CM 2.0 Ripoff - wrong payment strategy

[Battlefront.com]

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?

Oh most definitely! Though we already knew lots of people played PBEM. The extremely emotional, and angry at times, response we got from simply saying we MIGHT not be able to do PBEM simply reinforced what we already knew. Including that you wargamers are an emotional bunch

Steve

[Rokko]

Would be cool if you could preorder the OMG/2.0 bundle but download seperately.

I know 5$ difference isn't much not even for me,

but when you live from less than 500€ a month it still kinda counts

[padre19]

average salary in my country is 300 euro and minimum salary is 130 euro.........

[sfhand]

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

I can only answer for myself, obviously, but I feel you have more than held up your end on CMSF. As a pre-order who was disappointed with the release, I feel you did right by your customer base in your bug quashing as well as your feature support (I still think the Red side should be able to split squads though...). You guys are all very dedicated to your craft and it is appreciated by most I think. CMSF kept me happily occupied for several years, so thanks for that.

[ZPB II]

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

Reading this makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about buying CMSF when it was released back in the day and all the modules & CMA after that.

I loathed the game in it's release state, it was so broken it was really hard to get any enjoyment. But knowing BFC's history I stayed and it was patched into one of the best games I've ever played. Thanks for not dropping it. I like CMSF even more than CMBN. I wish CMSF2 would come out soon.

[MikeyD]

On the original topic of 'payment strategy' (and online play), I'm curious does anybody know what is the ultimate $$$ outlay to play 'World of Tanks'? I know its free download and 2-3 maps to get you hooked, then they start nickel-and-diming you for each little upgrade, enhancement and feature. I would imagine by the time you've made it up to King Tiger territory you must've shelled out a pretty penny. No knock on WoT, if anyone can appreciate 'unabashed hobbyist tank porn' I can.

[ZPB II]

I stopped playing World of Tanks after I realized it's an exhausting grind and it's pure Pay-to-win. You have to pay real money for premium ammo and equipment for your tank and when you spend them you have to pay even more. My friend said they also sell some premium tanks for 20 euros that devastate their opponents.

A good free-to-play business model that isn't pay-to-win is League of Legends.

[Battlefront.com]

I am a supporter of F2P and micro transactions as concepts. I am completely against exploiting the addiction gene or various other common psychological deficiencies ("if I can win this game I will feel better about myself as a person" type stuff). Offering victory to the highest bidder is one of the worst practices I can think of.

If we ever make games with F2P or micro transactions, know that we'll think long and hard about the social impact our games have on our customers. We can't control if someone plays our games to the detriment of more important things (like showing up for work on time!), but we can control our direct financial impact on people's lives. I don't know how some game developers/publishers sleep at night.

Steve

[ratdeath]

The $$ approach for new features for old releases is awesome.

I am happy to pay for new features as I believe these type of games have long lifetime and if new feature releases down the road might also give room for a modern .exe that is happier together with new OS/hardware it's an added bonus.

The VISTA patch did exactly what it was meant to do. Don't let this type of threads put you off to go down that path again in the future, if needed.

The future for CMx2 V2.0 looks awesome, awaiting the FI game and looking forward to the V2.0 features for CMBN some month or so after that.

Now for something crazy (we all have our dreams )... GNU/Linux support?

[TrailApe]

It might be part of the conditioning I absorbed during 20 years of being a Weekend Warrior, but when somebody you respect says they will do it when they can, I then accept that without question.

I respect BF (and I bought into CMSF as soon as I could arrange to get it without using a credit card - and boy did they really turn that came around!) and I'm more than happy to accept what they serve up and when they serve it. If they say they can’t/won’t do it, well that’s good enough for me. I trust them.

I think a online co-op play like World of Tanks would be a brilliant concept, but I can't think how it would work in the real world. WoT's is a 15 minute (or less if you are as 'average' as me) investment of your time, whereas any CM game is going to take much longer - hell - just think of the pre-combat discussion between the various elements if say 4 guys are running a company attack - that's going to take hours - to say nothing of the PowerPoint presentations that we will use to try and validate our particular strategy.

In fact just thinking about it, if every session starts with a Casablanca style bicker-fest, real-time-on-line-co-op-multi-play might be a VERY bad idea. Nobody will be speaking to each other.

As an aside, I play WOT and have never, and will never, spend a single penny on it. I can see how people can get caught up in the whole thing (efficiency rating, Win/Lose ratio, hit ratio etc. etc.), but I just do it for fun and I reckon I can have as much of a laugh with a tier one tank as somebody who has shellacked out a load of cash to buy a Big Bad Beast. I just get killed a lot more, but then getting wiped out in WoT is not nearly as painful as losing half of your squad to a mortar attack, then the rest getting wiped out by an MG when you relocate them to avoid the mortars - now that really hurts.

In conclusion - keep it going BF (just do it a bit faster )

[Mitra76]

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

According to Guicciardini, this was the reply Trivulzio gave to King Louis XII of France when this last asked what was necessary for make a war.

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.

I think a first step (I don't know how easy is) could be improve the auto QB; if my analysis of some time ago is correct ( http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=99482 ) a good step could be limit the automatic choice to platoon level without take full company also if the battle point are sufficient for take it, this will force the system to take more mixed troops.

[sburke]

Here is a suggestion to benefit all members of the player community - change the name of this stupid thread.

[shocker28]

I think there's a big misunderstanding between what everyone is talking about when it comes to multi player. For instance Steve i never knew you didn't consider PBEM multi player. Just like how I'm not considering multi player as 2vs2.

What I am talking about is an enhanced interactive lobby system. Where players can come to meet to set up games and have live chat. This lobby is just that a lobby which in no way changes the game other then making it easier to make matches.

I'm working on a visual representation on said lobby because like me most people are visual and don't get it til they see it.

The features of said lobby would include creating/hosting games either PBEM real-time Or Real-time Wego (i know this isn't implemented all the way yet but players could agree to 1 min pauses).

This lobby would also have the ability to record and report games back to the server. Which the results could be seen and players ratings viewed on a leader board in the lobby.

This would be the very basic multi player lobby that i would like to see. Once implemented you could go as far as having campaigns. In which players pic a side and fight with others on a unified front. In the way that can be found on The Few Good Men website. Or how it is done on www.battlegroundeurope.com/ .

None of this favors one play style or the other more. None of my ideas has anything to do with changing the games code or mechanics. Sure im a member here, the blitz, the few good men etc. The reason those sites are in existence, the driving force is multiplayer. (Lets make this clear call it what you want when i refer to multiplayer it includes all play styles.). And this is your core audience on these sites.

What i would like to have is on central place to come and have all of this. With out having to report manually game results etc.

Sorry if my post is a bit sloppy im on my phone and have to go didnt get a chance to proof read.

[shocker28]

Yes the title of the thread should be changed and has nothing to do with anything being talked about in here. But i dont want to litter the boards with another post seeing how this ones already here.

Also i for got to add with regards to micro transactions i woukd gladly pah a monthly fee for an online lobby with a live campaign system.

[Battlefront.com]

As a rule I don't change stuff that people put up here, unless it goes WAY over the line. This thread title, though childish and ill informed in some ways, doesn't come close to crossing the line. So it will remain.

Shocker28,

All the ideas you just noted are rather straight forward and have been discussed since CMBO (probably even the Beta Demo!). The problem is implementation is extremely costly and lengthy. Which is why we haven't done it yet. There are some 3rd party products out there that might make things easier, but not cheaper, than doing it ourselves. We haven't fully explored them because we definitely haven't had the time up until now (and probably for Version 3.0 either).

Think of it this way. We listen to our customers very carefully. We engage in discussion and debate honestly and very forthright about our limitations. We have an EXTREMELY strong track record of giving our customers fixes to things they don't like, enhancements to things they do like, and new stuff they didn't even know they wanted until they used it for the first time.

When a suggestion has been made for 12 years and it's still not implemented, there's one or more reasons for that. Usually well explained reasons. Customers have to understand that we have no incentive to withhold things from you guys, but we do have incentives to stay in business. Which is why expensive, time consuming multiplayer features are not on the top of our ToDo List. Yet.

Steve

[MikeyD]

You can't say BFC is entirely without experience with multiplayer. They did, after all, host the multiplayer game 'Drop Team'. From a purely marketing perspective, I'd imagine one downside to hosted multiplayer is the title's relative level of success becomes all too apparent to those visiting the site looking for opponents. A hosted multiplayer title is like a shark, it needs to keep moving forward or it simply dies. Drop Team is one of the few BFC products that has been discontinued. 'Down in Flames', by contrast, they can be kept on their site getting the occassional sales hit forever.

[Redwolf]

I think you are losing it Mikey

[WriterJWA]

What I am talking about is an enhanced interactive lobby system. Where players can come to meet to set up games and have live chat. This lobby is just that a lobby which in no way changes the game other then making it easier to make matches.

I'm working on a visual representation on said lobby because like me most people are visual and don't get it til they see it.

The features of said lobby would include creating/hosting games either PBEM real-time Or Real-time Wego (i know this isn't implemented all the way yet but players could agree to 1 min pauses).

This lobby would also have the ability to record and report games back to the server. Which the results could be seen and players ratings viewed on a leader board in the lobby.

Though I personally think the game could benefit from some sort of expanded multiplayer system/support, some of what you're asking can be done outside the game. Voiceover IP programs like TeamSpeak can be used to create the community aspect of a lobby as a place to congregate, talk, and set up games. The program is free to download and use, and setting up a dedicated chat server (where everyone would log in to and talk) costs about $80 a year for 24 slots (users), which could be mitigated with donations, etc...

The only thing it doesn't have, obviously, is the in-game ranking and matching, or leader boards.

It's an alternative....

[poesel]

You can't say BFC is entirely without experience with multiplayer. They did, after all, host the multiplayer game 'Drop Team'.

That would be the killer feature: mix DT and CM -> being able to jump inside each vehicle FPS style and give it a blast around Normandy...

Uuh - I have to stop drooling

DT had some nice features (besides being fun to play): a working lobby, being able to run headless as a server, a good armour model and a tactical map you could draw on. Good times.

[noxnoctum]

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?

Yes.

I don't see having to manually pause every 60 seconds being workeable (what do you do, keep looking at a clock while you're busy issuing orders? Doesn't sound feasible to me)

I still look forward to when we have full on we-go tcp-ip though.

Even with pausable RT (no replay), you will still lose considerable situational awareness, and are unable to enjoy the combat on a "small scale" for fear of missing something crucial (i.e. hidden AT gun firing while you're busy looking trying to see if a MG you set up has LOS to an enemy position)

Is this wego without replay going to be in FI Steve? Are is that for a later game? Anyways I'm glad to hear you guys are still moving in that direction. Hopefully we'll get replay at some point.

I dunno why you guys don't consider PBEM "online" though. I only play PBEM with CMBN but that's not because I'm a huge fan of PBEM but because I just don't enjoy RT at all. And the only way I can play the game with turns against a human is PBEM. So I would fall under the "only PBEM player" category because I don't play RT, but that's not because I'm not interested in tcp-ip play, just not the RT variety

Anyways, just because someone doesn't play RT does not mean they wouldn't play wego tcp-ip were it available (like me). WEGO tcp-ip is pretty much just pbem for people who can set aside larger chunks of time anyways.

I found it hard to believe before that so many were satisfied with playing the AI, but if you're not including PBEM players that explains a lot.

[Battlefront.com]

Is this wego without replay going to be in FI Steve? Are is that for a later game? Anyways I'm glad to hear you guys are still moving in that direction.

Unfortunately, not for Italy. We were close to getting it ready to code, but with that and the necessary testing we just couldn't do it this time around. However, much of the work necessary to get it going was done for the paused RT. Which means it will be along sooner rather than later.

Hopefully we'll get replay at some point.

Would love to, but man... I don't know if that's possible.

I found it hard to believe before that so many were satisfied with playing the AI, but if you're not including PBEM players that explains a lot.

This is a difference in terms. PBEM is "multiplayer" by definition. What it isn't is "online multiplayer" because there's no online component during play. Just sending files back and forth. From conceptual and technical standpoints the two aren't in the same ballpark.

Steve

[Mord]

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

CMSF was like a preemie baby. We watched it struggle and fight until it grew into a big, strong, kid. And I guess because a lot of us where there through the whole teething process it holds a special spot in our hearts. There was a ton of bitching and a ton of naysayers and doom cryers and you guys stepped up. You proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that you'd stand behind your creation and support it until it was hammered out. I never lost faith and you showed me why.

I wouldn't care if you guys redid it and then charged full price...as much as I want to see the Russia Vs NATO game, I am still gonna miss the desert. I can only imagine how much cooler it would be with all the new stuff that was added into CMBN...bridges, mortars, water, the new 2.0 features.

Why not take all the units (that the New Modern game doesn't use) and terrain and create some kind of plug in for the New CMX2 Modern game? LOL just give us a couple more types of palms in the editor!

Mord.

[Chops]

Yeah, I am with you Mord. CMSF does hold a special place in CM lore. It was fun being part of the whole process. I enjoyed it from day one, because I had no expectations and was wowed by the technical accomplishments of the game. Still blows my mind thinking about what these guys have created.

I also hope that CMSF can be re-visited at some point.

[Paper Tiger]

I found it hard to believe before that so many were satisfied with playing the AI,

I don't. I think that BFC's scripted AI opponent can provide the average player with a very good challenge indeed. But once you've played against another human opponent, you will probably find the AI opponent unsatisfactory because it is incapable of reacting to your moves in the same way a human opponent can. The AI opponent is going to get better with 16 AI groups to play around with. And once we get triggers...

[MikeyD]

Re play against the AI, over on CMSF, the comments often oscillated between "This is too easy!" and "This is too hard!" Some scenario were actually designed that way. Basegame scenarios in particular weren't exactly made to make a player cry. But each module got progressively more daunting. There are still NATO battles I've not managed to crack.

A common tactic, I suspect, is for a player to play through a scenario until the AI's ATGMs (in CMSF) starts taking his force apart, then he'd bail the game and restart, rain artillery on the now-known ATGM locations, and THEN claim the scenario was a cake walk. We're all Patton after the third runthrough!