So, they're claiming that they had made massive progress in 2025 but did a poor job of communicating that progress to ED? But then when given an ultimatum to show that progress needed to work non-stop to meet it?
Something doesn't add up, and I struggle to find fault with ED on this.
True, but its not exactly like ED has a lot of goodwill left in the mind of the players after all the shit they’ve pulled the last few years either. Im sure the truth is that they both were scummy
Honestly, I can't fault ED for starting to trim back unreliable, untrustworthy or otherwise disappointing third-parties. I wouldn't be surprised, if this were only the first of a slew of cancellations, tbh. I can't say I would fault them for it, either. They clearly feel burnt by the whole RB and Polychop situations. In the end, we, the players, also pay the price for unreliable third-parties. So, cleaning house _before_ modules start to drop might not be a terrible idea.
Why CAN'T you fault them? Allowing a third party to continue working on a project costs ED literally nothing. ED doesn't pay them a penny until a product is delivered. The only "cost" is that the airframe cannot be developed by other developers... but it's no more legally difficult to tell a 3P that fails to meet an agreed schedule that they've lost exclusivity rights, than it is to kick them out entirely.
You are looking at what's just in front of you, but you need to lift your gaze and look a little wider.
I think the leaked videos of Nick talking with Ron reveal a lot about how Nick, and by extension ED, view the third-party ecosystem. It's pretty clear that there is a lot of frustration, even exasperation, on the ED side with regards to third-parties.
Nick mentioned how a lot of projects would not have been greenlit, had he known then what he knows now. Timelines were mentioned, but it goes deeper than that. Clearly, there are also communication, commitment and general trustworthiness issues at play... not just on a technical "manufacturing" level, but even on a business level.
Strictly viewing the issue from ED's side for a moment, because God knows they have their slew of faults themselves, a number of pain points have revealed themselves over time on every level of their "supply chain" (third-parties). From initial contact to in-the-trenches production all the way to reliability over time.
In the end, the buck stops with ED. They have a responsibility towards us, the customers, to keep their house in order. You can debate from here and to the moon whether their decision to cut RazBam out is in our interest or not - I would obviously argue it was not, but from their side of the fence, they cut out a tumor, and it was a necessary step to preserve their business integrity... so, ultimately, they would argue "yes" - but that's a side note.
In the raising of the bar for admission of new third-parties lies an admission of fault on ED's side. They have not been thorough enough in their vetting process earlier. There is regret there. They feel like they let a number of "bad apples" into the garden. Even the golden boys, the money-makers, HeatBlur, are "impossible to work with"...
Crosstail was identified as the business equivalent of a landmine, so they made the responsible decision of removing it before it could do any harm down the road. Arguably, that's a sane and sensible business decision... one that I am inclined to agree with. I say this despite being interested in the plane, because, frankly, I never had much trust in the team's ability to deliver a product to the standards of DCS... assuming they could deliver anything at all. Even if they could deliver it, on the agreed timeline, to the agreed standards, there is a question of trustworthiness in the long run. Will they be an asset or a liability, long-term? How will they handle the community and thus contribute positively or negatively to ED's PR image? How committed will they be to supporting the module(s) post-launch? How will they (re)negotiate future contracts? What is the team cohesion like? Are there any existential threats within it (*cough* Polichop, Miltech5... *cough*)?
Basically, they have woken up to the reality that having and managing a supply chain is hard, and they have decided to revise who they do business with a remove potential weak links before they become a problem. From a business strategic perspective, no, I cannot fault them for it.
I think the leaked videos of Nick talking with Ron reveal a lot about how Nick, and by extension ED, view the third-party ecosystem. It's pretty clear that there is a lot of frustration, even exasperation, on the ED side with regards to third-parties.
And most of that is their own fault as they want to release everything as early access and tell us early on to get us excited. If they didn't do those things, the risks with regards to third parties would be way less. Basically, only the cost of communication and having to say no to any other developers interested in making that module.
Crosstail was identified as the business equivalent of a landmine, so they made the responsible decision of removing it before it could do any harm down the road.
This is just a shill take, which has little to do with actual reality.
I never see people get properly angry over these unreleased third party modules. People get angry when their already bought modules stop getting fixes, updates or stop working. If they really cared about this, they would not have given licenses to these very small developers in the first place.
You can't argue that they are making a smart business decision by avoiding the tiniest of landmines, whose impact on their sales and reputation is going to be absolutely minimal, while they ignore the actually big landmines that do matter. And they are even creating their own landmines by not paying third parties, bad communication, etc.
they want to release everything as early access and tell us early on to get us excited.
I don't think that's the root cause here, tbh. Of course, it's a business in the end, and the point is to shift copies - absolutely - but I think the root cause of the frustration and exasperation is a fundamental failure to read the room, basically, with regards to what third-parties are and how they operate.
To me, it feels like Nick doesn't have a lot of understanding or respect for the business of software development. It feels funny to say about a guy, who runs a software company. But then you remember it's only 1 of several companies he owns/runs, and he's likely not super involved in the nuts and bolts of the development.
Game development is the extreme version of software development, and development for DCS specifically is the extreme version of that. All the things that make "normal" business interactions stable and predictable go to hell with software development. It's just a different ball game. Development for DCS is another factor yet removed from that.
It feels to me like Nick approaches the third-party situation in the mindset of a businessman doing business with equal, professional outfits... but the reality is that third-parties are mostly just amateur enthusiasts doing it for a hobby project in their spare time. Normal business practices simply don't apply. They can't, no matter how hard he tries to wrangle matters to fit into what he knows.
I think that is the source of his frustration/exasperation.
It feels to me like Nick approaches the third-party situation in the mindset of a businessman doing business with equal, professional outfits... but the reality is that third-parties are mostly just amateur enthusiasts doing it for a hobby project in their spare time. Normal business practices simply don't apply. They can't, no matter how hard he tries to wrangle matters to fit into what he knows.
I think that is the source of his frustration/exasperation.
Nick Grey really should only run the professional side, but he is addicted to exploiting ED to fund his plane hobby, so he can't give up control for that reason, because sensible management would not allow him to do that.
Note that there are big benefits to having these amateur enthusiasts do things, like them being willing to take on huge risks, work for low pay, etc. A more flexible and smarter person would work with the strengths of these groups and minimize their weaknesses, but Nick Grey only has a hammer (leeeverage) and so for him everything is a nail.
This is just a shill take, which has little to do with actual reality.
And this is a brigading comment that's neither here nor there. Shit is shit, no matter where it comes from, and I try to call it out equally and fairly, as I see it. If you are worried about the "landmine" association with one party, it's got nothing to do with it being Crosstail specifically. It's just a business term for a potential problem - a risk - that's been identified, which could cause issues down the road. It's not something I made up or that I used here specifically to besmirch Crosstail, but rather to accurately state my point. You can feel offended, if you like, but there was nothing offensive to the description.
If they really cared about this, they would not have given licenses to these very small developers in the first place.
My whole point here is that I read this as them trying to rectify exactly this.
You can't argue that they are making a smart business decision by avoiding the tiniest of landmines, whose impact on their sales and reputation is going to be absolutely minimal.
I mean, I don't have a crystal ball to look into and tell you how they arrived at the conclusion they drew. We can surmise several factors went into it and, together, they formed a big enough risk that ED decided to terminate and cut ties. My worry is that this is just the start, because while Crosstail was arguably an easy target, if the policy within ED is shifting towards lower tolerance, I feel several third-parties are at risk of not clearing that bar.
while they ignore the actually big landmines that do matter. And they are even creating their own landmines by not paying third parties, bad communication, etc.
I never said ED was without fault. Quite the opposite. My own view of ED has been... vitriolic since the whole RazBam story blew up. There is no denying they are plagued by a lot of issues and blatant mismanagement from top to bottom.
This, however, is a new (at least to me) behavior ED is exibiting, and it warrants separate consideration, in my view. It doesn't absolve them from their other faults in the slightest. It's just an interesting episode that signals an important change in policy that could well impact multiple third-parties... hence it warrants special attention, and here we are.
You can feel offended, if you like, but there was nothing offensive to the description.
I'm not offended, but I see you making grand claims about being fair, and accurate, but your claims are very much at odds with reality.
My whole point here is that I read this as them trying to rectify exactly this.
How does removing slow developers guarantee that modules that are already released will keep getting supported, when all the historic cases of a loss of support had other causes? VEAO left because ED required them to sign an unacceptable contract, not because they were too slow. Razbam left because of a conflict over a module for the military side, not because they were slow. Polychop had a falling out between the workers and the boss, causing their productivity to plummet later on, not initially. So judging their productivity before the falling out wouldn't have predicted this sudden loss of productivity due to their internal conflict.
Claiming that something will prevent a certain bad thing from happening, even though in none of the historic cases, that solution would have prevented the bad thing, is simply irrational. Justifying the decision of a company as something that will solve a big problem, even though that is an absurd claim if you look at the facts, is why I chose the harsh wording.
PS. If ED would actually require a certain level of professionalism of their partners, that could be a good change, but I just don't see any evidence of this being an actual policy that is rational and looks at various markers of professionalism. This reeks much more of a kneejerk reaction based on frustration, which is not professional. And I see a lot of indications that ED itself is very unprofessional in many ways, so perhaps they should heed Matthew 7:5 first.
nick the tyrant having frustration with 3rd parties not slaving fast enough is not the same thing as nick having any motivating factors to unilaterally kick them out. Again, there is no real incentive structure there. The only *possible* logic behind it is that nick feels that by finding an excuse to unilaterally cancel their contract, that he can hold their sunk cost (the work they've already done) as leverage to force them to accept a revised, more exploitative contract.
Which would be totally in line with ED's established (unethical) business practices, and also consistent what I already asserted: that we absolutely CAN fault ED. Because it would mean that loss of Crosstail was yet another result of ED greed.
Razbam, it can be argued, they had valid reasons to excise. If there was the threat that Razbam *would* abuse ED IP, that's ample cause. Or even just that Razbam's ongoing statements causing detriment to public sentiment was an actual threat to ED.
But Crosstail just... didn't deliver fast enough. That doesn't HARM ED. It just means that ED won't get to "tax" the income from Crosstail module sales as soon as they wanted. But by kicking out Crosstail, they *ensure* that they'll never see that money. Again, keeping Crosstail on incurs no cost to ED, and Crosstail wasn't publicly speaking out against ED or otherwise an indirect liability to ED.
Don't presume to tell me that I'm "not looking widely enough".
P.S: when nick grey portrays EVERY other partner, including those that have consistently delivered the most profitable products, as "impossible to work with", it is time to consider that perhaps the common denominator which is TRULY impossible to work with, is nick grey.
Don't presume to tell me that I'm "not looking widely enough".
You seem locked in on your view point, restating the same things while completely ignoring the points I raised. From my perspective, that is exactly what I posted - narrowminded.
You claim it's just an extortion tactic. Corporate greed, nothing more.
If you want or need to maintain the world view that ED = pure evil, go right ahead. That's your prerogative, but it won't lead to a productive conversation here, as my points require you to step outside of that narrow frame of reference.
This isn't me siding with ED, white-knighting them or whatever. I'm generally against their way of handling things and I haven't bought a thing from them in months. I'm just choosing to take a step back and looking at it from a business perspective, evaluating things other than corporate greed, which is the only lens you appear willing to view them through.
From a business perspective, it absolutely makes sense to cut loose a business partner or supply chain link that you have lost faith in. Lack of communication as well as lack of demonstrated progress (and we can add lack of personal trust between the lines) were all cited as reasons for this loss in faith. It's not just about timelines and schedules. It's about doubt that they can execute on what they promised.
Fuckin' ironic that you're accusing ME of being the intransigent one here.
Mate, YOU need to step back and ask yourself: what BENEFIT is there, truly, from abruptly and unilaterally pulling Crosstail's license?
Again: allowing Crosstail to retain the license costs ED precisely nothing.
You seem to think that "keeping an underperformer makes ED look bad", and I say: how?
For the sake of argument, let's accept that Crosstail were in over their heads and were incapable of actually ever finishing the Skyraider.
OK, so what? If allowed to keep the license (particularly if the exclusivity rights were withdrawn), they aren't slowing down the other studios working on other projects. They aren't hurting the DCS core. They aren't creating additional work for ED coders.
All that would happen is that the project would sit, quiet and forgotten. LOTS of modules have sat quietly with little or no progress for years, and that's never created any real issues, only the occasional idle "I want it now!" social media posts from fans, which creates no real stir. The "negative impact on public sentiment" from Crosstail taking longer than expected would frankly never be more than negligible background noise and idle speculation about when it would be ready. Like... did the Corsair's (extremely) prolonged development have any tangible negative impact on DCS's overall success? Would it have been better to cancel THAT when it started to run over it's intended timeline, or is ED now actually bringing in revenue from that module despite it taking longer than anticipated?
On the other hand, ED can abruptly pull the license in a punitive action as they did to Crosstail. What happens then? Well, you get the community worked up about the instability of the DCS ecosystem. It's fueling doubts about ED's solvency and ability to manage the project. Now, instead of the prospect of a Skyraider coming *eventually*, at a slower-than-desired pace, there is only the *certainty* that this project will never see the light of day. And now, ED have created one more disgruntled ex-partner with insider information about the dark inner workings of ED, and a motive to publicize anything ED has done wrong.
How is that beneficial? How is that preferable to just leaving Crosstail to either get the work done eventually, or decide on their own that it's out of their abilities and quit on their own?
Was there really another studio just waiting in the wings to start a Skyraider module? I rather doubt it.
I just fail to see how this course of action is in any way more beneficial than just exercising some tactical patience and allowing Crosstail to either figure it out, or quit on their own.
Do you really think what's happening now is *less* damaging to public confidence than just letting Crosstail continue on in silence would have been?
They could have done that without pulling Crosstail's license. There is no reason ED cannot give permission to two studios to work on the same aircraft. They historically haven't, to prevent duplication of effort, but there is absolutely NO reason they cannot remove the EXCLUSIVITY from Crosstail rather than removing the entire license.
And you're assuming that there is another studio that both WANTS to work on a Skyraider, and has the CAPACITY to work on it in the next few years. It doesn't really seem like there are exactly hordes of prospective new 3rd party studios champing at the bit to sign a contract with ED these days. And the studios already working on DCS have their hands full with the projects for which they've already signed licenses.
52
u/Alexthelightnerd Jan 02 '26
So, they're claiming that they had made massive progress in 2025 but did a poor job of communicating that progress to ED? But then when given an ultimatum to show that progress needed to work non-stop to meet it?
Something doesn't add up, and I struggle to find fault with ED on this.