Jump to content

Is it me?


BTR

Recommended Posts

So You agree worth me that many things did not change since SF ?

You agree with me that there are tons of things that should be addressed since 2007 like graphic issues, the infantry movement, vehicle pathfinding ?

Will you spent another 55$ on the next texture and TO&E pack with the same old basic issues ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are I able to discuss all these things (pathfinding for example) without the "I don't see a issue here" and "BFC has other things to do" people... No.

With the insane lack of critics here on the forums and the huge number of Hardcore BFC fans you need guys like me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the insane lack of critics here on the forums...

 

LOL Here we go again—more hyperbole and exaggeration. You keep this up Wiggum and we are gonna have to nominate you for best actor next time the Oscars come around.

 

I think you confuse criticism with tact. Apparently people are only "critics" if they are obnoxious or pushy. But you are right ,we do need guys around that have good ideas and critiques...just with less attitude and pessimism.

 

And yeah, I am gonna buy whatever they put out (because I enjoy the game and system), push for changes where needed or wanted, and patiently wait for the engine to evolve like I have done for the last 7 years.

 

Mord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mord, your CMBN American voices mod is the single best mod for a CM game I've run across -- and I use a lot of mods.  Thanks again for your work on that one!

 

Thanks, man, makes me happy to know people enjoy it so much.

 

 

Mord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL Here we go again—more hyperbole and exaggeration. You keep this up Wiggum and we are gonna have to nominate you for best actor next time the Oscars come around.

 

I think you confuse criticism with tact. Apparently people are only "critics" if they are obnoxious or pushy. But you are right ,we do need guys around that have good ideas and critiques...just with less attitude and pessimism.

 

And yeah, I am gonna buy whatever they put out (because I enjoy the game and system), push for changes where needed or wanted, and patiently wait for the engine to evolve like I have done for the last 7 years.

 

Mord.

Yeah I think he just misses that you can critique the game without resorting to the 'It is a $55 texture pack" BS.  Or perhaps despite it being posted several times he just has yet to actually read this.

 

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=338&Itemid=583

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ask me, these are mostly minor fixes, nothing really game changing like a new infantry movement system, SOPs, UI overhaul, a better editor, smaller action spots a reworked building and cover system, waypoints and more triggers for the AI, MOUT commands, better target arcs, more self preservation for the AI, overhauled tax Ai...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and I want to s**t gold.  Not likely to happen anytime soon.  Do you even realize if Battlefront could somehow go on another no income hiatus and do what you have suggested, your PC would not be able to run the game?  Oh yeah small little item there it seems you didn't account for eh? Now do you understand why many here feel you are a completely unproductive part of the discussion?

 

That you consider all that "minor fixes" just exposes your ignorance.  I am sure if you can finance the effort BF might consider your proposals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and I want to s**t gold.  Not likely to happen anytime soon.  Do you even realize if Battlefront could somehow go on another no income hiatus and do what you have suggested, your PC would not be able to run the game?  Oh yeah small little item there it seems you didn't account for eh?

Ha !

Why should my PC not be able to run the game ?

My PC plays GTAV, GTOS, SABOW and Ryse in high to max setting...and my PC is more then 2 years old and i paid less then 600$ !

Do you try to suggest that BFC cant code a good performance (or even average) engine ?

 

That you consider all that "minor fixes" just exposes your ignorance.  I am sure if you can finance the effort BF might consider your proposals.

??

I consider the changes in your link "mostly minor fixes, nothing really game changing like [...]" !

Do you understand what i say ?

I should finance BFC ?

Why ?

I always thought BFC was a commercial company selling games for $$ and not some kind of free-time modding team ?!

Now do you understand why many here feel you are a completely unproductive part of the discussion?

...eh, no.

Edited by Wiggum15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wiggum has a point. From game to game Battlefront's improvements are very conservative. The game does indeed need better UI and strategic AI with at least some basic reaction patterns, not just pre-set triggers. Doing that shouldn't break BF's bank, especially now that they've polished gameplay mechanics to a nearly perfect condition (as gameplay mechanics is what I see changed the most since CMSF and through all those.. ugh... 'standalone' WW2 titles - while the rest of the game barely got touched). Making strategic AI reactive at least in some primitive ways (like trying to retake back lost victory locations... perhaps based on % of forces available) would go a long way towards improving otherwise dull QB.

 

Also while mechanically it's the deepest wargame it sorely misses the part that makes less complex wargames stand out and would make CM series even greater - strategic layer instead - or better - in addition to seldom-branching campaigns we have now.

 

Randomly generated maps are also a big thing, no? Considering iirc CM1x games had those

Edited by kraze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wiggum has a point.

Oy, I'll just ignore that - like I do Wiggum...

 

From game to game Battlefront's improvements are very conservative.

Yes, they tend to be. Over time they add up and have made lots of progress.  As long as they are improving things that's good.

 

The game does indeed need better UI and

 

Indeed and even Steve has gone on record as saying he wants to do that.  If you look at BFC's track record they tend to make improvements concentrated in one area with a few improvements in other areas - at each step.  A major design change to the UI will need a bit more of an all or nothing approach.  Often if you create a new UI design it will not fit well along side the older one so you cannot do it bit by bit sadly.  I think we are going to have to be patient on this one.

 

strategic AI with at least some basic reaction patterns, not just pre-set triggers. Doing that shouldn't break BF's bank, especially now that they've polished gameplay mechanics to a nearly perfect condition (as gameplay mechanics is what I see changed the most since CMSF and through all those.. ugh... 'standalone' WW2 titles - while the rest of the game barely got touched). Making strategic AI reactive at least in some primitive ways (like trying to retake back lost victory locations... perhaps based on % of forces available) would go a long way towards improving otherwise dull QB.

 

I'm not so sure about this.  The scripted AI does some things quite well actually and it appears to be their design philosophy. The kind of thing you are talking about is not really compatible with a scripted AI.

 

Also while mechanically it's the deepest wargame it sorely misses the part that makes less complex wargames stand out and would make CM series even greater - strategic layer instead - or better - in addition to seldom-branching campaigns we have now.

I am not sure what you are talking about here.  Of course my big problem with campaigns is the are not playable by PBEM so I spend nearly no time with them so that could be why I'm not getting it.   Can you elaborate.

 

Randomly generated maps are also a big thing, no? Considering iirc CM1x games had those

Yuck, this has been discussed before lots and I really do no think that will ever happen. 1) those maps sucked - really sucked 2) random selection of prepared maps works really well. I honestly do not see why any one would want randomly generated maps now.  Once you have a big enough pool of maps, random selection is just so much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they tend to be. Over time they add up and have made lots of progress.  As long as they are improving things that's good.

If you would ask me about the improvements since SF (2007) the only thing i can think of is the "Target Armor Arc".

Other then that...puh i would need some time to come up with another one...oh wait "AI triggers" !

So i can think of 2 improvements since SF...and some things have even gone worse like the foxholes and trenches !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree -partially- with Wiggum as well. To me more specific, i agree with the following part of Wiggums critique:

 

BFC could vary game prices on the amount of recycled content and the actual man-hours invested in making a new game. This could result in more representative prices.

 

For example, CMBN (base game), with all the newly created vehicles, engine features, textures, buildings, etc could be sold for 75$, while CMRT, which has a certain amount of recycled content and only some new ground tiles, buildings and 1 new faction and some new engine features could be sold for, let' s say 37,50$ (CMBN/2). CMFI could be sold for the same price as CMRT. CMBS is difficult to rate, because on the one hand you have some obviously recycled content (some textures, 3D models, etc), but on the other hand there are lots of new engine and gameplay features (APS, LWR, SAMS, etc), so i would rate it somwhere in between the previous titles at 56,25$.

 

Of course these examples are not actual pricing recommendations but just supposed to illustrate the concept i am having in mind.

 

EDIT:

 

Currently all base games (except from CMSF and CMA) cost exactely 55$ USD, and i doubt that they really invested exactely the same amount of time in the development of each title, hence i have to agree with Wiggum that the prices are not necessarily a representative compensation for BFCs work, which is what he is criticizing.

 

Now, of course someone is going to bring up the arguement that in our capistalist society work and items are normally sold for exactley that amount of money that the highest bidder is willing to pay and that, would BFCs prices really be inapproriate in a capitalist sense, the market would "punish" them and force them to sell their games at lower prices. But in fact, this has absolutely nothing to do with how representative the prices of their games are for the invested man-hours - a smart salesman would always sell his work for as much as he can and not for as much as would be representative for the invested man-hours.

 

The question now is: is that behaviour morally acceptable? Or would it be more moral to have a more representative pricing policy instead of a classic capitalist one? It' s difficult answear that, i think. Is anyone interested in derailing this thread into a lengthy philosophical discussion about captialism vs. fair trade vs. marxism? I will be in front of my PC the whole afternooon, got some office work to do.

Edited by agusto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you would ask me about the improvements since SF (2007) the only thing i can think of is the "Target Armor Arc".

Other then that...puh i would need some time to come up with another one...oh wait "AI triggers" !

So i can think of 2 improvements since SF...and some things have even gone worse like the foxholes and trenches !

trenches before were visible. thats why they changed. you could see trenches immediately no fog of war. i can add many improvements. mgs fire random numbers of bullets now. drones. precision artillery. anti air craft fire. editor improvements. mg fire being more effective in general but most speficially against infantry.

In door firing of rocket weapons. flame weapons. theres more too. i just dont vare to add because wiggum isnt gonna change his mind he.s been on this lonely rant about how bfc is swindling us all for months now. though i dont know why after being told repeatedly by 97% of everyone they dont agree and thats fine its his opinion and ok got it wiggum he posts the same **** over and over and over. its almost maddening tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha !

Why should my PC not be able to run the game ?

My PC plays GTAV, GTOS, SABOW and Ryse in high to max setting...and my PC is more then 2 years old and i paid less then 600$ !

Do you try to suggest that BFC cant code a good performance (or even average) engine ?

??

I consider the changes in your link "mostly minor fixes, nothing really game changing like [...]" !

Do you understand what i say ?

I should finance BFC ?

Why ?

I always thought BFC was a commercial company selling games for $$ and not some kind of free-time modding team ?!

...eh, no.

Once again you don't seem to understand what you are asking for or where the issues for CM lie in your requests. I am doing my best to give you civil replies and I realize I fail at times, but your questions and your suggestions reveal a fairly profound ignorance as to what CM is up against to accomplish what you want.

Why should you finance BF? Simple you are asking they halt their revenue stream to basically completely rewrite the code which assuming it even could be done is going to mean the company faces bankruptcy. As you noted they are profit based. They are currently turning a profit with a very solid game. Maybe not what you want it to be but frankly there isn't anything even close in the genre. So yes if you want a revamped game, then you need to figure out how to finance it because BF is not a Wiggun charity.

BF is not a graphics intensive game, it is a CPU intensive game. A critical point in understanding first of all what is possible and second of all impact.

Reducing the action squares is a geometric increase on CPU computing load. Your vaunted computer would fry or more likely just simply hang.

AI again is an intensive CPU load. Before you even get to CPU though you have to understand what it takes to write an AI to do what you think you want. Phil knows a helluva lot more about what the state of AI programming is and what is feasible than you or I. If he is saying that the general state ANYWHERE on AI programming is such that it isn't going to get better for quite some time (based on first of all being able to write the appropriate AI and second having the system resources to handle it) I take him at his word. That you don't is again just pointless. Neither you nor I are qualified to challenge Phil.

Look around at the gaming world in general and tell me a good comparable example for AI coding. The closest is probably Command Ops, but it doesn't have to figure out what an individual pixeltruppen is going to do when a tank and an enemy infantry unit come into view during an artillery barrage. The TAC AI in CM is far from perfect, but it is amazingly good and the behavior is constantly getting tweaked.

So the point myself and others are trying to make with you is yes we all want to see CM improve. Those improvements have to have context though. What is BF capable of doing - ie what is the state of computer processing and AI code that are requirements to adding any AI additions to the game. What would it demand of BF in terms of resources and finances that would affect the companies survival. Even you have to admit, if BF attempts to rewrite the AI code and the result was the company went bankrupt, none of us would be particularly happy. Steve is a major proponent of updating the UI, but he has clearly stated on these board that it is a major effort that would require a lot of their time and would likely be part of a major revision, say something like CM 4. In and of itself there is not money for it. As much as folks say they want it, if BF did a version 4 update that was just UI, there would be howls from the community yourself included that you are just paying for a UI mod.

For all it's faults and it does have many, CM is an extremely solid game that continues to develop. Your proposals all inherently throw that out as if it has no value. That from my viewpoint at least is the flaw in your argument. You risk the health of the company and the continued development of new CM games and modules for something that inherently is not likely to happen.

 

I agree -partially- with Wiggum as well. To me more specific, i agree with the following part of Wiggums critique:

 

BFC could vary game prices on the amount of recycled content and the actual man-hours invested in making a new game. This could result in more representative prices.

 

For example, CMBN (base game), with all the newly created vehicles, engine features, textures, buildings, etc could be sold for 75$, while CMRT, which has a certain amount of recycled content and only some new ground tiles, buildings and 1 new faction and some new engine features could be sold for, let' s say 37,50$ (CMBN/2). CMFI could be sold for the same price as CMRT. CMBS is difficult to rate, because on the one hand you have some obviously recycled content (some textures, 3D models, etc), but on the other hand there are lots of new engine and gameplay features (APS, LWR, SAMS, etc), so i would rate it somwhere in between the previous titles at 56,25$.

 

Of course these examples are not actual pricing recommendations but just supposed to illustrate the concept i am having in mind.

 

EDIT:

 

Currently all base games (except from CMSF and CMA) cost exactely 55$ USD, and i doubt that they really invested exactely the same amount of time in the development of each title, hence i have to agree with Wiggum that the prices are not necessarily a representative compensation for BFCs work, which is what he is criticizing.

 

Now, of course someone is going to bring up the arguement that in our capistalist society work and items are normally sold for exactley that amount of money that the highest bidder is willing to pay and that, would BFCs prices really be inapproriate, the market would "punish" them and force them to sell their games at lower prices. But in fact, this has absolutely nothing to do with how representative the prices of their games are for the invested man-hours - a smart salesman would always sell his work for as much as he can and not for as much as would be representative for the invested man-hours. The question now is: is that behaviour morally acceptable? Or would it be more moral to have a more representative pricing policy instead of a classic capitalist one? It' s difficult answear that, i think. Is anyone interested in derailing this thread into a lengthy philosophical discussion about captialism vs. fair trade/marxism? I will be in front of my PC the whole afternooon, got some office work to do.

Agusto regarding CMRT, the coding that went into making tank riders? Flamethrowers? AA fire? BF is pretty smart at figuring out how to produce the game within a target range the market will support. $55 looks to be about what is expected. So to fit within that target and get the additional features they want, do the TOE work, add the models that are new etc means anything they don't have to redo again they won't.  The prices I believe ARE representative.  It is simply that folks don't look at the whole picture.  They look at one piece and decide Aha!  See it could have been cheaper!  What they miss is the fact that a host of other work is also being done.  Every game title has had new stuff that takes time and labor.  BF's pricing model allows a slow but sure incremental advance, keeps the company stable and doesn't risk losing the whole thing because this is it guys.  If BF goes under who is going to step in and keep making this game? 

 

The proposals Wiggun keeps tossing out completely ignore first of all whether they are even possible and second of all the financial risk.  Do you take financial advice from the kid down the street running a lemonade stand about what kind of retirement investments you should make?  Then why listen to Wiggun's proposals as they have just about the same level of validity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yuck, this has been discussed before lots and I really do no think that will ever happen. 1) those maps sucked - really sucked 2) random selection of prepared maps works really well. I honestly do not see why any one would want randomly generated maps now.  Once you have a big enough pool of maps, random selection is just so much better.

 

The best feature regarding maps is the editor overlay that was introduce with the CMx2 v2.0 upgrade, IMO. Do you have any idea how awful it was to build highly accurate maps from satelite images in CMSF? I had to print out the satelite images i wanted to use, draw a coordinate grid on them and then transfer the terrain square per square into the Scenario Editor. But now, with the editor overlay, makeing maps from satelite images is so fast, it' s really cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agusto regarding CMRT, the coding that went into making tank riders? Flamethrowers? AA fire? BF is pretty smart at figuring out how to produce the game within a target range the market will support.

 

Nope, i didnt know that and i think it is irrelevant to my point. The prices i names named in the post you quoted were mere example, as i said, just to show the concept i am talking about.

 

$55 looks to be about what is expected.

 

Persoanlly I am fine with the current prices and 55$ is a usual prices for a 3D strategy/tactics game. But that does not necessarily mean that this is a price representative for the work that went into making the game.

 

The prices I believe ARE representative.

 

I disagree with that because, and i now have the pleasure to quote myself;

 

Currently all base games (except from CMSF and CMA) cost exactely 55$ USD, and i doubt that they really invested exactely the same amount of time in the development of each title.

 

I think that it' s unlikely that the current prices are fully represenative. I think that they are within an appropriate scope, but they could, in theory, certainly be more represantative. We would need more information to accurately judge how representaive are, but i call plausibility to the witness box and ask you: how likely do you think it is that a copmpany can produce 4 obviously very different products and invest exactely the same amount of man-hours each time?

 

 It is simply that folks don't look at the whole picture.  They look at one piece and decide Aha!  See it could have been cheaper!

 

I didnt say i want anything cheaper, if this statement was directed at me, you are unjustifiably generalizing here. In fact, i said that, for example, I think CMBN could be sold at a higher price than it currently is because i think that, based on what i know, which admittedly is not much but still more than nothing, it was more time-consuming to make than the other post-CMBN CMx2 WW2 titles. But whether or no i am right regarding the particular case of CMBN or CMRT doesnt affect the concept i am talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sburke , I think Agusto was just having fun trying to start a debate about the comparative merits of communism and capitalism and such, not actually agreeing with wiggum in any general sense, just pointing out that wiggum sort of brought up an "interesting"  philosophical issue.   Which would be a more interesting point than trying to convince wiggum that its a good game or whatever.  Not sure why wiggum bothers with these posts tho, lel, well responded to anyway guys.

Edited by cool breeze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with that because, and i now have the pleasure to quote myself;

 

You owe me a beer. The one I had just blasted out through my nose.

 

I think that it' s unlikely that the current prices are fully representative. I think that they are within an appropriate scope, but they could, in theory, certainly be more representative. We would need more information to accurately judge how representaive are, but i call plausibility to the witness box and ask you: how likely do you think it is that a copmpany can produce 4 obviously very different products and invest exactely the same amount of man-hours each time?

 

 

I didnt say i want anything cheaper, if this statement was directed at me, you are unjustifiably generalizing here. In fact, i said that, for example, I think CMBN could be sold at a higher price than it currently is because i think that, based on what i know, which admittedly is not much but still more than nothing, it was more time-consuming to make than the other post-CMBN CMx2 WW2 titles. But whether or no i am right regarding the particular case of CMBN or CMRT doesnt affect the concept i am talking about.

No not specifically at you. I think for BF trying to figure out the price value of a specific game on a labor/man hours basis that gets too specific becomes an accounting exercise they'd rather not have to go through.  Honestly I don't think any of us are really in a position to say the relative labor.  Even as a beta tester I don't know how long it takes before BF feels it is ready to dump to the testing community.  CMFI for example caught EVERYONE by surprise.

 

I can get somewhat of an idea how long it takes and number of issues that crop up once it is to the testing community.  One thing I have learned is that it is a lot more work than I ever expected.  You don't get to make a game that has the ballistics characteristics of CM without introducing a huge amount of very specific details.  I think people's assumption that they simply copy over models between games is not entirely accurate. And that is based on actual experience not just conjecture.  Then you start getting into TOEs, I get a headache just reading the discussion of them.  The level of detail, the design for options and how to invoke them, how to make sure that the teams all occupy their vehicles correctly etc etc.  Folks are used to a level of detail in these games and honestly they do not appreciate what all goes into it.  I know I didn't.  I think we are all just a bit jaded.  We have come to take what we have for granted.  There is a reason BF has no real competition.  It isn't just that there aren't any really serious competitors, it is just that they are that good that no one is going to go head to head and win.  AP series lacks some very fundamental things (PBEM for example) that just makes them different.  They are great for the community that wants some very specific things that AP has and don't mind not having the additional things that CM has.  That's great that folks have a choice.  But if you want to have a HTH game and you want that infantry focused combat,  AP is not the game you are going to buy.

 

Wiggun wants something more than what CM is.  That's cool.  We all do to some degree or another.  The one most important thing though that we all want is for BF to survive and continue to develop CM x2 and eventually CM x3 etc.  The business model HAS to support that.  Expecting BF to completely revamp the engine right after they got into a regular revenue stream is putting that at risk.  That isn't to say that BF is not already looking at that, I actually expect they are.  It is however something that will be years before it is ready to produce something.

 

Personally I think the upkeep of the engine across the spectrum of games is an overly optimistic projection.  When you eventually have 9 or 10 game families it will get prohibitively resource expensive.  Perhaps BF will finish the Eastern front, do a remake of Shock Force and then get them all upgraded to a single engine version and stop there.  Once they move to CM x3 there is no reason to go back and touch those game families.  They will be a finished product and BF will move onto to something new.  Space Marines?  Who knows, it is years away.  The CM x2 engine though is what will be the basis for the next number of game families and it is unrealistic to expect a fundamental game engine change right now.  If that is not what Wiggun wants to pay for in the next 4-5 game families, 5-10 modules/vehicle packs etc, then he needs to spend his time and money elsewhere as it isn't going to change.  It can't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BF is not a graphics intensive game, it is a CPU intensive game. A critical point in understanding first of all what is possible and second of all impact.

Reducing the action squares is a geometric increase on CPU computing load. Your vaunted computer would fry or more likely just simply hang.

AI again is an intensive CPU load.

Yeah, with the current badly optimized engine my "vaunted computer would fry or more likely just simply hang".

Stop telling everybody about those "magic" AI process thats soooooo demanding on your CPU and all those bullets pew...luckely i can play ArmA3 with high setting with 40 FPS...

If i shoot mortar rounds at a enemy APC it will just sit there as long as it is not hit...although there are impacts in 25m distance...

Vehicles are to stupid to use roads and pathfinding is horrible...is that also part of the "magic" AI process thats so demanding ?

trenches before were visible. thats why they changed. you could see trenches immediately no fog of war. i can add many improvements.

I know and i was one of those guys who screamed for FOW trenches. But what we got is way worse...the current representation of trenches and foxholes as ugly "units" is awful.

A workaround due to engine limitations...nothing more.

 

mgs fire random numbers of bullets now. drones. precision artillery. anti air craft fire. editor improvements. mg fire being more effective in general but most speficially against infantry.

In door firing of rocket weapons. flame weapons. theres more too. i just dont vare to add because wiggum isnt gonna change his mind he.s been on this lonely rant about how bfc is swindling us all for months now. though i dont know why after being told repeatedly by 97% of everyone they dont agree and thats fine its his opinion and ok got it wiggum he posts the same **** over and over and over. its almost maddening tbh.

- drones

Invisible, maybe just a F16 with another sound file, i cant be to much work if you have aircraft fire already modeled ingame

- mgs fire random numbers of bullets now

Believe it or not, for me thats just a minor change, something a coder does in one or two hours.

- precision artillery

is just a shell without to much dispersion, i doubt that this was much work...

- anti air craft fire

Its just something firing into the air, planes are invisible so it could be as simple as a randomly generated number. If that number is >x then the plane was hit...minor change

- editor improvements

Using the editor is still a pain in the a**. But yeah at least they tried to improve it a bit. But still its not user friendly or straightforward.

- mg fire being more effective in general but most speficially against infantry.

Again, just change a few variables, do some testing and you have it...a minor improvement that is a basic thing to include into a patch

- In door firing of rocket weapons

Again, most likely just a small code change and some testing, minor change

Like:

If _weapon == "RPG" then {allowfirefrominsidebuilding = false} else {allowfirefrominsidebuilding = true}

- flame weapons

Only avaiable in RT, this was already present in CMx1

The Bulge game will use the same germans (+ a few new tanks and textures) like we already have in CMBN and CMRT.

The Bulge game will use the "flat" snow tile and weather "graphic effects" from CMFI

The Bulge game will use the US forces we already have in CMBN and its addons (+ a few new tanks and textures)

The Bulge game will have the flame weapons and tank riders from RT

The Bulge game will have mostly the same TO&E as CMBN with some additions and changes

The Bulge game will have new scenarios

Please tell me, from your perspective, what the big "new" feature of the next full price CMx2 game ?

Edited by Wiggum15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- editor improvements

Using the editor is still a pain in the a**. But yeah at least they tried to improve it a bit. But still its not user friendly or straightforward.

 

Despite all the room for improvement that there certainly is, it is still very user friendly compared to other level editors i have used.

 

Please tell me, from your perspective, what the big "new" feature of the next full price CMx2 game ?

 

Price = (man-hours * wage per hour) / expected number of copies sold.

 

It' s a niche market, which means that the number of copies sold is compareably low, hence in order to get an appropriate wage per hour per man, the price per implemented feature needs to be higher compared to a mainstream game with hundereds of thousand of copies sold. If, by law, every US citizen was required to purchase one copy of every CM game, the price per game could be in the single cent range and BFC could still make a living from it. If onyl a single copy of each game was sold, the price per copy would have to be in the upper 7 digit dollar range.

 

EDIT:

 

 You owe me a beer. The one I had just blasted out through my nose.

 

It wasnt intended to be that funny, but great you had a good laugh.

 

Regarding representative pricing, let' s look at a little example.

 

CMBN man-hours = 10000

Wage per hour per man = 65 USD *

Expected numbers of copies sold: 10000

 

=> game price 65 USD.

 

*That sounds like a lot but keep in mind that there are taxes and other additional expenses, like rent for the office, etc - i have a small business and i calculate 60€ per man-hour and i couldnt charge less because, with all the expenses i have (tax, rent, equipment, software licenses), there would be nothing left for me!

 

If now CMFI was less work intensive to make than CMBN, let' s say 5000 man-hours, while the other values stay the same, we would get a price of 32,50 USD.

 

Battlefront sells their games at 55 USD, which is probably some sort of average value, so it' s not representative for the work-hours required to produce each single title.

Edited by agusto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...