Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?

[Commanderski]

No game or marketing concept is ever perfect. There will always be people who love the game and the way the company handles it and there will always be people who complain about the game and the company whether they buy anything or not.

Personally I like the way BF is doing things.

[76mm]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Now, before someone says it... we aren't ever going to have a "sandbox" game where there is one and only one central Game Engine with DLC added too it. 

OK,  but I sure hope that CMx3 features "theater sandboxes" so that all of the East Front or West Front content, etc. can be played within a single East Front or West Front game, respectively.  I am not a fan of the current model, which would require four separate games for the the East Front, for example.  Why not provide front-specific content as DLCs?

[Glubokii Boy]

9 minutes ago, 76mm said:

OK,  but I sure hope that CMx3 features "theater sandboxes" so that all of the East Front or West Front content, etc. can be played within a single East Front or West Front game, respectively.  I am not a fan of the current model, which would require four separate games for the the East Front, for example.  Why not provide front-specific content as DLCs?

Yep...it would be kind of nice to be able to play campaigns one day that stretched over a longer period of time then what currently is the case...

For example follow a certain formation through Barbarossa , typhoon , case blue etc  etc...maybe to the end of the war...

Seeing equipment upgrades and stuff as the campaigns moves forward...

[MOS:96B2P]

30 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

follow a certain formation through Barbarossa , typhoon , case blue etc  etc...maybe to the end of the war...

Seeing equipment upgrades and stuff as the campaigns moves forward...

That does sound cool.  

[A Canadian Cat]

16 hours ago, 76mm said:

You raise another point--at what point is something an "engine upgrade" vs a "patch"?  If MGs don't "work as expected" in CMBN is it reasonable to expect customers to pay to fix it?

Oops I should have picked something that was clearly a feature instead of something that is a behaviour fix. My bad.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

42 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

For example follow a certain formation through Barbarossa , typhoon , case blue etc  etc...maybe to the end of the war...

You can kind of do that now, it just involves some trickery with the campaign script and a very complex core file.....Ironically, if you wanted to try writing a campaign in this format, good old CM:A offers the widest timescale of all the games (this was more or less what I was doing with 'Abdul Gul's War', before I got sidetracked to the orient, I'd just revamped the core file to increase the potential scope of the campaign).

Edited December 4, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, Commanderski said:

No game or marketing concept is ever perfect. There will always be people who love the game and the way the company handles it and there will always be people who complain about the game and the company whether they buy anything or not.

I once had a conversation with a marketing exec about pricing. He said there is a lot of art in pricing but the usual rule is that if you set your price so that some people don't by because it is too expensive then you have your price set correctly. Obviously if too many people feel that way you will not maximize your revenue but if no one is upset about the price then you are also not maximizing your revenue.

 

2 hours ago, Commanderski said:

Personally I like the way BF is doing things.

Me too. I personally get the appeal of a single sand box engine. As a player that would add fun. As a tester not so much. For this past release of CMFI we had to pay some attention to older content and features not breaking but just the content from one game - imagine if we also had to pay attention to all the other games' content too.

[Battlefront.com]

The concept of "theater sandboxes" is definitely up for consideration.  We sorta have that with CMFI already in that it covers from 1943-1945, which is a really broad period.  Unfortunately, it was also extremely tricky to pull off from our perspective.

The primary issue with the "theater sandbox" concept is dependency upon previous releases.  The CM2 philosophy is that major additional content is not a requirement.  Don't really care about Commonwealth forces in Normandy, but do care about Arnhem?  Buy only Arnhem.  Don't care about earlier combat in Italy?  Don't buy Gustav Line but do buy Rome to Victory.  Don't care about modern Marines (yeah, yeah... jarheads pipe down!!!) or British (oh, have a cup of tea and relax!!!)?  Only buy NATO. 

The non-dependency method was seen, by us, as a way to give customers the most amount of flexibility and autonomy in making purchase decisions.  What we didn't quite realize was how technically difficult that would be to execute.  More importantly, after years of working with CM2 and you all we have realized that hardly anybody feels the need to selectively purchase content.  From our experience Combat Mission customers tend to fall into one of three categories:

1.   Not interested in the theater and either never buy into it or buy into it quite a bit later on (perhaps when there's bundles available)
2.   Interested enough to buy the first release, scratched the itch, and either don't buy anything more or purchase something far down the road
3.   Very interested and buy everything that comes out for the theater, if not right away then as soon as time/money is available

This means there doesn't seem to be much reason to stick with the current non-dependent release strategy.  Which means the "theater sandbox" concept is viable in future.  Certainly would be a lot easier on the backend for us.  Theaters do not easily break down into neat chunks of content.

Steve

[76mm]

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

From our experience Combat Mission customers tend to fall into one of three categories:

1.   Not interested in the theater and either never buy into it or buy into it quite a bit later on (perhaps when there's bundles available)
2.   Interested enough to buy the first release, scratched the itch, and either don't buy anything more or purchase something far down the road
3.   Very interested and buy everything that comes out for the theater, if not right away then as soon as time/money is available

I would agree these three categories pretty much cover the field, although I guess that could change if you started releasing say, 5-10 smaller "modules" per game instead of 1-3.

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The primary issue with the "theater sandbox" concept is dependency upon previous releases. 

Frankly, I don't understand why this is an issue, since at this point optional DLCs are a common feature of many games.  It seems like it would be even less of an issue since you have already disconnected engine upgrades from content?  Of course I can see how it would be too late to implement this for existing games or perhaps any future CMx2 games, but what about CMx3 (if there is any such thing)?

[danfrodo]

I am confused as to why pricing is an issue.  If you want the products when first introduced, you pay the opening price.  Same w lots of other games, same w books, same w DVDs & streaming movies.  It's normal.   Then later price might drop, or product bundled w other stuff.   

The games are expensive because are a specialty product, lovingly hand crafted by a small group of organic sustainably sourced artisans holed up.... well, somewhere.  and last time my son bought Call of Duty it was $60 (bought w my money).   These games are not commodity items.  I can't just get it somewhere else, like buying pepsi over coke because it's on sale.  

Just speaking for myself here, but I am OK w pre-order of new CMRT module.  Where do I sign up?  I look at CM preorder as a kind of crowdfunding.  Others will disagree, and I totally get that, so can choose to not preorder.  

[Pete Wenman]

4 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

last time my son bought Call of Duty it was $60 (bought w my money).

Just quoted for truth - LOL 

P

[Glubokii Boy]

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

That does sound cool.  

 

58 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You can kind of do that now, it just involves some trickery with the campaign script and a very complex core file.....Ironically, if you wanted to try writing a campaign in this format, good old CM:A offers the widest timescale of all the games (this was more or less what I was doing with 'Abdul Gul's War', before I got sidetracked to the orient, I'd just revamped the core file to increase the potential scope of the campaign).

I have actually been thinking quite a bit about this the last couple of weeks and have come up with a 'concept' that I think would work really neat.....

Going by memory...I have not messed in the editor for a long time...due to not having had a gaming computer for a while....soon, soon I will have one !

As far as I remember though this concept should be doable and will be the first thing I will try ones I get my new machine.

What this concept will allow is a campaign with...

- player adjustable difficulty level on the fly..

- partially player selectable forces for each scenario..

- equipment upgrades through the campaign.

- experience loss (due to cassualties) and experience gain.

I belive I have found a way to do this without it being to much of a hassle for the player ..

I will obviously do some more research before getting cracking but what i'my thinking is to try and do a sort of semi historical campaign involving a kampgruppe from the 6th panzer division...

The basic kampgruppe will be the remains of a panzergrenadierbattalion from the 114th regiment supported by a few tanks from 11th panzer regiment as well as some artillery...

To complement this force the player will have a wide variety of other equipment from the divisions other formations to 'request' to be included in the kampfgruppe for the various scenarios.

This might be things like the odd Tiger tank from the 503 heavy tank battalion or a pair of 88mm AA-guns, some engineers or maybe an additional HMG platoon...some more infantry...

The player will be free to choose what he feels suites the situation best...there will be limits to these extra equipment though...

This will bring some variaty/ flexibility to the scenarios and also be part of the system to allow the player to 'tweak' the difficulty level...

For example for a particular scenario should you pick what might be the safest card...a pair of Tigers to complement your kampfgruppe or do you want to give yourself a bit more of a challenge and go with two StuG IIIS and a few AT-guns instead ?

The player will choose

Both the kampgruppe as well as all other formations comprising the 6th panzer division will upgrade their equipment as the campaign moves forward...

What i'm thinking is something like a 15 scenario campaign devided into a number of chapters..each being 3 scenarios or there about...

As of now i'm considering to start the campaign with the battle for Karkow in 1943...3 scenarios...and then move on to things like Korsun, Bagation, Hungary...

3 battleso for each chapter...

Between each chapter there will be equipment upgrade as well as some experience gain/loss amongst the troops...

As said...I will do more research about the division before getting started to get somewhat correct locations, equipment and enemies...etc

And about the enemies..your troops will not be the only ones upgrading their equipment.. so will the enemy  

This is the plan ...it may well turn into nothing ones I start to put this concept of mine into test...it may not work..but I do belive it will. I will indeed give it a try...

It will no doubt be a long time project even if it works...A year at least I'm guessing...

I'm really eager to try this out though...if it works it would be... kind of cool

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, 76mm said:

I would agree these three categories pretty much cover the field, although I guess that could change if you started releasing say, 5-10 smaller "modules" per game instead of 1-3.

Yes, definitely.

1 hour ago, 76mm said:

Frankly, I don't understand why this is an issue, since at this point optional DLCs are a common feature of many games.  It seems like it would be even less of an issue since you have already disconnected engine upgrades from content?  Of course I can see how it would be too late to implement this for existing games or perhaps any future CMx2 games, but what about CMx3 (if there is any such thing)?

The problem is with how that content behaves once it is incorporated into the game.  Let's look at CMFI.  The original Base Game was only valid for southern Italy and only through 1943.  Gustav Line then comes out and extends the timeframe and geographical area as well as later variants of Base Game forces.  Now let's say that we release a Waffen SS DLC.  How would that work if you didn't already have Gustav Line because the Base doesn't contain the timeframe and forces in which the Waffen SS was present.  Therefore, with a sandbox type game we would have to require Gustav Line be present in order for the Waffen SS DLC to work.  With the CM2 concept, as it is now, Waffen SS are present along with other things which gives it the context necessary to actually use them.

That make sense?

Steve

[DougPhresh]

I see the difficulty.
Does the current system cut down on development time for future modules?

For example, now that there are Canadian and British forces through '45 in FI, and German forces through '45 in both FB and coming in the new RT module, does that make a Commonwealth module though the end of the war easier for FB? Most of the assets for a Scheldt campaign and Operation Plunder to Hamburg campaign now already exist in-game.

[Battlefront.com]

34 minutes ago, DougPhresh said:

I see the difficulty.
Does the current system cut down on development time for future modules?

Yes, but only because of how horribly long it took us to get to the present state because of how the current system plays out.

34 minutes ago, DougPhresh said:

For example, now that there are Canadian and British forces through '45 in FI, and German forces through '45 in both FB and coming in the new RT module, does that make a Commonwealth module though the end of the war easier for FB? Most of the assets for a Scheldt campaign and Operation Plunder to Hamburg campaign now already exist in-game.

Yes, once something is made for X Family it is inherently easier to replicate it in Y Family.  Sometimes things are moved over easily, some are more difficult.  For example, many of the forces in Italy maintained different organization and/or equipment from those fighting in NW Europe.  Which means it's not copy and paste in many ways.  Likewise, artwork for a force in a particular area might not be the same as another.

Steve

[76mm]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

That make sense?

Yes, thanks for the explanation; the timing aspect certainly adds a wrinkle or two.

Although it seems like this could be overcome with some careful selection of module content, for instance representing a "slice" featuring units on both sides for a certain period, etc.  For example, an ancients game that I play (Field of Glory 2) releases DLCs on a regular basis; each DLC is optional and includes a couple of dozen ancient armies from a particular era/region that can fight each other.  While not completely analogous to your situation, the system works really well.  As an aside, engine updates are distributed for free when most DLCs are released, I suppose primarily to keep the player community from fracturing into different engine versions--multiplayer is very popular, and a key reason for the game's success, so it important to keep everyone on the same version.

But as you mention, given the three categories listed above the issue is not particularly relevant.  

Nice seeing you around, now get back to work (on whatever you're working on)!  

[CarlWAW]

Somehow the priorities look very wrong, if huge delays occur because of artificially restricting options.

Just include historical force selections in your stock scenarios and campaigns, but give the customer the freedom torwards "historic" optionality. Leave it to the customer which units he wants to play in which region, time and wheather, if he has bought the content!

I somehow have the slight suspicion that customers would be very happy to get rid of bugs much much quicker and have full freedom of unit selection, at the cost of only a few stock scenarios showing a historic force selection.

It should be up to scenario designers, if they want to make a "historic" or fictional battle. In many cases it would be more interesting to try "unhistoric" WHAT-IF combinations of timeframe, forces and regions.

Edited December 4, 2019 by CarlWAW

[Pelican Pal]

22 minutes ago, CarlWAW said:

It should be up to scenario designers, if they want to make a "historic" or fictional battle. In many cases it would be more interesting to try "unhistoric" WHAT-IF combinations of timeframe, forces and regions.

To an extant this is already doable. 

Unit limitation is only an issue within the Quick-Battle selector. Outside of that there isn't anything stopping you from fighting '43 Italians and French forces against Brazilian troops riding Panther's and Hanomags or even going as far as siming the '47 - '49 Palestine War (if you are okay missing some British tanks).

Anything within a Family can be used against anything else within that Family.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, 76mm said:

Although it seems like this could be overcome with some careful selection of module content, for instance representing a "slice" featuring units on both sides for a certain period, etc.  For example, an ancients game that I play (Field of Glory 2) releases DLCs on a regular basis; each DLC is optional and includes a couple of dozen ancient armies from a particular era/region that can fight each other.  While not completely analogous to your situation, the system works really well. 

We had thought we could "slice" things relatively easily and that's what we based the CM2 strategy on. The bugger is battlefield timeframe.  Forces didn't remain static for more than a few months until the very end of the war.  They didn't neatly enter/exit the battlefield, nor was there any consistency between different branches and forces. We'd have to release the entire war's worth of forces for a particular nation to avoid some of the pitfalls we have now, which then means releasing the full suite of equipment, uniforms, textures, etc.  That's a huge amount of work and that presents logistical challenges.

1 hour ago, 76mm said:

As an aside, engine updates are distributed for free when most DLCs are released, I suppose primarily to keep the player community from fracturing into different engine versions--multiplayer is very popular, and a key reason for the game's success, so it important to keep everyone on the same version.

This is a viable for some companies, perhaps even necessary because direct competitors have set the stage.  For us, I don't think that exact model would work.

1 hour ago, CarlWAW said:

Somehow the priorities look very wrong, if huge delays occur because of artificially restricting options.

Bad premise.  There is no "natural" way to do things with this content.  It's all subject to the real world constraints of creating, deploying, and managing the content.  Delays for something like Rome to Victory came about because of the complexity of the forces involved and how they relate to the precedent set by other CM2 releases.  We could have theoretically released content sooner, but it would have been much less content each release.  That would mean restricting options in a different way (i.e. because forces are dribbled out means not having the whole thing at once).

1 hour ago, CarlWAW said:

Just include historical force selections in your stock scenarios and campaigns, but give the customer the freedom torwards "historic" optionality. Leave it to the customer which units he wants to play in which region, time and wheather, if he has bought the content!

This gets back to the inherent head butting between two very distinct subgroups of Combat Mission gamers.  On the one hand there's the people that buy and enjoy the game precisely because it offers carefully crafted historical settings.  On the other hand there is the type that just wants to slam stuff together however they want to.  It is arrogant to think that there is only one type of player and it happens to be the way you want to play.  Our sense is the historical crowd is more important to our sales than the snadbox crowd.  Fortunately, we provide a game where both types get what they want out of it.  Which is a good thing for everybody.

Steve

[Attilaforfun]

BF has survived when the vast majority of it's peers have not. For an extended period of time. I absolutely expect and pray that continues for my personal self interest. Were you (BF) to follow any other's advice in business matters (my own included) and be adversely effected I would feel bad and lose future potential awesome games but that's it. Assuming there isn't a treasure vault with enough that you guys are all taken care of we lose games but you lose livelihood. One is obviously infinitely more important than the other. I have stated what I have stated so far to both acknowledge the realities and consequences of the capitalist system we live in and show I understand it. I am not a programmer so haven't got the foggiest idea of the difficulties in actually producing what you produce, nor upgrading to CMx3 which I fully expect to happen. I am the consumer so let me give you the (unasked for) point of view of your consumer:

-Please under no circumstance dumb these games down to appeal to a wider audience. 

-Marketing. I love you guys but I'll say it like I see it...your marketing is the worst (along with Tiller) I've ever seen. I never heard about CMBO. Maybe I did but at that point I didn't think my PC would run it. I downloaded the demo instantly upon learning about CMBB and have purchased it five times. CMAK twice. CMSF once. Those were different days, there were free PC gaming magazines and the net was not what it is today. 5 of those 8 purchases were physical copies. The first CMx2 purchase I made was CMRT, in 2016. Do you know why it took so long? I didn't know the game (CMxX) or company were in existence anymore. There are still a handful of consumers out there that get the emails from GMT, MMP, CG and purchase every expansion that comes out for ASL, OCS, GBoH ect. They don't know you exist. there is $ to be made if you change that. You have to reach the wargaming community at large (what little remains!) and claim that territory that is rightfully yours. You have no real competition. Advertise. Seriously.

-Campaigns. It just isn't optional if you want to reach your potential greatness. Number one complaint from players since CMBB (I'll be honest, I have no idea if this criticism exists today in anyone but myself...but it used to be brought up as an issue) is that the game is ahistorically bloody.  This isn't because of more accurate rifle fire, the inability of stone buildings to protect against indirect or problems with penetration values...the problem is because the battles are single and there is no reason (other than meaningless points) for force preservation at all. A fight here ends up with one side mauled and the other destroyed. In actuality when two forces collide the vast majority of the time there will still be two combat capable forces in the field at the end of the battle. Why? Because the force that sees potential destruction will disengage immediately, whether that be a squad, company or brigade. There is no reason for this at all if the game is measured by a single battle so it will never be looked at as realistic because it will never be played realistically. Over any period of time. Force preservation should be number one two and three on every commander's mind. Disengagement needs to be on everyone's mind. I do not mean leave this building and retreat to the hedge line disengagement...I mean leave the field.

 -I can't believe you guys would even consider anything but a single engine running CMx3. From a consumers point of view this is the one thing you could do to bring unhappiness and  general dissatisfaction. One engine. Upgraded as necessary. Allowing the consumer maximum choice in what they want to purchase. I'll get it all regardless of the price, I'm not crying asking to save $...I want to make that clear. It is beyond ridiculous to have to go into 6 different programs to play a different OOB. It should be one. I understand we are where we are and CMx2 is going to be the way it is. If you do that w CMx3 I'll know it was intentional (I am willing to bet I am not in the minority here) and it will piss me off. One engine. Sell all the DLCs you want. Charge what you can get. Charge for everything. Don't split it up. Please. Right now in CMx2, to me, it reeks of amateurism.  If it is done again it will appear simply as unprofessionalism. This drastically effects your consumers ease of use and they will know exactly why it is more difficult to use than it needs to be.

I love this company and I love these games. Survive. That is my first wish. For those whose comments are go play something else....this is a preemptive Shhh.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Attilaforfun

[Michael Emrys]

9 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

For example follow a certain formation through Barbarossa , typhoon , case blue etc  etc...maybe to the end of the war...

Were there that many formations that made it through the whole war? My impression up to now has been that they were expended and replaced pretty quickly. But I make no claims to being an East Front maven...

Michael

[76mm]

1 hour ago, Attilaforfun said:

-Marketing. I love you guys but I'll say it like I see it...your marketing is the worst (along with Tiller) I've ever seen.

Not to pile on, but I think BF could improve here.  Despite the fact that I've been a forum member here for almost twenty years and have bought many of your games, I didn't get any e-mails announcing R2V pre-sales or release.  Or for any of the other recent games' pre-sales or release.  I suppose I should be glad that you're respecting my privacy, but just sayin'...  Heck, even Tiller sends out e-mails when new games are released.  

20 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

Were there that many formations that made it through the whole war? My impression up to now has been that they were expended and replaced pretty quickly. But I make no claims to being an East Front maven...

On the German side I think there were quite a few, or at least right up until early 1945...most of the panzer divisions, Grossdeutschland, probably more.  Of course some of these units were destroyed and reconstituted (some multiple times), or transferred to the West, and sometimes back East, but you could at least put together a 2-3 year campaign.  On the Russian side it would be trickier, but could probably still be done with a bit of research.  

[BletchleyGeek]

4 hours ago, 76mm said:

Tiller  Rich Hamilton or David Freer send out e-mails when new games are released.  

 

[Battlefront.com]

Attilaforfun,

Please don't take what I'm about to say as aggressive or dismissive, but rather a straight forward addressing of your points.  Because I've seen them more times than I can count, my responses may look familiar to the regulars here

5 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:

BF has survived when the vast majority of it's peers have not. For an extended period of time.

You start off with the most important point to consider in any discussion about Battlefront and/or Combat Mission.  And that is we've been around for a lot longer than most game companies, especially ones in our niche.  And we've done it without being bought out, reorganized, rebranded, etc.  Given the legendary failure rate of game companies, we obviously have avoided the sorts of mistakes that have killed of much bigger and much better financed companies and small companies alike. 

This leads us to a bit of cognitive disconnect whereby a customer can congratulate us for not being like other companies, but then in the next breath say we're doing things wrong.  Especially when the list of things we've been doing wrong is almost word for word the same list we've been seeing for 20+ years.  Yup, we see the same suggestions and concerns over and over and over again.  It would be nice for customers to ponder the possibility that it is precisely because we don't do these things that we're still around.

5 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:

-Please under no circumstance dumb these games down to appeal to a wider audience. 

Not to worry.  If we tried to go for a much wider audience we'd have to leave our niche.  And to leave our niche we'd have to change our business model.  Since it is so difficult to find even one business model that can last 20 years, we're humble enough to be concerned we might not figure out a second one.  That doesn't mean there's no room to widen our audience, just that it can't be safely done at the expense of our core CM2 customer base.  Just like the move to CM2 would not have survived if we cut out our core CM1 customer base.

5 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:

-Marketing. I love you guys but I'll say it like I see it...your marketing is the worst (along with Tiller) I've ever seen.... Advertise. Seriously.

This is one that comes up all the time.  We've not done any serious advertising since... 2006?  Even then we were criticized for not advertising enough.  This is deliberate.  Advertising is a black hole that sucks resources away from the customers we know we have and gambles it on customers we don't know we can land.  We've done the cost benefit analysis and we feel the risks outweigh the rewards.  It's one of the reasons we're still in business.  Therefore, expect to continue to not see advertising for us.

5 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:

-Campaigns. It just isn't optional if you want to reach your potential greatness

This one   There's countless threads debating this and I'm not going to make another one.  All I'll say is if the majority of our customers could agree on a single campaign system that was realistic to develop, we'd be all over it.  But that's not the case.  Your passionate arguments for a particular system make others yawn.  Their passionate arguments make you yawn.  Campaign systems are just like that.  We prefer having a system that is reasonable to develop/maintain which most people mostly like.  Shooting for an expensive campaign system that only a fraction of our audience would like any better is a fool's errand.  See previous comments that suggest the reason we're still in business is because we aren't fools.

5 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:

I can't believe you guys would even consider anything but a single engine running CMx3... If you do that w CMx3 I'll know it was intentional (I am willing to bet I am not in the minority here) and it will piss me off. One engine.

Then prepare yourself to be pissed off.  As I've already said, we will not have a single engine ever.  Not for CM2, not beyond it.  And you're right that it is deliberate.  We understand the technical, commercial, and customer perspectives.  Customers don't have a good grasp on any of the three.  Yup, not even customer perspectives.  And that's because most customers happen to think their personal perspective is in the majority and is always correct.  More often than not, neither is the case.

Do not think this position is not considering what customers want.  It is.  But what does a customer want more than a single game engine?  A game that works and a company that is in business to support it.  We're focused on the latter more than we are any one feature request, no matter how sensible that feature request is in the mind of the customer.

5 hours ago, Attilaforfun said:

I love this company and I love these games. Survive. That is my first wish.

That is also our wish.  Which is why it's important to accept that the only way that is going to happen is if we (Battlefront) continue to run things the way they need to be run instead of the way customers think they should be run.  As I have hopefully illustrated above, there's quite a gap between the two concepts and only one of them has a chance of keeping Battlefront alive for the foreseeable future.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, 76mm said:

Not to pile on, but I think BF could improve here.  Despite the fact that I've been a forum member here for almost twenty years and have bought many of your games, I didn't get any e-mails announcing R2V pre-sales or release.  Or for any of the other recent games' pre-sales or release.  I suppose I should be glad that you're respecting my privacy, but just sayin'...  Heck, even Tiller sends out e-mails when new games are released. 

We used to email out a newsletter, but things changed.  Over the years the various gateways for email have (rightly so) clamped down on mass emailing.  We ran into this with our old sever long ago where our dedicated marketing emailer was getting our IP blackballed for "SPAM".  We then emailed things in smaller batches, but eventually that ran into problems as well including end user based filters flagging us as SPAM.  We can currently only send 100 emails at a time.  That barely works for emailing our pre-release customers. absolutely doesn't work for emailing our whole list.

When we started up our current website we looked at new options but the cost of sending out our whole list was stupidly expensive.  Remember, for an expense to be worth doing we have to get someone to buy something that they never would have bought without that expense.  Someone buying a month or two sooner than he otherwise would have doesn't help us.  The economics of emailing our whole list likely meant we'd lose money.  Seriously.

Still, it is worth looking into this again.  Dynamics might have changed.  I smell a task for Elvis

Steve