Combat mission and steam.

[Michael Emrys]

Really. BFC have been around for a few years now...

Almost two decades, in fact.

Michael

[Erwin]

"I'd love to hear the reasoning explained in dollars and sense (sic) by BF completely."

All you have to do is contact BF directly. I am certain they have nothing better to do than explain their business strategies to you. And then you can have a lively and spirited discussion with them as you convince them of your concepts.

[Michael Emrys]

Anybody ever tell you that you have a mean streak, Erwin?

Michael

[Asterix909]

LOL let me guess you have an MBA - right?

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:

What BFC have is experience with their type of market and their type of game.

Exactly; they are great at making the core game, NOT their website, or the *tada* their sales model.

You should just trust them and let them do their thing.

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.

[sburke]

***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.

ooh ooh ooh can I take this one?!!!

Let's see, you don't PLAY the game, how would you feel placed to evaluate it? No don't tell me, you are slumming on your friend's copy cause you can't be bothered if it isn't on steam? C'mon you can admit it, we won't hold it against ya.

but back to your point. For what the game does, yeah I like the UI. It works for me with the caveat that I play WeGo. One of the RTS style players would have to comment on how it functions for that.

And note I have been playing CMSF for a long time. I didn't find it difficult to pick up with CMSF and I do play some other games. Probably not as many as someone like yourself. Games in general aren't a real interest, I can count on one hand the number I spent any time on this year outside of CM.

Could it be better, maybe. Would I prefer BF spend their time on the UI (which actually is one of Steve's stated goals)? No, I'd rather they add more content, more varied commands (like the bazooka shot around the corner...) more effort on the TAC AI maybe....

There, you can stop waiting. I hope I brought a ray of sunshine in your otherwise drab day without CM. I do what I can.

[Asterix909]

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.

[sburke]

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.

okay ya got me there. Haven't looked at the demo in like... well ever.

You don't seem to understand, I have no issue with change. If BF changes their mind and feels Steam would work for them, have at it. It isn't an issue of me being wrong or right. It isn't my call and frankly I don't have any data one way or the other as to whether steam would help. However BF who are far better placed to say whether it will or won't says it won't. The only person here claiming to KNOW is you. You are the one saying BF should risk their business on a model they say doesn't work for them. This being a company that has survived quite a bit and is growing some 20 years in. It takes a certain level of balls to tell a successful business they should change their model when you have no skin in the game.. at all, you haven't bought anything from them. Kind of reminds me of Jerry telling Babu to change his restaurant.

I hope never to see your infallible face as it dawns on you BF was right when they go bankrupt, that would really suck.

And I don't have a cave, I prefer woodwork.

[BletchleyGeek]

You don't seem to understand, I have no issue with change. If BF changes their mind and feels Steam would work for them, have at it. It isn't an issue of me being wrong or right. It isn't my call and frankly I don't have any data one way or the other as to whether steam would help. However BF who are far better placed to say whether it will or won't says it won't. The only person here claiming to KNOW is you. You are the one saying BF should risk there business on a model they say doesn't work for them. This being a company that has survived quite a bit and is growing some 20 years in. It takes a certain level of balls to tell a successful business they should change their model when you have no skin in the game.. at all, you haven't bought anything from them. Kind of reminds me of Jerry telling Babu to change his restaurant.

I hope never to see your infallible face as it dawns on you BF was right when they go bankrupt, that would really suck.

Just a few comments from someone who has spent a fair bit of time doing research on Steam and what it does imply from a development standpoint (that is, extra programming, etc.):

* Valve never enforces discounts on the products on the store. That's up to the developers/publishers to decide. They do offer market advice and coaching, though. There's no such a thing as "pricing guidelines".

* Valve takes away a 30% cut from the retail price from the majority of the products on sale (I say majority because Valve admits that especially successful games would get much better terms). With their current arrangements, BFC gets 100% out of each sale. That's a significant impact in your income stream, especially if you have a working fulfillment system as BFC does. On the other hand, it is a quite reasonable percentage, taking into account the kind of royalty splits most publishers have.

* Devs can generate as many redeemable Steam keys for their games as they wish. So it is perfectly feasible for BFC to continue selling their stuff on their site, capturing 100% income from those sales, and providing customers that express an interest to have the game available on Steam with a key to activate it. Of course, you need to put the game on Steam in order to have access to this service.

* Integrating the game into Steam can be very minimalistic: basically, packaging the game executables, libraries and assets so it fits into the distribution framework offered by Steam cloud storage solution. For a recent example of this "keeping it simple approach", check out Wasteland 2. InXile hasn't bothered integrating the Steam overlay. Of course, one can choose to make their product more dependant on Steam, by integrating a number of services their API offers (Steam overlay with browser etc., in-game micro-transactions, achievements, et al.).

For a small developer like Battlefront, getting your stuff on Steam offers the following opportunities and risks (this is my personal assessment):

* Opportunity #1: Increasing the reach of your product. This means more people get exposed to your stuff, and may lead to an increase in the number of sales.

* Risk #1: If your existing audience decides to buy your stuff from Steam rather than from you, and your audience doesn't grow significantly, then your income will be reduced by a 30%.

What I would advise Battlefront to do, if they're worried about Risk #1, is to put into Steam CMSF with a deep discount and the modules as DLC at full-price, and see what happens. CMSF is soon to become obsolete by CMBS, and probably Battlefront has sold as many copies from its storefront as it is reasonable to expect. With that in mind, every sale BFC makes on Steam would be a bonus.

[sburke]

Thanks BG, that is pretty much what Steve said - and to quote him again in case folks missed it the first time.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1536440&postcount=165

Think about it this way...

Let's say a retailer gets 40% for each sale. Let's say a manufacturer has a product for sale with this retailer at $10. That means the retailer gets $4 and the manufacturer gets $6.

One day the retailer decides for it's own sales reasons, with absolutely no input from the manufacturer, to hold a "sale" of the product for $5. The retailer gets $2 and the manufacturer gets $3. The sale is designed to increase overall sales for the retailer, not for the manufacturer. Since the retailer has thousands of products to sell it can make money off of the sales price.

Now, why would a retailer deliberately take a lower price? Two primary reasons:

1. The product is not selling enough according to the retailer's calculations. It has complex modeling that shows only X product can be at a particular price, Y product at another price. So if a product at the X price point isn't doing what it wants, then it lowers it to Y or even Z. Because to the retailer, it's just a SKU number and nothing more than that.

2. A company's success is determined by it's overall income vs. expenses. The retailer doesn't care much about how it makes it's profit number, just that it does. Same for the manufacturer but with one critical difference. A retailer can keep a steady flow of cash by playing with individual product prices, like reducing the price of 100 products to generate short term sales increases. If 80 of them fail to sell better than if they were at full price, not a problem as long as the other 20 do. If you are a manufacturer you can only come out ahead by reducing the price if the end result is better than if you kept the price where it was. It's extremely risk for the manufacture to engage in such activities, it's very low risk for a retailer. A bad pricing strategy for one product will not harm a retailer, but it could kill a manufacturer.

This has been the operating model for the games industry since the beginning. 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.

You guys also have to remember that we keep 100% of each game we sell, less direct expenses. This means that if Steam keeps 40% (it varies from dev to dev) they have to increase our sales by 40% at the full price. Any reductions in their prices puts pressure on us to lower ours, which means they not only have to sell 40% more product than we could have, but they then have to sell proportionally higher amounts to cover any price reductions we feel obligated to make.

On top of this, we have to put various features into our games that are required by Steam. We do not get paid extra for this work. Nor do we get any compensation for lost sales due to their easily hacked DRM.

Bottom line is that Steam is a money losing proposition for us. Almost for sure guaranteed. We have more than 20 years of experience in this business, 15 of which are with Battlefront. This in an industry where even mega huge developers go out of business after only a few years. Stupid developers don't last this long, so obviously we're obviously somewhere on the smart spectrum. Smart developers don't turn down obviously good money making opportunities, do they?

For someone to argue that we should go with Steam needs to first establish what professional experiences they have which makes them more knowledgeable about wargame sales than we are. If you can't do that, then don't bother telling us what a fantastic opportunity we're missing with Steam. It would be like telling an accomplished lawyer how to present a case based on nothing more than having watched a lot of Judge Judy.

Steve

[Macisle]

I'm another one of those (WEGO) players that thinks the UI is fine. Sure, I'm totally open to improvement--when it's worth the investment. But like sburke said, I'd rather have new in-game functionality and content than have BF "fix" things that aren't really broken.

As for Steam...

If it was worth it for them, BF would be using it. Period. It's not. Period. They've already done the research and I'm sure revisit the issue periodically to see if anything looks different.

As Steve has said many times, CM is a niche, within a niche, within a niche of the gaming world. No matter how much exposure it has, most gamers are not going to be interested. And, for those people that would like it, their ability to find it is already perpetually being enhanced by the evolution of things like YouTube and the net in general, with discussions on related history and wargame/game forums.

Frankly, as time goes on, CM fans who post YouTube vids (remember to include a link to BF's website!) will probably generate more sales for BF than being on Steam.

Oh, and when I think of "horrible UI," I think of GT:OS and Arma 2 (don't have 3), not CMx2.

[Pelican Pal]

@asterix909

This isn't about some elitist grognard strawman thing that keeps getting dragged out as if the rest of us are completely clueless about the online community.

That argument is used pretty consistently here to defend against attempts to expand the small niche that CM currently inhabits. "God forbid the peasants touch our game!"

Anyway, would more users water down what CM is? I don't think so. There are solid examples of a series getting bigger but not being watered down. It is mostly up to the designer rather than the community.

The UI is definitely passable, but it could use a hell of a lot of refinement. There is a ton of stuff that is poorly documented, poorly displayed, a ton of interactions that aren't properly explained.

I agree with BG that CM:SF and CM:X1 provide some great getting your foot wet options.

[Stagler]

That argument is used pretty consistently here to defend against attempts to expand the small niche that CM currently inhabits. "God forbid the peasants touch our game!"

Anyway, would more users water down what CM is? I don't think so. There are solid examples of a series getting bigger but not being watered down. It is mostly up to the designer rather than the community.

The UI is definitely passable, but it could use a hell of a lot of refinement. There is a ton of stuff that is poorly documented, poorly displayed, a ton of interactions that aren't properly explained.

I agree with BG that CM:SF and CM:X1 provide some great getting your foot wet options.

The GUI and manual are great in my opinion, especially the latter.

I agree it would be better with more people in the community. The "deny the pleb outsiders" argument is ever-present, especially looking at the posts in this thread.

And to market older titles, CM:SF people will lap that up on steam, and all its expansions.

More users may prompt an actual multiplayer framework to be developed other than direct connect which never seems to work in this age of routers.

Just sayin'.

[Baneman]

... The "deny the pleb outsiders" argument is ever-present, especially looking at the posts in this thread...

Strange, I don't get the feeling that anyone here tries to "keep it exclusive" - when new players post here asking for help or info, there's usually a plethora of posts giving or pointing them to all sorts of useful information.

Personally I'm in the "UI is ok" camp, possibly through familiarity via CMx1 or the fact that I WEGO only and use keyboard commands for the bulk of my orders ie. keyboard press and mouseclick, repeat.

Although I quickly learned to remove the keyboard shortcuts to "Bail Out" and "Dismount"

[Michael Emrys]

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.

Uncurl that lip, buster, you are way off base with that one. For one thing, newcomers have never been unwelcome here as long as they behave in a civil and intelligent manner. And as far as change is concerned, not all change is positive, so there is something to be said in favor of some thoughtful discernment being applied before jumping into something. The last two centuries have been filled with often traumatic changes that to me at least are like a long, slow train wreck. That doesn't make me against all change, indeed I have a very long list of things I would love to see change. But for the moment, I don't see a mass movement in those directions. A lot of the changes I have witnessed over a fairly long life have only made life worse. So yes, there is a lot to be said in favor of slowing down the pace of change and investing more thought in choosing exactly what changes to endorse.

Putting generalizations aside and returning to specifics...the suggestion to put CMx1 or even CMSF on Steam might be a viable way of reaching out to a larger audience and expanding the customer base. But I imagine that would entail a certain amount of work on BFC's part, and it is their call whether it would be worth their while to do that rather than something else they might do instead.

One further point. As has been said over and over again, CM is a niche product that is only ever going to appeal to a limited and somewhat specialized audience. I don't doubt that better communication could expand that audience somewhat, but there are natural limits to the size of that audience. The law of diminishing returns kicks in at some point and for CM it might kick in fairly early. I do not know how much the customer base can be expanded, but I frankly do not trust those who predict that it could be huge. I do not believe that there is a cornucopia just waiting to be tapped. Again, it is plainly and simply BFC's call as they are the only ones positioned to make it.

Michael

[Jock Tamson]

I don't know what the optimum size for the audience for CM is, but at the moment it feels about right. It's small enough to feel like a genuine community yet large enough to support a diversity of opinion on a number of issues...as this thread demonstrates.

Surely this forum community represents only a fraction of the actual, largely silent, CM "community"? If not, sales must be absolutely tiny.

[db_zero]

We're just a bunch of crusty old gronards who refuse to join the rest of the civilized world on Steam. We sit in our exclusive world sipping $10,000 bottles of scotch, lighting cuban cigars with 100 bills.

Steam will change all of that. It will bring Combat Mission to the masses. Now everyone can have quick and cheap access to Combat Mission. The world will be a better place.

but don't worry. If you like your Combat Mission the way it is now, you can keep your current Combat Mission, because going to Steam and having BF pay 20-40% to a middleman and catering to the whims of Steam users who refuse to look at or purchase Combat Mission because its not on Steam isn't going to have any effect.

[Asterix909]

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.

[ASL Veteran]

I use Steam for all my other computer games and I don't mind using it. Whether Combat Mission would either fare well or not fair well on Steam is speculation at this point. However, BFC does have some experience with mass marketing because CMSF (Shock Force) was distributed through retail outlets when it was released. So there is at least some marker by which BFC can use to speculate what sales might be if it were available on Steam. Perhaps the market could be bigger now or perhaps not. I have the impression that computer games in general are declining in favor of things for XBOX, Android, and various things like that. By the way, BFC has a couple of games available for those platforms so that could be another indicator of what sort of mass appeal the game might have. So I don't think that it would be a fair assumption to make that BFC has no idea as to how much appeal Combat Mission games would have on Steam. I'm sure they have a ballpark figure that is based on some factual data that they have.

If you look at the game itself though, I think that it would also be fair to assume that most mass market gamers would be turned off by Combat Mission's graphics and the UI. Neither of those areas bothers me, but the comments that I hear from those not familiar with the genre typically goes along those lines. The thing is, that with the current staffing level it is doubtful that BFC could meet those expectations. BFC would need enough sales to cover the cost of bringing in more programmers or graphic artists in order to appeal to the mass market. I think the timing would have to be just right if BFC were to go on Steam. The game would have to be at a state that was mature enough that more resources could be directed towards UI and graphics areas and less on game play areas in order for it to be successful on Steam.

By the way, there are many younger players but they generally tend to be active or recent military from what I can tell. I have shown the game to various co workers in the past and while they might be curious at first, invariably the difficulty, graphics, and UI turn them into curious but not curious enough to purchase. For some of us who have been playing the game for a long time the difficulty level seems like a head scratcher, but yeah, playing this game can be very hard to do for someone who isn't ex military.

That's my two cents anyway.

[Stagler]

If you look at the game itself though, I think that it would also be fair to assume that most mass market gamers would be turned off by Combat Mission's graphics and the UI. Neither of those areas bothers me, but the comments that I hear from those not familiar with the genre typically goes along those lines.

The target market for CM is not the gamers who care about graphics. Its those who play Hearts of Iron, Project Reality, Jagged Alliance, Steel Beasts, ARMA: Games whos graphics are not perfect but the gameplay more than makes up for it.

I am 25, I would like to see CM on steam so that the community grows. It needs to grow. I cant get a multiplayer game at all on Combat Mission without having to know someone first, or fart about with PBEM which like turn-based-play does not interest me at all. I want to be able to go into a lobby and see who is looking to play, then create a game and get down to business. Easily done through the steam platform. I am tired of having to play the AI. Currently, across all CM games, the multiplayer infrastructure is insufficient.

Doesnt battlefront own the Theatre of War series? That is distrubuted on Steam.

[A Canadian Cat]

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.

That argument is used pretty consistently here to defend against attempts to expand the small niche that CM currently inhabits. "God forbid the peasants touch our game!"

I agree it would be better with more people in the community. The "deny the pleb outsiders" argument is ever-present, especially looking at the posts in this thread.

Whoa there, what thread / forum are you guys reading? I have never had the impression that anyone here wants to keep new payers out. That is just silly. Crap, this is just weird. This whole discussion has been about the business model around distribution via Steam or not. The main point that you guys are arguing against is not that we want to keep the community small but that Steve has decided that the business model offered by Steam does not work for BFC. Heck those of us arguing with you are not even saying that we think you are wrong per-say we are saying we don't know enough about the inner workings but we know that Steve does. @sburke found the post of Steve's that I was looking for earlier where he lays it out:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1536440&postcount=165

There is nothing to argue about here. I don't have an opinion pro or against Steam. If you think that Steve has his analysis wrong tell him not me. All I am saying is that Steve is in a much better place to know than any of you are. Yes, he is also in a better place than me to but I don't seem to have any trouble realizing that

Time to move along and play this game - or what ever game you feel like playing. This horse is dead.

[A Canadian Cat]

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.

Right, got it. This thread is about Steam. Mixing in UI is not really appropriate or helpful. You are dead wrong about people here being some sort of sticks in the mud trying at every turn to thwart you.

Have some ideas about the UI:

present them

in their own thread

and don't forget that there are only a small number of us that have design experience and only a few of those have any experience with games.

You probably know what that means - right lots of opinions with nothing behind them. You will have seen that before I expect.

So, my recommendation is keep things focused and present a good case for how it can be done better (not I mean actual ideas for new way of designing the UI not platitudes) and expect to be told you are wrong.

Accept it (which you need to work on BTW).

Enjoy it.

Keep a cool head (yeah work on this too :-).

If you present something that is worth while Steve and the BFC staff will see it and it might even inspire them to make future enhancements. Many people have done that over the last few years. Those threads have been interesting. I look forward to more of them.

[A Canadian Cat]

I cant get a multiplayer game at all on Combat Mission without having to know someone first, or fart about with PBEM which like turn-based-play does not interest me at all. I want to be able to go into a lobby and see who is looking to play, then create a game and get down to business. Easily done through the steam platform.

Ah now there is a real issue. This discussion about a lobby deserves its own thread. Don't mix Steam into it. Yeah, I get it Steam has a lobby built in but that is not the only way to solve this problem and clearly moving to Steam is not going to happen. I do however recall that someone set up a group on Steam to try to help - did I image that?

[Macisle]

I don't get the accusations of arrogance or elitism at all. Long-time forum members go out of their way to welcome new players and help them when they ask questions. And, we'd all be overjoyed if the world adopted CM as its favorite game.

However, some of us have been around long enough to see arguments presented again and again, and get responded to again and again.

BF doesn't use Steam because, to date, the cons of using it have outweighed the pros. If that equation changes...they will use Steam.

BF doesn't use publishers or distributors for CM because they have learned from hard experience that doing so is a dangerous negative. If that equation changes, then they might.

BF has never said that ANYTHING in the game is perfect. Rather, they apply their limited resources to improve what they judge is going to give the most bang for the buck in terms of what REALLY satisfies their customer base.

What they don't do is take out loans that will cripple the company so they can embark on projects that satisfy the boiler plate marketing ideas of armchair quarterbacks with no skin in the game. Sure, they'd LOVE to enhance the UI to ultimate perfection. -Just not at the risk of adding expenditure that will almost certainly not be matched adequately by increased sales.

There is one place where I'm seeing arrogance shining brightly, though. It's from people who seem to deeply resent that BF would dare not to heed their advice. No, for them and long-time fans who have read and understand BF's position, it's straight to personal attack. You guys are old! You're elitist! You're hayseeds who need to be enlightened!

I can hear the Wall Street guys luring the lamb investors to the slaughter back before the **** hit the fan. But hey, the consultants got paid, didn't they?

It REALLY seems to burn some guys up that BF has been able to stay independent, successfully cater to its core niche--and gradually expand it, while not overextending its resources.

That's interesting.

Anyway. We'll see if Steve responds.

But probably not.

He's busy and it's not the first join-date: this month, post-number: under 20 who has shown up to tell him how to run his business.

And it won't be the last.

[Asterix909]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1536440&postcount=165

There is nothing to argue about here. [...] All I am saying is that Steve is in a much better place to know than any of you are.

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...

[Pelican Pal]

The UI has a lot of unknowns in it and just isn't very clear.

A few examples: We still don't have a good identifier for opened up tanks, when units are sharing tactical information and with whom they will do it, what units will share ammo, and a lack of SOPs which is pretty constantly an issue and force players to rely on a handful of premade commands.

Like it works, it just could be a lot better.

As for elitism. This forum is pretty rife with it at times.

The last time CM on Steam came up there were pretty constant comments about how Steam gamers just weren't good enough for CM. That they needed flashy graphics. That CM was too complicated for them.

And then you have the occasional new person who gets pounced on because their tone wasn't perfect, or god forbid they didn't know that forum member X has a vast history of doing Y. So, of course, they should of have done their research on every person in the forum before commenting so that they would know everyone's background perfectly. To pretend that this forum is always welcoming to new comers is to ignore a number of examples where that didn't occur.

And sure, maybe that person could have been more polite. However, that doesn't mean that y'all need to start bitching them out. Just answer the question they have in a polite manner. Maybe ask them to be more polite. But I've seen one too many threads that have 2 pages of regulars ****ting on some new guy.

ian.leslie, there was a steam group back when CM:SF was newish. I played a few real time games on it. I think it died during the tail end of CM:SF and was never really revived by any subsequent release.