Abandonware

[Harv]

You guys should be ashamed. You toss out a mobilized half hearted "game" with shiny graphics that is pretty much guaranteed to sell on name recognition alone, and then simply abandon it. What a waste. In a year full of fantastic ports and AAA titles being released on mobile to great acclaim, I can't believe this embarrassment hasn't been pulled and this forum flushed to remove all trace that it ever existed.

In fact you'd be amazed at the number of people (me included) who don't even own/use traditional computers any more since the sophistication of App Store games has increased exponentially over the last couple of years and made the iPad into a serious gaming device for "serious" games.

Oh, and, I just had to say "Pffft...." to that one.

Might be time to rethink that position on mobile gaming perhaps? Or will the next CM game be a freemium match 3 to better fit with Battlefront's idea of what people are still playing on tablets these days?

[Guest]

Active development has continued and patches have been released, so it hasn't been abandoned. I myself put time into the game last year. I'm wondering what it is we should be ashamed about. Was it that you didn't like the game? Or are you comparing it to, say, the mobile version of XCOM in terms of "heartedness", which likely cost more to make than any number of desktop CM titles combined?

I would like to discuss your concerns, but right now I'm not sure whether you a) liked the game and want us to continue development or didn't like the game in comparison to AAA mobile titles and wish we hadn't done it. Or c), something else entirely which I'm not getting properly from your post.

[MikeyD]

Harv, you don't own a computer anymore? You seem to be complaining that you can't get CMBN to run on an ipad.

[Harv]

Harv, you don't own a computer anymore? You seem to be complaining that you can't get CMBN to run on an ipad.

Nope, I don't think CMBN could ever work on an iPad. IMO there are too many fiddly bits for it to fit on a small screen with any sort of a usable UI. See my reply to Phil for more detail.

And I still sadly have a computer, though the day is getting closer to finally being rid of it. There are some decent book keeping/accounting apps now, as well as backup and storage solutions which should make this iMac the last traditional computer I'll probably own.

[Harv]

Active development has continued and patches have been released, so it hasn't been abandoned. I myself put time into the game last year. I'm wondering what it is we should be ashamed about. Was it that you didn't like the game? Or are you comparing it to, say, the mobile version of XCOM in terms of "heartedness", which likely cost more to make than any number of desktop CM titles combined?

I would like to discuss your concerns, but right now I'm not sure whether you a) liked the game and want us to continue development or didn't like the game in comparison to AAA mobile titles and wish we hadn't done it. Or c), something else entirely which I'm not getting properly from your post.

I pick (, sorta. I didn't like the game in comparison to CM in general, and wish you hadn't done it. Yet anyways. What I see in CM:T are far too many compromises, strange design decisions, poor UI and what appears to be a poor or misunderstood attitude towards mobile. I stated most of this in another thread(s?) so won't rehash it here, but this really strikes me as something that was popped into the casual mobile market to see how many fish would bite at the CM name.

I remember asking this on a forum somewhere when it was released...if this game as it sits had been released under a different name by a different publisher, would the response and reviews have been the same? Academic exercise sure, but I'd speculate that it wouldn't have as well as it did (assuming it did/is selling well) without the element of name recognition that Combat Mission brings.

[Battlefront.com]

Harv, may I remind you how your perception of our shift to CMx2 panned out? While you are certainly entitled to your opinion about CMT, I'm not going to apologize for something that people other than you seem to appreciate. Especially since you're flat out wrong with the various conspiracy theories you've tossed out.

Work continues on improving CMT. Admittedly not as fast as we'd like, but having too much to do and not enough time to do it in isn't something to be ashamed about. You'll see more about that soon. Though I'm going to bet a Loonie that you're still not going to be what you probably wanted it to be... a mobile version of CMx1 instead of it's own game. Call it a hunch

Steve

[Harv]

The thing of it is though, I actually kinda like CMx2 since it went to WWII Europe. It still seems a bit more like work than fun at times, but it isn't like I carry the heat of a thousand burning suns worth of hatred around for it. And this is just from playing the demos, I'm guessing some of the full game scenarios are a little better and familiarity with the controls would just improve the experience.

However, that really doesn't much matter when it comes to the touchy feely version, which really needs help, IMO, no matter my disposition towards CMx2. The gameplay still appears to be nothing more than a neutered version of CMBN, not "its own game", and as I said above I really don't think CMBN could ever make the transition to the small screen anyways.

I loaded this up again the other week to see if my exposure to the demos would change my impression, and if anything I have even more criticism towards CMT now, especially in the UI department. The gameplay is still more challenge than flow, with far too little information presented to the player IMO. Any time I need to think "how do I..." or "why did that..." when I'm playing a game, I consider that to be a problem with the design as it can ruin the immersion aspect that I'm looking for in my entertainment.

And I don't necessarily want CMx1 per se on the iPad, what I would like to see is the CMx1 experience on the iPad. You know, the one that grabbed our imaginations in 1999 like no other, the one that made us clamour for Just One More Demo Scenario, the one that still appears to be going strong today, 14 years later. That may or may not be exactly CMx1 itself that I'm looking for, but I don't think CMT in its current form can ever have the "personality" of the earlier series, or even what I see in CMx2. It's just too clumsy, and...sterile.

And as far as conspiracy theories go...well, I see what I see, I read what I read and I hear what I hear, and I come to conclusions based on that.

[Battlefront.com]

I appreciate the follow up, Harv. I know you had a very hard time with our move away from CMx1 and couldn't understand that, from our perspective, it was the only way to go. Having now made CMx2 games twice as long as CMx1 games, and able to support twice as much staff, I think you'll have to admit that we might have been onto something

CMT is definitely a learning experience for us as well as something we view as having evolutionary potential. Sometime soon (hint) you should try CMT again because you might find some of your misgivings softening.

I honestly don't know if we'll ever repeat the CMx1 "experience" again, be it desktop or mobile device. Sometimes success has as much to do with timing as it did the product itself. Look at the original Star Wars. 6 movies since and it's still the one nearly all fans (who saw it when it came out) feel the most connection to. Even though all subsequent films improved their special effects and didn't change much else (including bad acting, lame jokes, over the top characters, etc. ). Certainly Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi didn't recapture the magic of Star Wars, just as CMBN and CMAK didn't recapture the magic of CMBO. Heck, not even the magic of the CMBO Beta Demo!

That said, it is our intention to try to make something totally unique for the iPad. I just don't have any idea when we're going to get around to it. I had a few ideas 2 years ago that we joked could make us rich enough to never make CM games again. But we'd have to stop making CM games in order to do that. Hence the dust gathering on it.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

And I don't necessarily want CMx1 per se on the iPad, what I would like to see is the CMx1 experience on the iPad. You know, the one that grabbed our imaginations in 1999 like no other, the one that made us clamour for Just One More Demo Scenario, the one that still appears to be going strong today, 14 years later.

Ah well, the world is a different place today than it was in 1999, and we along with it. CMBO represented a breakthrough in computer game design that would be extremely difficult to achieve today. It left a lot of jaws hanging open in amazement because there was nothing that did quite the same thing or later did it so well. But its very success meant that it raised our expectations far above what they had been before. To me it seems very dated now, but back then it was like a trip to outer space. You won't find that kind of experience in every box of corn flakes, more's the pity, but that's how life is. Be grateful if you have it once and make the best of the rest.

And now I will step off the soap box, if you please, before somebody comes along to push me off.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

I remember going to an upscale restaurant and having the most amazing Hungarian chicken dish. I tried replicating it at home a few times and came fairly close. I went back months later and found it to be meh... not what I remembered it to be, yet I'm sure it was the "same". One of the first times I learned that when you dine, the food sometimes has only a little to do with the experience.

Steve

[Harv]

Mike & Steve, I see what you're saying about the whole experience thing, and understand why you're saying it, and from where you sit you're probably absolutely right.

Unfortunately you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.

You're constantly looking forward with CMx2, and see the future of CM with the evolution of that franchise. CMx1 is something that you rightfully look at as a fantastic foundation to base the series on, and it admirably served its purpose in that regard, but now you're moving on.

On the PC at least.

I would hazard a guess that neither of you have embraced the tablet* in quite the way that I and many others have over the last few years. And for those of us that have, the tablet gaming scene isn't much removed from the PC wargame market of the late 90's. There are great opportunities to bring something new, interesting, and different to the device and quite a few developers are now doing just that to fill the vacuum of quality, long life span games. And because CM (and wargaming in general) is, and probably always will be, a niche product there isn't so much pressure to try to compete with the mounds of crapware that flood the various app stores, all that's really needed is to provide a rich, full, intelligent "experience" and I truly believe the market will respond. Much as it did with CMx1 all those years ago.

And I know you don't want to hear it, and you will definitely want to argue it, but CM:T brought very little, if anything, to the tablet in the way of that experience. And that's because of your perspective, towards both CMxX and also the app stores.

Now, if you were trying to simply bring a lite companion app to the mobile market for people to screw around with a bit when they couldn't play the "proper" version of CMx2 on their PC at home, then you have fully succeeded and I've wasted my time with any of this because I totally misunderstood and misread your intentions towards the app stores. However, if you were actually intending to bring a full featured, compelling, made for an entirely new device wargame to the tablet...well, let's just say I don't think neutering CMx2 and testing the market that way is the way to do it. And that's because of my perspective.

My advise (for what it's worth), if you're really serious about the app market, would be to go back to the drawing board, get outside the box, don't fixate on CMx2, find people who aren't PC-centric (or CM-centric for that matter) to consult with, do minimal testing on a PC if at all (this is critical to getting the UI right) and try to get the "experience" back, even if it's at the expense of technical or grognardish details. There is more than enough high speed low attention span stuff on the app stores, and more than a few people are tired of it already so try to get into that market. Not that I want to stroke your ego in the slightest Steve, but I've seen what you can do, and have done, and I'm thinking (hoping) you can pull it off again.

It might take a shift in perspective though.

*I'm using the word Tablet to ensure you don't think I'm talking about the Mobile market. I've interchanged the words before, but the Mobile (as in phone) market per se isn't what I want to refer to.

[Battlefront.com]

Mike & Steve, I see what you're saying about the whole experience thing, and understand why you're saying it, and from where you sit you're probably absolutely right.

Unfortunately you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.

Not quite. While I am definitely making the case about no CM product ever recapturing CMBO's "magic", I'm also stating that it's applicable to any product we release. Why? Because it is extraordinarily difficult to achieve such a success because a large amount of it has to do with factors well outside the scope of the game design. We could release a dozen non-CM, paradigm shifting games and have not one of them do more than repay us for the development effort.

I would hazard a guess that neither of you have embraced the tablet* in quite the way that I and many others have over the last few years.

I have an iPad and love it. Use it all the time. In fact, the little gaming I have time for is done on my iPad.

And for those of us that have, the tablet gaming scene isn't much removed from the PC wargame market of the late 90's. There are great opportunities to bring something new, interesting, and different to the device and quite a few developers are now doing just that to fill the vacuum of quality, long life span games. And because CM (and wargaming in general) is, and probably always will be, a niche product there isn't so much pressure to try to compete with the mounds of crapware that flood the various app stores, all that's really needed is to provide a rich, full, intelligent "experience" and I truly believe the market will respond. Much as it did with CMx1 all those years ago.

For every ONE product that hits big, there are hundreds that fall short. Doesn't matter if you are talking about games, movies, TV shows, artwork, literature... you name it. Even worse, some of the ones that succeeded big time were (IMHO) almost totally because of timing; Pet Rock, 50 Shades of Gray, Blair Witch Project, Farmville, Twilight... etc. By all creative and objective examinations of their merits as "works of art", none of them should have been the success they were. I can list dozens of things which qualitatively blew the doors off of those things, yet were commercial failures. We have been in this industry long enough to know that shooting for the moon usually means never getting very far off the ground.

And I know you don't want to hear it, and you will definitely want to argue it, but CM:T brought very little, if anything, to the tablet in the way of that experience. And that's because of your perspective, towards both CMxX and also the app stores.

This is factually incorrect. There are no other games like CMT on the mobile platform. So yeah, we did bring something new to it that wasn't there before. And it isn't exactly like it's desktop cousin either. It's just that, for whatever reason, it's not to your liking. So we are once again finding ourselves in a situation where we made a product that has an audience, but that audience apparently doesn't include you. I'd never say your wants and desires are misplaced, so you should try to cut us the same break.

Now, if you were trying to simply bring a lite companion app to the mobile market for people to screw around with a bit when they couldn't play the "proper" version of CMx2 on their PC at home, then you have fully succeeded and I've wasted my time with any of this because I totally misunderstood and misread your intentions towards the app stores

You have misread our intentions for this particular game. If we wanted to do something totally and completely different, it wouldn't be called Combat Mission. It probably wouldn't even be historical warfare at all, in fact. The designs I mentioned that are sitting around and gathering dust are more like what you're envisioning, though not WW2 warfare based at all. Therefore, I'm not sure what your interest level would be if we even managed to get one developed.

My advise (for what it's worth), if you're really serious about the app market, would be to go back to the drawing board, get outside the box, don't fixate on CMx2, find people who aren't PC-centric (or CM-centric for that matter) to consult with, do minimal testing on a PC if at all (this is critical to getting the UI right) and try to get the "experience" back, even if it's at the expense of technical or grognardish details. ...

We are serious about the app market, but there's more than one way to approach things. CMT is just the first one we've tried. We've sold a ton of CMTs. Way more than we thought we would, in fact. It's fulfilling a niche in mobile marketing and I don't see why we should abandon it simply because it's not the next Angry Birds. It's hard enough to make a successful game like CMT, so we're happy with the results.

However, for sure I'd like to make a billion Dollars off of some silly app that nobody can quite explain why they can't put it down. Who wouldn't But since we aren't rich and can't afford to gamble our futures on something wild and crazy different succeeding, with enormous odds against it, we're understandably more cautious in practice than we would otherwise be if there weren't potential downsides from a product that misses.

Not that I want to stroke your ego in the slightest Steve, but I've seen what you can do, and have done, and I'm thinking (hoping) you can pull it off again.

It might take a shift in perspective though.

Thanks for the vote of confidence and I can assure you we also feel we have what it takes to do something massively outside of the CM paradigm that probably could at least return enough to justify the effort. Our problem, therefore, is not a creative one. The problem is finding the resources to make it happen. Nobody is more frustrated by the reality of this world than we are. Though if you saw some of the designs we have, you may be equally frustrated. One of them would likely rock your world

Steve

[Harv]

I don't want to get too bogged down in the he said/she said, because we might just end up seeing more trees than forest. Plus we're likely only ever going to agree to disagree for the most part I'm sure, unless one of us suddenly has an epiphany.

As an aside, I really need ask to my old man about CM because he was quite a fan of BO and BB, and played more solitaire scenarios than anyone I know. He never once asked about changes, or updates, or bugs, or design features...he just played the game for a number of years and really enjoyed it. He did have CMT on his iPad, but the last time I was doing updates I noticed it was gone. Dunno why, and it could be for any number of reasons, but as he's one of the most solid casual CM players imaginable I'm kinda curious now. Anyhoo...

I think you might be selling yourselves a bit short on what brought CM such acclaim. I'm sure there were countless external factors that influenced it's widespread success, and maybe if it had been released 2 years either way it would've been a flop at worst, or marginally successful at best. But I honestly don't think so. There was a niche in the PC (war)gaming world waiting to be filled by something that was fresh, looked appealing, had fluid gameplay, had a compelling (and educational even) cause/effect risk/reward smart tactics win system, engaged the player to make interesting decisions and then gave excellent feedback on the results of those decisions, and so on and so on... But the biggest things, in my mind, were that it needed to be accessible and everything had to make sense, from the interface to the combat results.

And timing be damned, CM brought all of that to the PC. Sure it looks clunky and archaic now, and is missing a gazillion "features" from CMx2, but that doesn't mean it's anything less today than it was then...probably one of the easiest to understand and entertaining squad level tactical wargames that has been on the market.

And as far as CMT being a commercial success, I would be astounded if it wasn't. Because there is currently a similar niche in the app store waiting to be filled, I would expect nothing less than to see people clicking and tapping the Buy button as fast as they could at the mere mention of Combat Mission being available on a tablet.

But how many are actually playing it?

[Battlefront.com]

I don't want to get too bogged down in the he said/she said, because we might just end up seeing more trees than forest. Plus we're likely only ever going to agree to disagree for the most part I'm sure, unless one of us suddenly has an epiphany.

We're likely never going to agree because you are a customer and I am responsible for earning a living for myself and a half dozen others. We have inherently different views of the world. It's the equivalent of someone who eats the food you grow coming to you sand saying "you could make more money by growing coconuts" and you saying "have you tried growing coconuts in Canada?" "No, but I'm sure you could do great with them if you just tried". Soil conditions, weather, equipment requirements, etc. are all things that go through the mind of a successful farmer, not through a customer's mind. We tried growing coconuts and it worked, but we think it largely happened due to fluke weather conditions

As an aside, I really need ask to my old man about CM because he was quite a fan of BO and BB, and played more solitaire scenarios than anyone I know. He never once asked about changes, or updates, or bugs, or design features...he just played the game for a number of years and really enjoyed it. He did have CMT on his iPad, but the last time I was doing updates I noticed it was gone. Dunno why, and it could be for any number of reasons, but as he's one of the most solid casual CM players imaginable I'm kinda curious now. Anyhoo...

Anecdotal, individual stories are often interesting to explore and discuss. Usually there is something to be learned from them provided they are kept in context.

I think you might be selling yourselves a bit short on what brought CM such acclaim.

No doubt the game was worthy of success separate from market timing. CMBO was no pet rock or 50 Shades of Gray Evidence of that is that every single CM game we've ever made has done at least well enough to justify making it.

However, with CMBO specifically there were factors outside of our control changed it from being destined to achieve moderate success to actually being a smashing success. And those factors were pretty much one time only and we'd be fools to count on them ever happening again. Always better to revel in unexpected success than to wallow in unfulfilled expectations.

And timing be damned, CM brought all of that to the PC. Sure it looks clunky and archaic now, and is missing a gazillion "features" from CMx2, but that doesn't mean it's anything less today than it was then...probably one of the easiest to understand and entertaining squad level tactical wargames that has been on the market.

Yes, but it was also a result of comparison. Comparison is a very important thing (Emrys touched on that point in his post). The problem for CMx1 now is that there's been 12 years worth of game advances to compare it with. In particular it's successor CMx2 system. There's been plenty of discussions about this very topic and there's more than a few that say they can't play CMx1 any more because it feels hollow/empty by comparison. Others say they still enjoy it, but not as an exclusive experience. And of course there are those, like you, who by comparison still think of CMx1 as the best thing since sliced bread. Who is right? Why, everybody is! Problem is we can only make one game for one audience, and therefore we have to make that game for the audience we feel will give us the best return on our investment.

As with our previous debate, part of your argument is based on us being able to do better with a more CMx1 type game vs. a CMx2 type game. Yet there's some obvious indications that we're doing BETTER with CMx2 than we did with CMx1:

1. We've doubled our staff, and our staff is the single biggest cost to us (uhm, like almost all of it).

2. We're still in business some 15 years after starting up. This despite the utter collapse of the retail software market that CMx1 benefited from and increased competition from many directions.

Obviously we're clever people who continually beat the odds by solid decision making in an ever changing market place. We're also kinda fond of money If we identify a way to safely improve our business model without putting our existence at risk, we will.

But be careful what you ask for... it might mean that we abandon historical warfare games, since if one wants to reach the stars one would be a fool to design a ship that best case can make it to the moon.

And as far as CMT being a commercial success, I would be astounded if it wasn't. Because there is currently a similar niche in the app store waiting to be filled, I would expect nothing less than to see people clicking and tapping the Buy button as fast as they could at the mere mention of Combat Mission being available on a tablet.

But how many are actually playing it?

Impossible to say, but I don't see it mattering. We've not had significant complaints and we are pretty sure that the bulk of people buying CMT are not dyed in the wool CM fanatics. In fact, we have quite a bit of evidence to suggest that CMT is achieving one of its goals... acting as a "gateway drug" to get people into CM desktop gaming.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

If I may add a sidebar to this discussion, I think one reason for CM's early and continuing success (but not the only one) is that it has so far provided a unique experience to the player. To wit: It comes closest to providing the player with the experience of stepping into his favorite kind of war movie and writing the script for it, over and over again. Indeed, many of the suggestions for "improving" the game hinge around making it more like what the posters have seen in movies (or perhaps even more importantly, wanted to see) and reality be damned.

Michael

[Harv]

Uh oh. Trees...

We're likely never going to agree because you are a customer and I am responsible for earning a living for myself and a half dozen others. We have inherently different views of the world. It's the equivalent of someone who eats the food you grow coming to you sand saying "you could make more money by growing coconuts" and you saying "have you tried growing coconuts in Canada?" "No, but I'm sure you could do great with them if you just tried". Soil conditions, weather, equipment requirements, etc. are all things that go through the mind of a successful farmer, not through a customer's mind. We tried growing coconuts and it worked, but we think it largely happened due to fluke weather conditions

The analogy police are coming to get you now. Bad analogy. Bad. Send it to its room immediately.

Anecdotal, individual stories are often interesting to explore and discuss. Usually there is something to be learned from them provided they are kept in context.

Agreed.

No doubt the game was worthy of success separate from market timing. CMBO was no pet rock or 50 Shades of Gray Evidence of that is that every single CM game we've ever made has done at least well enough to justify making it.

However, with CMBO specifically there were factors outside of our control changed it from being destined to achieve moderate success to actually being a smashing success. And those factors were pretty much one time only and we'd be fools to count on them ever happening again. Always better to revel in unexpected success than to wallow in unfulfilled expectations.

I will definitely be using that line in the future.

Yes, but it was also a result of comparison. Comparison is a very important thing (Emrys touched on that point in his post). The problem for CMx1 now is that there's been 12 years worth of game advances to compare it with. In particular it's successor CMx2 system. There's been plenty of discussions about this very topic and there's more than a few that say they can't play CMx1 any more because it feels hollow/empty by comparison. Others say they still enjoy it, but not as an exclusive experience. And of course there are those, like you, who by comparison still think of CMx1 as the best thing since sliced bread. Who is right? Why, everybody is! Problem is we can only make one game for one audience, and therefore we have to make that game for the audience we feel will give us the best return on our investment.

The problem with this line of thinking, is that you keep referring to the PC versions of these games when you speak of comparisons. And again, this is because of your perspective and is not unexpected. The tablet market has nothing as a point of direct comparison such as this. If you release a niche wargame such as CM on the app store, there is nothing to compare it to. Nothing. It lives or dies based on what it is, because there just isn't anything else like it to measure against.

And I believe you're misremembering my position from the CMx2 beta days. I never, at least as far as I can remember, said anything about CMx1 being the greatest thing ever. I believe my position was that CMx2 was simply not fun and had little of x1's smoothly flowing experience. And I still feel that way today. Are the old beta forum archives still floating around somewhere? It would be interesting to see if I really did mention CMx1 in that way. Anyhoo...

As with our previous debate, part of your argument is based on us being able to do better with a more CMx1 type game vs. a CMx2 type game. Yet there's some obvious indications that we're doing BETTER with CMx2 than we did with CMx1:

My argument is, and always has been, that CMT essentially sucks. All by itself. And I believe that suckitude is a result of it being based on CMx2 instead of CMx1. The fact that CMx2 is doing better on the PC doesn't matter to me in the slightest, because I still maintain CMx2 could not work well, no matter how great it is, on an iPad. Basing it on CMx1 on the other hand, would most likely provide a "simpler" way of doing things with a touch UI without removing features, and possibly give more/better feedback during both the planning and playback phases.

1. We've doubled our staff, and our staff is the single biggest cost to us (uhm, like almost all of it).

2. We're still in business some 15 years after starting up. This despite the utter collapse of the retail software market that CMx1 benefited from and increased competition from many directions.

That is only to be expected in a successful business. The truism that "if you aren't growing, you're dying" is universal I think. If you've been successful in the PC market, you should be expanding.

Obviously we're clever people who continually beat the odds by solid decision making in an ever changing market place. We're also kinda fond of money If we identify a way to safely improve our business model without putting our existence at risk, we will.

But be careful what you ask for... it might mean that we abandon historical warfare games, since if one wants to reach the stars one would be a fool to design a ship that best case can make it to the moon.

I think you've either missed my point all along, or you're deliberately trying to nudge the discussion in a different direction. What you do with future designs is not what I'm here about. A long CMx2 vs x1 debate is not why I posted this thread. Whether your business model is viable or not won't affect what I have for supper tonight.

I'm here because I think that CMT is a poor game that has (had?) great potential to be more than it is. I'm here because I think you view the app stores as being beneath PC gaming, released a substandard and poorly supported product because of that perspective, and I wanted to call you on it. Do I really care about ever playing a truly fun/smooth/frustration free CM on a tablet, and my life will be incomplete if I don't? No, not at all. But that doesn't mean I'm going to let this go without some criticism either. It is the interwebsnet after all.

Impossible to say, but I don't see it mattering. We've not had significant complaints and we are pretty sure that the bulk of people buying CMT are not dyed in the wool CM fanatics. In fact, we have quite a bit of evidence to suggest that CMT is achieving one of its goals... acting as a "gateway drug" to get people into CM desktop gaming.

And I believe this, in spite of everything you've stated or denied earlier, nicely sums up your actual position towards the app store. And I'm ok with it, I really am. If you just would've gone here earlier we could have saved a lot of typing, plus I wouldn't have felt the need to show you the error of your ways.

[Harv]

Almost forgot...I'll give you this one for free...

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/23/the-ignorance-of-crowds-why-open-development-is-crap/

I know this is exactly how you view me and my position here. You're wrong of course, but I'm ok with that too.

[Battlefront.com]

The analogy police are coming to get you now. Bad analogy. Bad. Send it to its room immediately.

I know, but I couldn't help myself

I will definitely be using that line in the future.

That did come out pretty nice, didn't it? Sleep depravation sometimes does that.

The problem with this line of thinking, is that you keep referring to the PC versions of these games when you speak of comparisons.

I understand totally, and thoroughly, your point. You're not getting mine. You're saying that we should set about making a new, awe inspiring, amazingly unique, blow the world apart tablet game experience that will take off just because we want it to happen and did make it happen once. I'm saying that's just not possible to count on. We could make such a game that you viewed in those terms, but it could be a financial flop. Or we could make a game that you view poorly that could make us a zillion Dollars. Design and execution are only two parts of the equation, be it PC games, tablet games, books, movies, music, etc.

Since we make games, and successful ones at that, you should at least try to understand that I might have a point.

And I believe you're misremembering my position from the CMx2 beta days. I never, at least as far as I can remember, said anything about CMx1 being the greatest thing ever. I believe my position was that CMx2 was simply not fun and had little of x1's smoothly flowing experience. And I still feel that way today. Are the old beta forum archives still floating around somewhere? It would be interesting to see if I really did mention CMx1 in that way. Anyhoo...

Well, if I'm misremembering it that's fine. But the basic point is that you disagreed with our direction and refused to understand that wasn't relevant to us. You're but one person and as long as we're making the games we want to make, and people want to buy them, the fact you think CMx2 is clunky and CMT is crap is not important. Just like it isn't important to us that several million gamers agree with you about both, though almost the same number would disagree with you about CMx1 (i.e. they think it's crap also).

My argument is, and always has been, that CMT essentially sucks. All by itself. And I believe that suckitude is a result of it being based on CMx2 instead of CMx1.

It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But I'm just as welcome to my opinion that you're wrong.

Basing it on CMx1 on the other hand, would most likely provide a "simpler" way of doing things with a touch UI without removing features, and possibly give more/better feedback during both the planning and playback phases.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. We obviously don't agree.

That is only to be expected in a successful business. The truism that "if you aren't growing, you're dying" is universal I think. If you've been successful in the PC market, you should be expanding.

Yes, but you're missing the point. "Dying" is the most common outcome for a game company. And usually measured in months, not years. We wouldn't be here today in any form, expanded or not, if we weren't pretty damned good at what we do.

I think you've either missed my point all along, or you're deliberately trying to nudge the discussion in a different direction. What you do with future designs is not what I'm here about. A long CMx2 vs x1 debate is not why I posted this thread. Whether your business model is viable or not won't affect what I have for supper tonight.

Again, you're totally missing the point. You've made a presumption that you know better than we do how to do our jobs. That's a flawed position to start with since you have no credibility in this arena. Playing games isn't sufficient any more than me eating food gives me some sort of authority to question your growing practices and what crops you choose to cultivate.

I'm here because I think that CMT is a poor game that has (had?) great potential to be more than it is.

This was your view of CMx2 as well. At least you're consistent

I'm here because I think you view the app stores as being beneath PC gaming, released a substandard and poorly supported product because of that perspective, and I wanted to call you on it.

Excuse me, but who the $&% are you to call us on something like this? Your ego was the problem the last time, and it is again this time. You think that YOUR opinion is worth more than ANYBODY else's. You must have a very low opinion of everybody who buys and enjoys our games.

And I believe this, in spite of everything you've stated or denied earlier, nicely sums up your actual position towards the app store. And I'm ok with it, I really am. If you just would've gone here earlier we could have saved a lot of typing, plus I wouldn't have felt the need to show you the error of your ways.

You really are a piece of work. I said it is ONE of the reasons we made the game, and what is wrong with that? But you're going to read into it what you want because, frankly, you've not listened to anything else I've written.

Harv, do us and yourself a favor and just find something else to enjoy. Think of us as "dead to you" and move on. You'll be the happier for it, I'm sure.

Steve

[MikeyD]

Okay, we've covered CM:Touch. What's your opinion of 'Zombie minesweeper'? Another game for under three bucks. Has anybody been over to their website to drone on ad nauseam about how much they hate the game and are sure the developer will die?

[Michael Emrys]

Zombie Minesweeper??? Dear god, can we have come to this? It may be time for me to start thinking about burning my computer...

Michael

[Harv]

Easy Steve, I don't think I'm important enough yet to pop a vessel over. Even if I did hit a nerve.

Here's something entirely different that I've been curious about...

Why would the designer/publisher of a very successful series/family of wargames stealth release their newest product into their newest market? No sneak peeks, no advanced press review copies, no marketing campaign, no buildup to the big release, no announcements, no...anything. And release it on April 1 no less, so people familiar with the series wonder if it's even real?

Anyhoo, I'm off to greener entertainment pastures now. Thanks for the laughs, it's been enjoyable as always.

[Battlefront.com]

Easy Steve, I don't think I'm important enough yet to pop a vessel over. Even if I did hit a nerve.

Nerve? No. Your circular and insular logic, combined with an uncanny ability to filter everything I say so that it fits your mindset and never challenges it, is frustrating. That's all.

In fact, you link to an article that describes yourself to a T and then say that I'm wrong to think that it does.

"People like to think they’re pretty special. And people do tend to have a habit of thinking what they think is right, and those who disagree are wrong. In my case it’s actually true, but unfortunately that’s not always the case for others. And really, honestly, the very last thing I want is other wrong people to be influencing the games I’m going to play. Developers have to stop asking other people how to make their games."

Amazing.

Why would the designer/publisher of a very successful series/family of wargames stealth release their newest product into their newest market? No sneak peeks, no advanced press review copies, no marketing campaign, no buildup to the big release, no announcements, no...anything.

Because such things as time consuming as they are unnecessary. In case you haven't noticed, we've a very long track record of thinking outside the box. The beauty of our development and distribution model is our products pretty much sell themselves. So why spend a lot of time and money on activities that don't have a positive impact on our sales?

And release it on April 1 no less, so people familiar with the series wonder if it's even real?

Because we have a sense of humor. Or if you want to be more cynical about it, consider it a publicity stunt. Your pick, but keep in mind you just made a case that we don't engage in creative marketing tactics.

Plus, why is this even relevant? How long did "people familiar with the series wonder if it's even real?" I bet even the most thickheaded of our customers figured it out within a few minutes. From what I remember of that launch our customers thought it was a hoot and enjoyed it quite a lot.

Anyhoo, I'm off to greener entertainment pastures now. Thanks for the laughs, it's been enjoyable as always.

It's for your own good. You want us to make games we don't want to make. You've now twice tried to justify your opinion as fact by inventing an alternate reality where the market isn't rewarding us for our efforts. Which is frustrating to you because you don't want us to succeed unless we're making you, personally, happy with our releases. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. We make the games we want and let the market, as a whole, decide our fate. So far it's been one success after another. And that includes CMT.

Steve

[Harv]

Okay, we've covered CM:Touch. What's your opinion of 'Zombie minesweeper'? Another game for under three bucks. Has anybody been over to their website to drone on ad nauseam about how much they hate the game and are sure the developer will die?

Ahh MikeyD, you haven't changed one bit either. Sorry about the tardy response, I missed this earlier.

I think you're (unsurprisingly) missing the point. I'm droning on ad nauseam because this is entertaining, and because it's the internet. And it would appear that Steve is enjoying himself too. I've no doubt that he also gets frustrated as hell with me, but the attraction of the soap box is quite difficult to resist, and a lively debate is never dull and can be a nice diversion from more mundane things.

Think about it...at any time throughout the course of this discussion, even before the first reply had been posted, Steve could have dropped me an email (or picked up the phone) and said "For fecks sake Harv, stop busting my balls over this and wasting my time, and get your head out of your ass and just realize we did what we did because we wanted to do it this way. If you can't respect and live with that and stop trolling and pissing on my living room carpet, we'll just ban your ass and be done with it." Or, he could have just banned my ass on the spot and/or turfed my post. Or, he could have simply not responded to my post at all and let it die.

But he didn't. Why?

He most definitely didn't Need to defend his company's honour against one post by a disgruntled Canuck, he didn't Need to defend his position and decisions from one accusation of shenanigans, he didn't Need to allow me access to keep posting vile crap about CMx2 and CMT, he didn't Need to let this drag this out into a three page mess of a circular discussion with me trying to prove a negative* that never would have started had I simply been asked or smacked or ignored or banned and the thread would have withered on the vine.

But he did. Why?

I think it's because he's having fun.

Now go sit down.

*It's commonly believed to be essentially impossible, just so you know.

[Harv]

Nerve? No. Your circular and insular logic, combined with an uncanny ability to filter everything I say so that it fits your mindset and never challenges it, is frustrating. That's all.

Almost as frustrating as you deliberately being obtuse about my position, and continually diverting the discussion I bet. I've even seen a straw man lurking around, though he's very crafty about fully exposing himself.

In fact, you link to an article that describes yourself to a T and then say that I'm wrong to think that it does.

"People like to think they’re pretty special. And people do tend to have a habit of thinking what they think is right, and those who disagree are wrong. In my case it’s actually true, but unfortunately that’s not always the case for others. And really, honestly, the very last thing I want is other wrong people to be influencing the games I’m going to play. Developers have to stop asking other people how to make their games."

Amazing.

Oh come on, I gave you a beeeyoootiful gift with that link, and you quote a paragraph that applies pretty much universally to everyone? Disappointing.

Because such things as time consuming as they are unnecessary. In case you haven't noticed, we've a very long track record of thinking outside the box. The beauty of our development and distribution model is our products pretty much sell themselves. So why spend a lot of time and money on activities that don't have a positive impact on our sales?

Because we have a sense of humor. Or if you want to be more cynical about it, consider it a publicity stunt. Your pick, but keep in mind you just made a case that we don't engage in creative marketing tactics.

Plus, why is this even relevant? How long did "people familiar with the series wonder if it's even real?" I bet even the most thickheaded of our customers figured it out within a few minutes. From what I remember of that launch our customers thought it was a hoot and enjoyed it quite a lot.

That is, without a doubt, the strangest (anti?)marketing scheme/plan/whatever it is, that I have ever heard of. Doesn't make it a bad thing apparently, but it's definitely....out there.

It's for your own good.

{snicker}

You want us to make games we don't want to make.

I want you to make a game, for the iPad, that you're capable of making. I've said this time and again. CMT isn't it, you could have, and can, do better, and we both know it.

You've now twice tried to justify your opinion as fact by inventing an alternate reality where the market isn't rewarding us for our efforts.

Again, I've stated time and time again that I know, or at least would be shocked if it weren't true, that the market is rewarding you for your efforts. Please quote where I stated anything you're alluding to me saying anything of the sort.

Which is frustrating to you because you don't want us to succeed unless we're making you, personally, happy with our releases. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. We make the games we want and let the market, as a whole, decide our fate. So far it's been one success after another. And that includes CMT.

Wrong again, I have not once stated anything to the effect that I don't wish you success. Ever. Please quote where I stated anything you're alluding to me saying anything of the sort.

[Battlefront.com]

Almost as frustrating as you deliberately being obtuse about my position, and continually diverting the discussion I bet. I've even seen a straw man lurking around, though he's very crafty about fully exposing himself.

Then what is your point? That you want us to make the games you want instead of the ones we are making? If that were all you were doing then we wouldn't still be having this discussion.

Oh come on, I gave you a beeeyoootiful gift with that link, and you quote a paragraph that applies pretty much universally to everyone? Disappointing.

Well, perhaps that's because I read the article and thought "no kidding, that's what we've been doing for 15 years". This is like showing an olympic swimmer an article that a swimming pool full of ice is useless to swim in.

Tell me, then, what should I have picked up on that I didn't?

That is, without a doubt, the strangest (anti?)marketing scheme/plan/whatever it is, that I have ever heard of. Doesn't make it a bad thing apparently, but it's definitely....out there.

I'm not sure you are aware, but "strange" and "out there" tend to be big pluses in the world of promotion. Case in point... you remembered the exact date of a product rollout years later. So by any marketing measurement you wish to use, it was effective.

And what does it matter anyway? Is there a reason you bring this up?

I want you to make a game, for the iPad, that you're capable of making. I've said this time and again. CMT isn't it, you could have, and can, do better, and we both know it.

No, I don't know that. We could have invested 2x as much time and had a flop. Or we could have doubled our risk, by spending 2x as much time, and gotten the same reward from our efforts.

We made the game we wanted to make. Contrary to what you said, the game is totally unique in the tablet arena (if it isn't, direct me to something that is similar) and people do like it. It's just not something you like.

Again, I've stated time and time again that I know, or at least would be shocked if it weren't true, that the market is rewarding you for your efforts. Please quote where I stated anything you're alluding to me saying anything of the sort.

No, you didn't directly say that. But you said it all the same. You have said that CMT is crap and not worthy of being made. I'm saying that it isn't crap and it was worthy of being made. Who is the one that's right in this equation? Why us of course, because we're the only ones that can evaluate the conditions of success. Now if the market spanked us hard for this then we'd be wrong and you'd be right.

Let me put this clearer. You have expressed an opinion misstated as fact. Since you have attempted to frame it as fact I have challenged it on that basis. If you stated your opinion as an opinion, that would be a different thing.

Wrong again, I have not once stated anything to the effect that I don't wish you success. Ever. Please quote where I stated anything you're alluding to me saying anything of the sort.

Again, this is what you're arguing even if you don't know it. We make the games we want to make and are successful. You do not like those games and have said they are failures in your view. So you have tried to argue that since they are failures we should try to do something along the lines you want. But the problem for you is that the games we make, including CMT, are successful. That means the only reasonable way you're going to get what you want is if we have a failure.

Put more bluntly, the best chance of you getting the games you want is for us to fail in the market place. I highly doubt you haven't thought of it in those terms.

Steve