CM 2.0 Ripoff - wrong payment strategy

[Placebo]

After reading all this i am tempted to never read another post on the topic ever again. I will just buy every update/module/base game and download every free patch, as even if i don't really use/need it - as it is supporting the ongoing development of one of my all time favorite games!!

[WriterJWA]

I didn't really agree with the OP overall... but this quote:

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.

... hits a nail on a head. I've talked to a few other CMBN players who lurk around the forums and a lot of them feel there is a general "ASL Good Ole Boy" or "Big Fish/Small Pond" veneer to a lot of the threads here.

I'm not suggesting ASL is a bad game, I've got the rulebook sitting on a book shelf and I sometime miss playing it, but it does seem to color the decisions of game development here. At least that is sometimes the impression being made. It definitely colors the tone of a lot of the threads, especially when younger players get on here to bring up more current gaming concepts (such as co-play).

The old man "get off my lawn" attitude gets a little windy, sometimes.

[MikeyD]

I have an old friend who years ago found himself at a function sitting next to an editor for 'Consumer Reports' magazine. My friend proceeded to spend much of the evening bending the poor guy's ear explaining why - precisely - Consumer Reports is doing it all wrong, checking for the wrong things, has the wrong business model, does incompetent testing, etc ,etc ,etc. My know-it-all friend was all of twenty years old at the time. It wasn't until decades later that he was diagnoses with Asperger's syndrome.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

if someone doesn't like a product nobody is forcing them to buy. $50 comes to aboyut £25 in UK terms. The price of a bookor a meal in a reasoably prices resteraunt. No need to go OTT - he could just have walked away

[Rocky Balboa]

On the issues with MP, I don't personally have a problem with MP in the game and I generally consider it to be the best way to play CM because the AI does need some improvements but the reason I don't do MP often is because I just don't have the time or can't commit the time to it.

When I agree to play someone, I feel like I'm obligated to make so many turns in a certain period of time and I just have a problem making that commitment.

Maybe that makes me a charter member of the old farts club ....

[sburke]

I didn't really agree with the OP overall... but this quote:

... hits a nail on a head. I've talked to a few other CMBN players who lurk around the forums and a lot of them feel there is a general "ASL Good Ole Boy" or "Big Fish/Small Pond" veneer to a lot of the threads here.

I'm not suggesting ASL is a bad game, I've got the rulebook sitting on a book shelf and I sometime miss playing it, but it does seem to color the decisions of game development here. At least that is sometimes the impression being made. It definitely colors the tone of a lot of the threads, especially when younger players get on here to bring up more current gaming concepts (such as co-play).

The old man "get off my lawn" attitude gets a little windy, sometimes.

Not a bad game, but really really hard to actually make time to play (much less learn the rules - heck learning C2 in Cm is a walk in the park compared to ASL) and not having a really good experience unless you are truly face to face.

The problem as I see it with the "younger players" is they want it to look more like the rest of the stuff out there without trying to really understand why it doesn't. It isn't simply cause we are a bunch of old farts reminiscing on the good old days. (Our memories aren't that good). It has to do with the nature of what the game is trying to be and what it isn't. Unfortunately these folks are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Pound it as much as you want it just isn't going there. The "younger" players also seem to ignore BF's success at following their model and direction based on what they know about their base. In effect they are demanding BF move away from a successful business model to conform to what these guys normally play (or think they do anyway, they are amazingly blind to how the gaming world they function in really works) without realizing that in reality would likely mean BF's early demise.

That accounts for some of the passion on this side. While I have no passion for or against the development by BF of an MP interface/lobby, I do have a passion regarding leaving BF to plan their business using the same good sense they have shown over 12 years now. I want BF to be around another 12 years and short sighted people demanding something they don't even fully understand or have statistical data on threatens that... in my humble opinion anyway.

[Battlefront.com]

... hits a nail on a head. I've talked to a few other CMBN players who lurk around the forums and a lot of them feel there is a general "ASL Good Ole Boy" or "Big Fish/Small Pond" veneer to a lot of the threads here.

Does it matter that the principle designer of CMBN, an CM in general, has never played SL/ASL? And the other half of the design equation hasn't played more than maybe a game or two?

Just say'n

The old man "get off my lawn" attitude gets a little windy, sometimes.

We, Battlefront, succeed or fail based on the development decisions we make. If we do not feel we have a chance of getting more sales pursuing MP, but instead risk existing alienating the people we KNOW buy our games... I think that should be respected. After all, it's our arses on the line, not anybody else's. Worst thing that happens for our customers if we go under is they don't have any more games to play. For us we would have to find other jobs. Bah, I don't want another job.

To be clear... if MP support was quick and easy, we'd have all sorts of wonderful features in the game already. The concept of them is a no-brainer. But these things are NOT quick and easy. Therefore we will have to sacrifice development in other areas to pursue the bigger ones, at least. If we don't think it's going to net out a positive result, then we'd be absolute morons for going in that direction.

Steve

[Chek]

My 15 year old son is a keen MMORPG player.I have managed to squeeze the odd CM game out of him so he has a vague idea of how it works.When I asked him if he thought CMBN fitted into the category of Multi Player he just laughed.

It's a Wargame.

It's a lot easier to learn than wading through mountains of rule books or painting up hundreds of soldiers.

The GUI is easier to deal with than bickering over a mm or two or whether that tree obscures line of sight or not.

It has actual fog of war and if you've ever played a game when the dice have gone against you,you'd realise it's a lot more balanced and less random.

For the price of an infantry company or two I can get access to a whole theatre and most importantly I can spend a LOT more time wargaming.

The whole MP thing I find completely perplexing.However I do trust BFs judgment they've carved out a niche with a unique product in an enviroment where uniformity and lack of imagination are the mainstay and if they should decide to develop a MP product I will not hesitate to purchase it because I know from 12 years experience(and when you get down to it experience is all we really have)that battlefronts attention to detail and customer support are 2nd to none.

Dismiss me as a Fanboy/boi if you want but the reality is I am the core audience and it's people like me that have supported this company because they know and understand us and if they stay true to us(of which I have no doubt)we will stay true to them.

Right I've had me rant,off to winkle out some very pesky Canadians holed up in a building.

[sburke]

We, Battlefront, succeed or fail based on the development decisions we make. If we do not feel we have a chance of getting more sales pursuing MP, but instead risk existing alienating the people we KNOW buy our games... I think that should be respected. After all, it's our arses on the line, not anybody else's. Worst thing that happens for our customers if we go under is they don't have any more games to play. For us we would have to find other jobs. Bah, I don't want another job.

To be clear... if MP support was quick and easy, we'd have all sorts of wonderful features in the game already. The concept of them is a no-brainer. But these things are NOT quick and easy. Therefore we will have to sacrifice development in other areas to pursue the bigger ones, at least. If we don't think it's going to net out a positive result, then we'd be absolute morons for going in that direction.

Steve

I think he may actually have been referring to us, not you guys...

And in the interest of being completely honest, yeah we can come off that way sometimes. That the truth might be a little uncomfortable doesn't make it any less true.

[Broadsword56]

My sometimes extreme zeal for CM on the forums comes not from a narrow, limited view of only this game -- but because I've played many of those other PC games and know just how depressingly commercial and ridiculous they truly are. If we no longer had CM or a company like BFC that really loved real wargaming the way they do, I'd most likely not play computer military games anymore at all, and go back to the traditional hex-and-counter stuff -- but even that would be hard to do, now that I've had the CM experience and seen what it can be.

[Vark]

Personally, if MP means playing CM with a head set talking pseudo mil-speak count me out. If it means being able to play a platoon/company commander in a battalion sized game, with realistic radio/communication, count me in.

As a teacher though, I do have one reservation about suggestions to improve the game that come from the younger generation. It normally/invariably translates into attempts to simplify the game and replace the mental challenge with one of gaming accountancy and eye hand coordination. Before being accused of gross stereotyping I have shown CM to students and the vast majority are literally stunned by

Not knowing where the enemy is.

Not being able to enhance units mid-game.

Not being in control all the time.

Unit morale causing cower and panic reactions.

The time taken to initiate contact with the enemy.

Having to use real tactics.

No special bonus moves and tanks bogging (shrieks of "why has it stopped?").

Having to plan artillery and having no control over air support.

Having their backsides handed to them repeatedly.

The students who loved its rich tactical flavour (talking CM 1 here), were, odds on, lovers of history, and or cadets.

So, to paraphrase, "walk on my lawn, admire the flowers, even the weeds, but don't try and turn it into a skate park!" If you are frustated by the economic realties stopping a small company like BF producing your perfect game, badger the big titles and get them to do it. For the record I played SL a few times at university and did not care for it much, especially ASL.

[noxnoctum]

I don't know why some on here seem to assume that multiplayer = dumbing down the game or turning into some kiddie twitch based game. I think it might have to do with the age of some of the people on here (no offence ), but multiplayer does not mean "deathmatch mode". It just means playing humans rather than bots.

IMO of all the genres of gaming, wargaming is the one where having diverse multiplayer options is the *most* important since it tends to be one of the most complex genres and so making a competent AI is nearly impossible. To me if a game is not challenging it's boring so that's why it matters. The AI has zero ability to react or think on its feet, which isn't really BFC's fault since it's a gargantuan task, but it would matter a lot less if there was a robust multiplayer system (i.e. something other than just the click festy real time mode which *does* rely on hand-eye coordination to an extent if you're playing with anything more than a platoon, and the snails pace PBEM)

Anyways I know this isn't a priority for BFC, but I think it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy when they say that the majority of their customer base is not interested in playing other people.

Personally I'd much rather see new releases with more functionality in this arena and others (armor cover arc etc etc) than just new settings and units. Obviously I want to get to the Ostfront as much as the next person but I'd rather delay that and have the core of the game at 100% first.

I'm glad there will be a pauseable real time mode in the FI game though. I'm interested to see how that works out. Still not ideal, but definitely way better than the current system. Hopefully it allows for "auto pause" at certain intervals. That would be a huge step forward. (for example game stops every 60 seconds and resumes when both players click unpause)

[~Viajero]

Anyways I know this isn't a priority for BFC, but I think it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy when they say that the majority of their customer base is not interested in playing other people

Yeah, maybe I have missed where this bit has been discussed more in detail elsewhere, but I ve always wondered what kind of customer base research has led BFC to that conclusion. Questionnaire filled in by random sampling of online purchasers?

[Battlefront.com]

I don't know why some on here seem to assume that multiplayer = dumbing down the game or turning into some kiddie twitch based game.

hmm... well, I think what you're seeing is directed at RT by the WeGoers. Don't worry, we love them but don't listen to them when they get on that rant

Anyways I know this isn't a priority for BFC, but I think it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy when they say that the majority of their customer base is not interested in playing other people.

It's more of a chicken and egg problem. We see no financial incentive to spend gobs of development time catering to a market we don't think exists. As a result it for sure doesn't exist because we aren't spending gobs of development time catering to it.

Hopefully it allows for "auto pause" at certain intervals. That would be a huge step forward. (for example game stops every 60 seconds and resumes when both players click unpause)

Close, but we hit a few technical hurdles we couldn't safely overcome before our internal deadlines. That and not having time for some associated features we know people would harp on us for. But I can promise you this... the next Upgrade will absolutely have what we internally call "compromise TCP WeGo". Meaning it will play exactly like WeGo (with timer options and what not) but won't allow replays. We don't think we can do replays so we're going to take the doable steps first and then see what we can do about replay.

Yeah, maybe I have missed where this bit has been discussed more in detail elsewhere, but I ve always wondered what kind of customer base research has led BFC to that conclusion. Questionnaire filled in by random sampling of online purchasers?

There is no research to draw from because we don't have any way to track who plays online (we don't consider PBEM "online", BTW) compared to the entire installed base. Surveys/questionnaires are useless as well since it's likely to give a skewed result, which therefore we can't trust.

So what are we going by? Besides a long standing tradition of computer wargaming played solo? Well, every time we have a discussion about the TCP/IP MP guys are in the minority. More than that, MP players should be a bigger percentage of the customers on this Forum since they are the ones that are most plugged into the Internet, not to mention the ones feeling they have to get us to change our priorities.

Aside from that, here's a simple fact. 100% of CM players experience the core game mechanics, graphics, and attention to detail. Even if TCP/IP players were 80% of our customer base (and I think it's more like 10-20%, tops) this means we should still shy away from investing our limited resources in a few involved MP features at the expense of features that everybody (including MP players) use.

Now, as we continue to knock the big gameplay stuff off our ToDo List we are finding ourselves more time to do things like multiplayer stuff. Version 2.0 is the start of that. Besides the Pausible RT it also has a number of Editor improvements. The FIRST improvements in the Editor since 2006 (i.e. before you guys ever played the game). MP players tend to overlook that others have been waiting patiently for improvements in other areas of the game. So they should too.

Steve

[sfhand]

hmm...

(we don't consider PBEM "online", BTW) ...

Steve

Well, that answers a lot of my questions... needless to say, I haven't been viewing it that way

[Paper Tiger]

Now, as we continue to knock the big gameplay stuff off our ToDo List we are finding ourselves more time to do things like multiplayer stuff.

I sincerely hope that Fire, AI Triggers and Nighttime Illumination (yes, Ken, that includes flares but I also want it to include a burning tank or building too) are on that list of big gameplay stuff.

[Hessian deserter]

What does it cost to go to the Movie Theater these days?.....Now IMO, thats a ripoff!..and it is only for 1.5-3 hours of entertainment,compared to endless hours with the CM series of Battlefield simulations.

This new series of modules proves that BFC have not been resting on their laurels!

Exciting times for CMers for sure!!!!!

[Doug Williams]

Interesting thread.

OP, as I am sure you know by now, the 2.0 upgrade price has been announced as $10. If you have a problem with that, I respectfully submit that you quit playing all computer games and go find a job. :-)

[Redwolf]

Well it's still a problem that BFC considers both playing against the AI and playing multiplayer not worth investing much into

[Tongue in cheek of course.]

[Battlefront.com]

Well, that answers a lot of my questions... needless to say, I haven't been viewing it that way

Yeah, I should always clarify that when we start talking about multiplayer. There's online multiplayer and then there's PBEM. PBEM stands totally separate from TCP/IP.

We feel a large amount of our customer base play PBEM. Much larger than online multiplayer. This was true even back in CMx1 days when there were no gameplay differences between playing via TCP/IP and PBEM. And it's the same reason we're very, very hesitant to do CoPlay (though we REALLY want to). The reason? People have difficulty finding the same times to play, especially because we have such a diverse international customer base. Timezones really are a big problem for online gaming.

Steve

[sburke]

Timezones really are a big problem for online gaming.

Steve

LOL I'll second that. If I tried to play that way my spouse would be a little PO'd as would my job.

Seeing as your attention is over here Steve, I'll field this same question I tossed out on another thread.

The Version 2 upgrade, are you planning on a DL only or disc? Just curious.

[~Viajero]

I'm glad there will be a pauseable real time mode in the FI game though. I'm interested to see how that works out. Still not ideal, but definitely way better than the current system. Hopefully it allows for "auto pause" at certain intervals. That would be a huge step forward. (for example game stops every 60 seconds and resumes when both players click unpause)

You could conceivably agree with your opponent any kind of house rulevin this regard, i.e. lets pause every 60 seconds, give orders and unpause etc. This particular exemple would replicate the old tcp ip mode.

But it would also be nice to have an inbuilt feature that would allow you to set up regular pause intervals without player intervertion, I presume that was what you meant?

[Mitra76]

Superfly i amaze you don't know: for make war you need three things: money, money and again money! (for who don't know it is a famous phrase of renaissance's condottiero Gian Giacomo Trivulzio)

Like all the wargames CMx2 is not sure a low cost games nor a mass game: I suppose Battlefront know how many boxes can sold of game and how much the expenses are for determine the unitary price.

I'm not unhappy about the prices of CM series (of course I would be happy if they cost less, because i'm not stupid ), I assumed they are not low cost products and pay the upgrade for old versions is not a bad thing as far the upgrade contains a good number of real improvements.

The only thing I don't like is see the CMSF1 not upgraded for the technical reasons, because i think it has still much potential: also without change the game himself I think a external tool which permits to generate QB scenari with manual choice like in BN it will give a big impulse to multiplayer of game.

[Redwolf]

We feel a large amount of our customer base play PBEM. Much larger than online multiplayer. This was true even back in CMx1 days when there were no gameplay differences between playing via TCP/IP and PBEM.

Well but there was a dustup before the CMSF release about you possibly not giving us PBEM.

I guess you know that a large amount of customers play PBEM because a lot of people complained at that time?

[Battlefront.com]

Well it's still a problem that BFC considers both playing against the AI and playing multiplayer not worth investing much into

[Tongue in cheek of course.]

Of course Actually, look at the feature list for Version 2.0 and you'll see improvements for both multiplayer and AI. But we had too many other things we wanted to do this round (Editor and UI in particular) to focus on either one more thoroughly. I expect Version 3.0 to have some big moves for both of these areas instead of the modest improvements shown in Version 2.0. Again, it all comes down to you guys wanting us to go in all directions at once. Given the fact that we have to live within our means, so to speak, we simply can not do that. But we can go in all directions eventually

The Version 2 upgrade, are you planning on a DL only or disc? Just curious.

We are not planning on this, but I suppose it is possible to do for an additional cost of the disk and shipping. We'll see how fat this sucker is with all the new artwork and then I think we'll make the decision then.

Superfly i amaze you don't know: for make war you need three things: money, money and again money! (for who don't know it is a famous phrase of renaissance's condottiero Gian Giacomo Trivulzio)

Heh... I haven't heard that saying exactly in that way before. I like it

Like all the wargames CMx2 is not sure a low cost games nor a mass game: I suppose Battlefront know how many boxes can sold of game and how much the expenses are for determine the unitary price.

Yes. And we have more competition today than ever before. You hardcore guys might not see things like Company of Heroes, HALO, or mobile games as competition, but they are because they compete for people's free time. That is the most limited of all resources out there.

The only thing I don't like is see the CMSF1 not upgraded for the technical reasons, because i think it has still much potential: also without change the game himself I think a external tool which permits to generate QB scenari with manual choice like in BN it will give a big impulse to multiplayer of game.

BELIEVE me when I say this was a huge disappointment to me as well. CMSF1 has a big emotional connection to me since it was made in parallel with the CMx2 game engine. That and it was a big gamble for us because of our traditional WW2 customer base. A gamble, I might add, that was a bigger success than we expected it to be. Good for everybody.

To CMSF1 customers I say this...the enthusiasm you showed for the game and CMx2 is why we are still here now. All I can say at this point is we're still interested in finding some direct way to benefit you guys a bit more. We just haven't figured out exactly what to do and how to do it yet.

Steve