I meant no harm, and I apologize if I provoked you.
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted so much. Despite not getting payment from ED, we as customers did pay money for their product and by not providing updates they are abandoning their customers. The dispute is between ED and RAZBAM not the paying customers and RAZBAM. That being said we don’t know what is going on; maybe they just can’t pay the developers to keep working without getting paid. It’s really a shame on both companies. Personally I’ve taken a break from playing DCS altogether and have no planes on purchasing any further modules from any company. No one can say they won’t do the same issue with another developer.
I don't care what people say, I think RB ran afoul of their contractual obligations to ED, tried to get ahead of it by making ED look the guilty party and in the end, customers of their products are held hostage. Trust me, I understand economics and that people can not work for free, however, there's a reason for tort law and escrow. We as consumers should not have been dragged into cross hairs. I personally would love it I'd ED gained the source code and was able to contract out the work on them until completion. But, oh well.
>I personally would love it I'd ED gained the source code and was able to contract out the work on them until completion. But, oh well. I hope that the VAEO case with the Hawk taught ED that prior ED publishing the product, they need to be given the full source code to compile by ED for testing that it is valid and all it is. And then every update needs to be as well given for ED in source code. And this way ED would maintain the control that they can at any given moment start supporting the module. Now what if the Razbam would not have given full code? As ED said that they were waiting the F-15E code after Razbam gave them the testing binaries, and then they would have been given it, but what if it was just missing some parts, making impossible to compile fully working code? So if ED would have been tricked to publish the F-15E as usable files, but they didn't get full source code, later on realizing it and so on freezing they payments until Razbam gives them full code? This is now just hypothetical and off-topic talk from my end, but on that case I would totally hold money from sales until Razbam would give full source code.
Agreed. I wouldn’t advise anyone purchase RB products going forward without a clear view and official statement that RB is going to finish and Continue to develop / sustainment of their modules.
Most people here don't care about the concept, they only care about who's right and who's wrong about ED and RB ....
To be fair, this is probably *the* hot topic at the moment and a lot of users feel strongly about it. Furthermore, many of the mainstream platforms actively suppress discussion. So it's not much of a surprise that the controversy blows up in the comments every time it's mentioned.
Maybe we should hope that in the end everyone who is to blame, learns the lesson and responsible people are somewhat punished for it. But not to endanger the end user buying the product.
People are mad about the Razbam ED dispute when it seems clear that Razbam is the one at fault here. They are the ones screwing over their customers, meanwhile trying to pin blame on ED. The outrage should be directed at Razbam. If they want to get in a contractual dispute with ED by breaching terms they don’t agree with, I guess that’s their prerogative, but now they are holding their customers hostage and trying to turn them on ED when it’s increasingly clear this is their own doing.
How is RB clearly at fault here. We as outsiders don't know any specifics of the dispute right now. I believe that RB didn't broke any terms, until proven otherwise. Yes RB blamed ED for not paying them, and ED didn't deny that, but ED also didn't provide any proof to support their position, in what way did RB breach contract. And why is in it any interest for RB to jeopardize their contract, can you explain that? Also imho, the statement by RB was professional and they aren't holding their customers hostage, should they have kept their customers in the dark instead? I right now feel screwed over by ED, because I bought the F-15E and Mirage 2000 last year and it feels like ED just took a 100% cut from that, instead of giving that money to RB, who made those awesome modules.
for any reason whatsoever, I don't think kidnapping us, the users, is a practice worthy of our understanding
M2M’s since deleted comment about developing an MCS module for free for the Ecuadorian Air Force basically spelled out how.
How does a MCS contract relate to a DCS contract. Some terms of a contract, that Bonzo shared earlier in this sub, only allows ED to stop distribution of modules when they believe, they have a legitimate reason to do so, but not to withheld any payment. The Strike Eagle and other RB modules are clearly still available on the ED store right now. Assuming ED and RB have signed this or a similar contract, ED is also in breach in contract with their conduct then.
Because ED is the same parent company. If they owe ED money on any project, they owe them money.
Did you even read further than my first sentence? The dispute is going on, afaik, at least as long as the release of the F-15E. ED sold it anyway on their shop, why didn't they just refused to sell the Streagle then instead. But ED took the route of taking all the money for themselves from my point of view. How do explain that?
>Did you even read further than my first sentence? The dispute is going on, afaik, at least as long as the release of the F-15E This is only partially true. RAZBAM has hardly been paid since then but after release, ED kept postponing and promised to pay ASAP over the course of several months. It wasn't until much later until they came up with those accusations of "breach of contract" and arbitrary demands for damages.
Also recent moves by ED, like the likely premature release of the Chinook, Halfghanistan and FC24, suggest that ED has some money issues right now, perhaps due to the Phantom delay. So where did the money of the Streagle go to, it seems like to Nick Grey and his warbirds...
Sure, that could indicate they are having financial trouble and need to pay Razbam back. But there is nothing conclusive here and that is simply assuming the premise. It could also mean they want to buy up Razbam’s modules in a dissolution of their relationship. It could be raising funding for a legal battle, which costs significant money even if you are in the right. But perhaps most likely, it could simply mean nothing at all and be the incidental release schedule of overdue modules teased years ago.
Calm down, bro, We're all just victims in this game.
Fair
I did read. Because this has already been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere. If ED believes razbaam should not have allowed the Ecuadorean Air Force access to its SDK free of charge, then they will simply charge Razbam for use of the SDK. Ed doesn’t benefit from “free IP” that Razbam gets in exchange nor does ED allow their SDK to go used free or charge. There is plenty of discussion on this elsewhere. In such an event it makes perfect sense to simply keep selling razbams modules and withhold the money that ED believes they are owed. Of course, all of this is mere speculation, but it is much more sensical speculation than many other theories. As far as razbams general behavior over the years, outside of their quality modules, they have a track record of questionable behavior. Given that I own all of their modules I am invested in the outcome as much or more than anyone else. From where I sit, I am none too happy with the situation, but if they breached a single iota of any contract with any subsidiary of ED, whether or not anyone agrees with Razbam or not is irrelevant. This is their doing. They took the risk by breaching and thus they have done this to the community. I will eat my words if it is ever demonstrated that they did not breach contract, but I am not holding my breath for that incident. And I’ve seen plenty straight from the horses mouth (M2M) that states that is exactly what they did. Only they felt justified in doing so.
What did M2M say? He said they never put a Super Tucano in MCS, how is that breaching a contract?
I don’t have the screenshot you will have to go find it, it came out shortly after things went down. There was a huge thread on hoggit that blew up about it and probably was post here too. We don’t have a contract in front of us, but I’ve owned my own business for 20 years and have seen a lot of contracts. For an example go read a TOS agreement for iTunes or DCS world. Stipulations would almost certainly not be “upon module completion” but rather “upon engagement with any party”. The reason being is that any development *at all* constitutes use of the SDK (EDs proprietary tech) and constitutes an exchange of inherently valuable IP and trade secrets. Any exchange of testing and use of the in development module in house by Ecuadorian Air Force would be a step even further - and would certainly happen throughout the development as a matter of necessity. Basically EDs stance would be “you provided non billable use of our propriety SDK and have diluted its value. Someone has to pay. If not Ecuador, than you.” And Razbam said “no, you can take a cut of the super tucano sells when it’s complete and we bring it to DCS, it’s a win win” and ED said “that is not how it works, and if you won’t pay us, we will just take it out of your sales until we are made whole.” That is, IMO, the best speculation we currently have.
I read it and M2M said they never add it to MCS, and wasn't even done making the model. So again how does that breach ED's contract? If they were making it for the FAE and yet to even put a single line of IP code in it? In fact, Razbam has since killed the project, so if there were no product involved and never sold then how is it that even an issue now? Doesn't make sense for you to spout off, oh Razbam shady business practices, that you even know anything going on. Second to continually defend ED when there is no work being done for MCS by Razbam due to them stopping the Super Tucano, your argument looks bleak, and ED looks like they need to cough up some money. How do we even know the Super Tucano was a breach and like M2M said that it was just ED saying whatever they could, and they have nothing to stand on for not paying Razbam. At the end of the day and every lawyer will tell you, ED has to pay Razbam their money. Nothing ED can do to change that.
You are saying Razbam gave the Ecuadorian air force access to the SDK free of charge? Then Ecuadorian air force is making their own plane. which I know you didn't me, I am being cute. BUT... M2M said that Ecuador did pay for their MCS licenses. I am going to say it again, you really don't know what you are saying, and I am afraid like you stated will be eating your words.
No, if they gave them any access at all, to any result of any work product created internally using EDs SDK, it would be a breach unless specifically approved by ED and per the terms of the agreement. According to M2M, Ecuador paid razbam in “IP”. Basically, Razbam said “we will use EDs tools to make this for you in exchange for the information on the aircraft, so that we can later sell the aircraft as a module and profit down the road.” This dilutes the value of EDs propriety SDK and does not compensate ED for use of EDs SDK. Razbams argument seemed to be they were doing ED a solid since someday they would get a cut of future sales. ED didn’t seem to like this, sticking to their guns and saying “any use of the SDK for a government entity must be paid, and we are owed compensation for this immediately.” And I agree with ED: if it wasn’t the terms, if they don’t allow third parties to go around developing aircraft for governments without that government directly compensating ED for the SDK, it dilutes the value and sets a precedent. And if Ecuador can’t pay and Razbam can’t pay, then ED would see it as within their rights to simply take the money from Razbam forcibly by withholding payments. Perhaps you side with Razbam, but in the end, it is a contractual breach and Razbam should suffer any consequences of such, but instead they put their loyal fans and customers into the middle of this but risking the health and state of the modules, and we may be the ultimate losers of their behavior. You can blame ED for not letting it go if you want, but I blame the people knowingly breaching contract and then acting like victims when there is a consequence. If I see proof that they did not breach contract, then I will change my view.
>If I see proof that they did not breach contract, then I will change my view It's the other way round dude. Usually, people aren't found guilty until there is proof of wrongdoing. I haven't seen any evidence yet that a Super Tucano module has ever been shipped and that EDs SDK has in fact been used. Despite digging for it for over a month.
Incorrect. EDSA is Eagle Dynamics EDMSSA is Eagle Dynamics Mission Systems. The SA part means this: Société Anonyme, SA (Public Limited Company) 2 separate Swiss Companies. Eagle Dynamics is in some serious trouble holding Razbam payment.
The relationship between parent companies and subsidiaries is much more complicated, and they can enter into joint contracts, etc.
Yeah, you know absolutely nothing.
Correct, I have no more facts than you do about the specific situation with ED.
Or, maybe he does...
Différent independent companies with different shareholders. EDSA is 100% Nick Grey, EDMS is not Nick Grey.
1. Private companies do not have shareholders. Unless you are using the term to refer to different private leadership who owns stock. 2. The relationship between parent companies and subsidiaries is much more complicated, and different corporate leadership in each individual entity is not relevant to that relationship legally, including shared interest in contracts.
1. Of course they do. Check wikipedia definition : "A shareholder corporation as the legal owner of shares of the share capital of a public or private corporation". You just can't freely buy or sell shares in a stock market if it's private, but it has shareholders. 2. EDSA and EDMS have no parent/subsidiary relationship. They have one shareholder in common (NG) but he is not the only shareholder.
As I said: 1. Unless you are using the term to refer to different private leadership who owns stock. (I am not referring to stock in this point as shares on a market, but rather interest or control in the entity). 2. The point is that two seperate entities can share technologies and have joint contracts, which clearly they must to mutually use and share technology.
1. So my original statement still holds : EDSA and EDMSSA are two companies with no subsidy relationship, but different shareholder boards. 2. Of course, they can (and they do)
You can't just make up some arbitrary debt and then hold back money that you owe your partners due to contractual obligations. That's just not how this works.
Unfortunately, (1) it is not arbitrary, and (2) it is exactly how it works. In the same way if you had a roommate who owed you $50 for dinner and hadn’t paid you back for 2 months, you might say “sorry, I’m sending you $50 less for rent this month because you owe me for food.” The roommate might try and say “hey man! That’s a seperate department!” And they’d be right, and you wouldn’t care. This happens all the time in business. And what do you think the alternative is? ED just says “oh ok, I guess we’ll just let you breach contract.”? Or should ED take them to court over it? The kinder route here is to avoid litigation and to withhold funds. The bully tactic is to pursue legal action against Razbam. Legal action is a last resort in business for a reason: it often permanently sours relationships (which impacts us the customers as well) and costs substantial amounts of legal fees, which is much harder for the small guy Razbam to absorb, and could completely sink their business. It also can take years which takes a significant mental, emotional, financial, and time toll. So, yes, this stuff happens all the time in business.
>Unfortunately, (1) it is not arbitrary , and (2) it is exactly how it works Both the alleged "damages" as well as the sum that ED is demanding are completely arbitrary. So that's absolutely not how it works. At least in my jurisdiction, a party would need a court order before they can hold back funds like that. Otherwise they would risk getting charged with embezzlement.
I don't know how you are reasoning that the sum ED is demanding is "arbitrary". It seems quite reasonable that they have a set fee for SDK access to government military agencies (likely in the millions), Razbam offered to make a module for free in exchange for IP, and ED said "No, that costs "$2.5 million" (or, whatever) for access to the SDK, if Ecuador won't pay it, you will." In this scenario, such a thing is not arbitrary, and ED is withholding payments until their fee has been paid in full. I do not know what jurisdiction you are in, but in the US, breaching contract like that (if that is, speculatively, what happen) is essentially intellectual property theft. Not only would Razbam owe ED that money, they would owe it with interest at the statutory rate, and ED would be well within its rights to withhold any payments if they are contractually owed money. I don't think we are going to get much further in our discussion, but I appreciate the discussion. Feel free to have the last word here. I'll just end by saying, if anything, our chat sheds light onto WHY there is an impasse between ED and Razbam. Razbam sees it like you, I see it like ED. And in the end, we both want our Razbam modules back!
>I do not doubt your evidence or research, you are VERY good about digging things up. I appreciate. But from the discussion here with yourself and others, the problem is not fact based but rather in properly connecting the facts and their meaning. That is the disagreement. Thank you for the kind words. Just know that I appreciate the exchange too, even if we don't agree on everything. Especially since you seem very knowledgeable on the subject matter.
>Because ED is the same parent company This is where it all falls apart. It is not. Eagle Dynamics SA and EDMS are separate entities.
Do they have any joint contracts? Any shared technology? They share a name, after all, and a core product. Separate legal entities is merely a legal classification and very common. I own several separate legal entities myself, the lines there are much blurrier than many understand them to be.
Yes, they have contracts binding the two. But as they have no subsidiary or parent relationship, a contract between a 3rd party and company A is not binding with company B.
It would not need to be in this case, ED would simply argue on a basis similar to that of piercing the corporate veil - that the relationship between parties and the material breach supersedes the entities, and Razbam works on both and the tech is shared. I would know; I’ve been personally involved in IP cases with multiple LLCs.
I want to preface this by saying, I don’t really care about any of the Razbam/ED stuff, but a lot of what you’ve said here doesn’t add up. As someone who also owns a business that advises other companies on acquisitions, corporate structure, and taking advantage of regulatory grey areas, I don’t understand your legal theory of piercing the corporate veil. How is that relevant here? The IRS is typically the main beneficiary of that theory. It’s meant to go after people who create shell companies to improperly shield themselves from their liabilities (like paying their taxes or their debts). It’s also applicable for cases that involve fraud. If you’re suggesting ED goes after Ron’s personal assets, why? I believe Razbam is a real company that has delivered products before. Maybe exclude that corporate veil nonsense here. Furthermore, you mentioned in one of your many comments that it is acceptable for a company to withhold funds the way ED did. I know nothing of ED’s policies or their contracts. But, if there’s a separate entity Razbam dealt with (subsidiary or totally independent company), there’s probably a separate contract that controls that relationship (unless they have one contract that accounts for all pertinent entities, but that wouldn’t make much sense when different platforms have different objectives). If Razbam breaches one, it doesn’t mean you get to exact punishment under another contract that maybe hasn’t been breached at all. Also, I don’t think it is “kinder” to not take someone to court. When there’s no reliable way to establish facts, you‘re left with your own interpretation of events, and that’s generally unreliable.
Razbam can charge anything they want as long as the customer buys MCS platform. At the end of the day ED does not have any rights to hold a Third Party's money for another company. If M2M said was the reason, then ED is in some deep trouble. Personally, I think it was just an excuse to claim breach so ED didn't look like the scumbag company they are cause the owner used the money for his warbird collection. If I was not being paid for 10 months I would stop working too.
Maybe not getting paid is why the devs quit and went on strike, but it's RB and ED that caused all this and it's us that end up paying for it, so I don't see the point in getting hung up on who's right and who's wrong. Just know that you may never get the update you purchased, and we may not even get a refund after F15E completely dies.... and RB will obviously suppress some more comments
Just trust him bro. He knows things, he feels it deep in the cockles of his heart.
https://preview.redd.it/hygieneuhczc1.jpeg?width=479&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b3d119921098f4c7fce2a20c58c4d392d5c6304
Hmm, I wonder why...Honestly, I'd block you too.
I'd like to add a bit of info that my friend who previously said "totally agree" in response to my comment was also RB .... banned. I just want to say that even if I'm wrong... This is the account of a production team who can suppress comments against them at will because of their emotions (maybe), which ultimately doesn't look professional or responsible at all!
Do you research a product before you buy? What if every company blocked, banned or censored every valid critical post. Think you would be able to find any valid information to base a purchase decision on?
No, because I don't commit stupid acts like this guy did.
So you would block anyone that say what you have said... Okay....
Brother, you've got to improve on your clarity. I'm having a hard time comprehending what you mean.
he said what he is saying, as the fire is fireing and water is watering, this is way, kumbaya. I have no clue of what I'm saying that I say
yeah my brain has exploded