Maybe time for a holiday sale?

[Buzz]

"The theatre is not going to be something everyone is drawn to."

Which is a trifle sad. The campaign was challenging and exciting. It also was a bit adventurous as it gave the Allies a chance to test out their amphibious doctrine on a larger scale than they had before. But most importantly, it was—for the Western Allies at any rate—one of the most decisive of the war. It resulted in the downfall of Mussolini and led directly to the Italian capitulation. Just as importantly, it meant that convoys could now travel west to east through the entire length of the Mediterranean resulting in a saving of an estimated million tons of shipping. This in turn greatly facilitated Operation Bolero and Overlord.

Anyone who thinks it was a mere sideshow or a sop thrown to the British should think again.

Michael

Correct Michael... but that is in your signature lines

There were plenty of Allied lessons learned in the real CMFI. Some were costly but helped craft future "amphibious doctrine on a larger scale" to prevent mistakes and become more effective in the BIG French beach bash. CMFI is not a large scale game interest for most but an authentic and interesting WWII historical challenge.

[Ales Dvorak]

Unless we thought of doing Poland or Yugoslavia/Greece

Yugoslavia! Pretty please.

[costard]

Which is a trifle sad. The campaign was challenging and exciting. It also was a bit adventurous as it gave the Allies a chance to test out their amphibious doctrine on a larger scale than they had before. But most importantly, it was—for the Western Allies at any rate—one of the most decisive of the war.

...

Anyone who thinks it was a mere sideshow or a sop thrown to the British should think again.

Michael

It meant that the US and Britain didn't have to fight the USSR for control of the Mediterranean, particularly when Turkey was Natoed. Suez and oil. Doesn't get much bigger than that for importance in the result.

[nimtz]

I, for one, would buy CMFI in a heartbeat with a say 30% discount. If said discount happens before the release of the Eastern front game that is (otherwise I will just be too busy playing that instead of CMFI).

[poesel]

Man, I'd much rather see BF commenting on things like upcoming releases or possible tweaks than to see them/you guys engaged in this type of banter. I'm not asking for a Christmas sale, I'm asking for a Christmas information dump!

Oh yes! Anyone an idea how we can combine sales figures with MG accuracy so we get a response there?

[Ron]

We discussed this a bit on that other forum. Based on our own experience and looking at the patch download numbers it seems that CMFI didn't get a lot of sales. I can understand that, because it doesn't look very attractive as a base game for more modules (CMBN is currently "the" game for a modules line), the theater is a bit obscure (sounds like CMAK yet? ) and the equipment list is lower than for the mainline games.

Maybe it's time to have a two-week sale at a price between a full game and a module? I'd pounce.

(yes so far I didn't, I wasn't too thrilled with the demo)

We? - As in you and Lewis? That 'other forum' is the veritable ghost town with about as much action as a senior's home after 9pm. I can partly understand your confusion if your opinion is formed from tete-a-tete's with him. Though from your other postings you seem generally confused overall anyways, ie 'how to' install a patch.

You give the impression that CMBN-CMFI is rather borked and BFC dropped the ball on the UI, TacAI behavior, simulation modelling etc etc etc. In fact you state again you 'weren't too thrilled with the demo'. Yet we are to believe you would buy it anyways if it were priced $10 cheaper?? (ack the nefarious $10 raises its head again and tips the balance!) I question your character and how much time you have spent with the demo. I think you really like the game so cough up the extra peanuts and consider it a Christmas gift to yourself. Merry Christmas

[Redwolf]

We? - As in you and Lewis? That 'other forum' is the veritable ghost town with about as much action as a senior's home after 9pm. I can partly understand your confusion if your opinion is formed from tete-a-tete's with him. Though from your other postings you seem generally confused overall anyways, ie 'how to' install a patch.

You give the impression that CMBN-CMFI is rather borked and BFC dropped the ball on the UI, TacAI behavior, simulation modelling etc etc etc. In fact you state again you 'weren't too thrilled with the demo'. Yet we are to believe you would buy it anyways if it were priced $10 cheaper?? (ack the nefarious $10 raises its head again and tips the balance!) I question your character and how much time you have spent with the demo. I think you really like the game so cough up the extra peanuts and consider it a Christmas gift to yourself. Merry Christmas

Yes but that has nothing to do with the suggestion in this thread.

CMFI is pretty much in the same position as CMAK was, and CMAK was wisely priced between a full game and what is now a module. In fact CMFI is in a worse situation since CMAK was the only game in town at its time but CMFI is not.

For the record, I bought all the other releases that I could (can't have 2.0 with my Mac store CMBN but have it for my winblows version).

Whether the UI is a problem for widening the audience and hence limiting income is a matter for a different thread.

[Ron]

Lol - you should try rereading Phil and Steve's comments above. They are just a little more intimate with the condition of CMFI than yourself.

[Redwolf]

So? What's your point?

[Ron]

I don't speak your language, nor do I want to, but in English you don't have a clue as what you are talking about.

[Wodin]

Yugoslavia! Pretty please.

Poland or Greece with Crete thrown in..I'd buy either one of those esp Greece\Crete.

[simast]

Poland or Greece with Crete thrown in..I'd buy either one of those esp Greece\Crete.

Poland.. interesting, but I don't think CMx2 can handle horses

[76mm]

Lol - you should try rereading Phil and Steve's comments above. They are just a little more intimate with the condition of CMFI than yourself.

Frankly I wonder if they are not a bit too "intimate" (would not be my choice of words, but...); even if someone is not the programmer of a game they might--*gasp*--have something valid to say about it. You may or may not agree with Redwolf's opinion, but I don't think that justifies relying on Phil or Steve's comments as "the truth" about the game.

Also, I find it odd, and rather disappointing, that there is a 57 page thread about potential serious problems with MG fire in the game, with nary a response from the devs, and yet they hop into a thread questioning sales results on the first page.

[Guest]

Frankly I wonder if they are not a bit too "intimate" (would not be my choice of words, but...); even if someone is not the programmer of a game they might--*gasp*--have something valid to say about it. You may or may not agree with Redwolf's opinion, but I don't think that justifies relying on Phil or Steve's comments as "the truth" about the game.

Eh? So... his *opinion* about our sales is valid? How? And our *facts* about sales might not be "the truth"? Again... how?

Also, I find it odd, and rather disappointing, that there is a 57 page thread about potential serious problems with MG fire in the game, with nary a response from the devs, and yet they hop into a thread questioning sales results on the first page.

Beta testers have gathered data from that thread and brought it to us for discussion. That's often how "potential" bugs get back to us, especially very broad or ill-defined ones. I'm fairly certain that when I checked that thread, the beta testers involved had mentioned they were going to bring the info to us.

Occasionally Steve or I might jump into a thread like that, but a beta tester has already done so in this case. You'll note that I answer plenty of other threads as well - would you like me to not answer tech support questions, either? Those aren't the MG thread, are they? Do you find my researching and answering questions from customers odd and disappointing? Because that's 99.9% of my forum time.

On the other hand, it takes five minutes for me to jump in here and correct a misconception. Not hard, since what's being suggested is basically the least sane thing I've read here in a while, but still.

[76mm]

Phil,

First, re the "sales figures"--you certainly have facts about sales that we don't, and that's fine, it is your business. But the facts that we do have access to--patch downloads--would seem to be correlated to some extent with sales, and thus certain conclusions, albeit tentative, can be drawn from them. That is how his opinion about sales can be seen as potentially valid. And your undisclosed facts about sales would presumably be "the truth", but since we aren't aware of such facts, we can be expected to put some weight on the facts to which we do have access. If such conclusions are incorrect, OK, that's fine, but I don't see a justification for the type of vitriolic response that I have seen in this thread.

Second, re the MG thread: first, the fact that beta testers say that will report something to you does not mean that you are actually considering an issue. Moreover, some of the posts from betatesters (I think since I don't know who they are), seem to indicate that they don't see any problem at all (and perhaps there is not, but things seem off). Therefore, it would have been most helpful if a dev would have taken two minutes to post something like "yeah, we're looking at this and will come back once we've drawn some conclusions", but there has been nothing of the sort as far as I am aware. While I'm sure that your efforts on tech support and other issues are helpful, I do think that that a 57 page thread deserves some kind of acknowledgement from devs.

[noob]

But the facts that we do have access to--patch downloads--would seem to be correlated to some extent with sales, and thus certain conclusions, albeit tentative, can be drawn from them.

As soon as you use the word "seem", any conclusions you may draw from that data are meaningless.

[ASL Veteran]

Maybe it's 'possible' that most of those who are downloading patches for CMFI were those who ordered hardgoods. Perhaps many of those who chose download only didn't need to patch since perhaps the items that they downloaded were already patched to the most current version when they downloaded it?

Once again though - what difference does it make? BFC has a certain development cost to cover for creating the product. BFC also knows how much it takes in terms of sales to cover those costs. They then create some sales projections that will be required to be met in order to pay for the development cost. If the selling of one copy of CMFI covers their costs and that is considered a success by BFC, then what difference does it make what someone else thinks is successful or not? The bar for success is entirely set by BFC based upon what BFC requires in terms of covering their costs, a little profit tossed in, and hopefully a little cash to pay for the development of future games.

Since the bar for success is set entirely by BFC then what possible value could BFC gain from having someone else who is not intimate with their business model, cost structure, or their needs lecture them on what is a success or not? There is no value to BFC. None whatsoever. So what could the motivations for these discussions be? Are people worried that BFC won't survive and if they would only follow this helpful but uninformed advise they would start blowing the doors off the competition? Maybe. Since BFC has been around for a very long time though (in terms of game developers.) that doesn't seem to be the motivation for these discussions.

[Wicky]

facts to which we do have access

As far as I can see only one of the CMFI PC patch download sites out of the six shows the quantity of downloads, and that's the forth one down. So not knowing the quantities downloaded from the others it seems to be stretching things to say we have access to overall 'facts' - According to that narrow source then it appears more people have downloaded the CMFI patch than the CMBN patch!

[76mm]

As soon as you use the word "seem", any conclusions you may draw from that data are meaningless.

Don't agree with that; not sure what you do for a living but I have to draw conclusions from seeming correlations every day. Sure, sometimes they're wrong, but you have to work with the data you have. That said, I agree that these facts are not exactly a rock-solid basis to draw conclusions from.

In any event, given that CMFI presumably required fewer resources to produce than CMBN, lower sales figures still could represent a very satisfactory result, and only BFC is capable of drawing that conclusion, so if they're satisfied then that's that.

[Guest]

First, re the "sales figures"--you certainly have facts about sales that we don't, and that's fine, it is your business. But the facts that we do have access to--patch downloads--would seem to be correlated to some extent with sales, and thus certain conclusions, albeit tentative, can be drawn from them. That is how his opinion about sales can be seen as potentially valid. And your undisclosed facts about sales would presumably be "the truth", but since we aren't aware of such facts, we can be expected to put some weight on the facts to which we do have access. If such conclusions are incorrect, OK, that's fine, but I don't see a justification for the type of vitriolic response that I have seen in this thread.

I'm not sure about vitriol, but I think that being repeatedly told we must be deliberately mischaracterizing our information would be justification for being mildly upset. And would certainly cause a reaction from people who think we're telling the truth from the outset.

Also... I'm fairly certain that if people with the data you're trying to arrive at are telling you you're extrapolating it incorrectly, and further that you've missed the target entirely, you can put a bit more weight on that than on your own conclusions. Or at least reexamine your conclusions in light of that.

Second, re the MG thread: first, the fact that beta testers say that will report something to you does not mean that you are actually considering an issue. Moreover, some of the posts from betatesters (I think since I don't know who they are), seem to indicate that they don't see any problem at all (and perhaps there is not, but things seem off). Therefore, it would have been most helpful if a dev would have taken two minutes to post something like "yeah, we're looking at this and will come back once we've drawn some conclusions", but there has been nothing of the sort as far as I am aware. While I'm sure that your efforts on tech support and other issues are helpful, I do think that that a 57 page thread deserves some kind of acknowledgement from devs.

I would hope that a 57 page thread would be nicely summarized for devs who don't have hours to dig through it (as it has been) - it's not a quick thing to look at for one of us, especially if it's SO incredibly varied as the MG thread is. Everyone is upset about something, and it's wide-ranging and sometimes even fairly contradictory, so even discovering what the posters really *want*, or what the bugs might really be, can be incredibly difficult without tracking every post. Also - if beta testers are already doing it, I'm spending development time on duplicating their work. Beta testers are allowed their own opinion of course, but if they say they're bringing the information to us they do so without fail.

If you'd like us to come into a thread and acknowledge it (if we haven't), or let you know if we're looking at it (officially), please feel free to send me a PM. I will do my best to ascertain if we are indeed looking at it, and give you an answer on that front. That's something I can do fairly quickly.

Otherwise I have more immediate things to do. That's not to diminish the importance of the thread - but it's certainly not my highest priority to keep up with long forum threads and attempt to make sense of them on a post-by-post basis. I do try to keep up with current threads, but I have several dozen other things on my plate. I most often come here to answer quick questions and make sure no one is having immediately solvable issues.

And yes, sometimes I spent five minutes posting in random threads. That's not even remotely the same thing as going into the MG thread and trying to work out what's going on. I hope that that's clear from what I've said above.

I will come into the thread and let you know officially that we're looking at it.

[heyhellowhatsnew]

Since Devs are in this thread. I want to say A: I love your games, they made me a real grognard even though i'm still a beginner that is terrible.

But what about putting your games on Steam? Steam is awesome. Fine, they may take a cut, but you'd introduce new gamers to your games.

Just something to think about. Even the Dominions 3 dudes gave in eventually (though to desura) (and spidersoft, the people who made the Exile series).

Something to think about.

Also yeah i'm waiting for a sale on CM:FI. The reviews say there isn't enough content for its current price. I own CM:BN and CM:SF and SC:1 and 2 so i'll have some time to wait, but I think you should check out what Gabe Newell has been saying about sales and Steam.

[Battlefront.com]

Boy, this is a fun thread

Yes but that has nothing to do with the suggestion in this thread.

And your position about CMFI sales has nothing to do with reality. Yet you keep posing. Why?

CMFI is pretty much in the same position as CMAK was, and CMAK was wisely priced between a full game and what is now a module. In fact CMFI is in a worse situation since CMAK was the only game in town at its time but CMFI is not.

This is the fun part. You started out with a premise which is based on incomplete information and flawed. Instead of backing up and wondering if maybe you have it wrong, you double down with more completely wrong headed stuff.

CMAK was discounted not because of the theater but because it was a 4 year old game engine without any significant game improvements over the previous release (CMBB). THAT is why, and ONLY why, we priced it lower. Go look at threads from the day and you'll no doubt find me saying as much. In fact, as I've said since, we almost didn't make CMAK because of the game engine's age.

As far as "only game in town" goes, what other Med Theater games are presently out there to compare CMFI to? CMAK? Well, I suppose one could say that. But in my mind that only hurts CMAK because CMFI is currently supported, better technically, and a better game than CAMK. The latter is an opinion, but the other elements are facts.

For the record, I bought all the other releases that I could (can't have 2.0 with my Mac store CMBN but have it for my winblows version).

Then what's your interest in inventing a narrative that it's not doing well?

Whether the UI is a problem for widening the audience and hence limiting income is a matter for a different thread.

Put the fanciest, most incredible UI that any 2 programmers and several dedicated artists could produce (that's what the big boys likely invest into their UI) onto CM (of any flavor) and I doubt we'd see any significant increase in sales. Certainly not enough to justify the investment.

Frankly I wonder if they are not a bit too "intimate" (would not be my choice of words, but...); even if someone is not the programmer of a game they might--*gasp*--have something valid to say about it. You may or may not agree with Redwolf's opinion, but I don't think that justifies relying on Phil or Steve's comments as "the truth" about the game.

Redwolf didn't state an opinion. He stated something as if it is fact. Yet he has no capability to make such a statement and is, in fact, wrong. So no, we don't disagree with Redwolf's opinion because he's so far not expressed one to disagree with.

Also, I find it odd, and rather disappointing, that there is a 57 page thread about potential serious problems with MG fire in the game, with nary a response from the devs, and yet they hop into a thread questioning sales results on the first page.

Ignorance is something that's really in no short supply here, is it? What if I told you we already have 2.01 in beta testing and that it has fixes to the MG behavior despite neither Phil nor I participating in that thread? What would you say if I said that. Not that I just did say it or anything

But the facts that we do have access to--patch downloads--would seem to be correlated to some extent with sales, and thus certain conclusions, albeit tentative, can be drawn from them.

First, the information available for patch counts is incomplete, therefore that skews any data based argument right there. Second, it seems no thought has been put into questioning if the numbers that are available are countered by other factors. Such as v1.01 being available to all new customers with their purchase and therefore no need to download. Where as not a single CMBN customer, not a one of them, bought CMBN with v1.11. Which means a very big percentage of CMFI customers did not need v1.01, but 100% of CMBN customers needed v1.11.

That right there is enough to question the premise and the conclusions drawn. But why continue on with the idiocy when we've stated, based on REAL NUMBERS, that the premise is false? Doesn't that seem... stupid?

And your undisclosed facts about sales would presumably be "the truth", but since we aren't aware of such facts, we can be expected to put some weight on the facts to which we do have access.

So you put more faith in a partisan premise based on incomplete and illogical data than a position from the only people that know what the truth is *and* have a 15 year track record of being honest with 10s of thousands of people? Hey, your choice, but don't expect me to understand it.

Second, re the MG thread: first, the fact that beta testers say that will report something to you does not mean that you are actually considering an issue. Moreover, some of the posts from betatesters (I think since I don't know who they are), seem to indicate that they don't see any problem at all (and perhaps there is not, but things seem off).

If I had a dime for every time customers told us something specific was "wrong" and we found out it wasn't, I'd have made more money from that than all CM sales combined. Call the skepticism not only healthy, but warranted.

Therefore, it would have been most helpful if a dev would have taken two minutes to post something like "yeah, we're looking at this and will come back once we've drawn some conclusions", but there has been nothing of the sort as far as I am aware.

There's tons of threads where people talk about stuff being wrong or wanting improvements that have no official comment on. Why pick just one to complain about?

We trust our testers to bring real issues to our attention. Even if you don't, they still do.

While I'm sure that your efforts on tech support and other issues are helpful, I do think that that a 57 page thread deserves some kind of acknowledgement from devs.

Sure, no problem.

Steve

[heyhellowhatsnew]

Or maybe even a sale based on if you own CM:BN and/or CM:SF?

PS: I really love your games so I hope I get answers to my questions and ignore the mean jerk being a mean jerk

[noob]

I have to draw conclusions from seeming correlations every day. Sure, sometimes they're wrong, but you have to work with the data you have.

But if that data is insufficient to prove a specific point, why mention it ?

[Battlefront.com]

Or maybe even a sale based on if you own CM:BN and/or CM:SF?

PS: I really love your games so I hope I get answers to my questions and ignore the mean jerk being a mean jerk

No problem! I've answered the Steam question a couple of times in detail and had healthy discussions about our position. Best thing to do is search for "STEAM" in this Forum and the Normandy Forum. No doubt you'll find the discussions there.

Short answer... until Steam has a business model that is compatible with ours, we won't be on Steam. I know Steam is popular with gamers, but it has to work for us from a business standpoint. At the present time that isn't the case.

But if that data is insufficient to prove a specific point, why mention it ?

Even more questionable when new information is produced, which is vastly more reliable, and it is rejected out of hand for no rational reason. Kinda hard to believe there's an honest attempt being made to figure something out when there is such a deliberate effort to ignore important data.

And it still begs the question... why is anybody bothering to try and figure out what CMFI sales are like? Normally when someone spends time on something there's some value in doing so. I don't "get it" in this case. Why it matters so much to some people that we're doing poorly is puzzling for sure since their opinion (either way) has no bearing on Battlefront's bottomline. Though it does explain the rejection of evidence to the contrary. When someone constructs a fantasy world there's a reluctance to deal with things which would cause its destruction.

Steve