CM 2.0 Ripoff - wrong payment strategy

[Michael Emrys]

Does that mean no 'Gumby's Magical Adventure' title? Awh damn!

Personally, I was hoping for an interactive version of Zack and Miri Make a Porno. I feel betrayed.

Michael

[Peter Panzer]

Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

Part of the reason for the cost is that the upgrade is not just an engine upgrade with a new executable, but ALL of the artwork and 3D models have to be re-done for bump mapping.

Perhaps this has already been addressed elsewhere, but what implications does this have for all of the present texture mods? Will they no longer function in-game after v2.0? Will they function, but not be bump-map capable?

There's an awful lot of quality, user contributed work that would go by the wayside if the present texture format becomes totally obsolete/incompatible.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

Perhaps this has already been addressed elsewhere, but what implications does this have for all of the present texture mods? Will they no longer function in-game after v2.0? Will they function, but not be bump-map capable?

There's an awful lot of quality, user contributed work that would go by the wayside if the present texture format becomes totally obsolete/incompatible.

I'm 99% sure that the vast majority of the textures themselves will function just fine as they are, but they won't have bump-map capability unless it is added by the modder. One of the artists can confirm that, though.

[MikeyD]

I believe its planned to add bump maps to the vehicle/weapon art in v2.0 CM{BN} (edited) (much of the allied stuff would be a straight pickup from CMFI, actually). Though I'm not 100% dead-certain of that. This will only cause problems if any new mods have changed the positions of bolts, rivets and seams. I don't think very many vehicle mods have been quite so heavily reworked as that.

I don't know at all if they're going to dive into building facade bump maps for the upgrade. Those might cause genuine problems with mods. But you can always add generic plain placeholder bump map art to cancel out the art in the BRZ.

[Sergei]

I believe its planned to add bump maps to the vehicle/weapon art in v2.0 CMBB

Wow, East Front fans will be surprised with this development! :eek:

[Michael Emrys]

MD may have had a few too many late nights lately and has CMBB on the brain.

Michael

[Rocky Balboa]

I believe its planned to add bump maps to the vehicle/weapon art in v2.0 CM{BN} (edited) (much of the allied stuff would be a straight pickup from CMFI, actually). Though I'm not 100% dead-certain of that.

I'm not sure they could just port the textures from CMFI over to CMBN. After looking at the screens in the AAR's, I believe there are quite a few differences in the textures between the two games ... models and animations of course would port ...

[Battlefront.com]

It's been discussed in detail in other thread. Most stuff terrain will work fine without modification, but it won't look as good as it could. Some vehicle stuff won't work well because the underlying model changed too much. The amount of work needed to optimize the existing Mods will vary between near zero to total redo. It has a lot to do with how the Modder went about making the textures. Soldiers will need to be reorganized at the very least because the new system has 1:1 texturing instead of the current single file for many object texturing.

Steve

[riptides]

I feel so unworthy as a customer to Battlefront after reading the thread. Think I'll lurk for another 5 years and just play the games on whatever platform I happen to have handy.

[Pak40]

I know how many people bought the Vista fix. Those who complained about the $5 cost don't even add up to a rounding error. And I'm sure they bought it anyway.

Steve

You should have made Microsoft pay for all cost development of the patch. Hell, just for $hits and giggles I'd send them the bill and see what happens. The worst they can do is say no, or cancel your developers subscription

[MikeyD]

I'm not sure they could just port the textures from CMFI over to CMBN.

Don't forget there's not just the big stuff, there's the little stuff too. Bump map detailing for CMFI Garand rifle and M1 Carbine will fit the CMBN Garand rifle and M1 Carbine (...I think). But I haven't heard how far down the rabbit hole BFC really wants to go on this.

[Redwolf]

When bumpmaps come, will they be in user-replaceable files like the textures?

[Darknight (DC)]

It's been discussed in detail in other thread. Most stuff terrain will work fine without modification, but it won't look as good as it could. Some vehicle stuff won't work well because the underlying model changed too much. The amount of work needed to optimize the existing Mods will vary between near zero to total redo. It has a lot to do with how the Modder went about making the textures. Soldiers will need to be reorganized at the very least because the new system has 1:1 texturing instead of the current single file for many object texturing.

Steve

I have a feeling that I will have a significant amount of reworking to do with the 21AG mods I have released....though maybe there will be a few things that are easier/quicker to do than before (there's a few things, like separate textures for certain CW formations that I hope to see but I won't hold my breath ).

With the possibility of packs of new vehicles down the line, I'll have to update the mods periodically anyway.

[MikeyD]

will they be in user-replaceable files like the textures?

Just like textures. They're bmp files. You'd need to convert your bmp template art to normal map format but there's freeware photoshop filters and standalone mini-aps on the web to do that sort of thing.

Actually, making normal maps is so simple I can imagine a series of 'enhanced' 3rd party normal map mods to spice up the game. Just last week (at the 11th hour) all the game's 'character faces' got the bump map treatment.

[Hister]

Sounds dauntingly fabulous MikeyD!

[Offshoot]

Just like textures. They're bmp files. You'd need to convert your bmp template art to normal map format but there's freeware photoshop filters and standalone mini-aps on the web to do that sort of thing.

Actually, making normal maps is so simple I can imagine a series of 'enhanced' 3rd party normal map mods to spice up the game. Just last week (at the 11th hour) all the game's 'character faces' got the bump map treatment.

Care should be taken when talking of bump maps and normal maps because although they may generally achieve the same effect in-game (though normal maps do it better), the maps themselves are quite different. Bump maps are greyscale maps while normal maps use colour to convey directional info.

There are also a variety of ways to generate bump and normal maps. You can paint them directly, but this can be hit and miss and you would need to do a lot of testing to get them right (much harder with normal maps too). You can also use software that will generate them straight from the textures but this is not always ideal as the software has to interpret the 'volume' information from the texture. As an example, see the differences in the final renders (renders are on the left, normal maps on the right) using different normal maps generated by a variety of software from the same texture in the second post of this thread on a computer graphics forum - http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=2&t=1057955

For normal maps, by far the most ideal way is to make both a high-resolution (which includes all the detail such as rivets) and low-resolution model and use software that can generate the normal maps by comparing the two. Although we do not have access to the in-game polygon models, this should still be possible to do by using the textures as a guide for doing the detailed sculpting on flat planes (the texture maps, normal maps and bump maps all use the same UV coordinates). This would be much easier for things like walls and flat tank panels than for something such as a person's face.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I don't know, do computer wargame grogs screw in lightbulbs? Seems like it would get awfully cramped...

Michael

I don't know, but that wasn't the question. The original poster wondered how many wargame grogs it takes to screw in a lightbuild. I assume he was referring to the next verion of CMBN with the version 2 upgrade but I could be wrong on that assumption.

Regards

KR

[Michael Emrys]

Picky, picky, picky.

Michael

[Destraex1]

Ahhh. Wow. I have never paid for a patch. Each to there own though.

You will if you have CMBN and want to update with fortress italy

You will also have done so if you want to use one of the older CM games... I think CMAK?

EDIT: Already touched on

P.S. I would prefer to pay to have the older series updated than not have it happen. But some other companies do do this as a matter of course. However they are not niche.

[shocker28]

I found this thread quite amusing... www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96611&highlight=majority+players

First i will apologize for anyone i offended on my rant yesterday. But when people are attacking me what do you expect... let just not even go there. Its done and over.

Although i cant help but notice from this thread that the mere mention of multiplayer brings out so much anger from each camp for various reasons.

So basically what i gathered from that the game is meant to be like a live ASL or any other Avalon Hill game my dads got collecting dust in the basement ( though he does play them still). And single player is what this games main focus.

For whatever reason the old timers around here get so upset and bash people that want multi player. And say oh no one wants it yet the more i look the more i see people do.

Some of the main points i saw in there were that how you are catering to your core audiences but how could you possible expect to attract more and new players if the features they want aren't there.

And then it seems once you get tired of beating the dead horse about multi player options you close the thread because its not what the core audience wants.

I think you somewhat underestimate the ability to generate more revenue by enhance the multiplayer experiance. I get all the why you donts but sometimes it feels like you guys are saying you wont.

[Battlefront.com]

First i will apologize for anyone i offended on my rant yesterday. But when people are attacking me what do you expect... let just not even go there. Its done and over.

For the record, you were never attacked but you lashed out at just about everybody here. I mention this only because I don't want to see you repeat that mistake. You will be "invited to leave" if you do.

Although i cant help but notice from this thread that the mere mention of multiplayer brings out so much anger from each camp for various reasons.

I saw no anger. Well, except for the OP I suppose. I don't think anybody in this thread said anything negative about multiplayer. What I did see is a defense of our strategy for making the game better since it is the game that makes people want to play it. Well, at least the majority of our customers.

So basically what i gathered from that the game is meant to be like a live ASL or any other Avalon Hill game my dads got collecting dust in the basement ( though he does play them still). And single player is what this games main focus.

Not really. It is just that history shows that the majority of people who enjoy very detailed, historically accurate games that emphasize substance over fluff tend not to be multiplayers. And the ones who are usually like to play people they already know. Hence why a lobby feature isn't very high up on our agenda, even though (as I have already stated many times) it would be a great and useful addition to the game.

For whatever reason the old timers around here get so upset and bash people that want multi player. And say oh no one wants it yet the more i look the more i see people do.

Again, your perception is significantly at odds with the actual writings in this thread.

Some of the main points i saw in there were that how you are catering to your core audiences but how could you possible expect to attract more and new players if the features they want aren't there.

True, but this assumes those players are actually there in numbers worth catering to at the expense of the customers we know we do have. This is a safe assumption for you to make, but not so for us.

And then it seems once you get tired of beating the dead horse about multi player options you close the thread because its not what the core audience wants.

No, I close the thread because the people beating the dead horse are also trying to beat other posters to death as well. You really don't see your attitude as seriously lacking in civility, do you?

I think you somewhat underestimate the ability to generate more revenue by enhance the multiplayer experiance. I get all the why you donts but sometimes it feels like you guys are saying you wont.

If we thought we could generate more revenue by switching our resources over to multiplayer only features, without altering what the game is about, we would. In a heartbeat. But we aren't. Either that's because we're complete fools or we know our games' potential audience better than you. Since fools don't survive for 12 years in this industry, the better bet is that we are more in touch with our products' limitations than you are.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

heh... I just looked over the thread Shocker28 linked to. Funny how some things never change. This thread started off the same way and went the same route. In fact, I looked at my last comment as I locked the thread and it's just as relevant then as it is now, so might as well repost it:

And I'm getting more than slightly "squeezy" by the spoiled brat attitude I continually see when the MP options are discussed. Here it is in a nutshell:

"We are the most important thing since God created the Earth. How DARE you tell us we're anything other than that. You don't know what you're talking about. Trying to have a reasonable discussion with us about limited resources, the bigger picture of player wants/desires, just pisses us off because we should have what we want NOW!! Do you hear me? NOW!! There's no excuse for not getting into the code and producing this thing tomorrow. Now stop trying to explain to us why this is all wrong and give us what we want. NOW!!!"

We've had dozens of threads like this over the past few years and they ALWAYS go the same way. There is no issue I know of where the customer behavior is so consistently selfish, abusive, childish, and down right offensive. It started out that way with the thread title and has continued right to this page. It's just about enough to make us want to rip out the MP options we already have and tell people to go find some other game to play.

Since we're over 300 posts anyway, and this discussion was pointless from the start (because it's the same old, same old), I'm locking it up now.

Steve

Look through these threads again and you'll certainly never see me put down or belittle multiplayer or the desire for more multiplayer options. Why should I since I agree it would be fantastic for us to have better MP support. But it can't be our top priority for the reasons I've stated. Apparently being supportive and well reasoned isn't good enough for some.

Steve

[sburke]

I found this thread quite amusing... www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96611&highlight=majority+players

First i will apologize for anyone i offended on my rant yesterday. But when people are attacking me what do you expect... let just not even go there. Its done and over.

Unneccesary, at least to me. Steve put it nicely replying to one post as passion. Agree/disagree - it's nice to have a place we can argue over a game/hobby we all obviously enjoy. Still good to let stuff drop. And it was one of the more wacky threads on here in quite some time.

Although i cant help but notice from this thread that the mere mention of multiplayer brings out so much anger from each camp for various reasons.

So basically what i gathered from that the game is meant to be like a live ASL or any other Avalon Hill game my dads got collecting dust in the basement ( though he does play them still). And single player is what this games main focus.

For whatever reason the old timers around here get so upset and bash people that want multi player. And say oh no one wants it yet the more i look the more i see people do.

I can't speak to that. I don't feel passionately on that subject one way or the other. I figure if BF feels they have enough interest and enough resources they will head that way. I am of the opinion that I for one have NOTHING to offer BF in the way of business advice. Minetakeoshiru (I am sure I hacked that, but it is a Japanese expression - know your own height- in English, know your limits) I know BF has a much better view of what makes sense for their business than I ever hope to. Thank god, or we'd have never seen CMBB.

Some of the main points i saw in there were that how you are catering to your core audiences but how could you possible expect to attract more and new players if the features they want aren't there.

And then it seems once you get tired of beating the dead horse about multi player options you close the thread because its not what the core audience wants.

I think you somewhat underestimate the ability to generate more revenue by enhance the multiplayer experiance. I get all the why you donts but sometimes it feels like you guys are saying you wont.

No closing the thread was about us all going way out into left field. If all that had been on the general forum they'd have probably left it. It was simply inappropriate... hmm Hey Steve, can you move and re open it? I had a really stellar post I'd spent 20 minutes on and was hitting the button when you locked it. I am feeling deprived!

[Sixxkiller]

Everyone here has a full ammo load when defending their positions. Nothing wrong with that but sometimes you just dont have the right gun with the ammo. No one is going to hold a grudge here.

[mjkerner]

Rip what MP you have in it already, Steve, and don't look back.

P.S. I'm an old guy, so get off of my lawn!