m0317624

And the question is again asked, how could going to Steam in addition to your current setup possibly lead to lower sales? But you've ignored pretty much every other question or fact inconvenient for your argument so far, so I don't expect an actual answer to this one either.
 
 
The hilarious part is that I remember Erik over at Matrix saying pretty much the exact same thing to dismiss Steam a few years ago.
 
 
It was countered numerous times in this thread, but once again that was all completely ignored. As are the insults being thrown around by some of the Battlefront fanboys. Guess this forum's reputation for moderator favouritism is as well deserved as its reputation of aggressively attacking unpopular opinions. I can see why I was warned not to bother coming here.

Again, Panicking in the military term is not a state of complete irrationality. It describes a state were the soldiers no longer care about orders or a victory on the battlefield, they only want to survive. This can get them killed but that does not mean that Panicking soldiers should show suicidal behavior, especially when inside buildings.

The "lets get out of the building and stay in the open" thing is really annoying...if the Tac-AI at least would navigate them into some other good cover...

I highly doubt that...
Panicking is just the word the game uses for a mental state that gives survival the top priority and no longer cares about orders.

- Getting out of the building ?
Ok !

- Running towards the enemy where no cover at all is available ?
WTF !

- Choosing a spot with zero cover and direct LOS to a enemy T72 ?
WTF !

- Getting killed by a 120mm HE round from the T72 ?
Priceless !

That is not panicking, thats being on some bad drugs...

You also have to take into account the psychological effect of being inside a building, surrounded by stone walls.
Even if they think its not safe enough anymore inside the building, the last thing they should do is to aimlessly run outside without a clear idea where they will take cover next...and standing in the open while facing a T72 is not my definition of taking cover...

At least 2 squads committed suicide that way during my play-through of that mission, although there were more buildings and walls very close they choose to run to a complete open space with 0 cover...

I know that would be the first comment...
Does a professional soldier who panics loose all common sense ?

There is a difference if someone panics, runs out of a building and gets killed while trying to reach another building or if someone just runs out of a building into to open (and stays there !) where there is zero cover and the air is full of lead anyway.

Hi,

i just played a scenario where a small joint UKR/US force defends a HQ against a Russian attack, i think the name of the scenario was "Alexanders house" or something like that...anyway...

The russians had some BTR-80A with the brutal 30mm gun.
Throughout the scenario my men run out of buildings who got hammered with the 30mm gun.
The problem, there were enemy soldiers and tanks outside so the squads leaving the building got killed instantly !
If they had stayed inside the building they may have taken a few wounded but the chance of surviving would have been much higher.

In another situation a panicking soldier ran out of a building into another one, that ok, but then he turned and ran outside again into the open...facing a enemy tank !
He stayed there and awaited death which came pretty quick...

My point is:
- panicking squads commit suicide to often

Soldiers like solid stuff (trees/walls ect.) so they tend to cuddle with this kind of cover.
I understand that they want to leave a building getting hit by a 30mm gun repeatedly but why do they run outside, ignore two other buildings next to them and just run into the open towards the enemy.
A human reaction would be to stay inside the building and take cover, or at least have a plan like "we get into this other building" or "go behind the APC"...but not to aimlessly run outside into a spot with 0 cover...

No. You're the first person ever to notice this. Sheesh.
The inventory system is pretty rough-and-ready. You can snag (in RT play) a full squad load of ammo in seconds. You don't have to worry whether that ammo is in belts, saddle magazines, AR magazines or loose boxed rounds. When platoon elements are sharing ammo, it happens perfectly on-demand with no worry about fumbling the pass-off.

By the same token: you have to get the whole squad into a vehicle to resupply; it takes the passage of 2 orders phases to grab a single magazine or box of ammo in WeGo; you can't give ammo back to the store; you have to click Acquire between each grab of a fixed set of options (which sometimes aren't very suitable), rather than putting numbers in boxes for how many rounds of each type you want; you can't share supplies between elements that don't share an immediate HQ; there are no grenades or mortar bombs in "Supply Platoons".

It's what we've got, and we keep asking for something better. BFC don't seem very interested; I can see that optimising loads could be considered not a major part of the game that warrants a large expenditure of programming time, though I don't agree. Maybe one day we'll get a proper inventory system. But Ah amn't holdin' ma breth.

Oh, and the other thing you better get right first time, including in the setup phase is artillery calls. If you decide you don't want it, all you can do is tell the mission to Cease Fire, once you've hit "Confirm". Bail out and Dismount are "make sure you really want to" commands that can't be undone in the general run of play.

I am speaking as a military professional, former Cavalry Platoon Leader, Troop XO, Battalion and Squadron Planner, and Tank Company Commander when I say troops appearing through arkane majicks on your flank is not right.  
 
The "board" artificially conceals the nature of terrain and battlefield to the player.  If we consider the edges of the map to be something like say, Company or Battalion boundaries, I'll still have maps and graphics of those locations.  I'll also have the greater situational awareness coming off of the Battalion/Brigade Net in terms of what's happening around the battlefield.  Further I'll have an idea of what the higher mission is and what's going on to my flanks, and very likely someone else (even if I was the flank company, there's good to high odds the Battalion or Brigade scouts are screening us) will have either let me know to cover them (something closer to "and X Company (your company) represents the farthest left unit" vs "YOU ARE OUR FLANK CPT TIMMY IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!!!").  Further if I was the farthest flanking unit I'd sit down and look at the AO outside of my boundaries to see just what might influence my battlespace from the outside.
 
This is where scenario design becomes super important.  Bad scenarios just hit you on the flank and pull a Lucas in claiming I need to secure every thing ever because every direction could possibly hide an enemy tank company.  Good scenerios instead sit down and give you the complex terrain to look at and have to plan for. You want the player to think "those woods on my right look like they might hide enemy forces, or allow infantry to infiltrate into my AO without me seeing it.  I'm going to leave a section of 3rd PLT to ovewatch it", rather than in an open field suddenly there's a dozen BMPs.
 
Another even more interesting one would be to give you information to make reasonable choices in the briefing.  Example:  "Enemy reserves are located on OBJ Thresher to your east, and are expected to be committed once our main effort is identified.  S2 estimates they may use RTE Gold or RTE Black, located at A1 and A2 on your map, and have a response time of approximately 20 minutes" 
 
Or just leaving roads coming onto the map from the flanks, and making enemy forces appear from there, it's likely the enemy reserves arrives suddenly on a road.  It's doubtful they rapidly appear from rough or wooded terrain (if mounted).  
 
These are all reasonable ways for the wargamer to be forced to make choices concerning their flank security.  The scenario designer should view the player as a training audience, who should be rewarded for reasonable responses to stimuli.  Surprise flanks simply frustrate the player, and instead of encouraging him to make smart choices based on good observations and sound tactics, instead force him to play in the almost comical state in which you either accept losing a scenario and having to replay it because 3/101st Shock Tank Guards Battalion emerged from a tunnel network in an otherwise empty field, or expending 50-60% of your overall forces covering fields that are actually occupied just out of sight by your sister units, or something else requiring no overwatch.    
 
The player has to know what's on their flanks to make interesting and tactical choices about those flanks.  Tank Companies don't drive across the battlefield in big circles, guns pointed in 360 degrees in case the enemy appears FROM ANYWHERE.  It's imperative the scenario designer give the player some sort of situational awareness to let them play realistically.
 
And as a further textual wandering, enemy forces in games should have sort of...like a story to go with them.  They need a beginning.  How did they get to the battlefield, why they are there, what they hope to do.  Then a middle, what their plan is for the battlefield.  And then an end(s), what they hope to do if they're successful, or unsuccessful. 
 
Each one of these needs to make sense, and should reflect the same amount of knowledge as the player team has about the enemy.  The designer knows the blue player is going to enter from the NW corner of this open field.  Why would the red team know the exact spawn location of the blue player though? 
 
I'd suggest flawed, but realistic doctrinally sound enemy deployments are more interesting than playing against some enemy force led by insidious commanders with ESP who know all the faults and locations of the player forces.  

Are you really trying to justify this? Like seriously?
 
It is just a "Real World" risk that a bunch of enemy troops will suddenly appear within 20 meters of your troops without any possibility of detecting them? That is complete and utter trash.
 
According to your logic I need to be prepared at all times to have a relatively heavy attack force appear within 20 meters of my troops. I must therefore, watch the entirety of the board edge with sufficient force to destroy them within a few seconds of appearing, and I will probably take absurd losses anyway.
 
This isn't something that can be planned for and frankly I find it appalling that you are trying to defend this as a realism feature.
 
Like jesus. This is a modern war. Where we can have very accurate fights at 3 KM or more. And you are saying that I just have to understand a magical teleporting force of BMPs and MBTs showing up essentially in my line as a natural part of warfare?
 
 
How is this a legitimate answer?

Because, in the REAL WORLD the unexpected is a RISK  that must be anticipated. As ?I see it he failed to anticipate the contingency that something like this could happen by committing all of his force to an attack without thinking about what he would do if something happened that he did not expect or anticipate. If you look at what real world commanders do one important task is just that, planning for the unexpected.
 
This is of course a computer simulation game, obviusly not he real thing. But to succeed you have to think about what would be done in the REAL WoRLd. in this case on a real battlefield.
 
For example, if you read Into the Storm by Tom Clancy and General Fred Franks (Franks was the commander of US VII Corps during Operation Desert Storm) you will find somethig called FRAGPLANS (Fragmentory Plans) mentioned quite a lot. These are contingency plans to be used during the course of a military operation if certain things happen. Such as, in this case, the unexpected appearence (in time and place) of an enemy force.
 
Spitzenhund failed (or at least suffered heavy casualties) because he failed to anticipate this particular contingency. There is no shame in that. Even the greatest cmmanders in military history lost battles for that reason. Napoleon lost Waterloo in large part because he failed to anticipate Blucher;s arrival n his right flank. Just be glad that this is only a computer game/simulation and the fates of men and nations don't depend on the outcome of our computer game hobby battle.
 
And, like I said, you are going to be around to learn from your mistake, an opportunity you might not get in the real world. This is why the military train so hard. If you were in the military you can foul up in training. It is OK. You get a bollocking from your CO. But you probably won't make that mistake next time. And "next time" could actually be on a real battlefield,.
 
I suspect that some of the scenarios might well have been designed by actual military professionals who have acually done the job for real and might well have don so in combat. Scenarios should give is a good ansd realistic gaming challenge. Within this context we should be prepared to anticipate the unexpected from some of our more tricksy scenario designers

Being outnumbered isn't a problem. Having one's argument constantly ignored in favour of stupid insults is. The arrogance you perceive in my posts is nothing more than a mirror of the arrogance every unpopular opinion is treated to on these forums, as the behaviour of the forum regulars in this thread so aptly demonstrates. At least Steve is willing to engage in actual debate in between his dismissive posts.
And just because Steve's company has survived for a few decades does not make his opinions infallible or correct today. The market has changed too much too quickly, and every other gaming developer or publisher that I've seen using the same "decades of experience" argument against Steam has been forced to admit they were wrong once they actually tried it. Battlefront does not appear to be growing despite the general gaming market and indie developers seeing record sales, their games no longer get mentioned in the gaming press, the last third party developer they sold on their store has left them for a more successful competitor (with upcoming Steam release of SC3). They survive, and that is good, but they could be thriving if only they took the same minor risk thousands of other small development studios have taken in the past 5 years.

The evidence had been posted several times already, but it gets conveniently ignored by the fanboys in favour of such high quality discussion as "lol, what is wrong with you" and "ignore him, he's just soms marketing nerd".

Do you occasionally actually add anything to discussions, or do you just always troll?

This is a CMx2 thing and I had hoped it would get better over time, but sometime the Infantry Tac AI is so frustrating it pulls my hair out.
 
I been a player and holder of CM games from CMx1 to now my latest Black Sea.
 
I absolutely love the vehicle TAC AI even when I do not like what the crew does, it still makes sense, the vehicle become endangered and throws itself into reverse only to get hit from a previous spotted At weapon, still perfectly understandable.
 
But close combat Infantry Tac AI is what I feel lets the game down in the biggest way, I will explain some scenario and what I see and what i would prefer to see.
 
----------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE:Running, I am not sure if it is the animation or they are so very slow but when guys a running they seem to be doing it on ICE, as in lots of movement but very little forward progress, 9 time out of ten they are all on top of each other so it easy for the enemy to get multiple kills. Now the speed may be due to the amount of weight they are carrying but the speed is exactly the same in WW2 where the in very little weight factor.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: What I rather see, is they move in pairs and individuals, with a more open gap between the soldiers, this way they all do not get slaughter like sheep. This could be an extra command like sprint, to get across streets, without loosing a whole 4 man team, because they are all snails without a care when moving.
 
-------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE: Assaulting from a breached corner into a house. To do this you need your 8 man squad to Quick to the breech and then the other team to runs forward into the house, this normal exposed the first team to a hail of fire as the moving into an open area (rubbled wall) which gets them killed then the team racing in like lemming charge in without fire support, goo by 8 man to to a single person with an 8 AK or SMG.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: You can have a number of the team stack on the corner of the wall and support by fire, this has them less exposed, the assault team then breeches.
 
---------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE: The Breaching team in a house assault get slaughtered come in the front door, The 4 man team act stupidly regardless the distance the team is away from the door, they pile in to there death like lemmings. The enemy just needs to be a single automatic weapon guy to take down a full team. The assault team does not halt its attack, does not toss a grenade in, does not do anything but run and die. I would just like to say I hate every stuid the tac Ai does, but I am giving one example above.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION:
The assault team stacks at the door, so we do not have 4 separate entries spread over 10 secs. If the team suspects enemy it toss in a grenade before entry, it enters in the door the first few metres in a rush then halts and frees at the enemy it does not run all the way to the end of the house to turn around and come back to first at the enemy at the front door. It the sweeps as a team through the house and stops an fire as a team at contact.
 
-----------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE: Move and then in contact. I prefer to use move sometimes instead of hunt cause I find hunt they stopping all the time on non valid threats that not firing at them, but using move in woods is a pain. If they get ambushed in the wood, the player continues to run and get slaughtered even if it running into the fire.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: If the fire is come from the front, then the move is cancelled and the TAC AI stops and returns fire, before they have to lose a man in the process and start cowering.
 
----------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUES: Cowering, I understand cowering makes sense, but I see cowering out in the open, I seen a whole team cower in the woods, and continually get suppress and eventually killed cause they will not even attempt to return fire. This frustrates me more then anything.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: Blind firing, not to hit the enemy but to suppress back to gain a little morale back, throwing grenades, throwing smoke if they have them. crawling away out of range. I rather this then see each individual solider die one after the other cause they will not do anything but cower.
 
 
---------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUES: Hunt in single file, move in single file. All movement is is single file. This allows  for longer time to get set for contact and normally means all you guys end up cowering and picked off one by one.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: Hunt when moving through woods should be in arrowhead or line formation, this would allow return fire on contact, right now it contact and then cower cause they need to run forward and the firing at the pint guy suppresses the rear guys, the time that my guys normally do better is when i am shot from the side, which they happen to be in a line formation.
 
--------------------------
 
 
 
 
 
There is many more bugbears I have of the Infantry TAC AI, but these are my major ones, and the reason I find this game frustrating. I know there is certain things I could be doing better and I am sure a lot of people will come to the defence I the TAC AI . I am not saying it is super bad, just these things could be improved on. Right now infantry without a huge amount of micro management on building assaults or any assault in general take what I would consider unnecessary losses due to it stupidity, where a normal human would do something different. I would love to see BF spend so more time on this front, rather then more vehicles etc. 

Not a scrap? Really? You must have missed the list of developers and publishers I posted on page 1: Matrix Games, Illwinter, Paradox,...  All of them started out with the exact same lame excuses as you give: "We are industry veterans with decades of experience, we sell niche games that have no mainstream appeal, therefore our opinion to dismiss Steam is right and you are wrong." And yet all of them are now happily selling on Steam, because as soon as they actually tried it (thanks to customers like me who kept pushing them to), it turned out they had to admit all their decades of "industry experience" were quite simply wrong. The industry has changed radically the past decade, most of your experience is quite simply outdated.
 
I've already posted my proof. I'm still waiting on your proof that wargames can and will never succeed on Steam.
 
 
Please quote the part where I made this claim, or stop putting ridiculous strawmen into my mouth.
 
 
Citation required. You are still merely passing your opinion off as fact, without any factual evidence to back it up.
 
 
Any businessman who doesn't think increased exposure will lead to increased revenue is a very poor businessman indeed. As far as the gaming industry is concerned, Steam is reality. And a businessman can either work with reality, or hide from it.
 
 
And which opera will sell more tickets to opera lovers, the one that plays in the world's most famous venue with a lot of advertising or the one that's performed in the spare room above a bowling alley in some backwater town?
 
 
But the production is getting made anyway, so what's so scary about trying to maximize ticket sales?
 
 
To know if you like something, you first have to try it. And step one in that process is knowing about its existence. Right now, very few people even know that games like these even exist, so how can they know whether they will like them?
 
 
No, but then again I merely pick the side the vast majority of people who do have a sound view of the market have chosen. And unless you think you are perfect and all-knowing and everyone else is just stupid, you should spend a very long time thinking very hard why all those people who know as much or even more about the market as you do are all deciding to do the exact opposite of what you're doing.
 
 
So tell me, what exactly will going to Steam cost you? How exactly will expanding your markets cause you to go out of business? Nobody is asking for you to make different games or cut your prices, the additional cost of making the games Steam-compliant is negligable (and don't try to argue otherwise, there are plenty of developers actually selling on Steam who have disclosed the process) and you can even keep your current online store and its outdated DRM system. So what exactly is the massive risk you'd be taking here?
 
And if you're wary of throwing your newest title out there, try it out on the older ones first. How much revenue is Shock Force for example still bringing in? Put the entire Shock Force collection on Steam, try it out. Strip out the DRM, price it at $50 or whatever it's in your own store right now, ask Steam to make it a "Daily Deal" or "Weekly Deal" once at 20-50% off for exposure and see how much your revenue skyrockets. If it doesn't work, it's unfortunate and you'll have lost a few days programming work and some money, but it will hardly bankrupt your company and you'll finally have actual proof to support your position the next time this discussion inevitably rears its head. If it works, your company benefits immensely and you can expand your Steam catalogue, your profits and your company. All it takes is for you to abandon your fear and prejudices and take a calculated risk. It's what real and successful businessmen do, and it's what all your competitors are doing.
 
 
Ah, so here is where your fear and prejudice comes from. Gamersgate and the Paradox store could barely compete with Steam back in 2007-2008 when you tried this. And Steam has grown massively since then, and made the entry process a lot more convenient for new partners. The idea that your experience on Steam today would be similar to the ones you had on two fringe stores with poor service towards both customer and partner, one of which went bust in favour of Steam soon after, is rather ridiculous. If one-man indie operations can easily handle the Steam acceptance process, so can you.
 
You're also admitting here that you don't actually know the current Steam acceptance process, and thus your claim that it would be too much work and effort is nothing more than an uneducated guess. Again, not the conduct of a businessman.

Citation required. I often hear this claim being thrown around, yet nobody ever seems to be capable of providing even the tiniest scrap of proof to back it up. The idea that a genre which is about war and combat is somehow only of interest to a tiny group of people, far smaller than the group of those interested in driving a delivery truck or a train for example, is quite simply ludicrous (and often stinks of elitism).
 
And even if it were true, Steam access would still mean a far greater exposure to those select few and thus increase revenue. Right now you'd still only be reaching the select few of those select few who happen to blunder into this site.

You guys better completely avoid CMBN, FI, and RT because your delicate sensibilities will completely shattered if you ever play those games. I always get a kick out of the self-righteous manufactured outrage that flows like water nowadays. People live their lives just praying something will pop up and offend them.
 
 
Mord.

Hey Steve,
 
My post was not aimed at you so why do you feel the need to reply and belittle your paying customers? You know, the people who keep you in business. My post was a reply to Sburke's ill informed post. A lot of people had issues with how this turned out.
 
All you ever get on here is if you don't like it then go away. No one can complain or reply to the forum mouth pieces you seem to support so much. I was actually criticising another poster for their smug attitude.
 
Any complaints I have had are mainly aimed at the people on these forums who think your company can do no wrong and apparently you are now one of them. If you want to take people's money then you need to be prepared for criticism if they are unhappy.
 
It wasn't my fault this went so wrong yesterday.
 
I buy your games because I like them and like to support your company. Just check out my last order for this and other stuff. If you no longer want my business then please let me know.
 
From the email I received: ATTENTION! We are offering these early downloads exclusively to
pre-order customers as a reward for your trust and loyalty.
 
Obviously loyalty is a one way street in your eyes.
 
Perhaps you should include a no complaints clause in you licencing agreement.
 
Anyway, off to try out the game to see if it's as good as you think it is.
 
 
 
"No plan survives contact with the next turn button"

Couldn't it be torrented like eSim does with Steel Beast Pro PE? Torrents have the advantage that the more people are downloading (and hence seeding) simultaneously, the faster it goes. 

Good lord what a pathetic ill informed rant.  I take away only one thing from this  Any idea to have this community more involved in the game development process is fundamentally flawed in that it does not take into account the immaturity and ignorance of this community for even trivial hiccups in process.

Well, I'm not going to tell you how to run your PR because you've made it clear many times that no one tells you what to do, but keep in mind that people pay you good MONEY and in return they expect a good product and good service. It's perfectly reasonable for them to get annoyed and start to talk crap when you don't deliver.

@Steve
You can't blame people for getting annoyed when they pay money and get a horrible service experience in return. No one is to blame for that but Battlefront. After all, people pay money to you, not Amazon. You can see many people complain about the launch of the game. Don't attack your customers by ridiculing them and talking down on them, no matter how annoyed you are by their posts, that simply won't help. If you don't like it that your customers are complaining, do a better job next time.
 
I don't want to speak for everyone, but I'm fairly sure people are willing to forgive if you act more humble and respectful. If you don't, expect to rub more people the wrong way.

I find this all highly amusing.  And this is why:-
 
When the CM:BN installers went live, I downloaded the 10GB package (one of the few players I would think to have done so - I mean if you've already got the content why download the installer).
 
After approx 10 hours at a ridiculously low download it crashed out at 80% complete.

I complained about this on the BN forum (as a few others did also) and it's true that Bf were simply dismissive of the issues: "Client side server issues"!
 
Regardless, Bf should have realised at that point that there really were download speed issues.
 
So today, my forum buddies, I write this feeling smug & tacitly amused because I knew that, regardless of the distance Bf tried to create from the issue then, as soon as BS was released, complaint chaos would reign.......

    

1. NO, the problems were magnified because they released it to non pre orders too soon.

2. No logic in this statement because the problem would still be there if everybody waited until tomorrow unless the server issue was
fixed. In which case this should have in place before announcing release to the world. Maybe we should have drawn lots. Somebody has to
start downloading.

3. BF's server wasn't ready to cope.

4. Point 1 applies.

5. Despite the fact that pre orders should have been allowed at least a 24 hour window, the non pre orders have paid their money as well
and are entitled to be annoyed.

6. Thing obviously were not fine.

7. Be better prepared. BF knew how many pre orders there were. What did they expect to happen? Again, point 1 applies.

8. It's somebody's fault.

9. See point 8.

You obviously have had the game and these issue didn't apply to you. This is the second post I am aware of were you think
it is funny. What exactly is funny? I know what is funny to me. It is that you are the only one of the usual suspects who
has jumped to BF's defence so far. There are usually so many more ready to hop on the bandwagon.

People are entitled to be annoyed when they have waited for hours on a download to complete only for it to constantly fail without the condescending attitude of some people on these forums.

I finally have the download after 15 hours from initial attempt. Off to work now. Hilarious.



"No plan survives contact with the next turn button"

I'm actually glad I didn't take my chill pill when I had planned to, or I would have wasted it on this hassle
 
A lot of us think this is something beyond the usual mess.  In fact, we were assured the usual mess was gone, according to their own support page.  The thing is, bandwidth is valuable, and something running for 5 hours at 400k-1MB/s (because we have had to do this over and over and over today) is not a great customer experience.  I know I have been an especially whiny idiot today, and for me, that is really saying something.  We would just like to know why things are so different today vs. other releases that have gone much smoother, of products like CMBN that had presumably a higher level of demand vs. this.  And why is the cloud failing them/us?  That's what seems to be the issue.  if they would post "We're ripping Citrix a new spinchter now!", even that would be more satisfying than what seems to be dead silence after we paid money for a product we could download right now (as you recall from my other asinine posts, I was not a pre-order).
 
Anyways, I might go ahead and take that chill pill now, I'm losing the evening and today has been a waste.