To all of you who want something for nothing

[dieseltaylor]

In what world was CMBN 1.0 a lame duck. ? You are arguing that the upgrade is not worth the 10 bucks and then saying it makes it a totally different "saleable" game. Seriously you need to look at just how lame your argument is and stop wanting to keep the box the cake you just ate came in as well.

Hmm. Tricky. The argument was that commercially speaking BF really should make both games on the same platform for the following reason:

I am going to offer you two cars and one is called a CMFI 2012 and is the new improved model of the CMBN 2011. Which one are 99% of the public going to go for?

My money is they go fo the improved version. They may like it lots but then are they going to want to buy the older game and learn its shortcomings - very probably not.

Now I could offer you two models called CMBN 2012 and CMFI 2012 and it is just possible you prefer Normandy, or you like both and will buy both. And whats more they have the same engine so its easier for new parts

I hope that is clear.

My beef about paying for the upgrade is that I think I have been a guinea pig for CMBN whilst it has had its kinks knocked out. As it happens I am also an idiot and paid BF eleven or twelve bucks of which they will get ten bucks for all the past pleasure I had with CMAK. And perhaps one day will have with CMX2V2 : )

[fmj]

It is not surprising that we have people complaining about the $10 charge for a MAJOR upgrade to CMBN. Also not surprising that it amounts to people wanting something for nothing.

Steve

I definately do not want anything from BF for free. Much depends on the pricing of MG module combined with 2.0 upgrade (aka dlc).

I'm not excited that I have to purchase something extra for CMBN/CW to play M.Garden. Hence I may in fact purchase neither, and you lose a customer x2, really depends on MG pricing.

Purchased-

CMBN for $60+$10(s&h)= $70 on 04/16/11

CW for $45+$10(s&h)= $55 on 06/03/11

total for both= $125

Also purchased all the old CM mission games waayyyy back.

I like hard discs for my games so I don't have to deal with 1yr DL expiration dates which I think is lame. So do I want to pay $10+($10 s&h)= $20 for 2.0? Not really. Especially if that means another $55 to play your next module MG. Which would bring that to $75ish bucks.

I appreciate BFs work on patches and continuing the series. But I do not want to feel like I must purchase an upgrade to CMBN/CW to play (buy) the next MG module.

With all that said, can I purchase the 2.0 upgrade for $10 and burn it to my own disc so i don't have to think about the 1yr expiration? $20 for the 2.0 disc seems a tad high for me. I also passed on CM fortress italy as I felt CMBN/CW in its current state was not really doing it for me, which 2.0 may have addressed. Please consider carefully your pricing on upgrades, especially if they hinge on buying the next seperate game module alltogether.

So if 2.0 can be dl'd and saved to disc for $10 bucks, and MG module is priced around CW pricing, then I will likely purchase both and possibly F.Italy at some point. If that sounds like nitpicking and trying to "get something for nothing" then I think I will pass on future purchases from BF and you will have lost a loyal customer.

[Wodin]

"...we will simply charge everybody $100 per base game and offer 3 or 4 Upgrades at no extra cost."

+2 to that. You get more money upfront and save time and energy from not having to deal with online orders and CC fees etc that add up at later dates. And more satisfied happy customers who have the illusion of getting upgrades for free.

No thanks..couldn't afford that sort of money in a one of payment..it would price me out of the game.

[Wodin]

Not sure why certain people are even posting in the forum or want to be part of the community..very very odd indeed.

Oh the lovely ignore button. If everyone ignores them it's like they don't exist and they will be moaning and whining to no body..

[sfhand]

...

My beef about paying for the upgrade is that I think I have been a guinea pig for CMBN whilst it has had its kinks knocked out. As it happens I am also an idiot and paid BF eleven or twelve bucks of which they will get ten bucks for all the past pleasure I had with CMAK. And perhaps one day will have with CMX2V2 : )

So you didn't/don't enjoy playing CMBN v1. I get it. But you were'nt a guinea pig by any stretch of the imagination, so please get off the cross... we need the wood. In the future you could wait until you've tried the demo before buying since you can't seem to see your part in this and instead view yourself as a victim of BF.

[akd]

I like hard discs for my games so I don't have to deal with 1yr DL expiration dates which I think is lame. So do I want to pay $10+($10 s&h)= $20 for 2.0? Not really. Especially if that means another $55 to play your next module MG. Which would bring that to $75ish bucks

...

With all that said, can I purchase the 2.0 upgrade for $10 and burn it to my own disc so i don't have to think about the 1yr expiration? $20 for the 2.0 disc seems a tad high for me. I also passed on CM fortress italy as I felt CMBN/CW in its current state was not really doing it for me, which 2.0 may have addressed. Please consider carefully your pricing on upgrades, especially if they hinge on buying the next seperate game module alltogether.

So if 2.0 can be dl'd and saved to disc for $10 bucks, and MG module is priced around CW pricing, then I will likely purchase both and possibly F.Italy at some point. If that sounds like nitpicking and trying to "get something for nothing" then I think I will pass on future purchases from BF and you will have lost a loyal customer.

There is nothing stopping you from backing up any of your DLs from Battlefront (including the 2.0 upgrade) to a drive or disk.

[Wodin]

I wasn't going to bother with the upgrade as I was quite happy with the game without it..I'd have been happy with it upgrade or no upgrade. However for $10 I thought what the hell and bought it today..

I just don't understand the moaning over $10. If you don't think it's worth it don't buy it..the game is fine without it and we were told it would never get upgraded at one point. BF could have said sod it and not bothered at all.

The Internet...thats all I can say...the Internet...it's full of em.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Wodin;

"Not sure why certain people are even posting in the forum or want to be part of the community..very very odd indeed.

Oh the lovely ignore button. If everyone ignores them it's like they don't exist and they will be moaning and whining to no body.."

Because internet anonymity is the strongest drug in the world.

People post things and then see them written out for the whole world to see, whether what they posted is of value or not, or whether people care about what they posted or not.

Its heady stuff if you think about it, even if you have no fecking idea of what you are posting about, you can do it anyway.

What's the worst penalty, to be banned from the site?

Unless you're posting child porn, no one is coming after you.

[Collingwood]

I was temped to type this in shouty caps:

sense of perspective

[JRMC1879]

Hmm. Tricky. The argument was that commercially speaking BF really should make both games on the same platform for the following reason:

I am going to offer you two cars and one is called a CMFI 2012 and is the new improved model of the CMBN 2011. Which one are 99% of the public going to go for?

My money is they go fo the improved version. They may like it lots but then are they going to want to buy the older game and learn its shortcomings - very probably not.

Now I could offer you two models called CMBN 2012 and CMFI 2012 and it is just possible you prefer Normandy, or you like both and will buy both. And whats more they have the same engine so its easier for new parts

I hope that is clear.

My beef about paying for the upgrade is that I think I have been a guinea pig for CMBN whilst it has had its kinks knocked out. As it happens I am also an idiot and paid BF eleven or twelve bucks of which they will get ten bucks for all the past pleasure I had with CMAK. And perhaps one day will have with CMX2V2 : )

But you still make no sensible point. what you seemingly fail to understand is that the only people paying 10$ for the upgrade are those WHO HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT THE CMBN V1.0 game - they have also already said going forward only V2.0 of normandy will exist. Where are the lost sales therefore in your argument ? they are infact offering exactly the situation you suggest they should.

Do you read your posts back to yourself ?

Calling yourself a ginea pig just because you have played an earlier version of a game is ridiculous. Virtually every game out there these days gets a version two you have to pay for.

The only argument to be made is that essentially those paying for the 10$ upgrade have funded the development of that for new customers who get V2.0 normandy when they buy new. Steve already said that didnt cover the cost of doing it and if thats the case I am more than happy to do it otherwise it wouldnt have happened.

Seriously you are talking about BF in the same terms as microsoft and given your mealie mouthed critisism I wonder why you come here or buy theri games at all. Why dont you just spend your money on something you dont feel you are being fleeced over.

Really your bitching is nauseatingly petty.

[Battlefront.com]

Good to hear the other side so we can actually talk constructively about perceptions and reputation.

Well, that remains to be seen

I don't doubt the truth of that but the other way to put it is how many CMBN's would you sell if it were not updated to V2.0? Not very many.

This isn't relevant (see below), but it's not even accurate. There is so few games out there for wargamers to choose from, and we have no pressure to stop selling them (i.e. we are not a retail shop), we have quite healthy sales for years after. We're still selling CMx1 games some 9-12 years later, though obviously not many these days. Average shelf life for a retail game is a couple of months.

So the decision to upgrade CMBN means BF have a highly saleable product rather than a lame duck and can recover the previous investment in CMBN v1.0.

False and still irrelevant regarding your wanting something for nothing. Here's how your logic goes...

You bought CMBN v1.0 with a set of features for $55. You had a choice to buy or not buy, but based on what features were offered you decided it was worth purchasing, so you did. Now you've had the game for about a year and a half. How much have you played the game in terms of time? How does that compare to what you pay for other games or entertainment per hour of usage? Favorable, I'm sure.

OK, so now an Upgrade 2.0 comes out with an entirely new set of features for $10. Since you did not pay a penny for those features, why should you be entitled to them for free? Any argument you attempt to make which doesn't address this fundamental point is irrelevant.

Most game developers I suspect do not bring out the same game within months of the original utilising pretty much all the same theatre rules and scale etc etc. and if they did charging full whack might raise some hackles.

Sure, but who has done that? Certainly we haven't. What most wargame companies would do is sell Normandy 2.0 for $55 and not offer an Upgrade to the people who bought it 1 day before or when it was released roughly 1.5 years ago.

I did buy the upgrade a couple of days ago. I do try to keep you in business despite the opinions that seem to be held on pesky customers and the need to communicate.

You purchased the upgrade because you see value in it. Then you complain that it has no value and you should be given it for free? You've certainly got me confused as to what your point is.

Steve

[von Paulus]

It is all fair & square...

But then it makes me wonder how did BFC survive with BO/BB/AK, considering it was (roughly) a release every two years and a cheap game.

Certainly what we can't estimate here is the costs of development. Does a CMBN Upgrade in 2012 costs more to develop than CMBO back in 1999 ? In my view, that seems to be more or less the case, and a little explanation on that fact would help so as to understand why BFC is still using a survival terminology.

I am pointing out this because it is obvious that the income must have soared since CMSF and its new marketing strategy.

And if this new strategy is actually necessary for survival, it would be interesting to know how did BFC survive between 1999 and 2005, since it is now depicted as a way not to sell your products.

[MikeyD]

Somehow this reminds me of that old joke

"So how did you like that new restaurant?" "Oh, it was awful. The food was lousy and the portions were SO SMALL!"

So why are you complaining about not getting enough of something you don't like and don't play? You wanted the v2.0 upgrade for free so you could choke-down another unappetizing hour of play?

[fmj]

There is nothing stopping you from backing up any of your DLs from Battlefront (including the 2.0 upgrade) to a drive or disk.

Cool, good to know. Purchased both CMBN/CW as dl plus discs. Wanted to make sure the 2.0 dl was in a patch form that can be saved, re-used, and would not expire in one year. Will BF stand by this?

Seeing as I purchased CMBN well over a year ago, I'd be mighty annoyed to have an "expired" version that could not be used.

[sburke]

It is all fair & square...

But then it makes me wonder how did BFC survive with BO/BB/AK, considering it was (roughly) a release every two years and a cheap game.

Certainly what we can't estimate here is the costs of development. Does a CMBN Upgrade in 2012 costs more to develop than CMBO back in 1999 ? In my view, that seems to be more or less the case, and a little explanation on that fact would help so as to understand how BFC is still using a survival terminology.

I am pointing out this because it is obvious that the income must have soared since CMSF and its new marketing strategy.

And if this new strategy is actually necessary for survival, it would be interesting to know how did BFC survived between 1999 and 2005, since it is now depicted as a way not to sell your products.

I believe they have answered that albeit in a rather long post on the subject. I'll see if I can't find it as it was an excellent read at the time.

I think you may also be confusing two different issues as well but Steve would have to chime in to truly clarify.

The first is the switch from CMx1 to CMx2 was driven more on technical merits. Changing to the new marketing strategy/upgrade path is a much more recent phenomena and has more to do with their ability to increase staff to help drive the new strategy. Consider this - in the past 18 months they have released more material than they did in the previous couple of years. That is likely the result of a couple things including the stability of the engine and increased staff. That increased staff is the direct result of developing the marketing plan to support the projected running costs of the business.

If you think about the summer announcement and the sheer quantity of product this team intends to generate it is pretty staggering. We already have two separate games with at least three more (Bulge, Bagration and CMSFs) projected for the coming year (and that isn't even counting modules). Yeah BF is still lagging slightly behind their release predictions, but actually not by all that much. How people continue to find the s**t colored lining on this cloud is just beyond me.

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not excited that I have to purchase something extra for CMBN/CW to play M.Garden.

Now, this is a point I have some sympathy with! We could have made Market Garden compatible with v1.0, but then it wouldn't be compatible with v2.0. Seeing as there's a better than good chance that people still interested in CMBN, on the whole, are also interested in upgrading to v2.0... and new v2.0 customers would be denied the ability to purchase/play Arnhem... it wasn't really a tough decision for us to make.

Additionally, we are planning more content for CMBN. Do we keep making v1.0 compatible product only because a few people aren't willing to part with $5-$10? I can tell you from a financial standpoint that would be suicide.

Hence I may in fact purchase neither, and you lose a customer x2, really depends on MG pricing.

If $5 or $10 is enough to make you not buy, I put forward the argument you wouldn't buy anyway. Or at least that would be true of most "lost customers". So while we regret seeing anybody opt out for financial reasons, we have to be realistic about our costs and the wants of our other customers.

I've said this a million times... the companies (or people!) that try to please everybody all the time will likely wind up alienating most making themselves miserable in the process.

I like hard discs for my games so I don't have to deal with 1yr DL expiration dates which I think is lame. So do I want to pay $10+($10 s&h)= $20 for 2.0? Not really. Especially if that means another $55 to play your next module MG. Which would bring that to $75ish bucks.

DVD-Rs cost a few cents a piece. Don't have a DVD-R drive? You can get an 8 or 10GB flash drive for... what... $30? The backup options these days are plentiful and super cheap. I don't accept we are standing in the way of someone having a reasonable backup plan.

Plus, Apple just announced that it will start phasing out optical drives from their computers. Inevitably so will PC manufactures, just like they did after Apple was the first to phase out 5.25 and 3.5 drives. Which means any backup system that relies upon CDs/DVDs will eventually run into problems when one goes and buys a new computer.

Flash drives are the future.

With all that said, can I purchase the 2.0 upgrade for $10 and burn it to my own disc so i don't have to think about the 1yr expiration?

Sure. You can do that with anything you download from us. You can even duplicate your DVDs that you purchased from us. As others say, it's just a file (or set of files).

$20 for the 2.0 disc seems a tad high for me.

It does to me too

Please consider carefully your pricing on upgrades, especially if they hinge on buying the next seperate game module alltogether.

Already done There's not a lot of room to go down from $10 that actually means anything to most people. I say that because most people spend that much every couple of days on either coffee, soda, cigarettes, etc. If you are someone who has coffee, sugar, and nicotine addictions you probably spend $10 every 4 hours. Poor sods!

So if 2.0 can be dl'd and saved to disc for $10 bucks, and MG module is priced around CW pricing, then I will likely purchase both and possibly F.Italy at some point. If that sounds like nitpicking and trying to "get something for nothing" then I think I will pass on future purchases from BF and you will have lost a loyal customer.

Nope, this sounds like someone willing to put a value on his entertainment and determine if the pricing is in line with it. There's no argument with that. Never should be either.

Steve

[Zatoichi]

The Internet...thats all I can say...the Internet...it's full of em.

Ha!

One day people will realise that BF only makes the games to justify hosting these forums - it's all a twisted conspiracy I tells ya!

Darn, there's a hole in my tin foil hat, and I spent my last $10 on the upgrade!

Curse you!

[Battlefront.com]

It is all fair & square...

But then it makes me wonder how did BFC survive with BO/BB/AK, considering it was (roughly) a release every two years and a cheap game.

By the skin of our teeth and sheer determination, that's how The CMx2 strategy is not an accident. Continuing the CMx1 strategy beyond CMAK would have resulted in us being like just about every other wargame company out there... out of business or relegated to perpetual mediocrity. We weren't interested in either option.

Certainly what we can't estimate here is the costs of development. Does a CMBN Upgrade in 2012 costs more to develop than CMBO back in 1999 ?

Out of pocket, absolutely. CMBO was made by Charles and I with almost no outside help. Which meant we didn't have to pay hardly anything to anybody to make the game. We self funded our own labor, which wasn't easy, and then eventually had to cough up some money for the the website, manuals, etc. That sort of development is impossible these days. At least not on the scale necessary for what you guys expect from CM.

But this isn't exactly a fair comparison. A better one would be the cost of CMBB vs. CMBN. They took roughly the same time to develop and were sold for roughly the same price point. Excluding Charles and I we had 1-2 employees while making CMBB, we had the equivalent of 5-6 for CMBN. Some things cost less to do now than 10 years ago, but overall the costs of doing business are proportionally higher.

In my view, that seems to be more or less the case, and a little explanation on that fact would help so as to understand why BFC is still using a survival terminology.

We're not as bad off as most developers (because most die after during or after their first product), but we certainly aren't able to live more than a comfortable middle class lifestyle. Which is fine, though it would be nice to put out a game like Angry Birds once and a while

I am pointing out this because it is obvious that the income must have soared since CMSF and its new marketing strategy.

Sorta. We have also had to deal with the death of retail sales income. Which means a lot of what goes on now is a replacement for previous income opportunities we once had.

And if this new strategy is actually necessary for survival, it would be interesting to know how did BFC survive between 1999 and 2005, since it is now depicted as a way not to sell your products.

By being smarter and having longer term vision than most The CMx2 strategy was borne in 2003ish because we realized the CMx1 strategy would result in being out of business sooner rather than later. Why certain death? Even wargamers (the vast majority, anyway) demand technological progress for their money, so either keep up with the times or suffer the consequences. Keeping the same cost structure for 2012 as 1999 is just not possible.

Most developers would have still opted for the suicide path because in the short term it doesn't look so bad until it's too late. Arguably we should have skipped CMAK and got a 1 year jump on our CMx2 strategy. We cut it closer than we would have liked, so that 1 year head start would have provided more cushion than we had.

Steve

[von Paulus]

Great answer, thanks.

[fmj]

Nope, this sounds like someone willing to put a value on his entertainment and determine if the pricing is in line with it. There's no argument with that. Never should be either.

Steve

Thank you very much for your reply and efforts to produce a great game with continued efforts on improvement. I was a little put-off by the 2.0 patch dl expiring in one year, so thanks for clarifying.

Will purchase the 2.0 dl (even though I have the fancy collectors case holder). Ten $s is plenty reasonable for continued work, improvements, features, and upgrades. Especially considering the game has been patched several times. I look fwd to the next in series and maybe even F.Italy. Best wishes for the hollidays and on projects forward. Regards.

[Father Ted]

This here is the problem:

We promise technical fixes to existing features and occasionally some small improvements. That's all you get for your purchase price because that's all we're offering.

Steve

It seems to me that "technical fixes and occasionally some small improvements" is a highly subjective phrase.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining, and will soon buy the upgrade, followed by the MG module. I can see, however, that "technical fixes" and "small improvements" may mean different things to different people

[Spanish Bombs]

OK, so if I'm definitely buying Market Garden, and will definitely need 2.0 for Market Garden, and the 'upgrade' for Market Garden v 2.0 is $5 for those that don't have 2.0 already, the question is whether paying $5 ($10 current cost of 2.0 - $5 less for MG when it arrives) is worth it to play CMBN and CW between now and MG...

Which seems like a no-brainer, and I'm a bit chagrined to have put this much thought into $5, with the caveat that any active/regular PBEM opponents should be pretty much on the same page.

[Nidan1]

I was temped to type this in shouty caps:

sense of perspective

Why didnt you?

[Rocky Balboa]

It seems to me that "technical fixes and occasionally some small improvements" is a highly subjective phrase.

When Steve says "technical fixes and occasionally some small improvements" he is talking about a patch which is usually free. Where some people get confused is telling the difference between a patch(free) and an Upgrade(Not free but nominal cost).

As Steve said a patch is a fix (something not working as intended) or a small improvement to an existing feature. An upgrade would be New features or major changes to an existing feature. This is where it gets somewhat subjective because what I might think is a small improvement could in fact be a major amount of work from a programming standpoint.

This is why as the consumer we have to be realistic and trust to a certain extent that BF is pricing their products honestly & fairly. So far in the ~12 years I have been purchasing from them, I haven't had any reason to believe otherwise.

The bottom line is, you have several tools at your disposal to determine value before purchasing.

You have this forum to come to and ask questions and read other players perspective.

You have reviews from magazines and websites.

BF always provides a demo of a new version so you can try it out for yourself. (this one is huge and I can't stress this enough, especially if you are a first time purchaser)

After a number of years you will hopefully have a trusted relationship with a company that has consistently provided great entertainment value for your dollar.

[JonS]

It seems to me that "technical fixes and occasionally some small improvements" is a highly subjective phrase.

This was expanded on a few posts later:

3. Bug fixes and gameplay fixes to existing features will continue to be FREE as they always have been. We might even include minor new features, but we promise none.

So, 'occasionally' might turn out to mean 'never.' Or, to phrase that slightly differently, instead of quibbling whether something is a 'small' or 'large' improvement, be happy that we don't have to pay for all improvements.