Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
shocker28

Steam

Recommended Posts

Just was wondering why CMBN or CMFI is not available on Steam. I know I'm probably in the minority here but I don't understand why it wouldn't make sense to make your games available to the Steam community.

At the very least I would like to see the game not crash when I try to start it with the Steam overlay. But back to my point. There's other battle front games available on steam such as the Theater of War series.

Now that 2.0 will have pausing available I could see a lot of people being more open to this game and also being more accessible. I'm sure there's people out there that would love the game but don't even know it exist. There's all ready a steam group that 150+ strong

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a post by Steve

Unlike the average Steam user, we have seen contracts. They aren't to our liking. Therefore we aren't interested in being carried by Steam.

The problem with a lot of the comments here is there is an assumption that going with Steam would result in a net positive effect. Broader exposure, more diverse customer base, etc. etc. Guys... we're very clever game publishers. We've been doing this for 11 years and have outlived more companies than I can count. Don't you think we would have thought of these rather obvious possible positives? :D Seriously! So I think it would be wise to assume that we have:

1. Thought of all angles, including ones not mentioned here.

2. Seen the contract and assessed how the angles and the contract might work in our favor.

3. Taken into consideration things we've observed/read about how Steam works.

4. Still concluded that Steam isn't likely to result in a net positive outcome for us.

We will not be on Steam unless the equation changes so that we perceive a good chance of a net positive outcome. Customer requests for being on Steam, or against Steam, have zero impact on the equation. Therefore, asking us to be on Steam or to stay off Steam won't change or preserve the status quo.

Steve

Click the Linkback for the full discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey thanks for the link. Obviously this has already been thought through and talked about and i can understand their stand on not using it.

And so on that note can we at least get a lobby of some type in game for us real time players? I get the fact that the majority of players enjoy the pbem style of play. I also play pbem because it can be difficult at times to find a real time opponent.

If the developers will lose money by using steam which is obviously why they aren't using it. Wouldn't it at least make sense to put in their own live multi player match up system?

I get that you guys have your target audience and seem happy with the way things are but there is always room to improve. I wouldn't expect an overflow of new players due to adding said lobby but its definitely a turn off for a player who's never played the game to see there's no match up lobby.

Plus it opens up new opportunity to do cool stuff. Like the ability to drop in as an observer on a game. It be pretty cool to watch all the action live with out having to do all the thinking behind it.

I love the game but would really like to see some kind of lobby for multiplayer and maybe at some point if you had setup the lobby making the game 2vs2 would be awesome.

Also would like to see real aircraft flying not just sound effects and iron rain and also live para troopers to drop in behind enemy lines... that be cool too. So would hitting the lottery for 100 mil but i dont see that happening either lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me and others the lobby would be a new features and help people find opponents for online games.

Like are you that set in your ways that you completely dismiss other wants to improve the game. I am honestly amazed at how quick the turnaround for the new modules have come. I find it hard to believe it would be soo difficult to have a lobby in game where players could meet and at least exchange ips at the very least instead of have to use forums to find games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any feature we include takes a certain amount of time. For any one release we have a limited amount of time available. If we take time to do a lobby matching system, we don't have that time for other things. So we have to make choices and those choices come from a list of literally endless requests. That in turn means that for every one feature we put into the game, literally thousands aren't.

I'm with Womble on this one. For the amount of time it would take to code, test, debug, and maintain a lobby system we could do a large number of other things. Since the lobby would be used by a minority of customers it's better we focus our attention mostly on things which benefit all (or at least the majority) of customers.

I don't see a lobby happening any time soon.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an observation. 3 BFC posts yesterday. Either all 3 subjects were of high importance, or BFC is really close to releasing CMFI giving Steve time to cruise/comment on the forums.

I vote Steve step into the lobby and make an announcement about the imminent (early) release of CMFI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my humble opinion ... but RT multiplayer is, in large part, what sells modern games. The bigger and better the multiplayer functionality is, the broader the sales. I would think things like having a lobby (even if outside the game through community chat systems like TeamSpeak and such) and CoPlay practically pay for the coding and development time necessary to make them.

The PBEM WeGo system is awesome and genuinely revolutionary (I would love to see live WeGo MP) ... but reading this forum I sometimes get the feeling it's also keeping the game out of reach of the interests of many current wargamers, almost as if it's written to keep the old ASL crowd happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with Womble on this one. For the amount of time it would take to code, test, debug, and maintain a lobby system we could do a large number of other things. Since the lobby would be used by a minority of customers it's better we focus our attention mostly on things which benefit all (or at least the majority) of customers.

I agree with Steve, keep improving the game, people will find other way to find an opponent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Has Said

"single players are STILL the majority of our customer base, and likely always will be,

we're continuing to cater to our majority customers with features that even the MP customers need in order for them to enjoy the game.

MP is an extension of the game, it isn't the game itself. Never forget that."

From here

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1262633&highlight=majority+players#post1262633

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand not putting the newer titles on Steam due to a loss of revenue from the core player base, but what about Shock Force and Afghanistan? Those games have pretty much been put to bed at this point. Why not just stick them on there and let a few million gamers know that the Combat Mission series is a thing that exists? Even *gasp* let them go on sale every once in awhile.

I think I've referenced him here before, but a great example is Jeff Vogel from Spiderweb Software. He makes old school RPGs and charged premium prices for them. For years he mostly sold to a hardcore fanbase and was adamantly against Steam (sound familiar?). Then one day he broke down and released his newest game on it, at a much cheaper price, and to much wailing on the forums. In his own words it entirely changed his business for the better, not just from profits but from greater exposure. Now all of his games come out on Steam and he also still sells from his website at higher prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can understand not putting the newer titles on Steam due to a loss of revenue from the core player base, but what about Shock Force and Afghanistan? Those games have pretty much been put to bed at this point. Why not just stick them on there and let a few million gamers know that the Combat Mission series is a thing that exists? Even *gasp* let them go on sale every once in awhile.

I think I've referenced him here before, but a great example is Jeff Vogel from Spiderweb Software. He makes old school RPGs and charged premium prices for them. For years he mostly sold to a hardcore fanbase and was adamantly against Steam (sound familiar?). Then one day he broke down and released his newest game on it, at a much cheaper price, and to much wailing on the forums. In his own words it entirely changed his business for the better, not just from profits but from greater exposure. Now all of his games come out on Steam and he also still sells from his website at higher prices.

+1

Better be quite, though .... the ASL crowd will come haul you off to the nearest glue factory. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not just stick them on there and let a few million gamers know that the Combat Mission series is a thing that exists?

Because that's not how Steam works :D It works kinda like retail. You want to get exposure for more than a few minutes? Guess what has to happen? And that makes sense because how can Steam promote every single game exactly the same way all the time? It's not possible.

I think I've referenced him here before, but a great example is Jeff Vogel from Spiderweb Software. He makes old school RPGs and charged premium prices for them. For years he mostly sold to a hardcore fanbase and was adamantly against Steam (sound familiar?). Then one day he broke down and released his newest game on it, at a much cheaper price, and to much wailing on the forums. In his own words it entirely changed his business for the better, not just from profits but from greater exposure. Now all of his games come out on Steam and he also still sells from his website at higher prices.

Steam is definitely good for developers who basically aren't doing a good job selling to their potential audience on their own. I don't know if that's the case with Spiderweb Software or not, but it is possible. Based on 12 years of selling via the Internet before people said it was a viable tool, being in retail when retail was still king, selling through various partnerships (now mostly online only), Amazon.com, and Apple's app store... we think we have a pretty good idea how big our potential market is and how best to tap into it.

Steam currently has some very big downsides or us. We have looked at these in ways none of you are in a position to do. Our conclusions have been, and continue to be, that Steam's cons outweigh its pros. Until that changes we would be absolutely foolish to sign up for Steam. Instead we are happily experimenting with Apple's system because the cons are outweighed by the pros. It puts us in front of millions of eyeballs and we're liking the early results so far.

We are, however, keeping an eye on both Steam and its new competitor Origin (EA's creation). We aren't afraid to try new things. We're simply smart enough to not try things we don't think have much chance of success. Which is probably why we're still in business when so many others aren't.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...