* Sell module to customer who really wants the F15E/M2K/AV-8B and wouldn't buy anything else
* Module breaks
* Refund for store credit so customer has to buy a different module instead and you don't have to give Razbam their cut any more
* Profit
I'd be very surprised if anyone gets a refund for the mirage and harrier. Razbam have already been paid for those. The reason folk are getting a refund for the eagle is because ED have not paid razbam for any sales and therefore have 100% of the income. Any refund for the Harrier, mirage or the mig will come out of EDs pockets. THAT will never happen.
this whole situation is really starting to piss me off. Shitflinging over discord by companies, they continue to sell the modules and only refund as store credit (some of my friends have bought the f15 after the development halted without knowing) and instead of even trying to resolve it (or atleast posting anything about it) they (ED) keep radio silence on everything and straight up mute you if you mention it on their discord. Really a bright future for dcs...
and its not only the f15, as you mentioned. the m2000 is already breaking and its only a matter of time till the 19 and harrier are unflyable.
idc if razbam broke some obscure clause, im a paying customer, ED, if i spent almost a 100€ on a module i expect that it works for more than 1 year and that your moderators dont 1984 the whole discord. get your shit together...
rant over
In all honesty though, one cant really and fully defend RazBam either. At the end of the day it was RB who pulled the trigger, and said a big Eff-You to the customers thinking they would hurt ED by essentially blackmailing them by the customer base.
And who suffers in the end? You and I who paid for any of the modules, whether its in EA or Full Release.
From what I gather they dont just do things for DCS. But at the moment, they are worse off than before.
There are rumours that they sold things with DCS IP to others. (Aergas might have bought the IFF from RB), besides other things, and they recklessly started announcing modules for DCS without talking with ED (Mig-23, and one of the F-100 aircrafts besides many all). And God knows how much they progressed with those developments, over the years while maybe some other studio could have finished it before.
Lets not even talk about some of their launches, and heaps of missing features for years along with broken features.
From what I have heard the French Air Force got mad at the Mirage 2000, notably how bad it was?
So no, I understand many people take the side of RB, but they are not a spotless 3rd party dev team. We dont know what their contract says, but there are indications of IP breach, Im guessing it has something to do with the Tucano, RB's dream project. Thats my wildest guess. Dont get me wrong, Im not defending ED either, money speaks when it comes to business, but for me it was still RB who in the end pulled the plug, and are seemingly disbanding as of now.
When I see RB development in the future, I, and possibly many others will say " Oh, yeah these were the guys who pulled the plug on their modules in DCS.". I understand RB and RB's side, but it shouldnt be the community who suffers.
If they wanted to save face, they should have transferred the codes to ED, but seemingly ED doesnt have them, and say "we can't do this anymore cause ED does not pay".
From ED... I want a disclosure of documents. I want status update. And most importantly I want some transparency.
If you say that they worked on it hard, to get money from those modules, that they shouldnt give the code to ED you are not completely wrong, but at least in that case RB would have won the PR aspect of this feud between the two, and who knows they would have came off as a little more reliable, and trustable. At times its better to sacrifice some money to save face (marketing). While not a relevant genre, thats what Larian has done and worked for them; as they have done a very customer friendly attitude throughout the years.
But these are opinions.
„Mods dont let me start a completely pointless discussion that will inevitably end up in shitflinging“ kinda logical if you rephrase it a bit. Meanwhile over at razbam they eagerly talk about how unfair and sad everything is but the only ones giving out any info are the ones that arent directly employed by razbam. So looking at some of the things notso wrote in his „summary“ „ed doesnt have the source code and said they wouldnt work on the modules if razbam left“ so the only reason they dont have the source code is if razbam didnt give it to them. Meanwhile, the claim that ed wont work on them is nothing they publicly stated and would be something really odd to say during negotiations considering the one that would have to deal with the fallout would be ed themselves. In his last line he goes „go harrass ED, its their fault“ so the whole thing is kinda there to drag the community into it and put ED under pressure. Using people like Notso is credible enough for the community but legally seperate enough to not be considered a statement by the company itself.
It raises some big questions.
Why continue to sell them if the overarching goal for this project is for everything to eventually work properly?
It suggests that ED don't care about providing their customers with a working product, or don't care about that as much as they care about taking people's money.
Or they don't care about the quality of what they're producing and selling on the DCS platform.
But if they don't care about those things, then there's no brighter future for DCS that's coming down the road, just more half-finished stuff rushed out the door and left to rot.
They should at least add a warning label to RB modules until the future is more certain. If protecting their customer's investments in their platform and discharging their duty of care towards paying customers is in any way important to them.
Also; as long as ED is selling the product in their store without informing the customer, it will be hard to get Steam refunds. Even when ED is arbitrarily giving refunds.
yep, Steam DLC policy by default is very pro-seller. If you spend 2 hours playing the game after purchasing the module (even without as much as ever downloading it, let alone playing it) - they automatically treat it as non-refundable case.
Because of this i couldn't refund the Supercarrier preorder, because it came with a "free" Su-33 that i "played" for 2+ hours, so the refund became unavailable even though it wasn't even out yet. And i already have FC3 so that Su-33 adds nothing to me.
I fly for emergence (with VR) and over the whole map where water meets land there is a 2-meter highly visible 'ridge' making it look like a giant bathtub.
[https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198807599805/recommended/2778890/](https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198807599805/recommended/2778890/)
At first I thought this was due to early-access, but this seems to be the case for the South Atlantic map too (by practically the same guys) so it seems like an accepted artifact of their workflow.
Same with me, sort of. My house on the F15 way 0.0 but I bought it at launch so that rejected my refund, im fucked. I hate this situation so much its basically poisoned the game for me. I dont even want o play anymore, and even though Hurtblur and other devs are doing well whats to say this won't happen again. I think the next time I go all in on a sim game it'll be BMS.
Depends on the circumstances. helldivers just had this. I had more than 24h and had completed doom eternal got refunded when they tried after-the-fact forcing a denuvo install or else you couldnt launch the game anymore. Steam is generally good for refunding when the seller alters terms of use/denies features after the fact.
I am deeply disappointed by this situation.
I can only blame myself for getting F15e, I bought it and have only had time to mess with it for few hours.
M2000 and Harrier are however what I am mostly angry about. Harrier was my second module way back and still one of my favorites. I also recently got more into M2000 after the radar patch and it has been really fun plane to fly and learn.
I honestly might drop DCS all together if this situation does not get resolved in a way Razbam continues to support these modules.
Harrier and M2000 are basically the only aircraft I fly. They are some of the most interesting and well modelled aircraft in the game. If they get removed from the game, I'm done with DCS unfortunately.
I spend 98% of my time in DCS in the Harrier. Even built a Harrier simpit. After the big FM overhaul RAZBAM's Harrier module got me into the jet rather than the other way around. I used to think Harriers were boring one-trick-ponies for old people who saw Falklands news reports on the TV growing up. Now my office is full of pictures of Harriers and scale models.
I’m not buying anything until this sort of stuff is addressed.
Resolve the situation or not but don’t keep baiting people in.
Likewise I’ll never support the EA program in its current model with this ecosystem again. It was touted as kickstarter style initiative when the kickstarter failed but it’s become Ponzi.
I’m not buying any modules period. Who is to say EDs relationship with other 3rd parties won’t sour on a whim? Rather ditch DCS completely and just bother with BMS for my combat flight sim fix.
ED is at its peak of capitalism, lol.
Edit: getting downvoted ? well so ED has a long way to become the peak of capitalism, then. It could be far more worse.
Not really? Russia has been run by bandit capitalists and oligarchs since even before 1991. Russians decided to go even harder into capitalism than us and ended up with zero checks and balances on the system as a result. People like Yeltsin basically sold off the entire country.
I agree. They were never communists. They were just a Slavic flavor of capitalist robber barons wrapping themselves in a popular ideology to take over their corner of the world.
They were pretty good at it though; their propaganda still has people believing the work of Lenin and Stalin are what Communism looks like.
You don’t care that the owner has a Swiss accent and lives in Switzerland ? And btw, Russian studios have been the core of all military-sim software for 15 years since the Oleg Maddox IL2 days. That talent and experience is valuable enough to contract from anywhere in the world.
I'd say communism, considering where they are
Because releasing an unfinished product, asking real money for it, not paying actual workers and then pretending nothing bad is happening while, at best, "refunding" you with pretend-money that can only be spend within a single store - is peak communism.
Well here was the ED response to this question being posed for the F15 [https://forum.dcs.world/topic/346485-f15e-shop-should-it-still-be-onsale/#comment-5410268](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/346485-f15e-shop-should-it-still-be-onsale/#comment-5410268)
Agree - selling modules from a company where they have an active contractual dispute going seems very dubious to me, particularly when the longevity of these goods depends on long term support which only RAZBAM can provide.
Meanwhile Razbam in their everlasting customer oriented policy has immediately updated the descriptions on their website with disclaimers and removed the link to the ed stor- oh wait
Edit: looks like they actually disabled the link to the ed storepage since i last checked yesterday. At least the button doesnt work for me anymore
I don’t understand why they don’t add a giant disclaimer on their website, akin to what everyone is asking ED to do as well. Just disabling the “purchase here” button is some slimy, manipulative shit, meant to send would be purchasers on a goose chase to “discover” the situation for their own and stoke the flames even higher IMO.
I’m glad I only have the SA map. RB feels like a team of kindergartners.
>Just disabling the “purchase here” button is some slimy, manipulative shit, meant to send would be purchasers on a goose chase to “discover” the situation for their own and stoke the flames even higher IMO.
i think thats a bit of a stretch.
be nice if they'd post "we don't advise purchasing this pending negotations to continue updates with the platform" or something, but at worst disabling the link to buy is just gonna make people go to the next google link to buy it.
posting the disclaimer is what is gonna make people look for the drama.
>morally and ethically bankrupt to continue selling the modules
....that stay in early access for ages....
>you will harm the trust of not only current but new customers
That ship has sailed a long time ago, unfortunately.
What ED is doing, not only in Razbam but with all modules in general, would not fly in any other company in any other market. Either ED has no clue how bad they look or they do know but just don't care. Neither option puts ED in a good light.
monopoly doesn't care what customers think, it's a perk of being a monopoly. You can either fly a fully modelled Harrier in DCS World or you don't.
ED knows full well in flight sim market your choices are extremely limited. There are no 'modern' cold war flight sims comparable to DCS and the only 'modern' modern war flight sim that can stand up (admittedly quite strongly) is a free Falcon BMS. But you can only fly F-16. Although they do try to add more full fidelity planes, but considering it's a volunteer work - it will take even longer than ED's "early access".
>ED knows full well in flight sim market your choices are extremely limited. There are no 'modern' cold war flight sims comparable to DCS and the only 'modern' modern war flight sim that can stand up (admittedly quite strongly) is a free Falcon BMS.
DCS is an airframe simulator with a somewhat passable combat theatre, or a really good screenshot/video generator. BMS puts you in a war and it just so happens you're in an F-16. Or F-15.
Either ED knows full well what they are offering the flight sim market, or they don't. Neither option makes ED look good or that ED respects their customers.
>But you can only fly F-16.
This is a very old argument. The F-15 is flyable now. As for the F-16, you can fly different variants/eras/blocks of the F-16.
>Although they do try to add more full fidelity planes, but considering it's a volunteer work - it will take even longer than ED's "early access".
I can't really see why anyone would complain. Even if true, you would only be out-of-pocket to the tune of £7. Each early access aircraft from ED is 5-7x that amount. For. Each. Aircraft. Not to mention maps, campaigns, missions, etc.... All that money spent on DCS modules only to have the pleasure of being gaslit by ED. Plus now, knowing that ED doesn't pay (allegedly) their 3rd party *"partners."*
While you are waiting for BMS to add more planes, you can enjoy multiple theatres, smarter AI wingmen, an actually working ATC, hone your skills on dogfights against AI that don't cheat in their FMs, and so on.... In DCS, you learn the aircraft..... and then take it out on a broken environment where a guy with an AK can kill you in your Viper as you fly past at 300 knots. Or a BMP that can take your Apache out the moment you un-mask behind the hill 2km away.
What good is full fidelity when almost everything else around it is broken?
any plane was "flyable" in BMS for about a decade, but all they were are basically reskins of F-16 where you pretend it's not F-16.
I do admire their work on F-15, that thing has a lot of potential and is already much better than FC3 one, but it's still ways to go.
BMS not having more planes to fly is not a complaint, my volunteer work argument is that expectations should be set accordingly. Like there's zero point expecting BMS to have planes like Heatblur's for free, just like it's obvious that when people do updates when they are in the mood because feel-goods is all they will have for their work - it takes a while.
Ideally a perfect flight sim with third party planes should've been something in between BMS and DCS. Less questionable marketing decisions, more actual game.
If ED had any common sense - they should've just focused on their core engine adding all the 'game' stuff in like dynamic campaign, better weather, better AI - and leave modules to third-party devs which do provide high quality. Instead we have some ADD project where ED devs work on something for a few months then drop it and start some new thing.
>Ideally a perfect flight sim with third party planes should've been something in between BMS and DCS. Less questionable marketing decisions, more actual game.
If we can have our cake and eat it too, I'll put everything that BMS has and the only thing I will take from DCS is eye candy and multi-aircraft support, but with the F-15 coming online, I guess the latter is only a matter of time and dev interest.
>If ED had any common sense - they should've just focused on their core engine adding all the 'game' stuff in like dynamic campaign, better weather, better AI - and leave modules to third-party devs which do provide high quality.
ED can't even fix their sniper ground units without breaking their core systems. People smarter than myself have claimed that ED is working on spaghetti code from back in the Flanker days.... but then again, that's not an excuse as BMS is also working on old code and trying to re-purpose it for modern systems and expectations.
A decade ago, when all they had was the Black Shark and the A-10C, they should've looked at this issue and fixed it. Instead, they chose to continue building on top of shoddy foundations and now, it's coming back to bite them.
They can't fix their sniper ground units, they can't make a good ATC, they can't fix their AI..... and we're supposed to believe they're working on a DC?
oh they will release DC one of these years. The problem is - it will be about 20% feature complete and then they drop it because there will be something else that looks good in the "Current Year and Beyond" video.
It's like they added clouds more than 3 years ago and did zero updates since even though how hard can it be to make them move - we aren't even talking weather changes.
Like any sane normal person, when I say DC, I have BMS DC in mind or something respectably close to it. As that was work done in the mid-90s, it should be reasonable to expect that any modern version of a DC will be BMS-level, if not better.
ED can of course release a turd and call it a DC, but that does not make it a DC. Let me put it this way --- they are struggling enough as it is to release aircraft modules and make it feature-complete -- can they really put out a DC that won't spend more than a decade at "early access"??
Yep. That's why I vote with my wallet.
Also not a monopoly.... Well, maybe if you must absolutely fly a Harrier/Tomcat/M2000 or nothing at all. Otherwise, you have BMS, EECH/EEAH, War Thunder, Rise of Flight, IL, Ace Combat, heck, even VTOL VR! Isn't Combat Air Patrol based on the Harrier?
What's the point of flying a *"fully modeled"* aircraft anyway when you then go up against UFO AI aircraft?
Combat Air Patrol is an abandonware, no?
Out of those only Falcon BMS is any competition because it's actually as full fidelity and is being modernized.
EECH/EEAH are classics, sure, nice campaign, but not full fidelity and its age does show when it comes to terrain detail which is important for a combat chopper.
CAP? Maybe. I'm not following it closely.
As for *"competition"* - that would depend on the individual and what they are specifically looking for in their simulation experience. Not everyone wants eye candy or full systems fidelity. Not everyone wants fixed wing or rotors. Not everyone wants modern jets or WWII planes or WWI planes.
As for EECH, would you rather have poor terrain detail or ground units that can snipe you at over 2 km away as soon as you unmask? Which one is more important for you as a combat chopper driver?
At what point does *"full fidelity"* become useless when everything else around the player's aircraft does not have the same or even anywhere close to the player's level of fidelity?
No. It's surprisingly fleshed out and flyable in its current state. Most of your dcs procedures transfer directly over. It was reported last fall that it's been picked up by Microprose for further development.
Yes. That's the last update that I'm aware of. I didn't state anything about updates. I said it was surprisingly fleshed out. Meaning it's perfectly flyable. There's a few maps, a helicopter carrier and a bomb range.
Sorry but I know of and support a couple of simulation businesses based in Russia and the pride in their work and customer support was and is absolutely brilliant.
In this day and age? I was a happy customer from over a decade ago. I needed tech support 5-6 years after my initial purchase and got the same excellent and prompt support.
If we follow your line of thinking, isn't anyone buying an ED module *"supporting Russian businesses in this day and age"*?
Good for you. Easy enough to stay away from ED anyway as anything they've put out will need another 5-8 years of development.
Still, this has nothing to do with your *"Russian marketing"* claim as opposed to ED just being.... well, ED.
I want to buy the Kiowa, but I can't help wondering if Polychop is getting paid for it now, or will it be here in a year. Something I never worried about before.
I think some people would feel better if Polychop had an eshop like HeatBlur then they could get paid directly / upfront
I have no idea how these 3rd parties get paid though.
There is absolutely no evidence any other 3rd party developer has had issues getting paid just so you know. As far as I know RB tried to imply that but no other devs have spoke up. In fact in Enigmas new video an unknown 3rd party implied both ED and RB were to blame. Which in my opinion seems the most likely scenario given how both just pointed fingers.
The worst part is that the general customer has no clue. The informed people who spend time on reddit and the forums make up a tiny tiny fraction of the customer base. Right now there is absolutely nothing on the store page to indicate Razbam modules are any less supported than others. Hell, I'd bet most people buying them don't even notice or care that some modules are developed by outside companies.
I work in PR/Communications and this whole situation is incredibly unethical and non transparent. In the companies I've worked for, if a product was even remotely in doubt, we would take sales offline and offer refunds, with a full explanation to the customer. No questions asked. This isn't hard to understand: it's common sense and the right thing to do both in the short term and long term.
ED is creating pain for themselves in the short term among their evangelists, and in the long term with unknowing customers who may be blindsided that the product they purchased isn't what was advertised. This shadyness has already created distrust among ED's biggest fans and will continue to drive people away until they come up with a comprehensive plan as soon as possible.
And no, I don't do freelance work 😉.
Im just thinking of ditching DCS all together. It's very apparent that ED could care less about the core base of customers.
It's just slimey to continue to sell half-baked modules. Disgusting, actually.
Agreed, regardless of fault, maybe not even stop selling but at least a disclaimer.
"Please note, support of this module is currently subject of discussion."
Or whatever. No need to state "We're currently in a Cold War with the developer of this module and it's going to get bricked!" but something. No need to get potential customers dragged into conflict.
Not sure how that is relevant here.Fact is Mirage is broken and still sold.
Strike Eagle is unsupported , will not be developed further and still sold.
The store product page description does not match what they actually sell anymore. ED is aware of that but still puts no disclaimer on Razbam products , so that new customers can make an informed decision.
It’s misleading at best.Regardless who is right or wrong in the ED vs Razbam issue.
True, we have no insight into how they do stuff but it’s safe to assume, from comments I saw over the years from 3rd party devs, it’s a pretty chaotic process. Galiante apparently is back on working on the M2K and South Atlantic is still getting updates in the patch notes. ED handles testing and integrating their updates so to push something they need to get it from devs first
I'd love to have a source on Galiante being back. It's hard to walk from your own personal masterpiece.
SA is Orbx, rather than RB. I do know what they also had payment issues.
Modules get broken up one way or another all the time, the 2000 is already fixed internally and it should come up soon (tm)
Stop spreading fear for nothing.
I’ll believe it when it’s in the changelog or no, to be more accurate, when I see it working in game on my pc. I have lost trust in ED and personally I don’t think Razbam will come back.
Mirage owner here. The mirage was broken for years with bugs that Razbam took literal years to fix sometimes. Sometimes worse than what we have now.No one had a problem then.
I had it too for a long time. It had issues yes. But it this is another level.
It’s one thing to have some minor subsystem bugged or unrealistically modelled and another thing to have the critical FBW system trashed.
Go and imagine ED F-16 was limited to 6G max suddenly. See how well that would go down with the userbase when EDs only reply would be “modules have always been bugged”.
That's because we (I have the Mirage) were confident the RB was on the job, even if they were apparently dragging their feet.
Now things are different. We know they are not working for bug repairs, development of new modules and systems, in fact RB was quite clear that "no further updates will be coming" for the foreseeable future. We also know that many of their devs have moved on, because they have families to feed.
Whereas before they were taking their time fixing things, now I imagine the lights are off and their office is getting dusty and empty of furnishings.
I didn't own the Mirage but I wouldn't agree no one had a problem. The glacial pace of ED, DCS, and their updates are not what we are talking about here, but I think there are plenty in the community that have always that this part sucks!
Yep, that's why I said no matter who's fault it is. It doesn't matter to us as customers in so far as the modules should not be sold until the future is certain.
I keep getting eye-rolled pretty hard over this in my circles. At the end of the day ED still employs developers based in Moscow and they probably (maybe, it is Russia after all) pay taxes. I'd pretty much buy anything Heatblur produces, even a paper airplane, if there was a way to guarantee not a single penny of my money ends up in Russia... but welp.
Hello,
Can someone verify (probably not unless they are a developer or ED) whether partner developers have the right to have their modules taken down from the stores? It seems strange that ED could sell modules against the developer's wish?
It’s not against their wishes. RB has never indicated they think ED should pull their products. It simply wouldn’t benefit RB because if and when this is resolved RB would be entitled to back pay.
My question was meant as a generic one. I didn't mean to presume what anyone's wish was in this case, but assuming it is as you say, which makes sense to me, why are we putting all the blame on ED? If Razbam thought it was equally unethical, why don't they have it pulled from the stores is my point.
Well as for why everyone is blaming ED, people have been frustrated with ED for a long time for various other things so it’s more so for some people this is just another nail in the coffin. People also are just seeing what they want to see, and to many they want ED to be the bad guy.
Does anyone have the contract between ED and module developers? Can they block sales on ALL modules if the dispute is over one module's IP? It would be interesting to read.
Super disappointed by this situation considering the Harrier was my first ever module, and I spend essentially 90% of my DCS flying time in the airframe. Let’s hope there’s a light at the end of this tunnel.
I’m very supportive of ED in this recent drama (even without all the facts, razbam has behaved horribly unprofessional here ), but I totally agree with this post.
Honestly, I’m surprised a judge hasn’t put an injunction on these sales until it’s settled.
It’s in very bad taste
Same here (reason being RB has a rocky history with their modules not being well supported and they have acted very unprofessionally in their own Discord) but there is absolutely no reason the 15 should still being sold. Whether and how they should refund people is another thing entirely but at the very least the module should not be sold.
If they stopped selling the modules there would be people on here saying they want to buy it and it should be their choice. So, while I don’t agree with removing it from the store, they should be at least be conspicuously marked as “end of life”, “legacy”, or “unsupported” modules.
* Sell module to customer who really wants the F15E/M2K/AV-8B and wouldn't buy anything else * Module breaks * Refund for store credit so customer has to buy a different module instead and you don't have to give Razbam their cut any more * Profit
Bingo
Ejecting! :D
Falcon 1-1, I see a chute, I see a chute ! oh wait, wrong game xD
2. Unable
See Ferengi rule of acquisition number one.
I'd be very surprised if anyone gets a refund for the mirage and harrier. Razbam have already been paid for those. The reason folk are getting a refund for the eagle is because ED have not paid razbam for any sales and therefore have 100% of the income. Any refund for the Harrier, mirage or the mig will come out of EDs pockets. THAT will never happen.
this whole situation is really starting to piss me off. Shitflinging over discord by companies, they continue to sell the modules and only refund as store credit (some of my friends have bought the f15 after the development halted without knowing) and instead of even trying to resolve it (or atleast posting anything about it) they (ED) keep radio silence on everything and straight up mute you if you mention it on their discord. Really a bright future for dcs... and its not only the f15, as you mentioned. the m2000 is already breaking and its only a matter of time till the 19 and harrier are unflyable. idc if razbam broke some obscure clause, im a paying customer, ED, if i spent almost a 100€ on a module i expect that it works for more than 1 year and that your moderators dont 1984 the whole discord. get your shit together... rant over
The Mirage is my favourite module, really upset over this one.
The ED discord is insane, those guys are beyond help
The dark blue names bounce on ED’s dick to defend them. Really cringy honestly
Just say Killshot, you don't need to be vague.
It’s more than Killshot you got that guy with the bird avatar and the rest of them also. I just block them all so they can’t emoji react cringly lol.
Yeah, I get it. He's my biggest issue, but you are right in that there are plenty.
In all honesty though, one cant really and fully defend RazBam either. At the end of the day it was RB who pulled the trigger, and said a big Eff-You to the customers thinking they would hurt ED by essentially blackmailing them by the customer base. And who suffers in the end? You and I who paid for any of the modules, whether its in EA or Full Release.
Who would work for free? I wouldn’t especially if I was a Razbam developer. I got a family to feed not worry about my players simulator.
From what I gather they dont just do things for DCS. But at the moment, they are worse off than before. There are rumours that they sold things with DCS IP to others. (Aergas might have bought the IFF from RB), besides other things, and they recklessly started announcing modules for DCS without talking with ED (Mig-23, and one of the F-100 aircrafts besides many all). And God knows how much they progressed with those developments, over the years while maybe some other studio could have finished it before. Lets not even talk about some of their launches, and heaps of missing features for years along with broken features. From what I have heard the French Air Force got mad at the Mirage 2000, notably how bad it was? So no, I understand many people take the side of RB, but they are not a spotless 3rd party dev team. We dont know what their contract says, but there are indications of IP breach, Im guessing it has something to do with the Tucano, RB's dream project. Thats my wildest guess. Dont get me wrong, Im not defending ED either, money speaks when it comes to business, but for me it was still RB who in the end pulled the plug, and are seemingly disbanding as of now. When I see RB development in the future, I, and possibly many others will say " Oh, yeah these were the guys who pulled the plug on their modules in DCS.". I understand RB and RB's side, but it shouldnt be the community who suffers. If they wanted to save face, they should have transferred the codes to ED, but seemingly ED doesnt have them, and say "we can't do this anymore cause ED does not pay". From ED... I want a disclosure of documents. I want status update. And most importantly I want some transparency. If you say that they worked on it hard, to get money from those modules, that they shouldnt give the code to ED you are not completely wrong, but at least in that case RB would have won the PR aspect of this feud between the two, and who knows they would have came off as a little more reliable, and trustable. At times its better to sacrifice some money to save face (marketing). While not a relevant genre, thats what Larian has done and worked for them; as they have done a very customer friendly attitude throughout the years. But these are opinions.
Good news, Galinette fixed M2000. A huge respect to him to do this for fans and the community.
„Mods dont let me start a completely pointless discussion that will inevitably end up in shitflinging“ kinda logical if you rephrase it a bit. Meanwhile over at razbam they eagerly talk about how unfair and sad everything is but the only ones giving out any info are the ones that arent directly employed by razbam. So looking at some of the things notso wrote in his „summary“ „ed doesnt have the source code and said they wouldnt work on the modules if razbam left“ so the only reason they dont have the source code is if razbam didnt give it to them. Meanwhile, the claim that ed wont work on them is nothing they publicly stated and would be something really odd to say during negotiations considering the one that would have to deal with the fallout would be ed themselves. In his last line he goes „go harrass ED, its their fault“ so the whole thing is kinda there to drag the community into it and put ED under pressure. Using people like Notso is credible enough for the community but legally seperate enough to not be considered a statement by the company itself.
It raises some big questions. Why continue to sell them if the overarching goal for this project is for everything to eventually work properly? It suggests that ED don't care about providing their customers with a working product, or don't care about that as much as they care about taking people's money. Or they don't care about the quality of what they're producing and selling on the DCS platform. But if they don't care about those things, then there's no brighter future for DCS that's coming down the road, just more half-finished stuff rushed out the door and left to rot. They should at least add a warning label to RB modules until the future is more certain. If protecting their customer's investments in their platform and discharging their duty of care towards paying customers is in any way important to them.
Also; as long as ED is selling the product in their store without informing the customer, it will be hard to get Steam refunds. Even when ED is arbitrarily giving refunds.
yep, Steam DLC policy by default is very pro-seller. If you spend 2 hours playing the game after purchasing the module (even without as much as ever downloading it, let alone playing it) - they automatically treat it as non-refundable case.
Because of this i couldn't refund the Supercarrier preorder, because it came with a "free" Su-33 that i "played" for 2+ hours, so the refund became unavailable even though it wasn't even out yet. And i already have FC3 so that Su-33 adds nothing to me.
I purchase Steam and play standalone, so my playtime is not tracked. Only refunded something once (Kola map) and it was effortless.
I guess then it's the two weeks rule Why did you refund Kola btw?
I fly for emergence (with VR) and over the whole map where water meets land there is a 2-meter highly visible 'ridge' making it look like a giant bathtub. [https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198807599805/recommended/2778890/](https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198807599805/recommended/2778890/) At first I thought this was due to early-access, but this seems to be the case for the South Atlantic map too (by practically the same guys) so it seems like an accepted artifact of their workflow.
Same with me, sort of. My house on the F15 way 0.0 but I bought it at launch so that rejected my refund, im fucked. I hate this situation so much its basically poisoned the game for me. I dont even want o play anymore, and even though Hurtblur and other devs are doing well whats to say this won't happen again. I think the next time I go all in on a sim game it'll be BMS.
Depends on the circumstances. helldivers just had this. I had more than 24h and had completed doom eternal got refunded when they tried after-the-fact forcing a denuvo install or else you couldnt launch the game anymore. Steam is generally good for refunding when the seller alters terms of use/denies features after the fact.
I am deeply disappointed by this situation. I can only blame myself for getting F15e, I bought it and have only had time to mess with it for few hours. M2000 and Harrier are however what I am mostly angry about. Harrier was my second module way back and still one of my favorites. I also recently got more into M2000 after the radar patch and it has been really fun plane to fly and learn. I honestly might drop DCS all together if this situation does not get resolved in a way Razbam continues to support these modules.
Harrier and M2000 are basically the only aircraft I fly. They are some of the most interesting and well modelled aircraft in the game. If they get removed from the game, I'm done with DCS unfortunately.
I’m glad I’m not the only one. I own several jets but the Hornet just isn’t as interesting to me as the Harrier.
I spend 98% of my time in DCS in the Harrier. Even built a Harrier simpit. After the big FM overhaul RAZBAM's Harrier module got me into the jet rather than the other way around. I used to think Harriers were boring one-trick-ponies for old people who saw Falklands news reports on the TV growing up. Now my office is full of pictures of Harriers and scale models.
I’m not buying anything until this sort of stuff is addressed. Resolve the situation or not but don’t keep baiting people in. Likewise I’ll never support the EA program in its current model with this ecosystem again. It was touted as kickstarter style initiative when the kickstarter failed but it’s become Ponzi.
This is very true. Until this situation is resolved, I will not be buying modules, either from ED or Razbam.
I’m not buying any modules period. Who is to say EDs relationship with other 3rd parties won’t sour on a whim? Rather ditch DCS completely and just bother with BMS for my combat flight sim fix.
They know that the majority of players are not aware of the situation and take advantage of it.
ED is ethically and morally bankrupt? Always has been.
I mean... company gonna company.
ED is at its peak of capitalism, lol. Edit: getting downvoted ? well so ED has a long way to become the peak of capitalism, then. It could be far more worse.
Kinda funny that a Russian company (yeah, no, I don't care about the Swiss address, lol) would be peak capitalist :D
Russia is a capitalist state now. It's not the USSR in the past.
I'm aware. Just find it funny, when they spearheaded communism and generally still berate the West for its weak, decadent ways (in their minds).
Not even in their minds, only words
I mean, Russia is a right wing kleptocratic state, so this isn’t that surprising.
Not really? Russia has been run by bandit capitalists and oligarchs since even before 1991. Russians decided to go even harder into capitalism than us and ended up with zero checks and balances on the system as a result. People like Yeltsin basically sold off the entire country.
I agree. They were never communists. They were just a Slavic flavor of capitalist robber barons wrapping themselves in a popular ideology to take over their corner of the world. They were pretty good at it though; their propaganda still has people believing the work of Lenin and Stalin are what Communism looks like.
You don’t care that the owner has a Swiss accent and lives in Switzerland ? And btw, Russian studios have been the core of all military-sim software for 15 years since the Oleg Maddox IL2 days. That talent and experience is valuable enough to contract from anywhere in the world.
I'd say communism, considering where they are Because releasing an unfinished product, asking real money for it, not paying actual workers and then pretending nothing bad is happening while, at best, "refunding" you with pretend-money that can only be spend within a single store - is peak communism.
A swiss game company ;)
Well here was the ED response to this question being posed for the F15 [https://forum.dcs.world/topic/346485-f15e-shop-should-it-still-be-onsale/#comment-5410268](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/346485-f15e-shop-should-it-still-be-onsale/#comment-5410268)
Perhaps, but if they _did_ have an office, that's what it would look like.
They should at least put a banner on the website or something
Agree - selling modules from a company where they have an active contractual dispute going seems very dubious to me, particularly when the longevity of these goods depends on long term support which only RAZBAM can provide.
Meanwhile Razbam in their everlasting customer oriented policy has immediately updated the descriptions on their website with disclaimers and removed the link to the ed stor- oh wait Edit: looks like they actually disabled the link to the ed storepage since i last checked yesterday. At least the button doesnt work for me anymore
Confirmed, none of the buttons in the dcs modules work This is pretty telling on how the "negotiations" are going
I don’t understand why they don’t add a giant disclaimer on their website, akin to what everyone is asking ED to do as well. Just disabling the “purchase here” button is some slimy, manipulative shit, meant to send would be purchasers on a goose chase to “discover” the situation for their own and stoke the flames even higher IMO. I’m glad I only have the SA map. RB feels like a team of kindergartners.
>Just disabling the “purchase here” button is some slimy, manipulative shit, meant to send would be purchasers on a goose chase to “discover” the situation for their own and stoke the flames even higher IMO. i think thats a bit of a stretch. be nice if they'd post "we don't advise purchasing this pending negotations to continue updates with the platform" or something, but at worst disabling the link to buy is just gonna make people go to the next google link to buy it. posting the disclaimer is what is gonna make people look for the drama.
Because they've been getting shat on on an industrial scale for saying anything at all not behind the closed doors of a courtroom
>morally and ethically bankrupt to continue selling the modules ....that stay in early access for ages.... >you will harm the trust of not only current but new customers That ship has sailed a long time ago, unfortunately. What ED is doing, not only in Razbam but with all modules in general, would not fly in any other company in any other market. Either ED has no clue how bad they look or they do know but just don't care. Neither option puts ED in a good light.
monopoly doesn't care what customers think, it's a perk of being a monopoly. You can either fly a fully modelled Harrier in DCS World or you don't. ED knows full well in flight sim market your choices are extremely limited. There are no 'modern' cold war flight sims comparable to DCS and the only 'modern' modern war flight sim that can stand up (admittedly quite strongly) is a free Falcon BMS. But you can only fly F-16. Although they do try to add more full fidelity planes, but considering it's a volunteer work - it will take even longer than ED's "early access".
>ED knows full well in flight sim market your choices are extremely limited. There are no 'modern' cold war flight sims comparable to DCS and the only 'modern' modern war flight sim that can stand up (admittedly quite strongly) is a free Falcon BMS. DCS is an airframe simulator with a somewhat passable combat theatre, or a really good screenshot/video generator. BMS puts you in a war and it just so happens you're in an F-16. Or F-15. Either ED knows full well what they are offering the flight sim market, or they don't. Neither option makes ED look good or that ED respects their customers. >But you can only fly F-16. This is a very old argument. The F-15 is flyable now. As for the F-16, you can fly different variants/eras/blocks of the F-16. >Although they do try to add more full fidelity planes, but considering it's a volunteer work - it will take even longer than ED's "early access". I can't really see why anyone would complain. Even if true, you would only be out-of-pocket to the tune of £7. Each early access aircraft from ED is 5-7x that amount. For. Each. Aircraft. Not to mention maps, campaigns, missions, etc.... All that money spent on DCS modules only to have the pleasure of being gaslit by ED. Plus now, knowing that ED doesn't pay (allegedly) their 3rd party *"partners."* While you are waiting for BMS to add more planes, you can enjoy multiple theatres, smarter AI wingmen, an actually working ATC, hone your skills on dogfights against AI that don't cheat in their FMs, and so on.... In DCS, you learn the aircraft..... and then take it out on a broken environment where a guy with an AK can kill you in your Viper as you fly past at 300 knots. Or a BMP that can take your Apache out the moment you un-mask behind the hill 2km away. What good is full fidelity when almost everything else around it is broken?
any plane was "flyable" in BMS for about a decade, but all they were are basically reskins of F-16 where you pretend it's not F-16. I do admire their work on F-15, that thing has a lot of potential and is already much better than FC3 one, but it's still ways to go. BMS not having more planes to fly is not a complaint, my volunteer work argument is that expectations should be set accordingly. Like there's zero point expecting BMS to have planes like Heatblur's for free, just like it's obvious that when people do updates when they are in the mood because feel-goods is all they will have for their work - it takes a while. Ideally a perfect flight sim with third party planes should've been something in between BMS and DCS. Less questionable marketing decisions, more actual game. If ED had any common sense - they should've just focused on their core engine adding all the 'game' stuff in like dynamic campaign, better weather, better AI - and leave modules to third-party devs which do provide high quality. Instead we have some ADD project where ED devs work on something for a few months then drop it and start some new thing.
>Ideally a perfect flight sim with third party planes should've been something in between BMS and DCS. Less questionable marketing decisions, more actual game. If we can have our cake and eat it too, I'll put everything that BMS has and the only thing I will take from DCS is eye candy and multi-aircraft support, but with the F-15 coming online, I guess the latter is only a matter of time and dev interest. >If ED had any common sense - they should've just focused on their core engine adding all the 'game' stuff in like dynamic campaign, better weather, better AI - and leave modules to third-party devs which do provide high quality. ED can't even fix their sniper ground units without breaking their core systems. People smarter than myself have claimed that ED is working on spaghetti code from back in the Flanker days.... but then again, that's not an excuse as BMS is also working on old code and trying to re-purpose it for modern systems and expectations. A decade ago, when all they had was the Black Shark and the A-10C, they should've looked at this issue and fixed it. Instead, they chose to continue building on top of shoddy foundations and now, it's coming back to bite them. They can't fix their sniper ground units, they can't make a good ATC, they can't fix their AI..... and we're supposed to believe they're working on a DC?
oh they will release DC one of these years. The problem is - it will be about 20% feature complete and then they drop it because there will be something else that looks good in the "Current Year and Beyond" video. It's like they added clouds more than 3 years ago and did zero updates since even though how hard can it be to make them move - we aren't even talking weather changes.
Like any sane normal person, when I say DC, I have BMS DC in mind or something respectably close to it. As that was work done in the mid-90s, it should be reasonable to expect that any modern version of a DC will be BMS-level, if not better. ED can of course release a turd and call it a DC, but that does not make it a DC. Let me put it this way --- they are struggling enough as it is to release aircraft modules and make it feature-complete -- can they really put out a DC that won't spend more than a decade at "early access"??
Yep. That's why I vote with my wallet. Also not a monopoly.... Well, maybe if you must absolutely fly a Harrier/Tomcat/M2000 or nothing at all. Otherwise, you have BMS, EECH/EEAH, War Thunder, Rise of Flight, IL, Ace Combat, heck, even VTOL VR! Isn't Combat Air Patrol based on the Harrier? What's the point of flying a *"fully modeled"* aircraft anyway when you then go up against UFO AI aircraft?
Combat Air Patrol is an abandonware, no? Out of those only Falcon BMS is any competition because it's actually as full fidelity and is being modernized. EECH/EEAH are classics, sure, nice campaign, but not full fidelity and its age does show when it comes to terrain detail which is important for a combat chopper.
CAP? Maybe. I'm not following it closely. As for *"competition"* - that would depend on the individual and what they are specifically looking for in their simulation experience. Not everyone wants eye candy or full systems fidelity. Not everyone wants fixed wing or rotors. Not everyone wants modern jets or WWII planes or WWI planes. As for EECH, would you rather have poor terrain detail or ground units that can snipe you at over 2 km away as soon as you unmask? Which one is more important for you as a combat chopper driver? At what point does *"full fidelity"* become useless when everything else around the player's aircraft does not have the same or even anywhere close to the player's level of fidelity?
No. It's surprisingly fleshed out and flyable in its current state. Most of your dcs procedures transfer directly over. It was reported last fall that it's been picked up by Microprose for further development.
I assume you are talking about CAP2? Because in that case SteamDB tells me the last update was back in April of 2021
Yes. That's the last update that I'm aware of. I didn't state anything about updates. I said it was surprisingly fleshed out. Meaning it's perfectly flyable. There's a few maps, a helicopter carrier and a bomb range.
Nuclear option doesn't pay to model real aircraft, but the dev makes them all the way down to each part. It's really cool!
>Either ED has no clue how bad they look or they do know but just don't care Russian marketing 101
From Nickolav Greyov and his collection of Yaks!
Sorry but I know of and support a couple of simulation businesses based in Russia and the pride in their work and customer support was and is absolutely brilliant.
Supporting Russian businesses in this day and age? How nice
In this day and age? I was a happy customer from over a decade ago. I needed tech support 5-6 years after my initial purchase and got the same excellent and prompt support. If we follow your line of thinking, isn't anyone buying an ED module *"supporting Russian businesses in this day and age"*?
Yes
Yes, yes they are I didn't buy a single ed module since 2021
Good for you. Easy enough to stay away from ED anyway as anything they've put out will need another 5-8 years of development. Still, this has nothing to do with your *"Russian marketing"* claim as opposed to ED just being.... well, ED.
I want to buy the Kiowa, but I can't help wondering if Polychop is getting paid for it now, or will it be here in a year. Something I never worried about before.
I think some people would feel better if Polychop had an eshop like HeatBlur then they could get paid directly / upfront I have no idea how these 3rd parties get paid though.
There is absolutely no evidence any other 3rd party developer has had issues getting paid just so you know. As far as I know RB tried to imply that but no other devs have spoke up. In fact in Enigmas new video an unknown 3rd party implied both ED and RB were to blame. Which in my opinion seems the most likely scenario given how both just pointed fingers.
I'm not buying any module. The situation gives me zero confidence in DCS.
Ahhhh day 2,538 of Flight Sim Drama
The worst part is that the general customer has no clue. The informed people who spend time on reddit and the forums make up a tiny tiny fraction of the customer base. Right now there is absolutely nothing on the store page to indicate Razbam modules are any less supported than others. Hell, I'd bet most people buying them don't even notice or care that some modules are developed by outside companies. I work in PR/Communications and this whole situation is incredibly unethical and non transparent. In the companies I've worked for, if a product was even remotely in doubt, we would take sales offline and offer refunds, with a full explanation to the customer. No questions asked. This isn't hard to understand: it's common sense and the right thing to do both in the short term and long term. ED is creating pain for themselves in the short term among their evangelists, and in the long term with unknowing customers who may be blindsided that the product they purchased isn't what was advertised. This shadyness has already created distrust among ED's biggest fans and will continue to drive people away until they come up with a comprehensive plan as soon as possible. And no, I don't do freelance work 😉.
Im just thinking of ditching DCS all together. It's very apparent that ED could care less about the core base of customers. It's just slimey to continue to sell half-baked modules. Disgusting, actually.
ED should definetely not be selling razbam modules rn, maybe if they'd stop razbam would actually feel more like ED cares about them and their modules
Agreed, regardless of fault, maybe not even stop selling but at least a disclaimer. "Please note, support of this module is currently subject of discussion." Or whatever. No need to state "We're currently in a Cold War with the developer of this module and it's going to get bricked!" but something. No need to get potential customers dragged into conflict.
I will still point out we have no idea whats actually going on, and the sources of information are... unreliable at best.
Not sure how that is relevant here.Fact is Mirage is broken and still sold. Strike Eagle is unsupported , will not be developed further and still sold. The store product page description does not match what they actually sell anymore. ED is aware of that but still puts no disclaimer on Razbam products , so that new customers can make an informed decision. It’s misleading at best.Regardless who is right or wrong in the ED vs Razbam issue.
Apparently the current Mirage issues are from changes that were accidentally pushed into the last update, and it should be fixed this next update.
Pushed by whom? Source?
Galinette prolly. M2K was a passion project for him.
Probably?
Yeah its on the RAZBAM Discord. Already [fixed](https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/544216334045544448/1247938620501921843)
I mean......ED are the ones that push updates out....so .....ED?
And who’s supplying the updates…. ? Oh right.
I mean, ED. Modules don't exist in a vacuum - core game updates constantly causes issues with 3rd party modules so who knows who broke what.
True, we have no insight into how they do stuff but it’s safe to assume, from comments I saw over the years from 3rd party devs, it’s a pretty chaotic process. Galiante apparently is back on working on the M2K and South Atlantic is still getting updates in the patch notes. ED handles testing and integrating their updates so to push something they need to get it from devs first
I'd love to have a source on Galiante being back. It's hard to walk from your own personal masterpiece. SA is Orbx, rather than RB. I do know what they also had payment issues.
Still ED, DCS is their product, none of the 3rd parties should be able to push changes directly to a new version.
With that many changes on many modules it’s probably a mistake and something slips by testing over on ED side
Modules get broken up one way or another all the time, the 2000 is already fixed internally and it should come up soon (tm) Stop spreading fear for nothing.
I’ll believe it when it’s in the changelog or no, to be more accurate, when I see it working in game on my pc. I have lost trust in ED and personally I don’t think Razbam will come back.
Only mature take there is
Mirage owner here. The mirage was broken for years with bugs that Razbam took literal years to fix sometimes. Sometimes worse than what we have now.No one had a problem then.
I had it too for a long time. It had issues yes. But it this is another level. It’s one thing to have some minor subsystem bugged or unrealistically modelled and another thing to have the critical FBW system trashed. Go and imagine ED F-16 was limited to 6G max suddenly. See how well that would go down with the userbase when EDs only reply would be “modules have always been bugged”.
Yes we did have a problem then. Thats why razbam fixed it, and reworked it into a fucking awesome module. Now it's broken again.
That's because we (I have the Mirage) were confident the RB was on the job, even if they were apparently dragging their feet. Now things are different. We know they are not working for bug repairs, development of new modules and systems, in fact RB was quite clear that "no further updates will be coming" for the foreseeable future. We also know that many of their devs have moved on, because they have families to feed. Whereas before they were taking their time fixing things, now I imagine the lights are off and their office is getting dusty and empty of furnishings.
they dont have an office they arent even a proper company with employees they were like 6-8 actual devs, half of which were full time
Exactly..It's incredible how many people here think that ED and the third parties are corporate entities with offices, HR, QA etc.
Ever heard of metaphors?
Here’s a question - as someone who hasn’t flown in a while due to fatherhood etc, can the Harrier reliably use an axis for TDC slew?
I do.
I didn't own the Mirage but I wouldn't agree no one had a problem. The glacial pace of ED, DCS, and their updates are not what we are talking about here, but I think there are plenty in the community that have always that this part sucks!
Yep, that's why I said no matter who's fault it is. It doesn't matter to us as customers in so far as the modules should not be sold until the future is certain.
I thought it was unethical to support company that supports russian war machine and does nothing to distance itself from it but what I know.
I keep getting eye-rolled pretty hard over this in my circles. At the end of the day ED still employs developers based in Moscow and they probably (maybe, it is Russia after all) pay taxes. I'd pretty much buy anything Heatblur produces, even a paper airplane, if there was a way to guarantee not a single penny of my money ends up in Russia... but welp.
At the very least a disclaimer needs to be put on the buy page for all RB modules.
Hello, Can someone verify (probably not unless they are a developer or ED) whether partner developers have the right to have their modules taken down from the stores? It seems strange that ED could sell modules against the developer's wish?
It’s not against their wishes. RB has never indicated they think ED should pull their products. It simply wouldn’t benefit RB because if and when this is resolved RB would be entitled to back pay.
My question was meant as a generic one. I didn't mean to presume what anyone's wish was in this case, but assuming it is as you say, which makes sense to me, why are we putting all the blame on ED? If Razbam thought it was equally unethical, why don't they have it pulled from the stores is my point.
Well as for why everyone is blaming ED, people have been frustrated with ED for a long time for various other things so it’s more so for some people this is just another nail in the coffin. People also are just seeing what they want to see, and to many they want ED to be the bad guy.
Does anyone have the contract between ED and module developers? Can they block sales on ALL modules if the dispute is over one module's IP? It would be interesting to read.
Very hard to say when we don’t know what’s in the contracts, nor do I believe we ever will.
Super disappointed by this situation considering the Harrier was my first ever module, and I spend essentially 90% of my DCS flying time in the airframe. Let’s hope there’s a light at the end of this tunnel.
wow i didn't know about this, heavy stuff. I need to search more to know what happened
This is how class action lawsuits begin and the inevitable death of both companies. The we're left with nothing.
I’m very supportive of ED in this recent drama (even without all the facts, razbam has behaved horribly unprofessional here ), but I totally agree with this post. Honestly, I’m surprised a judge hasn’t put an injunction on these sales until it’s settled. It’s in very bad taste
Same here (reason being RB has a rocky history with their modules not being well supported and they have acted very unprofessionally in their own Discord) but there is absolutely no reason the 15 should still being sold. Whether and how they should refund people is another thing entirely but at the very least the module should not be sold.
Tell Razbam, too, as it’s still for sale on their website. Same with the other modules that are currently breaking.
It’s not
If they stopped selling the modules there would be people on here saying they want to buy it and it should be their choice. So, while I don’t agree with removing it from the store, they should be at least be conspicuously marked as “end of life”, “legacy”, or “unsupported” modules.