Asterix909

Heh, you folks are kind of right; generally change is brought forth byt he efforts of the youth of a population. Look at Hong Kong today, it is (generally) a student movement driving the fight for democracy. Look at the battle for gay rights in the United States, again, generally a youth driven movement. Older people (generally) are more conservative and fight to keep things the way they are, for better or worse; failing to see or recognize the benefits of change. So while you see it as youth feeling entitled for whatever they want, I see it as youth being progressive and driving positive action while the conservative older generations strive for the status quo. Thank goodness for the youth then, else we'd all be riding horses and beating our wives, right?

no doubt, but is it not a two way street? For each post I make that is because someone else has been "combative" as well, by posting to me, no? Unless that 'combative' trait only applies to outsiders (back to the whole elitism thing, but I digress). I would only hope! Since I am a desiring customer, wanting to put money in their pocket! I would hope such a positive expectation would be had of steam users! Unfortunately I am not representative of a majority of Steam and am probably only a smaller minority of steam users that desire to put money in BF's pocket; but from what I have read here I am actually not what people think Steam users are, since people seem to think no new Steam users will buy the game and all Steam will do is steal sales from existing customers. Notice I have made no demands about the actual game being changed in any way- yes, I have been critical of certain aspects (UI, for example) but I also overtly and directly indicated those were ok issues, not a major problem, and dismissible. Steam workshop is optional. Thats the great thing, it does not need to be implemented in any way, shape, or form. And let us pretend that CM releases on Steam and thousands of evil little Steamers start demanding steam workshop support; well guess what, BF doesn't have to comply if they don't want to! Just as they do not comply to add it to Steam at all right now, why do so many people here seem to think that all of a sudden BF has to change EVERYTHING to accommodate every request by each and every single steam user?

I totally understand and even agree... Hence why I only have posted in one thread regarding this, have not attempted to contact BF multiples times directly through other means, and am not even directing my comments toward BF at all. All of my posts have been responses to others engaging me with responses- hence the 'discussion topic'. I don't see anything wrong with that, do you?

I have only played the demo and watched youtube videos. If I was stealing the game I'd have no reason to concern myself with buying it, right? That said, my statements about DRM (feel free to re read them) were to dispute and discredit BF's 'all knowing authority' about game distribution. Since many here claim BF are the best and smartest and make the best decisions possible, yet many of the supporting arguments BF has directly made for some decisions were completely false, such as their DRM being any sort of real protection (or the fact that DRM provides and value add period, perhaps if they stopped wasting resources on DRM they could make even better games, but whatever).

So, let me get this straight... If I did the exact opposite of my goal you'd take me more seriously? If I validated the sales model I am railing against, you'd take me more seriously? If I didn't stand behind my belief, you'd take me more seriously? ... oh wait, I remember, you are also the guy that disputed my claim that people would buy it if it was on steam, claiming they wouldn't because I am not buying it because it is not on steam. (yeah, I know everyone else, that makes no sense but that was his argument). You don't need to worry sburke, I am not too concerned if you take me seriously or not because you have clearly demonstrated you cannot comprehend simple logic in the first place. I'll just stick to concerning myself with some of the others here

But there is much to argue, his entire post is pretty much BS. Which means it is beneficial for the customer base to speak up and let their will be known. This part alone sums it up: "We've rejected that system since the start of Battlefront 15 years ago. Steam isn't fundamentally different and therefore we are not interested in having them sell our games." BZZZZZZZZ WRONG. Like I said, their business model is still based in the 1990s. it is clear he has absolutely not clue what he is talking about *with regards to Steam*. As mentioned earlier, steam doesn't force sales, steam doesn't take 40%, and Steam is not retail sale from 15 years ago. I mean how can you take a thing he writes seriously and sit there and claim he knows best when half what he wrote is straight up BS!?! Not to mention this part, this is my favorite: "Nor do we get any compensation for lost sales due to their easily hacked DRM." LOLOLOLOLOL. Not only can they include their own DRM while using Steam, but their DRM is not very effective anyways. It is a matter of seconds of googling (or just going straight to it if you know the right places to look) to find hacked versions of their game right now, with their DRM. Living in the 90s...

I'm tired fighting against the 'It is not COMPLETELY broken so let's not fix it or even attempt to make it better a little' argument, but I will just go on to say that the UI is poor. It just is. Sure, an expert user (many of you) may find it fine and passable, but that does not make it good, or even not horribly bad. A novice user will not have those understandings and skills you have established over hours, years of gameplay. The fact alone that some, but not all, of the controls have tooltips is a clear failure in design (and the controls are not otherwise inherently obvious or understandable). The framework for tooltips exist, as they are present and deployed elsewhere on like controls, so that can't be an argument against their deployment. And the controls are documented elsewhere, so the argument against the added work of having to write the them is not valid… Therefore it is clearly just poor design, end of story. I could go into more examples but that will serve no one well and is not really that relevant to this thread. I am confident they do not have a qualified user experience designer on staff and therefore do not always make the best usability decisions. That is fine! It is OK! Really, it is, but that doesn’t mean their decisions are the best in those regards and understanding that is key to this problem. Just because it is not completely broken does not make it good. The point is BF are obviously not gods of everything... and again, that is fine! As many of you say they are GREAT at what they do- make realistic tactical war games- but what they do NOT do is consult in online software sales. They develop software. So why are you expecting them to be making perfect decisions regarding a complex field completely out of their skillzone? Just as they shouldn’t be expected to make the best usability decisions since they don’t have the resources to for that, they shouldn’t be expected to make the best sales decisions. Unless I am mistaken and a qualified business manager (not developer that also acts as their “business manager”, but an actual real life business manager that is experienced, educated, and does that as his or her job) is helping to guide their software deployment strategy I, and you, have no reason to assume they are making the right business decisions for the right reasons. They may THINK they are, and be doing so with all good intentions, but that doesn't make it so. Sorry guys, I don't subscribe to the old guard way like that; I believe change is OK and to resist it completely is silly. Oh I know, I know, you can say you are not against change all you want, but when you shoot down every. single. new idea it kinda shows you talk one way but walk another. Just as I can also say I am going to get in shape all I want, but while I sit here lazing in front of a computer all day my true colors show. I will also make a generalization- a sweeping assumption- and guess that most of you anti-steamers and anti-change folks are older than... 45. Maybe even 50. Yep, you. As you say, this company has been around decades... all the decades that YOU were prime market. But guess what, you are going to be out of the market sooner than not compared to your previous involvements... And BF is going to suffer because the new prime market will not take kindly to their 1990s sales model and approach to software deployment. Feel free to post how you are only 28 or whatever; that’s fine, I don't care... because I know the other guys who are not posting all of a sudden fit my bill quite well and I will not need validation to assume I am correct. And one last thing, this whole niche market bullcrap is the fullest extent of you showing your elitist anti-newcomer ways. By dismissing the possibility of anyone else joining the market outright and thus not even attempting to introduce new people to it not only makes it impossible for newcomers to come (and I am referring to large numbers, not the small trickle this series gets) but also validates the fact that you are actively blockading newcomers from joining. I believe Paradox Interactive really proved the whole niche market thing to be a silly made up rule. When they went to Steam all of a sudden the tiny niche market of grand strategy gamers grew a hell of a lot bigger, bigger than the old guard at paradox forums ever expected (or wanted- they sounded a lot like many of you). Sure, that market is and will always be bigger than for a game like this, but that doesn’t mean this is or should be restricted to just the lucky chosen few… Heck, some of you sound worse than the people at bay12 that only like the ASCII graphics of DF solely because it keeps the masses away. But hey, if you guys want to keep refusing your green eggs and ham and keep not questioning authority, that’s fine. Keep at it. Luckily, as many of you point out over and over, it is up to BF to decide. And I am sure they will make the right choice in due time; hence my waiting.

sburke, you do know there is a demo, right? But hey, you can keep your conservative fear of change all you want. I understand you just want to keep everything the way it is and are afraid of things outside your comfort zone, thats fine. As I have said, I desire not to change things for existing players, just introduce more for potential new players. I know, I know, you are still against that because for every additional player your are a slightly less special snowflake and that hurts your feelings, well, I am sorry about that. But arguing with you is really pointless since, as stated, change scares you so obviously any endorsement of change I may make you will never understand. No problem, have fun in your cave. When (if) BF introduces their games on Steam I will gladly imagine seeing your infallible face as it dawns on you that maybe, just maybe, you were wrong all along.

Nope. I do not. But that does not discount my statement. I am qualified in user experience design, though, and I can assure you their games are suffering extensively in the UI area and controls, not to mention their website is... well, not so great at all when it comes to usability. I do not blame them that, though, because: Exactly; they are great at making the core game, NOT their website, or the *tada* their sales model. Why? I don't trust the farmer to run the grocery store, just as I do not trust a a game designer to market software. They are entirely different fields. ***I can't wait for someone to actually come forward and claim the game control and UI is not lacking; sure, it works and passes but it could be a heck of a lot better. Just as their sales model passes and works but could be better.

That is the problem, I really do want the game(s)! But that is ultimately part of the problem as well. While I do not deny your statement (I have seen said posts), I do deny BF's conclusions and I doubt how long they will last with those conclusions. As such, to buy in now I will (potentially) lose out on the future Steam release. But to back track a little, I'd love to hear the reasoning explained in dollars and sense (sic) by BF completely. Steam's model is proven, and I highly doubt BF has an MBA with a proven software sales record making this decision. I believe they are basing their numbers on bad assumptions. I may be wrong, but the the fact is Steam works for *everyone else* so why does it magically not work for BF? Sure, Steam takes a cut of the revenue, but the increased sales and FREE marketing make up for that and more in almost every precedent. Now to step forward, again, if I buy it now I am stuck with a single platform, vs getting both MAC and PC for one price. If I wait for a Steam release I will get both in one buy as per Steam's practice (I can understand why BF would not want this, less sales per individual customer; but again, that is made up by having more customers overall; this is the sort of shortsighted bad assumptions I assume (correct or not) BF is using). I mean there is Achtung Panzer Op Star on Steam, Close Combat gateway to Caen on Steam, I am sure it will only be time before BF moves to include Steam as well, and if I am wrong, well... thats sad. Thank you for the effort, but I will hold out a little longer and hope that my voice is heard by BF and keep showing my support for Steam release(s). But this argument unfortunately contradicts the other main argument against Steam that 'Steam users will not buy it because it is too complex and too expensive'. Under the premise I just stated, then only the minority 'real' fans and community members of this sort of game will buy in through Steam and thus not spoil the community. And even if 'everyone' buys in who cares, BF does not have to cater to the idiots' requests for rocket tanks, do they? As you say, a labor of love, thus it is solely their choice to spoil development or not. So what if the new people whine? They do not need to cater to them just as they do not cater to them today. The only difference would be more revenue which may help produce more (good) games, and more quality players as well! (And more idiots, but if they hate the game so much why did they buy it in the first place and why did they continue playing and continue being a part of the community?)

You really are clueless, aren't you? Do you know simple logical arguments? My claim is that if it was on Steam, more people would buy it. Period. You respond that because I am not buying it while it is NOT on Steam, that means my argument is false. .... ?!?!?!?!? WHAT?!?!? That only proves my argument! It is NOT on Steam and not being bought! And thats not even my real argument, I only claim *I* alone am not buying it because it is not on Steam as some sort of silly activism (just as you may avoid buying a quality shirt because it is made in a sweatshop). I never, not once, claimed that the Steam population in general will not buy it solely because it is not on Steam. I am aware of many people that regularly use Steam but also own CM games. I simply claim that MORE people will buy it if it is on Steam. Simple logic, simple statistics: If you have a subset of a population, the larger the sample size the more of that subset you will get. So by adding Steam's userbase to your sample, you will (probably) yield more of the subset in your sample. And if you are unable to keep up with this simple logic, the 'population' is computer game players, the 'subset' is people willing to buy CM, and the 'sample size' is people aware CM even exists. Its funny, here I am trying to see MORE Combat Mission players and MORE revenue for Battlefront and you accuse me of arrogance. While you are trying to keep it some niche game, hidden from the masses, to keep yourself feeling like some grognard elitist. Yep, I'm arrogant alright. And I do not claim those people are 'wrong' or bad in any way. Thats the difference between a Steam fan and a guy like sburke. He feels it is his way or the highway all else is bad. I just want to see more success for the series and more ways to get it to users.

Thanks for that info, I honestly did not know that.

Valid observation. But to do so would endorse a ****ty model, speaking with my wallet matters more than my complaining posts here; if I buy the games anyways they have no incentive to change (for the better). But I also own many, many games. I have more games than time to play them, so I really do not mind denying myself a few extra to avoid inconveniences associated with them. Here are some direct quotes all from unique posters on a forum thread regarding Combat Mission games: "I bought Battle for Normandy, but unintalled it only to find out that my download link expired and I have no way to get the game anymore." "I had Shock Force with the Marine module but I don't have the download link anymore." "I highly recommend searching gamersgate or other d2d services before buying from battlefront." "I had the Marines module but due to Battlefront's awesomeness I can't get the installer anymore." All of the posters praise the games (not shown) but despise the method of distribution (shown). Steam eliminates any worries like these and allows me to play cross platform on different devices, very easily, as well as puts all my games in one, easy to access, auto updating place. I have even *re-bought* games on Steam that I own on cd, dvd, or other download distribution. It is not a matter of money, but principle for me. I can assure you that if I did not have a backlog of existing games I have impulse bought (on Steam) but yet to put a single minute into, I would buy the CM games from BF right now... but it is an inconvenience to do so and ultimately not worth it to me, vs the benefit of financially punishing BF for their silliness.

This argument comes up all the time as a reason to not be on Steam for these types of games; but it is a poor argument because those "idiots" are not going to buy the game regardless so what difference does it make if the complain? The people who will pay that much will pay that much just as they do today, only from a larger potential customer base which leads to larger sales. its simple math and logic to figure that one out. (and I am not trying to push that argument on to you, just using your mention of it for my own point) Not to mention its not like BF has to move 100% over to Steam (yes it takes more resources to maintain different versions, but expanded sales would hopefully make up for and go beyond that), all Steam does is allow existing and potential customers one more option to purchase through. As a total side, Valve has shown that reduced price sales ultimately result in MORE revenue. Period. Frequently putting a game on sale on Steam will generate MORE revenue over time than leaving it at 'full price' over time. That is because the price complainers, holdouts, or lower budget users then have the opportunity to buy the game which they otherwise would never, ever have bought. All that said, Combat Mission is not a $60 game series. Its <35 dollars for most and as low as 10 dollars for one. So price complainers are really not relevant to this issue.

Why would I have more posts if I do not play? Today was just one of many times I have googled "Combat mission Steam" and finally decided to actually voice my opinion on the matter rather than just resigning myself for another couple months.