How much would you pay for an improved AI upgrade

[Patgarret]

This thread is just plain backfiring on players.

Asking to be carged for improvements that should be on future release is just proving to Battlefront that they can continue their politic of high prices to a very small niche.

That's not thhe way, not at all.

The concept behind the combat mission series is superb and with some graphical and ui improvements they could sell the game to a wider audience and get the funds to innovate in an area that would really make the game shine, that is AI. Sad or not the way of the market is the only one that can get true innovations...instead of churning out the same game with some tweaks on units and rules and slapping on it a 50$ price tag. No surprise the series is stuck. True, the dev are still alive and the fans are playing and drooling over new projects, me included, but there is no perspective...and that is a shame considering the uniqueness of the game.

[Apocal]

When every dollar you ever made as a company is a couple of zeros short of what the project would cost, the improvements in question cost might as well be on a moon of Saturn.  If you could build it, and that is a question mark, it might take a scientific computing cluster to run it.  If the Pentagon decided to rain money on BFC it still wouldn't go this way. It is just not happening.

 

You realize you're posting this in response to a guy who has coded a game with credibly adaptive AI, right? Nobody in this thread is asking for anything that is novel in the wargame/simulation world.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Apocal

[Stagler]

This thread is just plain backfiring on players.

Asking to be carged for improvements that should be on future release is just proving to Battlefront that they can continue their politic of high prices to a very small niche.

That's not thhe way, not at all.

The concept behind the combat mission series is superb and with some graphical and ui improvements they could sell the game to a wider audience and get the funds to innovate in an area that would really make the game shine, that is AI. Sad or not the way of the market is the only one that can get true innovations...instead of churning out the same game with some tweaks on units and rules and slapping on it a 50$ price tag. No surprise the series is stuck. True, the dev are still alive and the fans are playing and drooling over new projects, me included, but there is no perspective...and that is a shame considering the uniqueness of the game.

 

Round two, FIGHT!

[womble]

This thread is just plain backfiring on players.

Asking to be carged for improvements that should be on future release is just proving to Battlefront that they can continue their politic of high prices to a very small niche.

So everything BFC produces should just be a free upgrade? Or is AI programming somehow a free side outcome of other programming tasks? Newsflash: programmer time costs money whether they're coding interface elements or AI. The whole point of this poll was to see how an AI focused upgrade (rather than one where AI improvements were secondary to gameplay or interface features) would be received by the keeners in this community. I guess some demonstration of the lack of understanding inherent in some of the userbase was useful as a baseline.

[A Canadian Cat]

I guess some demonstration of the lack of understanding inherent in some of the userbase was useful as a baseline.

 

And pretty much inevitable...

[Stagler]

And pretty much inevitable...

 

Come now chaps, step off our high horses. Patgarret only has 35 posts. Lets be nice to the new guys.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Stagler

[Oakheart]

I want sandbox AI, I would put forth $200 in a kick starter to move this game to the UE4 or another modern engine. 

[sburke]

Come now chaps, step off our high horses. Patgarret only has 35 posts. Lets be nice to the new guys.

Well his statement reflects that he isn't a "newbie", just not a frequent poster.  The post itself is pretty inflammatory and really nothing new.  Some folks just aren't ever gonna be happy.  So be it.

[delliejonut]

I voted 0 dollars for both, because as much as I enjoy CM, CMBN plus its expansions cost me nearly $150 already. I fully understand the reasoning for charging for the upgrades, but I personally can't justify spending any more money on a single game. If BFC were able to implement these features in the original release, would it have been twice as expensive? I don't think so.

[womble]

I voted 0 dollars for both, because as much as I enjoy CM, CMBN plus its expansions cost me nearly $150 already. I fully understand the reasoning for charging for the upgrades, but I personally can't justify spending any more money on a single game. If BFC were able to implement these features in the original release, would it have been twice as expensive? I don't think so.

No, it wouldn't have been twice as expensive. It simply would not have ever been released and BFC would have gone out of business for lack of a revenue stream. "These features" are emphatically not easy to program in the extremely fine-grained simulation that is CM. You think BFC didn't want a feature-complete release at day 1? Yes, doing things piecemeal attracts additional costs, but it wouldn't generally double them: you get significant quantities of new content in modules that cost more than the (nominal) upgrade fee. v3 CMBN without modules would have cost you [basegame price] plus $20, which is a long way from twice the initial price. You paid more for the modules and vehicle pack because they had bags of new content.

 

So, what are you objecting to? That content costs money? That programming new features costs money? That getting more of either costs more money? If the Bulge game was released instead as a module for BN (a great big module that costs $55), would you get it? Will you not get an upgrade that brings the interface into the 21st Century, for the probable price of $10? Or did you just mean "The AI improvements aren't something I'd pay for"?

 

If, for example, you bought Hearts of Iron, HOI2 and HOI3 and all their expansions and DLC, how much would that have cost you? Sure, that's spread over 3 "entirely new games", but effectively the upgradeable nature of CMBN means that instead of having to buy 3 games (1 for each version) you only had to upgrade the existing game. For ten, or even 5, if you bought it in a bundle, measly bucks. And upgrades is all there is going to be for BN, in all likelihood. Maybe there will be a pack of new goodies. Which is entirely optional. Or don't you think you've had your money's worth?

 

Gah.

[Apocal]

If, for example, you bought Hearts of Iron, HOI2 and HOI3 and all their expansions and DLC, how much would that have cost you? Sure, that's spread over 3 "entirely new games", but effectively the upgradeable nature of CMBN means that instead of having to buy 3 games (1 for each version) you only had to upgrade the existing game. For ten, or even 5, if you bought it in a bundle, measly bucks. And upgrades is all there is going to be for BN, in all likelihood. Maybe there will be a pack of new goodies. Which is entirely optional. Or don't you think you've had your money's worth?

 

The annoying thing to me about Battlefront is that I'm buying all these different theaters with no way to join them as a single, unified product.

[delliejonut]

@womble

 

Really not looking for a flame war. I do enjoy CMBN quite a lot, and I wish nothing but the best for Steve and the rest of the company. I know they are a small team, and cannot do everything they want to as quickly as they would like. That's fine. When I said I "personally can't justify" myself paying more money, I meant just that. I can't afford it. If you want to spend more, do so. 

 

I'm not really objecting to BF's pricing model. I fairly simply stated that I can't really afford to keep giving BF money to keep playing the same game. I am mostly interested in H2H play, so if an upgrade package did come out that cost up to $60, I would have to buy it just to be able to play PBEM's. The 3.0 upgrade was only $10, but it was the same situation. Buy or be unable to play. I just don't like the feeling of being forced into something like that.

 

The reasons that I only bought one HOI is the same as why I only bought one CM game- money, and the amount of time I'll actually be able to spend playing. I research, play demos, and then pick the one I think I'll enjoy the most. It's not a question of whether something has been good enough for me so far. It has been good so far. The thing is with CMBN, all the way from 1.0 to 3.12 (expansions aside) it IS just one game, but I'm sure someone will explain to me how an upgrade and a patch are different things.

 

Sorry for not using quotes, didn't feel like using them. I don't have any magic solutions for BF to increase their revenue stream. I appreciate all they do, but I'm not going to pay $60 for an AI upgrade. Period.

Edited March 20, 2015 by delliejonut

[Oakheart]

No, it wouldn't have been twice as expensive. It simply would not have ever been released and BFC would have gone out of business for lack of a revenue stream. "These features" are emphatically not easy to program in the extremely fine-grained simulation that is CM. You think BFC didn't want a feature-complete release at day 1? Yes, doing things piecemeal attracts additional costs, but it wouldn't generally double them: you get significant quantities of new content in modules that cost more than the (nominal) upgrade fee. v3 CMBN without modules would have cost you [basegame price] plus $20, which is a long way from twice the initial price. You paid more for the modules and vehicle pack because they had bags of new content.

 

So, what are you objecting to? That content costs money? That programming new features costs money? That getting more of either costs more money? If the Bulge game was released instead as a module for BN (a great big module that costs $55), would you get it? Will you not get an upgrade that brings the interface into the 21st Century, for the probable price of $10? Or did you just mean "The AI improvements aren't something I'd pay for"?

 

If, for example, you bought Hearts of Iron, HOI2 and HOI3 and all their expansions and DLC, how much would that have cost you? Sure, that's spread over 3 "entirely new games", but effectively the upgradeable nature of CMBN means that instead of having to buy 3 games (1 for each version) you only had to upgrade the existing game. For ten, or even 5, if you bought it in a bundle, measly bucks. And upgrades is all there is going to be for BN, in all likelihood. Maybe there will be a pack of new goodies. Which is entirely optional. Or don't you think you've had your money's worth?

 

Gah.

Do you know if Battlefront has considered kickstarter? They seem to be in a rut (maybe) where they have very tight time constraints  where they can't take the extended time needed to implement these features.

I'll reiterate that I'd like to see them make a sandbox, where they provide the tools and we provide the dreams. I'd hate to use another game to compare but thats one of the reasons arma has done so well. that map editor is powerful and the ability for the community to make whatever units they can dream up. Its that unlimited potential that makes that game such a selling point.

           I'd love to see this one the Unreal 4 engine where they provide a base frame work and then release packs for that framework. Like a "WW2 Nazi 38-44" pack, a "USMC 56-81" pack, or for the large money packs they could include features like "infrared player screen" or something along the lines to expand the sandbox.

           I'd also like to see the community have the tools to make their own units, weapons, and tanks. I know the community would as well. I've heard the reason that battlefront hasn't allowed that before is "balance and historical accuracy" which really translates into "We need DLC money" which is fine but they shouldn't stifle the community with that fact thought. If people think MOD units are unbalanced then they can ask for changes or just uninstall the mod.

[delliejonut]

Do you know if Battlefront has considered kickstarter? They seem to be in a rut (maybe) where they have very tight time constraints  where they can't take the extended time needed to implement these features.

I'll reiterate that I'd like to see them make a sandbox, where they provide the tools and we provide the dreams. I'd hate to use another game to compare but thats one of the reasons arma has done so well. that map editor is powerful and the ability for the community to make whatever units they can dream up. Its that unlimited potential that makes that game such a selling point.

           I'd love to see this one the Unreal 4 engine where they provide a base frame work and then release packs for that framework. Like a "WW2 Nazi 38-44" pack, a "USMC 56-81" pack, or for the large money packs they could include features like "infrared player screen" or something along the lines to expand the sandbox.

           I'd also like to see the community have the tools to make their own units, weapons, and tanks. I know the community would as well. I've heard the reason that battlefront hasn't allowed that before is "balance and historical accuracy" which really translates into "We need DLC money" which is fine but they shouldn't stifle the community with that fact thought. If people think MOD units are unbalanced then they can ask for changes or just uninstall the mod.

 

+1 this

 

The kickstarter idea could only work in BF's favor. More than a few guys in the community are willing and have the means to contribute. Not so sure about the last two paragraphs though. How would you ensure certain weapon systems had the right ballistics?

[womble]

Do you know if Battlefront has considered kickstarter? They seem to be in a rut (maybe) where they have very tight time constraints  where they can't take the extended time needed to implement these features.

My recollection of BFC's reaction is that they have looked at it, but it doesn't suit them. Bear in mind that Steve et al claim (and it doesn't seem unreasonable) they aren't in this game to make megabucks, but to make enough to live comfortably on while doing what they enjoy in the way they enjoy doing it. The impression I get is that, even if some sugar daddy showed up with bottomless pockets, the team wouldn't be made any bigger, because managing that sort of enterprise just isn't something Steve is interested in, and Charles would far rather be up to his frontal cortex (brains in jars don't have elbows...) in source code than herding code monkeys with code stains down their fronts (which roles they'd each have to assume to ensure they remained happy with the direction of the product). Maybe Kickstarter could be used so that they don't have to release anything for a year (or whatever), and can just work on a revamp or AI upgrade rather than worry about keeping body and soul together until the perfect game is complete.

 

 

I'll reiterate that I'd like to see them make a sandbox, where they provide the tools and we provide the dreams.

Unfortunately for those who'd like to see this, Steve is on record as saying it's not going to happen because they're not interested in letting any Tom Dick or Harry make fantastical mods for their game. I can see their point of view, and it's a shame for those who'd like to make assiduously researched content using tools provided by the devs. But Steve seemed pretty firm.

 

           I'd love to see this one the Unreal 4 engine...

My recollection of previous discussions on this subject is that there are good reasons why that engine wouldn't be able to do what BFC want the engine to do. My brain steadfastly refuses to remember which graphics environment BFC have expressed as their preferential successor to OpenGL; perhaps someone who does remember can remind me?

 

 

           I'd also like to see the community have the tools to make their own units, weapons, and tanks. I know the community would as well. I've heard the reason that battlefront hasn't allowed that before is "balance and historical accuracy" which really translates into "We need DLC money" ...

I think you misattribute motives. Historical accuracy is, AFAICT, a basic tenet of Steve's moral code. Balance, the team could care less about, but not very much. I think there is room for some alternate/community-based "force picking" or "army lists" collaboration, but I think the historical accuracy part of that explanation is probably honest.

[Stagler]

Anti-nodding is a bad stance to have. Obviously simple mods can be made. But games with access to source code flourish with new content. RHS for example, we have actually made better content than the base product due to an efficient and knowledgeable team.

[A Canadian Cat]

Wow this has gone off the deep end.  A desire to create an open environment where people can create their own AI layer and their own units.  Isn't that Arma? Go play and create and have fun sounds to me like it is all there.  What all that openness has still not created a WWII tactical simulation game that can be played H2H?  Qelle surprise!
 
Throwing $ and people at a problem is not necessarily a good answer either. I have been on projects where the execs just hired 2x the programmers and expected 2x the stuff and actually got more like 1.5x total crap.  Growing a development team needs to be done slowly and with care. That is assuming growth is desired.

 

You guys are asking / expecting stuff that just does not seem to be on the road map.

[Stagler]

Meh that's my two cents about modding in games anyway - they should always be available. As I said, at least we can make skin and sound mods.

 

Completely off topic - Actually Ian, you aren't quite right. Mond was working on Window for a while, but he now works for BI doing other stuff: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?120151-MBG-Window-of-opportunity

Which is a shame because it showed so much promise.

 

Seriously though, a kickstarter is a good suggestion. Id pay 50 quid at least into it.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Stagler

[danzig5]

I have never played a single player game of Combat Mission since shock force. Only ever multiplayer the best possible AI. So I would not pay for single player features.

[Stagler]

I think ai is probably what should be looked at second anyway. Multiplayer framework should be the first port of call. Some kind of third party lobby or matchmaking system. The free ware version of c&c95 had one integrated where it booted up a windows based game browser client, and you saw games hosted and could chat to other players in in the lobby. Then when you joined a lobby and started it booted the game and connected to the host.

[Oakheart]

Wow this has gone off the deep end.  A desire to create an open environment where people can create their own AI layer and their own units.  Isn't that Arma? Go play and create and have fun sounds to me like it is all there.  What all that openness has still not created a WWII tactical simulation game that can be played H2H?  Qelle surprise!

 

Throwing $ and people at a problem is not necessarily a good answer either. I have been on projects where the execs just hired 2x the programmers and expected 2x the stuff and actually got more like 1.5x total crap.  Growing a development team needs to be done slowly and with care. That is assuming growth is desired.

 

You guys are asking / expecting stuff that just does not seem to be on the road map.

There are plenty of WW2 mods, look at I44, infact there have been several maps made that combined I44 with Mapfact command engine (still an arma mod) since the days of the very first operation flashpoint. Infact I remember playing one called "Early morning" made by fellow named Winters.

Just because people support openness and willingness to mod a game they love and want to help grow doesnt give you the right to smart ass comment "Qelle surprise!". If we want to go down that road I can show several posts where several "OMFG I GOTZ MOAR THAN 1000 POSTS I AM VET FUK U NU KIDS LOL"posts made by fanboys. As of writing this post there have been several discussions on the AI and these long term fourm goers just **** all over any suggestions for change. How about you guys change your freaking attitudes.

Any company that wants to make money needs to listen to their customers and need to have better PR, where are the mods freaking muteing these smart ass comments or giving out warnings?

​Anyways Adapt or die, its not just a term used in the Marines. You should apply that to everything. If there is a demand it should be met and you shouldn't shooo off your favorite developers customers to another game because you don't like change.

As for Stagler, I love you guys' mods for arma, hell even all they way back from OFP when you released your first motor rifle guys and tanks. I Remember wakeing up and finding your VDV units released on ofp.info and not even thinking twice about downloading. Not to mention your arma 3 stuff is to die for. No way you guys arnt going to win. 

 

[sburke]

Just because people support openness and willingness to mod a game they love and want to help grow doesnt give you the right to smart ass comment "Qelle surprise!". If we want to go down that road I can show several posts where several "OMFG I GOTZ MOAR THAN 1000 POSTS I AM VET FUK U NU KIDS LOL"posts made by fanboys. As of writing this post there have been several discussions on the AI and these long term fourm goers just **** all over any suggestions for change. How about you guys change your freaking attitudes.

Any company that wants to make money needs to listen to their customers and need to have better PR, where are the mods freaking muteing these smart ass comments or giving out warnings?

 

 

Umm, I have never heard that comment actually spoken.  I have however heard it attributed to folks who don't immediately fall down and grovel before the feet of those folks who feel BF has to somehow change or die to fit (insert whatever the going issue of those who seem to feel they have the pulse on the whole computer gaming industry, yet have never produced one)  what they see in some other game that is completely unlike CM.

 

Word of wisdom. Fanboy is one of those terms that BF is pretty fed up, it is the jump to a personal attack when you hear something you don't like.  You want the moderators in, that is a sure fire way to draw attention.

Edited March 22, 2015 by sburke

[Stagler]

Ha, cheers Oakheart. I cant take credit for the work of Alex though he is the driving force.

 

Burke, believe or not but as gamers, we have a good idea of what makes a good game. Maybe not a successful business, granted, but what sets games above the bar, and what is the industry standard when we go out and spend our hard earned cash on games.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Stagler

[sburke]

I didn't say you didn't, what I said was essentially that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you.  Some, maybe many do.  Maybe quite a few long time "fanboy" types even.  However most of us who have been around here a while have gotten used to some of the same topics popping up quite frequently.  They consume many pages of posts, Steve eventually chimes in, the discussion gets ugly because folks don't like Steve's answer.  They seem to feel they have somehow earned a right to tell BF what they have to do and they are irked that BF says, "no, no you don't".  And then the thread gets locked.

 

That is pretty much the cycle.

 

I also have a pretty good idea what makes a good game.  In fact I have a pretty good idea what makes a great game.  I am playing it quite frequently.  What I don't know is what is the cost benefit relationship to BF to do what folks keep suggesting they do as if there is no risk.  Steve says, nope not gonna go there.  I have to trust his judgement as he and Charles are the guys who created the game.  Not you, Not Oakheart etc etc.

[Oakheart]

Well you yourself said how much of an outcry there are for these features. So much so its up setting to you guys. All we can do as consumers is let our voice be heard to the service provider. If there is that much of an issue with the ai that 1/4 of threads discuss it, mabey it should be discussed.