G-Limiter, fix or no fix, is one issue representative of the much larger problem. These modules are on borrowed time and the community is figuring out what is the best way to navigate this until a resolution comes. At some point, IMHO, these modules are going to break, unless a resolution happens. This is an interesting thing to talk about and I wanted to share the POV from me and a few others. Lastly, if we think this issue is bad, imagine how the French Air Force feels right now.
The point is, bar the M2K, they haven't broken. This situation is ridiculous but the drama created by players is equally stupid. I thought DCS was for grownups. Also, Razbam is still selling them.
@@bill8791 Only one patch has happened since it was announced. I am telling you and 3rd party module maker is telling you, that they are on borrowed time. We could be wrong and you could be right but it seems ridiculous to me to dismiss this as non-problem
@@bill8791 ED is selling them, remember, the money all goes to ED first and not Razbam, and the whole issue started because ED supposedly refused to repass any payment from all sales.
The most disturbing part of this is the fact that there is no storefront indication of any issues or potential loss of support for the modules - they are all still on sale as if nothing is going on
comes down to why ED didn't pay Razbam in the first place - if it was because *they didn't have the money*, they are not going to stop selling any modules
ED is the issue though. If you want to know what's really going on, look at the replies under Enigma's comment. I posted about it there. I've known about it for quite a long time and I've kept my mouth shut hoping they would take care of things but it doesn't seem to be happening.
Razbam violated their agreement. But then ED violated it by not paying them which wasn’t a stipulation of Razbams original breach. ED then spent the money. Now they’re pushing modules out the door as fast as they can to try to generate the income to pay them and bring them back into the fold.
@@einarabelc5 It goes way deeper than a simpleton fix like that. This isn't the first third party developer to have an issues with ED and a module gets left in the lurch. You might not know about it since it was just one module and it was a trainer aircraft not multiple main aircraft like what is in the lurch now. However the "fix" for the trainer module was seriously trash. If this is just going to continue to be a possibility with other third party developers then ALL third party developed products are suspect for this kind of outcome. If you are happy in throwing your money away hey that is your business. However most people aren't content with spending hard earned money on a product that has the ability to vaporware overnight.
@@Stubbies2003 I do remember the VEAO/Hawk incident and there is one major factor to keep in mind. VEAO only really released on module (and a wildly incomplete one at that). They had planned (and taken money for) another but they self-destructed and intentionally left ED in a bad position in the process. This wasn't the case of an otherwise reliable third party suddenly going bad. It was a bad third party acting in bad faith from day one. The uncomfortable pill for a lot of folks to swallow is that RAZBAM is largely in the same boat. They have more modules under their belt but they also have a well documented history of not acting in good faith. Their leadership has always been unprofessional and their community interaction only really happens in spaces that they have total control over. Even this most recent issue has their lack of basic professionalism written all over it. Some folks say that other third parties like Heatblur, Deka, or Aerges might also have problems but when you consider that unlike RAZBAM (and VEAO before them), they have managed to maintain a calm, professional relationship with both ED and their customers, I think the issue here isn't so much that "it could happen to all third parties" and is instead just that eventually bad third parties will do something stupid and everyone has to pay the price.
@@korniestpatch I would say possibly...and what do I know? ED is kicking major butt here and I trust them to figure out some resolution. Larger picture is that I trust their overall vision for their product (DCS).
@@Enigma89 REDFOR needed you not only to fill in the hugely full fidelity REDFOR module gap, but also to create a benchmark for the upcoming FF 9.12A...
I´m so happy that I was not interested in that Aircraft, but in the same time, I am so sorry for those who are. I can not even imagine how I would feel if this would have happened to the F-4 Phantom. Thus, I really hope for you guys that you'll get the Flogger the one or other way earlier or later, crossing fingers.
@@tenduvaiilsindarin2876 If it doesn't go ahead , to say I'm fkn devastated is an understatement. Been waiting for the flogger since it was first announced over 10+ years ago.
@@xJoshx77 ehh, first announcement 10 years +? I havent hared something like that 10 years ago, just recently when they came up with the very first Screenshots. However, it does not make any difference. It sucks anyways if you wait for a Module and then it´ll be abandoned just because of such Bullshit. As I know how it feels, I´m crossing fingers for you, that you´ll be able to fly it sooner or later.
I’ve heard there is ONE person currently working on all fixes for Razbam. Its hearsay, But its something that popped up when NL mentioned yesterday about M2K fixes coming with today’s patch. I cannot confirm the accuracy of such, but its what i’ve heard amongst the chatter
AFAIK it's being fixed but its the first crack in the facade. It may not be fatal but the next one can be. If ED gave a statement and said they are going to insure the continuation of these modules then this video would not be necessary. The silence is making everyone uneasy
Couldn’t have say it any better there, Enigma. We, as the consumers need a proper “state of the union” address by ED on whats going. It doesn’t help anything either when people started posting about returns on razbam products on the ED storefront.
According to at least one source on RAZBAM’s Discord, ED doesn’t have the source code to ANY of their modules. This would explain why none of them are being fixed and bug complaints are being ignored. If they already had the source code, they could start addressing the bugs.
@@Enigma89 The bugs came from Razbam pushed through untested changes in the last DCS patch that broke the plane. ED confirmed it's getting rolled back to previous working state in todays patch to come. As for the silence, that's expected while both party are mitigating behind the doors. Latest discourse is driven by community members trying to stir up the situation again. Just have to wait till the day both parties come out with press statement. Everything else is speculation.
ED needs to either remove all Raz modules from the sale site, or at the VERY LEAST, put a visible disclaimer on the sale site warning customers about there being possible instability/issues for the time being. I feel very sorry for anyone that is just now getting into DCS and are walking into a situation like this, especially if they’re getting into it because their favorite aircraft is one of the Raz modules. Not a great first impression for sure.
That could be seen as retaliatory against Razbam. There will also be contracts that state what should and should not be up for sale. The future of ED and Razbams relationship is up in the air, until that's decided either way you'll see business as usual. If Razbam no long wants to work with ED then you'll likely see refunds issued based on a sales date.
I agree completely. Buyer confidence and trust in a company is like the holy grail. Lose it at your peril. Also selling an item that you know is faulty or not fit for purpose can put you in a sticky situation in some countries. I love DCS and I don't care who is at fault, but I would like it sorted out as quickly as possible. These modules are not cheap so I will not be buying any more 3rd party modules until this is sorted.
I am so glad that I tried MSFS out for the first time in December and have switched to playing it after playing DCS for years. I like it so much I haven't had time to go back to DCS. Looks like they have deceptive practices - not sure what the deal is between them and Razbam but going public with the dispute is tragic, and probably made it worse
After the loss of the Hawk T.1A in DCS, I think we all expected ED to take measures to ensure that such a thing doesn't happen again. But if Razbam modules suffer the same fate, then the terrible lesson is that every single 3rd party module is always at risk of disappearing. It feels ruinous. Why would I buy anything when I have no guarantee that it will be working a year from now?
The Strike eagle is in developement for more than 10 years. It is very much possible, that this contract is older than the Hawk issue and my not fall under the new contracts (IF it is true what ED said).
THIS. This is precisely where I am at right now. I basically lost the hawk module because there is no way I am leaving an old dcs install around just to fly one trainer aircraft. God forbid this happens to the Razbam modules. If that is the case my days of supporting third party developers is finished.
@@r4dio4ctiv3man9 i ought this might be the case, afaik - with the new contracts it is indeed insured to end up as ED's property in case of developer pullout
@@r4dio4ctiv3man9 True, but any customer who lives in the EU (or the UK) is entitled to either: 1- The fault being fixed in a timely manor. or 2- A full CASH refund of the defective item. (although the customer can choose to accept store credit if they like) ... Many have already asked for, and received refunds. Big legal issue, which could be met with very stiff fines to ED if they refused.
@@SuperAd1980 Very true, the "no refund" policy is illegal in the EU. If ED sticks to that, this could even result in DCS beeing banned from the EU market.
No one would have man. You just have to trust the company to deliver a product. Same with anything in the world. It sucks, these are the only modules I have lol
@@Kirill_Konovalov THis is precisely what needs to be fixed in some way. If this goes worst case and ED's "answer" is exactly like the hawk module fiasco they will really hurt this platform. I wouldn't be able to invest money in third party modules from this point if that ends up being the case.
I will say from experience dealing with corporate clients in more than a decade at this point, once the situation gets to the point that the ones talking are the lawyers it is over, you only go to that point because you have no other option left. ED literally has the money (100% of RB module sales as well) and the decision power in this situation, if they wanted a compromise they could have done that months ago.
Idk man, it seems like there was an underlying situation with Razbam that bubbled over. Given their unprofessional response I wouldn't be surprised if they're just really hard to work with.
@@ascherlafayette8572 "my clients are super hard to work with so im not going to actually pay them at all. surely this will make them happier and more likely to be open to compromise"
@@ascherlafayette8572 If they hadn't said what they did we wouldn't even know there was a sh!t storm brewing under the surface, but everything would still be just as compromised as it is. At least we now know the RB modules are a dead and not to buy any... with ED's response, or lack thereof, we know not to buy anything else. RB sat quiet for a year trying to resolve this privately, they did everyone a favour blowing the lid off it.
I've loved RAZBAM since FSX, and I've bought every one of their DCS modules. I dont want a refund, I want both parties to set aside their pride and come up with a solution, I love the modules and want them to continue.
But RB has done some very questionable things in the past. I remember when they wanted to take the Harrier out of EA and claimed it was feature complete, while it was not even close to feature complete. They just stepped back from that after a massive shitstorm on the forum. Not saying ED is any better, RB is questionable.
Luckily any customer who lives in the EU (or the UK) is entitled to either: 1- The fault being fixed in a timely manor. or 2- A full CASH refund of the defective item. (although the customer can choose to accept store credit if they like) ... Many have already asked for, and received refunds. Big legal issue, which could be met with very stiff fines to ED if they refused.
@@SuperAd1980 That wholly depends on what you signed up for when agreeing to the purchase I'll bet you haven't read the fine print let's say you paid for early access F-15, you knew this when you bought the "early acces" module,.. it's in the friggin description But things don't work, are incomplete Yes, that's why it said "Early Access" So,... You have your early acces F-15, you got exactly what you paid for ...Now tell me where ED went wrong and should give you back your money?
@Nightdare no. EU law states the seller is liable for what they sell to the end customer.... The seller can then argue to get compensation from the manufacturer. The big presidents setting cases were against Microsoft, Google, Apple and Samsung. It's also why ED have been handing out refunds on request.
@@Nightdare Not realy. Contract conditions beeing illegal in the EU (such as the no refund for EA software) are simply invalid in the EU and there is nothing ED can do about it. Except risking their products getting banned from the EU market. Wich would be their death...
This situation sucks. I am glad you made this video to get the implications out to hopefully a wider audience. And getting anonymous quotes from a third party dev is pretty based and investigative. So much focus on the right or wrong (Pay Razbam), but the reality is that no matter who is at fault, ED is in charge and they are sabotaging their own game and the confidence of every other third party because of this dispute. I can't imagine what would really be worth this to Nick but here we are.
I've got two Razbam modules (Mirage 2000 and South Atlantic) which seemingly will not be updated. As a result I immediately cease to buy other modules from DCS, as what happens with Razbam could also happen with other developers. ED is legally responsible for maintaining those modules, ED has to find a solution.
South Atlantic got an update recently. This is because RB is only the publisher for SA, the developement team is not part of RB and is not affected by that issue. They are also part of the Kola map team. What i´m trying to say is, that you at least don´t realy need to worry about South Atlantic.
Any customer who lives in the EU (or the UK) is entitled to either: 1- The fault being fixed in a timely manor. or 2- A full CASH refund of the defective item. (although the customer can choose to accept store credit if they like) ... Many have already asked for, and received refunds. Big legal issue, which could be met with very stiff fines to ED if they refused.
@@SuperAd1980 Well spoken. Pretty sure the "no refund" policy is at least in the EU illegal, so ED would be under pressure if they don´t want to risk their product beeing banned from the EU market.
I cannot emphasise how sad i am about this whole story. As you rightfully pointed out, the whole trust in the eco-system is being tested right now. And yes, all devs from other platforms are also looking. It also means that all the money that was put into the ecosystem is now at risk. I'll take my story. I am on the planning phase of my new flight sim rig and i intend to go VR on DCS mainly. It's a 1500€ investment just for a Pimax Crystal. I am NOT putting that amout of money if i don't have any guarantee that the modules i want to fly with are going dark ! The story does not end at ED's doorstep, it might have very hard long term consequences for everyone...
Yup I was going to invest in a Hotas and VR headset this month but after reading this news I am skeptical at the overall business model of Eagle dynamics. Don’t be surprised if they start charging a yearly fee to use the game engine itself because the whole 3rd party module development strategy requires constant cash flow.
In my opinion Eagle Dynamics needs to stop stuffing tech and eye candy into the game engine and work on EXTREME optimization and bug fixes for a while like I'm talking for months just stop and let the module makers catch up. It's crazy that I can play Microsoft Flight Simulator with tons of aircraft and different models running at OVER 100 FPS but in DCS I get like 20 FPS on medium to low settings on the Caucasus map not even gonna mention Persian gulf or Marianas it's why I don't buy as many maps the performance on the newer maps is terrible. Hell Persian gulf still has this issue with the ground going completely black when I'm in the F-18 on the taxiway. (I've reported it 3-4 times already) I have the harrier and the mirage 2000 I'm worried I'm going to lose these modules.
It’s because dcs is a pyramid scheme only kept alive by pumping out new maps and modules. ED has no incentive to pause that effort to work on the core gameplay or code (other than the bare minimum required to merely keep the game viable on mid-high end hardware
Basically, this. Optimizations don't bring money directly, so of course they're lower priority. They're still banking heavily on there not being real direct competition.
Are you using VR? If not, i think you need to optimise your settings. I have a 4070, i get a solid 60FPS on Sinai in the Mirage. If you need, tell me your specs and I’ll see where I can help you.
I’ve never had that issue in the f-18 or any aircraft in any map and I pretty much exclusively fly the Persian gulf map, sounds like a non widespread error to me bud
Agreed. People new to DCS will see a video on a Razbam module from a month ago and have no reason to suspect that the module is unsupported and could break at any moment. All content creators should pull razbam content until the situation is resolved or ED ceases sale of the module(s).
I feel like the problem is that DCS has no real competitor - you could argue IL-2, but not everyone wants to fly WWII aircraft, or not everyone wants to fly/grind in War Thunder for the jets. Falcon BMS is there, sure, but those guys work for free. I feel as if DCS/ED will *always* outpace their development cycle. In a perfect world, I'd love to see the 3rd party module makers band together to create a competitor to DCS. You'd be working with a newer engine (and not something continually upgraded from 2008), assumedly less bugs, and the benefit of hindsight. You'll know what mistakes not to make. I'm still hella sad about the Flogger. It's one of my favorite jets.
It's definitely part of the problem. ED treats their customers and content creators like trash and puts out broken, incomplete, and inconsistent products and some people think it's amazing because there's no other example of something like this that actually works.
Good job on that video. That 3rd party you quoted is right. Even if ED gets the up to date sourcecode, and even if they somehow find people to work on it, it would take years until they can deliver any significant changes. Taking over code from someone unwilling to give it is a frustrating process, especially if that someone has time to burn documentation and obfuscate things.
Most content creators are removing their related videos to avoid engaging newcomers to buy modules that might break within time or directly disappear from the game.
4:56 - Anyone living in the EU or the UK can request a refund (including a full cash refund), as EU/UK law specifically requires it... Simply put, if there is no possibility for the module to be "repaired" they "must" allow a refund on request as the paid for service is not being given... There have been MANY who have already got a refund, or chosen to accept store credit through the DCS website.
When this dispute first started I thought it would be settled shortly due to it being in the best interest for all parties. Now, I’m not too sure. Seems like both sides are digging their heels in the sand. This has been going on entirely too long.
I mean I wouldn't say RB is "digging in their heels", they don't have the money to pay their devs because ED won't pay them. You can't make people work for free so until ED starts paying them RB can't really do much.
@@92HazelMocha Scambam used this same excuse when the Hawk Mod went T*ts up in the Snow, when it was entirely Scambams fault because they failed to meet the expectations they agreed to and then wanted to get pissy when they were told they weren't getting paid. Scambam is just living up to the well deserved Moniker they almost got rid of; if only they could actually follow through instead of crying Foul when they are the ones committing the Foul.
DCS has been lacking development so the CEO could maintain his physical warbird collection which he funneled millions from the company for. It's not getting better
The point you made about there being a potential resolution just over the horizon on the basis that the modules are still for sale without a disclaimer isn’t something I’d considered until now. I also don’t think there’s much wrong with continuing to cover content that isn’t supported, so long as anything new comes with a disclaimer. Though Casmo probably has more reach than most and I guess it’s still an issue for older content, so props to him for thinking of the bigger picture. Your server does have the MiG-19, which is Razbam property, so you may soon have to tackle a similar situation to what’s happening with the Mirage. My hope is that the situation is resolved and things go back to how they were, the worst case is that we have another Hawk situation and all trace of the modules get wiped from the sim. I expect what happens will be somewhere between those two things, and the more towards “back to normal” you lean, the more naive I think you’re being.
The content side of things here is unique in that you are potentially turning people to buy a module that is unsupported and will be dropped soon in the worst case with potentially no direct refunds.
This whole situation is sad. I was excited for the mig 23, but if they’ve stopped updating their already existing modules it is likely they stopped updating the mig 23. I don’t personally play DCS right now (learning Il-2 atm) but the mig 23 might have done it for me. The Mig 19 as well, but again, if it is going to wither away I’m not buying it.
I was anxiously awaiting in the MiG 23 too. Now I have to worry about the future of the modules I already own. At the very least ED needs to maintain the existing modules. Or giver everyone their money back. No matter what happens, this is not good for the hobby.
@@christophermcsherry2655I have read Razbam has the source code for all of their modules. I am not literate in anything related to coding but from my limited understanding Razbam is the only group who can update their modules.
@@Megapihar "What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul"
Razbam made some of the most popular modules in the game, if future game updates brick them, isnt it foresable that many servers will jist stay on older versions of DCS where they work. Older versions of DCS=no new modules. No new modules=no money for ED. Its not like theirr are any modules that would come close to the F-15E/m2k/mig-19/harrier in popularity coming out anytime soon
You may have missed the F-4 Phantom launch, which was massively hyped and has everyone playing it. Losing the Strike Eagle and the Harrier would be a blow to DCS, but not a death blow, I suspect. The mirage and mig would be less of a drama I think.
To add to your last point, many of these modules are effectively crowdfunded through early release/pre-sales. Whether or not ED (or whomever is responsible) is unable to refund people who preorder games, or even just the ambiguity of it in itself, will have an impact on the ecosystem and third party developers appetite for risk in the future. Like you said, there is not enough information to decide who is at fault and it might not even be that important, but ED's lack of a real response has real effects on the future of DCS.
Dear ED, fix this issue immediately. I am not buying another module for DCS if this continues and the RB modules become deprecated. Get your act together NOW.
Same. I no longer buy and advise everyone else to do the same until this is resolved in a way that doesn't screw over the customers. (Which isn't going to happen, so we can assume I'm gone as a future customer. Even with WW2 modules like the Corsair and Hellcat coming that I was super-keen on. Not anymore.)
@@iFlyFlightSims Yep. Some rumors their radar coder may have put a "poison pill" into it. (I did the same once, though I got paid just in time to stop it.) Also NineLies said they're trying to fix the code, and as they clearly don't possess the source code, that can only mean they're trying to hack the executable binary, as Russian software crackers do. Nick is likely going to get himself sued right out of business. I predicted ED's downfall a while after Nick took over, after Igor died, and everything started going to sh*t. Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken him this long to fly it into the ground. He's clearly an awful businessman, and person as well.
I don't think there's much chance ED will remove modern jets like F-15E, harrier, mirage ect... because they are likely the biggest money makers. ED will have to maintain them themselves if they want to keep them and not go bankrupt IMO Another thing, I think ED is struggling for money because their sales are so frequent now. I remember years ago when a 50% happened once or twice a year but now its at least 3-4 a year
Well DCS is also becoming a lot more popular and they're probably making more money bulk selling tons of modules and getting people hooked. (I'm one of them lol)
The most popular modules aren't by Razbam I hate to tell you. The F-16, F/A-18, AH-64(despite its flaws), the F-4, and F-14 are the most popular addons for DCS. You hardly see any Razbam stuff on servers these days being flown seriously, and that was before all of this happened. I think the JF-7 was more popular because of it being a stand in for REDFOR than the M2K.
Razbam modules the biggest money makers? In what sense they’re either all old and have been purchased already or are basically non used like the mig haven’t seen much new hype around them in a long time.
@@lucaallemann5941 how many of them regularly fly them though, how many buy campaigns for them? What new money is ED getting from already sold assets? None
If you would like to preserve your F-15E videos, while mitigating the risk that they may convince a viewer to purchase a deprecated product, it may be best to put a pinned comment on them, explaining the current situation. Something like, “As a result of an ongoing dispute between Razbam and Eagle Dynamics, this module is no longer being supported and updated. DCS is an evolving game that is frequently updated. With each DCS update, more game-altering bugs accumulate within Razbam modules. Unless this dispute is resolved, these modules will eventually fall into disrepair and cease to function.”
When I first started playing Arma I saw a video about Arma 2 milsim which peaked my interest. I turned around and bought Arma 2 and low and behold Arma 3 had already been out for a couple years and Arma 2 was completely dead. Sure, I could have done some more research, but for someone with absolutely no knowledge or experience with the Arma platform, it was easy to see a somewhat recent video on Arma 2 and expect it to still be alive and well. Now imagine someone who has no experience with DCS sees a video on any one of Razbam's modules, except instead of them being a couple years old like in my case, they are only a few months old. Most people would rightfully assume that a module that was seen in a video just a few months prior would still be alive and well, and they would be quite surprised to find that their plane is full of bugs that could possibly be game breaking. That wouldn't be a huge problem if they could turn around and return their module, except oh wait, ED is blocking all returns. Overall, I support content creators idea to remove Razbam content for the time being. Until the module is removed from the ED and Steam Store's, it simply worsens the problem by causing more people to purchase a module which is unsupported, not to mention the money isn't going to the rightful owners. It also puts pressure on ED to resolve the problem in a timely manner.
This'll probably get drowned out, but my biggest concern here is that no matter who's in the wrong, this sets a precedent for ALL current and future 3rd party aircraft in DCS, especially with this supposedly happening to Heatblur years ago with the Tomcat, which would indicate a pattern if true. My biggest question now is who's next?
The Mirage 2000 was the first module I purchased. No fear on saying It is top 3 BEST modules by far. It is such a shame to see It being destroyed, with the others, by pure incompetence... I Hope that at least the give Up the money back...
@@ImpendingJoker So what??. Obviously the 90% of the clients are from western countries, and the buy the aircraft they know and love from their airforces, hence the 18 and 16. And those 2 are like, at least, 1 level below de quality of the Mirage. But is just my opinion of course... By way, one example is the simple effect of the Sonic boom, a thing that Mirage has and the 18 and 16 don't...that's without entering the radar, weapons, etc. I also own and love the 18, but yeah...
@@Wildharrier What does that have to do with ~anything? It's a global market and the numbers are the numbers. You're the one that said it was the Top 3 Best by far, all I did is point out that you are statistically incorrect and you blow a gasket. haha
@@ImpendingJoker yep, I said: on my opinion. Obviously is quite subjective. Others will say another top 3, and the stadistics say the most sold are the F-teen series because they are the most loved ones for X reasons(not even checked It), as It should be people as my self buy them. You literally did not read, and impossed something no one was saying it was the rule... Simply saying that under my own experience and critic eye, Mirage 2K was top 3. Hopefully you get It now mate!
@@tman41291ED isn't paying Razbam for their work. ED isn't working on their game, instead funneling money to the CEO's personal toys. And no, I don't mean his wages. He took out a multimillion dollar "loan" to maintain his personal fleet of warbirds
I think it needs to be pointed out that it's very, very likely we're not going to get a statement because of the nature of the dispute. This was a contractual dispute, and anybody who's ever worked in the business world knows that when you have a dispute between vendors and the company that hired them, the LAST thing you should ever do is blast it on social media- ESPECIALLY because there are usually clauses in business contracts to prevent exactly that from happening. This needs to be handled by the lawyers and the business units, and sadly that's going to take time while negotiations and discussions are happening. I honestly think the silence is a good sign that talks are still happening, and I'm guessing that ED doesn't want to make ANY statement, given the vitriol from the community when they make statements that don't pan out exactly the way the community thinks it should.
100%. Actually think the statements from (ex-) Razbam devs has only hurt the situation. It sucks, but everyone shutting up until there's concrete answers is probably the best move.
@@inf3243 This so much. The fact that Razbam doesn't seem to be willing to control their own employees, clearly speaking on behalf of the company, running their mouths on the internet tells a lot. Furthermore, nobody here really knows what are the contractual agreements and who does what. Can ED even pull the modules from the store at this point? How can someone claim that without reading the contract first.
At this point , if ED doesn't change their business practices , falcon bms and falcon 5.0 are gonna overtake dcs world . Falcon bms just got a new update and it is already looking beautiful
This situation puts the whole pre-order/pre-sale system that ED started relying upon into the trash can IMO. We can never trust ED with a pre-order early access again, especially since they are refusing refunds.
True, but any customer who lives in the EU (or the UK) is entitled to either: 1- The fault being fixed in a timely manor. or 2- A full CASH refund of the defective item. (although the customer can choose to accept store credit if they like) ... Many have already asked for, and received refunds. Big legal issue, which could be met with very stiff fines to ED if they refused.
Everyone should spam refund tokens for Razbam modules to let them know we are not going to play along with shady business practices. Everytime an entity has a monopoly on something they act in this fashion. It seems to be apart of the human condition.
Easy solution: ED should pay Razbam what they are owed. It's honestly wild seeing people treat "pay people what they are owed" as a "side" that they're afraid to take.
I'm stuck on the last 2.8 version as the 2.9 (NVIDIA) update broke the ground / building rendering for my NVIDIA Titan X(p) - ED didn't give aff when I posted my error report. So who cares - all my Razbam modules still work with 2.8 - not buying anymore maps or modules. I have every module and map sold prior to 2.9 and many many mods working flawlessly in 2.8, so RIP DCS.
I'm cautiously optimistic. The F-15E is my favorite aircraft, and my favorite module thus far (until days from now when the OH-58 comes out). The implications of this are pretty grim, if Razbam and ED continue to fight, or sever ties, they need to disclose that ASAP. If they do kiss and make up, I hope it happens sooner rather than later so we can have some outlook to the future. My hope is that cooler heads prevail and they bury the hatchet and continue to make good content on both ends. I want Razbam to be successful, I want the F-15E and their other modules to live on.
Someone said once that part of the contractual agreement between ED and 3rd parties is that ED has to be given the source code, and that ED holds the legal ability to "take over" abandoned modules. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, that might be the "way out" of this. And also might be the reason that these modules are still for sale. Because if ED and RAZABM part ways, ED will just put their own employees on at least maintaining them for the time being, and updating later in the future.
There was a lot of anger around third parties when they implemented this as a response to the Hawk debacle. It is a way of saving modules but it’s of very little comfort when ED already has so much technical debt. They don’t have the resources to keep up with their own modules much less my abandoned ones.
@@Fred-rv2tu The counter argument is that they don't have the income to support a large staff. Some people say that is true, some say its BS. Personally I don't know. Only ED knows how their financial books look.
That only occurs when the module leaves "early access", it needs to be every time there's a update otherwise devs will just keep them in permanent "early access" just to avoid handing over and their leverage.
that may apply going forward, but it appears the dispute is about ED acquiring that info from Razbam, when they already had an agreement that may not have required it
"ends only way with razbam modules going away, If razbam is not on the scene no one can maintain their code". 20+ year dev/lead/manager in this industry here. the above statement is absolutely a bold one and to me also unprofessional if it comes from someone with development experience. let's focus first on the modules which can be considered in a final state and feature complete like the mig19, av8b, m2000. There are no new features to develop on that codebase and, very likely, the things that will break at each update (for API changes, etc) will be small ones. we just saw that with the crying about the 6g/9g limiter. fixed silently in the patch, quickly and pointly, something that could have broken anyway and most likely would have broken. for the f15e it's a very different picture and yes, for that one I don't see any future at all, in the best scenario it could be simply maintained at it's current state. the mig23 is also probably DoA. the only question pending and that ultimately is important is "is ED legally eligible to acquire their code", if yes then people should stop drama, again. Code is code, if access is granted it will be maintained as long as it is profitable, it's a simple cost/benefit equation. finally, let's stay calm and avoid sophistic dialectic exercises like "there is more than a 0% chance of this modules rotting away". of course there is, like there is more than a 0% chance of being hit by a boeing 737 while you're sitting on a bench eating a sandwich. don't expect to ED being sharing every week an update on the ED vs RB situation, that's not how companies work, it's not a social media or discord chat. again, the only thing that matters is "does ED have a legal leverage to have that codebase", if they do then the "feature complete" modules are in very good shape, if they don't, well, not in good shape at all. this is a simple professional analysis, I will ignore that the modules are still being sold, that content creators do what they do, etc. it's just code. ps: the fact that the 6/9g limiter was fixed means that "someone" that has access to the code apllied the fix and that it was not disclosed in the patch is free to speculation.
True, but any customer who lives in the EU (or the UK) is entitled to either: 1- The fault being fixed in a timely manor. or 2- A full CASH refund of the defective item. (although the customer can choose to accept store credit if they like) ... Many have already asked for, and received refunds. Big legal issue, which could be met with very stiff fines to ED if they refused.
Since this clash started I've only dedicated my gaming hours to enjoying my F-15E while I still can. This dispute will last longer than we think and by then, the 60 dollar plane I paid for will become unplayable
Oh shit -- that's the best expression I can find. After 15 years I finally decided to get back into competitive sim flying. Actually, it's not that much longer I went back to sim flying in general. I bought myself some maps, the F16 (because, it's my kid self dream plane) and the FC3 package. Just yesterday I bought myself a beginner gear combo with the T16000 throttle and the nxt evo stick for some 360€ all together (I am flying with an afterburner 50€ hotas from thrustmaster, in case you wonder^^). I wasn't even aware of an dispute between ED and Razbam. However, the next modules I would have likely bought are the M2000, the Viggen and the upcoming Mig23 whenever its ready. Also, I am playing the game with a friend and we were effing close to buying the south-atlantic map, as we wanted to reenact the sinking of coventry and we like the Falklands setting. Knowing what I know now, I would have given back the map immediately, if I had bought it. Now, what am I trying to say with all this? The Content Creator is right. As a new player to DCS, I am already questioning my decision to move to this game. I had this underlying urge to start DCS for so long and now that I satisfied it, scratched it so to say, bought it into it and now I wonder if that was a good decision. That's really not a good start to get into this game, if your trust into the games is already being tested a month after buying it. I would have expected much much more from a game sitting in the market for 15 effing years. If this is EDs version of disaster management, I am more than disappointed. It's the usual feeling of being worthless for developers. As if we are nothing but cows, which need to get milked until the last drop. That's the only priority apparently and in fact, it's true in most cases. As customers we just seem to forget about it from time to time and every time someone makes us remember this fact again, we are disappointed, sad and enraged in some cases. As customers we need to be just as consequent towards the seller of a product. Thx for this video, I won't spent any money on this game for quite a while. If this dispute does not get fixed, I will leave for another game, and if it gets fixed, I need to see that it's not just words. I need to wait for months until I experience that it is really fixed, before this trust in the game is regained so to say. What a sad sad sad situation...
Anyone remember the Hawk T1-a? They need to get this sorted out fast, whatever issues are going on. A lot of people were excited about the Strike Eagle and love flying it, let alone the Mirage. The people who will suffer the most from this are the fans who shell out all the real money to both companies that keeps them working. Jaded fans do not keep buying your product in this day and age.
First thing, if you think DCS is buggy, you must have never heard of Star Citizen :D. Bug are normal in a game that is continuously developing. They are addressed constantly, so it's livable and worth all the new features being introduced. WIth regards to the dispute and impact to RAZBAM products, this is quite concerning from a RAZBAM module owner perspective, but it is 10x more concerning from a combat flight sim pilot perspective. DCS is the only combat sim in the market (Falcon BMS doesnt count, I dont want to be flying F16s all my life). So this issue is shaking the entire combat sim genre, as we have no other options. That is my biggest concern.
A very well thought through commentary on the situation. My opinion is that these modules should not be currently for sale - given the learning curve, by the time you notice that the module is malfunctioning due to lack of maintenance, your period for refund will already have passed (speaking as a Steam player). As a software developer - that DCS is "a buggy mess" is not surprising given the immense complexity. That, however, means that constant maintenance, patches, and updates by the module developers are *crucial*. And even *if* the issue gets resolved amicably, the amount of catch-up that RAZBAM needs to do in order to get the modules patched to the current version of DCS may be quite prohibitive. ED having access to the sourcecode also is mostly irrelevant - unless RAZBAM has documented everything to the smallest detail (and even then), you can't just look at their code and continue where they left off. It would take serious manpower and time to understand WTF is happening and why. Basically, as a customer? I paid money. I don't care who is at fault. Get it sorted out. :)
Thank you for diplomatically adding to the noise on this issue Enigma! I have decided to speak with my wallet. I was going to purchase the CH47, Afghan and F4 but I am not going to pick them up until I have some concrete answers. I love the Strike Eagle module, I reinstalled DCS just for it and I'm so disappointed to see what is happening to it. It had such momentum and some stunning features. That radar, oh that radar!!
I’m f you watch the 47 trailer you can tell the release will either be a disaster or pushed back a year. The Afghan tiered release also screams trouble.
I was looking forward to the F4, but ED is bent on insulting it's customers and generally being an embarrassment. Certainly not buying another terrain.
I really wish we knew more and had more evidence. If razbams accusations of not getting paid for 8 months are correct then I’ll side with them. But since we know nothing it’s all just in limbo. I agree the models should not be sold. Man it’s it’s a mess
RAZBAM have made an official statement on this. “We want to assure you that it has never been nor will it be our intention to abandon our products. We look forward to a prompt and satisfactory resolution, turn the page, and move forward” That was the last we heard on the issue. Let’s take Ron at his word and let them sort it out.
Here's the problem. Razbam already had to let go a lot of the staff who worked on these modules, some of them key to it because they haven't been able to pay salaries. Even if ED and RB settle their dispute today, RB is going to be hamstrung in what they can do.
Just because it's not their *intention* to abandon the products, doesn't mean that it couldn't theoretically still happen. This is a face-saving comment, for better or worse. I hope it pans out, but I wouldn't take it at face value.
I only ever fly and navigate the F18 on auto pilot and do touch and goes in the rain . . . lol. DCS has always been a cockpit simulator in my experience that never works consistently - but oh well - been around since the beginning. 😁Cheers.
Maybe, we, as module owners should demand refunds for the Razbam modules that are no longer supported. Especially the F-15E as it was JUST released and is getting no love to fix it.
Do we know how much revenue a successful module developer for DCS World actually would get in a fair business deal with ED? Is it five figures? Six? Seven? Does ED have a viable business model with the different 3rd party developers? I really don't care whose fault this is, but continuing to sell products that you know is or will be faulty in a pretty short timeframe is horrendous business practice. Is ED maybe on the brink of going out of business, desperately trying to milk everything they can before they close shop?
DCS has a very poor business model. I have said it once, and I'll say it again. Eventually, Eagle Dynamics DCS will sell to Microsoft Flight Simulator.
They need to take them off the store until it's resolved. Period. Selling them right now with no support is down right a scam almost or blurs the line heavily if they update and one or all has something critical suddenly broken.
Thank you for covering this issue, as often your voice is probably the best comment on the question. As a mere player, I don't have nearly as much insight in the under-the-hood stuff but I definitely lost a lot of trust in the perennity of the whole ecosystem. I tend to think all 3rd party devs should have the possibility to have their own store, as Heatblur does, so that my money goes straight to the devs and then back to Ed, not the other way round. I didn't stop playing Razbam modules, in fact my DCS experience was mostly Mirage, then Harrier. For now, I created a second install for my Razbam birds that I intend to keep frozen as a backup. But this can only work for a time. We need to push for a resolution that would at least allow for the already existing modules to be maintained, if not for the continuation of their projects (and I was really eager for that MiG-23).
This being the second time ED has pulled these shenanigans with third party devs was enough for me to uninstall it for good. As much as I enjoy the fidelity and the flight model, the flaws, bugs, and shady business practices were serious hindrances to my enjoyment of it. I desperately hope that someday that we'll have an actual competitor to DCS in the combat flight sim space.
Worst part is that ED now handing out refurnds profiteers from it by forcing players to buy other modules since they dont do a full refund. I dont like jumping to conclusions but they should remove the modules from the store asap.
in this condition I do not see why we would not have the right to request a refund of the razbam modules, after all if ed does not pay its third party creators while they continue to receive the money from modules which will inevitably be broken, it borders on organized and voluntary extortion. in this story razbam would not be wrong, ed will take the money and razbam gets peanuts? let's use some common sense! if we are to understand the purely legal unfolding of the story, ed in whom we trusted has purely and simply broken his contract with the client! this could almost be considered a breach of trust if the sale of razbam modules persists while it will be impossible to re-encode the modules knowing that there is a right of ownership with the designer and creator who is in his most appropriate right .
Removing the modules for sale could hurt ED's legal position in any pending litigation. Just a guess, no evidence to support it. But I like to give ED the benefit of the doubt, instead of casting them as greedy money hungry rats that so many are portraying them as. More than likely, they have a lawyer telling them what to and what not to do.
I've lost all trust in ED. I think this is a sign of a slowly sinking ship. How they are handling this issue is insight into how broken they are as a company. At this time, I cannot recommend DCS World as a viable platform for flight simmers. NOT BUYING ANOTHER MODULE FROM ANY DEVELOPER OR ED until resolved. PAY RAZBAM!!!
I feel like you've touched the most important DCS problem, ED keeps adding modules and maps, wrapping it all in a nice graphics improvement but they are barely touching the broken aspects or the non developed parts of the DC world. Combined Armes 15 yo models and logic, Carriers, ATC, IFF, SAR, AI Issues. They are working on bringing early access stuff to fiture complete level and are not improving the 'World', the sandbox that is the true reason we love this sim so much.
Did not know anything about this until now, which is PER SE a horrific thing (no disclamer at all). I bought the Strike Eagle three weeks ago, and quite honestly, if all of that is going to get real, I want my damn money back. Cause for me, that's fraud.
Almost as bad as Windows (File) Explorer's Alzheimer's. That's been diagnosed in 2001 IIRC. That darn thing just is completely incapable of remembering any folder settings properly ever since. And M$ just won't fix it.
@@vincentvoncarnap The MPCD renders most text as white/gray, with many elements using color. ED got it wrong, despite being told it was wrong during the beta testing. (I was a beta tester on LOMAC.)
I have lost faith in ED a long time ago. Not only do I question their motives at times, I also believe they are gaslighting the situation and are at fault. I liked your reference of a family argument - just that it's not between mommy and daddy - it's between a parent and a subordinate child. Here is why: How many 3rd parties do we have for other simulators? Prepar3d, X-plane, MSFS and so on? How many for DCS? The answer is, DCS has a frighteningly low number of 3rd parties and it's ED's job to manage and foster them and they fail at it completely. Instead of really fixing the situation ED decided to shit down Razbams throat - THE SINGLE most valuable 3rd party developer in my humble opinion! Razbam not only has a lot of modules, they also have interesting ones. Also they appear to be a developer that doesn't just release NATO planes but actually cares about doing what should be ED's job: attempt at completing a theater. For example falklands. Fitting modules, a map for it, supporting assets like the AI hercules tanker... It's a bit ironic if you think about it. From my perspective ED just doesn't appear to treat 3rd parties well under the surface. They don't bring in new ones and they don't care about existing ones enough, incentivizing them for new modules or maintaining old ones. Instead ED seems to exert a lot of control over them while not even aiming to complete the ecosystem. We don't have a single feature or asset complete era or conflict scenario in the game after decades of "best combat flight simulator"! We are literally sitting on a big cheese with holes in it and slowly rotting away. ED treats their ecosystem very unprofessionally. Bugs, exploits, and modules suffering and lacking support, even within their OWN modules, doesn't matter. Reported bugs even in core modules that are by ED haven't been fixed since or only after many years. The BF-109 for example, the F5, the Yak-52... So in summary it is like you said - a much larger problem. And it's not a Razbam issue, it's an ED issue. It seems to be the result of not having another professional product in direct competition. They simply get away with what they can get away with while cashing in.
I don't think Razbam will stop working on DCS as a whole, as they're still the Armee De l'Air's training module provider. Maybe this has changed over the years? I highly doubt they'd want to jeopardize that part of their business.
I am one of those who likes to buy a game / module and then play it. That means I currently have multiple versions of games on my desktops/servers to include FC2, DCS World 1.2, DCS 1.5.7, DCS 1.5.8, DCS 2.0, DCS 2.5.6, and a retail Open Beta installation. I was very upset when ED chose to scrap multiple versions on Steam because of this. But I learned that if you enjoy a game, make sure you take actions to preserve it because developers tend to constantly break it when they think they are adding or fixing something. And Blizzard was a great teacher of that how they broke World of Warcraft Wrath of the Lich King and the tens of millions of subscribers dropped down to single digit millions and they just ignored that they killed the popularity. And then DCS did this when they make upgrades that break compatibility either with a module or pc hardware and then ignore it. The community of DCS responded the same way as WoW did of how the game is an ever evolving game and it is tough for you that you lose the ability to play what you paid for because the game evolved and ignored the compatibility issue. With ED, before I saw them do this, I was buying everything they sold and multiple copies as I love playing with my nephews and nieces along with my wife and kids. I spent tens of thousands of dollars to ED. After they educated me, I have very reluctant to buy one much less multiple copies of modules for DCS since. Even though I do love the Razbam Harrier and Mirage, I remember Razbam from FSX/TacPack days. They still sell their FSX/TacPack modules at full price today. They are very reluctant to go on sale.
I think Razbam's biggest problem is that they want to release a bunch of modules, but they never finish a single module. the most complete module is the Mirage 2000.
I mean that’s a DCS problem in general but yeah Razbam had all that controversy not to long ago with the harrier being “feature complete” but missing things they said were supposed to be on the aircraft, hell even back then they claimed it was ED’s fault but people seem to be overlooking that piece of history.
The major problem of DCS is the lack of a strict interface architecture for flight dynamics and systems. No com based API, existing adresses to cockpit systems interface are community tools, and obviousely no quality assurance on the ED side. A simulator is too complex as to leave software quality to the 3rd party . When asking ED about module API,they have no clue and tell you the responsibility is on the module providers side. And this is a clear sign of lacking platform2module coordination. Perhaps ED mangaemnt should learn about ITIL and role responsibilities that are standard throughout the ITnindustry. Perhaps DCS will end up like X-plane: a large mess of code by a handfull,of presumable genius people but not a single pagemof development quality assurance. And some functions runningnon lua, others as dll, lots of lookup tables that need to be interpreted.... To,patch modules up will just foster the whole going heywire.
Man I’m feeling mad cheated by this. I purchased the F-15e because it was well known that big updates and fixes were planned for it. And I wanted to fly it. But I stepped away from the game for a while due to work constraints. Now I’m back in and find out that this is the only version I’m going to get. No more updates, patches, fixes. I’m ashamed.
Regardless of whose fault it is, ED is the owner of the game, and it's in their best interest to resolve the matter. The problem is indeed one of loss of faith/confidence. Firstly, we're talking about hundreds of dollars worth of modules that people may have purchased which are going to inexorably decay unless maintained. One such module, the F-15E, is very recent and was thoroughly hyped. Secondly, they're still being sold. And thirdly, the most insidious factor, is that it casts doubt in the longevity of practically every third party module: if ED cannot be trusted to keep some measure of control and operability of DCS' third party content, from now on a chunk of previously loyal fans are going to think purchases twice. Sudden module death was never considered a possibility before this incident.
I am an engineer. What I do know is that when you stop paying vendors, you’re usually in trouble. I didn’t know they’re still on sale… so that’s another data point…
@@flightkimulator9612you’re an engineer idk if you’re an independent contractor or not but if you hadn’t been paid for work you’ve done wouldn’t YOU be suing for wages? The same basic thing you’re saying about ED and libel can be flipped back on Razbam about their income.
I personally think no, believe ED should lock all sales of Razbam modules till a resolution can be resolved. Valve should do the same on Steam. Content creators shpuld refrane from makong new content usong Razbam modules till a time a resolution is reached. This means you Longstrider. Last server owners / mission creators. I would remove Razbam modules to prevent any further issues with the operation of your mission or server. And on a personal note, my first module in DCS was the Mirage 2000c and i love it but. Razbam has a terrible track record of releasing barely functional modules and working slowly on them over the next half decade. This is why after i got burned on the South Atlantic and Harrier i refuse to buy ANY Razbam module. Luckily i was gifted the SA map. But i feel bad for my friend who bought it for me as a gift. Now in closing none of the parties involved are squeaky clean. ED are horrible about half-assing things or making shit up with their data and then banning anyone who says and proves otherwise. Or they tend to put out a module then wont update it till it becomes an issue many years later. Lets look at the Hip. The graphics on that and the huey are so dated but ED refuses to refresh them. Then there is Heatblur, outstanding developer. But again massive bloat in everyone of their modules. Literally a 10-20fps drop just loading either the F-14 or F-4. But due to insane amount of detail they put in every module they are unable to reduce that hit. Its like none of the developers are on the same page on what the standard is.
One thing to point out about the continual sale of modules is that there's likely to be contractual obligations to have the modules available for sale. So much of this dispute will be between lawyers and everything all parties are saying or not saying will be based on their advice. Even if ED or Razbam were totally planning to part ways, you'll not see that reflected in the store until the dispute is "resolved".
Exactly, if it ended up in court and ED had pulled the module off sale, and RB had won, they could claim that they were owed x months of sales even if ED didn’t actually sell any modules, as it wasn’t RB’s choice to pull it from sale. I think the best, most reasonable ending to this situation is that ED hands over the money and RB hands over the source code, and they go. If they feel that strongly that they’re being screwed over then they’ll be happy to be bought out and released. ED can keep those modules working and selling, and we get to keep flying them, if maybe the eagle’s development is slowed. There are so many conflicting stories out there about what is supposedly happening, it could be anyone’s guess. On previous form though, I’m probably trusting ED.
5:43 them selling something not as advertised (i.e. a Broken Module) is illegal in the UK and EU States to the best of my understanding. My biggest fear is that they refuse a refund request and get a class action lawsuit/legal action taken against them. I don't know how precarious ED's finances are, but I imagine they'd be made far worse by any long and sustained Legal Action.
new to dcs here: are there modules that are solid and secure because they are somehow completely backed by ED hand in glove ? really excited about the kiowa but not if it will just fall apart if i buy it...
Don't pour money into DCS. Lots of hot air and promises, behind the curtain it's a never-ending early access treadmill to generate income. New module, support it well for a year until the next module is hyped, then slow down development so they can support the new module, rinse, repeat.
DCS is very cool. By being modular, they bring in a large pool of talent. Both sides enrich each other. DCS is successful because of this ongoing evolution that this video mentions. I would assume that losing a module developer would harm DCS. These modules represent alot of work hours. And once purchased, are a commitment both DCS and their module developers must maintain. Reputation is hard to build, and easy to lose. Both parties deal in software, therefore both parties deal in logic. Resolution is the best path forward.
Yeah, or at least their approach to 3rd party devs. Like, the Kiowa Warrior is coming out soon, and we know Polychop is a tiny studio of just a handful of people. It's a labor of love for them..but what happens if they all move on to other things? IMO ED should at least have the source code to be able to take over if a partner studio folds.
@@inf3243 yes but then all the money would just go straight to ED after All the hard work others did. If I was a software engineer and I made something amazing but I didn’t get paid for it then I wouldn’t want to give it to the company who isn’t paying me for it for free or any sort of money unless it was the agreed amount. I get the harrier and stuff since ED has paid RB but the f15 I disagree on with that statement
In my opinion, it doesn't matter who did what to whom. The damage is done. It costs a lot of money to fund the development of complicated modern aircrafts, and the early access helps the teams in funding the entire projects. And the whole system is based on the customer's trust that they will get a product in the end. But now that trust has been destroyed (at least for me - I own all the Razbam modules and unless the situation is fixed, it's money wasted). Next time I will be very very careful about buying modules in early access. And if more people do it same as me, it can be a big problem for developers to fund challenging projects like modern aircrafts or for ED to maintain and develop DCS world. Which may lead to the destruction of the whole DCS ecosystem.
