Jump to content

Battlefront.com

Administrators
  • Posts

    30,936
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Battlefront.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Battlefront.com's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

0

Reputation

  1. And you'll hit even less people than a scoped sniper rifle. So what's your point? You don't seem to understand how accuracy and volume of fire work in terms of causing casualties. Generally speaking, higher volumes of fire produce lower accuracy per round fired. Since the purpose of a machinegun is to suppress the enemy, with hitting a secondary goal, a reduction in per round accuracy is fine. This isn't a good thread to debate this sort of thing. If you aren't participating in a thread dedicated to this thing you seem to be obsessed with, you should start one up. You didn't ask a question, you made a statement. And you did it in a way that is consistent with trolling rather than constructive dialog. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Well, for two decades people have tried to refute our position and so far nobody has been able to. What, us not opening up the game engine to end user tinkering or changes to the way the MG42 works in the LMG role? Game engine modding definitely will not change, but if a solid case can be made for changing the behavior of the MG42 in the LMG role... we'll make the change. Steve
  2. Nah, mine was in much nicer condition and I didn't have the custom winch on the front OK, I'm going to stop thinking about the Piggy because it's making me sad. I decided to move it along to someone else before I experienced a fatal transmission problem (#1 concern for Pinzgauer owners) and I still have regrets. Damn, it was such a fun truck once you got over the vertigo of being so high up without an engine compartment in front. Steve
  3. You bet it is! I put its legendary off road capabilities to the test one day by accident. Let's just say a Porche doesn't come with an axe and shovel as standard equipment, but then again it doesn't have to because "off road" for a Porche is parking garage Steve
  4. There's been various suggestions to have us crowd fund something. There's a couple of practical problems with that. The way we work is we see an opportunity in our development schedule to make another game. At that point we figure out what product is viable given various development constraints (time being the most important). We only select games that we think will sell enough (i.e. have enough customer interest) to be profitable given our development costs. As long as everything goes as we need it to, the game gets made. Crowd funding doesn't have much of a chance to influence this process because the constraints we have aren't mostly about money. CMFI came about at a perfect time for us. We were starting to figure out how to do parallel development and the funding we received helped us make that transition. If the same amount of money were offered to us today, for pretty much any game idea, we'd turn it down. We'd need to be offered a massive amount of money to change what we're doing and when. Massive because we'd need enough to hire a second development team. You guys should know by now how deliberate and strategic we are with the decisions we make. So much so that recently we've been turning down pretty lucrative, substantial military contract work because we feel it conflicts too much with our strategic plan. Steve
  5. Well, I have said that every single time we've had this discussion. But you're missing the point, again. I said that opening up the game engine isn't in our customers' best interests for a variety of reasons. Those reasons translate into lower sales, which in turn translates to us flipping burgers. That's the way Capitalism works. Ah, so you are admitting you're a troll? Because that is what a statement such as this is telling me and, most likely, others here. Which is probably why everybody ignored your post except for me. Silly me! Nobody would. And it isn't in the game either. Steve
  6. None, but I did have a Pinzgauer 710M for quite a while. Far more practical where I live, as a Porche wouldn't last more than 20 miles on our roads before too many important bits were scraped off the bottom. Plus, a Pinzgauer is far sexier. Well, at least to these eyes! Steve
  7. Same here, but unfortunately the options for non-subscription software in particular areas is not good. If you want a professional grade 3D or CAD program, for example, you're either looking at subscription or a massive up-front cost. But don't worry... we think the gaming market would reject such an approach so we're not going to try it. The point is they'd likely do it before we did, so no game developer in their right mind is going to redo work someone else is offering for free. The subject matter that we don't cover, but could work with the game engine, isn't very large. It's not like someone could do Napoleonics with CM if we opened it up to the fullest extent. Maybe something like Pacific or Vietnam, but even then I'm not too sure about that. The chances that someone would purchase Combat Mission to play something we wouldn't make (like Korean War) but NOT purchase it because of something we do make (like Normandy) is very small. Which means we'd see no extra sales from someone making a Korean War mod. Again, for the financials to work we'd have to sell to a very large number of people who wouldn't otherwise purchase Combat Mission JUST TO BREAK EVEN. Breaking even is equivalent to losing the bet. For a risk of this size we have to be pretty convinced that we're going to make 200%-300% more than we would by not doing it. I see zero chance of that happening, but I see a very good chance of reducing our sales by 50% or more. It's really a no-brainer decision for anybody who is sitting in our shoes. Steve
  8. 1C is still in business, though they had some rough times. They were a very big name at the time and had far greater marketing reach than we ever have. Regardless, they didn't develop the game, they published it. The financial incentives and rewards are very different for publishers and developers. Digitalmindsoft, the developer, seems to be out of business. I checked their website and the last update was 2015 and I can't find any references to releases since then. Don't even know who Best Way is. So... you are pointing to a "success" that doesn't help advance your argument BTW, I refreshed my memory about Arma. Bohemia almost went out of business after their first release. The military contracts, not modders, saved them from that fate. I'm hearing that they are again in financial peril. In fact, a Chinese tech company just bought a piece of them this year. Privately held companies tend to sell pieces of themselves because they need cash, so I guess that checks out. Yes, CM2 does need replacing. But we've been actively selling products made from it for more than 10 years. That is possible because the emphasis is on the simulation aspects and not the whiz-bang features. That is the exact opposite for FPS games. For that sort of game you need to reinvent the game engine every couple of years to keep up with the competition or you're out of business. Which is why so many FPS game franchises have either failed to start (i.e. first game flop) or failed after a second release. RTS type games have always gone in "fad" cycles since the genre was invented. Those games died out because the financial rewards to keep them going weren't there. Which once again undermines your theory that modding keeps game companies in business. Anything that opens up the data, units, and models to modification. What are you talking about? Exactly. If our sales could go up because of opening the game up, we would be able to afford to support it (theoretically, at least). But we don't think sales will go up, we think overall they will go down AND we'll have more demands for support. That is not workable. Porting maps doesn't give anybody any new functionality because we already provided a fully functional Editor. Which is, BTW, something that most games don't provide. For most games a huge part of the modding effort is to recreate the developer's editor, but in Combat Mission that's not the case. Which means, in a way, Combat Mission is more moddable out of the box than most other games. You have not paid very much attention to the phenomena known as "customer entitlement". The game industry is notoriously bad in that respect. We certainly experience it. Just look at the way this thread started And it would have put us out of business, which would not be enjoyable for us and (eventually) would not have made you happy either. As I said, nothing you've said is different than what I've heard the last time I engaged in this discussion. Because nothing has changed to make those arguments applicable to Combat Mission, nothing has changed in our position towards opening up the game engine to major modifications. Steve
  9. I will say there is an alternative system that we, so far, have rejected -> subscription software. This is the model that almost all professional software has moved to. The customer pays an annual fee based on various factors to "rent" the software for the year. As soon as payment stops, use of the software stops. This is similar to how things work with our Professional customers. It works because that's the norm for that market. For the gaming market it isn't. As innovative as we think we are we don't feel like trying it out. Steve
  10. You missed a key part of the equation. Yes, people need to purchase a game to mod it, but they only need to purchase it one time. Combat Mission currently has the equivalent of 8 games, so that's a potential of a 90% decrease in revenue just for the Base Game sales we currently have. For Modules and Packs, there's now a potential for a 100% decrease in revenue. Obviously in reality many people would opt to purchase Battlefront branded content because it's likely to be superior to scattered free stuff. But how many sales and how much people are willing to pay for sales is a big question. What isn't a big question is that the amount opting to not buy anything more from us would be extremely large. The only way to make up for this is to sell "single games" to new customers who otherwise would not have purchased it. If we presume a 50% overall reduction in sales, that means we have to double the number of individual people we're currently selling to. We do not believe that is possible to do just because the game is moddable. What this means is we slaughter the revenue we know we can count on, and which keeps us alive, for something we have zero faith we can achieve based on decades of professional experience. No sane business would ever go down that path. I always like to see someone say this as it's often left out of people's equation. For you guys, you risk not having any more Combat Mission ever again. For us, we risk having to flip burgers instead of making Combat Mission. The two are not equivalent risks Steve
  11. Perfect example. They were published by 1C, a company with massive reach, and appear to have gone out of business after their second release with 1C. You'll notice I never once said that opening up the engine wouldn't make some people happy. Giving the game away free would make even more people happy. But we'd be out of business and that should make people unhappy. $50,000,000 development budget, millions of players, a game engine that needs replacing every couple of years... what's your point? No, what made Arma big is it's aimed at a HUGE market and has always been backed by more marketing money for a single release than we've probably earned after 22 years in business. Modding didn't make the difference between it being a niche game and a massive game. It was done for Professional Edition because a) it was limited enough in scope to be feasible (i.e. NOT what you're talking about), b) we only have a couple of points of contact to support (i.e. NOT thousands and thousands of individuals), c) the points of contact are truly "professional" (i.e. NOT people who feel the world revolves around them and that we must do what they say), d) it's not a threat to our core business (i.e. NOT capable of undermining our financial stability), and e) they paid us to do the work (i.e. NOT demand that it be standard feature at no extra cost). Remember, we've thought a lot more about this than you, over decades, and with our livelihood hanging in the balance. If you think you've got something to say that we not heard, considered, and rejected a couple thousand times already... well, you might want to reconsider because you won't. No personal offense intended, just stating an opinion that is unlikely to turn out to be wrong. Steve
  12. Heh Well, to further waste electrons, I'll address (for the 100000000th time) the so-called "bad business decision" to keep the system closed from end users making their own models, data, etc. to create new content without waiting for us to do it for them. This is an often repeated mantra of the open system fans and it's not wrong when it's in the correct context. For Combat Mission, it is in the wrong context. Like anything complex, applying the wrong tool to a particular problem rarely ends well. In our case we'd be out of business if we opened the system up, which is not a good thing. People point to huge games and say "it works for them, it should work for you". No. What works for big companies with huge target audiences rarely works for niche companies, and niche products rarely work for big companies. That's a pretty universal law that applies to any supply/demand situation. Customers often don't care about such things as sustainability and market realities, but we do. I'll give you an example. Let's say the typical CM customer purchases 3 different Base Games and 3 Modules over the course of 3 years. That's about $285, or just under $100 per year per person. Now let's say the engine is opened up for free modification. We might still release new content that is of superior quality (at least that's the way we market it!), but obviously sales will be harmed by the competition with free stuff. Let's say that $285 drops in half to $140. Not only do we see a huge drop in revenue, but we also don't have a nice and steady cash flow like we once did. Think that's too drastic a drop off in customer purchasing? Pick any other reasonable number and the end result is the same... we're out of business or shift our business strategy because the margins for making and supporting games is not very high. Eventually it will catch up with us. OK, so the argument is that if we open the game system up we'd get a lot more sales, thereby making up for a lower per person purchase amount with lots more people purchasing. Not going to happen. We make a niche product and that by definition means we don't have a huge new market to make up for the loss of sales from our traditional base. Will we get some new sales? Sure, but not enough. On top of all of this we have the arguments about keeping the quality high and the vision for the game system focused. I already covered that earlier in this thread, but it does have an impact on our viability. People come to us in part because we keep the standards high. Lower standard stuff made by end users won't interest them, high quality stuff takes away from our sales. This is why for 22 years we've said "NO" to opening up the engine to end user modification. Which, ironically, is why I've been here for 22 years to say such a thing. The two are not unrelated. Steve
  13. Throughout the years of discussion on this Forum there is a very common occurrence of someone saying "your game is broken and you don't do anything to fix it", rambles off a bunch of vague stuff, is pressed for details, provides slightly less vague, gets challenged on the claim that something is indeed "broken", and then the discussion (often) ends there. Most of the time I think this is the result of someone having an opinion/conviction that isn't supported by others or (in the case of something more empirical) facts. Either the game doesn't actually produce the negative results claimed or the person's perception of the real world is off the mark. And so this "broken" thing never gets "fixed" because it was never broken in the first place. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the unfounded criticism. As I've said since for a long time... the argument for game data modification based on "the game is broken and Battlefront doesn't fix things" is extremely weak. The argument to modify game data "for the fun of it" is not. I wish people who advocate for game data modification capabilities would just admit that there really is no practical need for it and instead they just want to mess around with stuff for the fun of it. The answer is still "no", but at least I'd have more respect for their opinions Steve
  14. Not true. People spread things around, they complain when they break, they blame us when something doesn't work as they expect, and when requesting tech support fail to mention that they are using Mods. I know this for a fact because this is what happens with the stuff we do allow you to mod (graphics, sounds, etc. It also splits the community up based on what Mods are/aren't used. It's even worse for multiplayer because people now have to agree what to play with to start. If someone insists on playing with a particular Mod, and someone refuses to play with it, then there's problems there. On top of that, modding is largely unnecessary because CM is (for the most part) a fact based game. Screwing around with facts to bend something into doing something different is almost always going to have negative knock-on effects. So why allow you guys to mess around with stuff that is not in need of messing around with in the first place? As for game variables, there's almost nothing to mess around with because results are complicated products of very intricate equation. Even Charles, who wrote all the code, hesitates to tweak variables because of this. Allowing you guys to muck around with stuff that you haven't a clue about is not good for anybody. Nope, not concerned about multiplayer. Very easily worked around if we wanted to allow game behavior modding. But we don't, so it's moot. As the guy that has spent probably 1-2 years of my life "correcting nothing" on top of more years of creating everything to start with, I think you and I are done here. Steve
×
×
  • Create New...