The start of actual news

[A Canadian Cat]

Which part of "start another thread" are you guys having trouble with? Yes, those feeding the troll are as much to blame. Are there only two of us that would like more on topic discussion on this thread?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm sure as heck not going to start a new thread.

The problem with staying strictly "on-topic" is that there hasn't been any new news in quite some time, so we are reduced to overviews and recaps. Looking back, this thread was basically dead until Redwolf started handing out free financial advice and I predict it will die again pretty fast when that blows over.

EDIT: And actually, although I think Redwolf is full of beans it is true that Steve did openly discuss the possibility of canceling MG in his OP, so it's not off-topic.

[BLSTK]

...and make sure to do with jihaddy gusto!

Well, it IS Ramadan. Bottoms up, my Brothers!

[Redwolf]

It sounds to me that what you are saying boils down to that BFC should stop making modules.

It doesn't matter what it is being named. If it takes too much effort to come up with too little new stuff it's not efficient. All these infantry formation seem to take very long periods of time to implement. I can't imagine that the return of this investment, as in how many buyer who don't buy everything anyway, will be in line with effort invested and how much time it took. Regardless of how many work hours are in there, a very slow rate of releases is a problem in itself. Other features are in the "yeah we had that in the year 2000 release" category.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am very much convinced that it is suicide to ignore the needs of those customers who (currently) buy all your stuff anyway. That happens in the industry and that does kill companies (because these customers are opinion leaders and when they leave it hurts new sales, too). However, regardless of whether you are looking at the core group, a extended group or entirely new customers, the time it takes for this amount of new stuff to come up serves none of these groups.

And then there is the "we won't charge double for the same formations" argument which makes no sense whatsoever when it is thrown around as a point of difficulty. Just don't charge. And you don't - the price on the new module doesn't change, even if there is a duplicate formations.

[sburke]

I never said that BFC would die.

Actually you did

Honestly? None of that is a game selling change. More like commercial suicide. You think that's gonna sell to a single person not already in virtual subscription mode?

Perhaps you were just being a bit melodramatic in the thin air atop that soapbox?

My bold added to assist you to remember what you'd said. You are welcome.

[sburke]

There is just so much wrong there that it isn't worth parsing, but just to correct one glaringly bizarre comment. BF is churning out stuff faster than it seems a lot of people can even keep up with. Suggesting they have a slow rate of release is just plain ridiculous.

in just over 2 years we have:

CMBN game family and it's first module

CMFI and it's first module

They fully expect to increase that rate of release and so far everything we have seen supports that statement.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It doesn't matter what it is being named. If it takes too much effort to come up with too little new stuff it's not efficient. All these infantry formation seem to take very long periods of time to implement. I can't imagine that the return of this investment, as in how many buyer who don't buy everything anyway, will be in line with effort invested and how much time it took. Regardless of how many work hours are in there, a very slow rate of releases is a problem in itself. Other features are in the "yeah we had that in the year 2000 release" category.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am very much convinced that it is suicide to ignore the needs of those customers who (currently) buy all your stuff anyway. That happens in the industry and that does kill companies (because these customers are opinion leaders and when they leave it hurts new sales, too). However, regardless of whether you are looking at the core group, a extended group or entirely new customers, the time it takes for this amount of new stuff to come up serves none of these groups.

And then there is the "we won't charge double for the same formations" argument which makes no sense whatsoever when it is thrown around as a point of difficulty. Just don't charge. And you don't - the price on the new module doesn't change, even if there is a duplicate formations.

So adding infantry formations is too inefficient? I'm pretty sure the East Front game will have a lot of new infantry formations, lol.

How would you suggest speeding up the process of making modules? Your arguments are schizophrenic. You acknowledge the need to serve customers of existing products but want BFC to cancel the efforts to do so.

I can't make heads or tails of that last paragraph. Are you saying BFC should reduce the amount of content in the Market Garden module but charge the same price for it?

[Redwolf]

Are you saying BFC should reduce the amount of content in the Market Garden module but charge the same price for it?

How is that going to help? It won't.

No, what I'm saying is that if your game is so complicated that you need so many months to come up with what little is now supposed to be new in MG you need to have a look at the game's design.

And the pace of releases matches in no way the intended pace as stated previously by BFC.

[Vanir Ausf B]

No, what I'm saying is that if your game is so complicated that you need so many months to come up with what little is now supposed to be new in MG you need to have a look at the game's design.

How many months did that take? Steve said MG was mostly done in March. The fact is you don't know how long, or how many man hours, or how much money. You have no factual basis for your analysis.

And the pace of releases matches in no way the intended pace as stated previously by BFC.

1) CMBN released May 2011.

2) CMBN:CW

3) CMFI

4) CMFI:GL released May 2013

My math says that is one CMx2 product every 6 months, on average. What was the intended pace previously stated by BFC?

[sburke]

How is that going to help? It won't.

No, what I'm saying is that if your game is so complicated that you need so many months to come up with what little is now supposed to be new in MG you need to have a look at the game's design.

And the pace of releases matches in no way the intended pace as stated previously by BFC.

your right, it doesn't.

That's it BF, Redwolf is right. You guys have utterly failed. I can't even look at the game anymore I am so depressed. I figure I might as well cut my losses now, why get attached to a game when it is so obviously going to fail and go under?

I'm gonna go play checkers. I found chess to just have too many issues and be an over complicated version of the same idea anyway. I mean they just recycled the same 8x8 board for American checkers so there wasn't enough new content to warrant purchasing chess. sheesh

Don't fight it Vanir, his mysterious sources are impeccable. Give in and just put the game aside... you'll thank him for it later.

[LukeFF]

Redwolf: Seriously - if you want to debate BFC's marketing strategy, why don't you open a new thread?

My thoughts exactly.

[kohlenklau]

I went ahead and opened up a marketing debate arena thread.

Fridge is stocked and there is chips and salsa in the cubbard...

[Holman]

I no longer understand this thread at all.

And I don't mean that picture. I get that just fine.

[slysniper]

I don't really care that much about a particular company, what grinds my gears is that compared to -say- the year 2002, tactical computer wargaming has essentially made no progress, and the hobby has shrunk.

And you think your rants about how Bf should follow your marketing outlook would change all that.

Buddy. This hobby and game style has always been a interest to a few and will always be that way if the past in wargaming proves anything.

As for if it dies out completely, I think not, but to become mainstream, I think not also. So it comes down to being realistic and trying to work in a market that exist and to make a living doing it and not trying to change the world as to what people find as entertainment For the lives.

I think we will see the hobby decrease in size by the shear fact that a large portion of us that find it entertaining are from a era that our dads were in that war or time period. thus part of the reason we conect with it so well. but as we die out, the hobby will decrease.Yes we pick and continue to see younger players enter the hobby, but not in the same quintities. Their age group have other interest and most of that age group do not have the ability to want to think deep tactics. They have learned run and gun is what works and thinks that is what war is all about. Oh dear, help our future.

[ASL Veteran]

How is that going to help? It won't.

No, what I'm saying is that if your game is so complicated that you need so many months to come up with what little is now supposed to be new in MG you need to have a look at the game's design.

And the pace of releases matches in no way the intended pace as stated previously by BFC.

So you want the same amount of content that was present in CMBB (that's the baseline) and you want it released more quickly than the current pace of releases (I think CMBB took almost two years, but my memory might be hazy) and you think you should pay less for it (the same price that you paid for CMBB twelve years ago). Oh, and by the way the CMx2 game design is too complicated and is slowing down the release schedule (because in your mind, the base game plus all the modules is the game, so the game isn't actually complete until all the modules are completed). Therefore, since your expectation is that you get the entire war from 1941 to 1945 in one game for the same price you paid twelve years ago, BFC is unethically milking the customers by releasing base games and modules every six months and you think that's a path to financial ruin. Once people catch on to the underhanded criminal nature of BFC's evil exploitation of their customer base all the 'real' core customers (like yourself) will leave BFC in droves. Did I sum that up correctly or do you want to clarify anything further?

Just out of curiosity, do you think it was a good idea to switch the game engine from CMx1 to CMx2 or do you think BFC should have forged ahead with more CMx1 releases?

[Lethaface]

How is that going to help? It won't.

No, what I'm saying is that if your game is so complicated that you need so many months to come up with what little is now supposed to be new in MG you need to have a look at the game's design.

And the pace of releases matches in no way the intended pace as stated previously by BFC.

I hope the ones discussing this are on a pension because why would you waste so much time discussing the business case of a company, of which you lack most of the important knowledge (amazon rankings and forum posts are perhaps relevant but not the key bits of information on which to run a company).

Apart from that your assumption is false. If adding a lot of infantry formations takes a lot of time, that probably gots to do with adding the TO&E and graphical elements. The time needed for those do not necessarily come fort of the the game's (architectural) design. Hiring more staff could probably speed up that process, but at the same time leads to more costs, overhead and other issues (salary, training, project management, headaches).

In the end, BF.C is in the position to know these things and if they are unhappy with things I guess the owners will have to make changes or face the unhappiness and consequences. Since they haven't gone bankrupt yet and probably are making changes when they see fit, I don't see the point second guessing decisions of which you only know 8 bulleted points in a forum post.

If you want them to stay in business buy their games. Provide feedback about how the game plays.

Anyway you're free to spend your time as you see fit but in my opinion it's so useless, a child could come up with better idea's to spend time on. Like doing dishes, taking a walk outside or even getting drunk with some friends. Basically anything is better than second guessing things of which you have only the slightest bit of information. If you want to prove you're good at that, invest in the stockmarket and the return on your investment will give you a tangible piece of recognition.

[para]

I no longer understand this thread at all.

And I don't mean that picture. I get that just fine.

Brilliant

[Seedorf81]

I no longer understand this thread at all.

And I don't mean that picture. I get that just fine.

Picture??? I don't get it.

What picture:eek:? Which picture:eek:? why picture:eek:?

[Redwolf]

So you want the same amount of content that was present in CMBB (that's the baseline) and you want it released more quickly than the current pace of releases (I think CMBB took almost two years, but my memory might be hazy) and you think you should pay less for it (the same price that you paid for CMBB twelve years ago). Oh, and by the way the CMx2 game design is too complicated and is slowing down the release schedule (because in your mind, the base game plus all the modules is the game, so the game isn't actually complete until all the modules are completed). Therefore, since your expectation is that you get the entire war from 1941 to 1945 in one game for the same price you paid twelve years ago, BFC is unethically milking the customers by releasing base games and modules every six months and you think that's a path to financial ruin. Once people catch on to the underhanded criminal nature of BFC's evil exploitation of their customer base all the 'real' core customers (like yourself) will leave BFC in droves. Did I sum that up correctly or do you want to clarify anything further?

Just out of curiosity, do you think it was a good idea to switch the game engine from CMx1 to CMx2 or do you think BFC should have forged ahead with more CMx1 releases?

I don't want the amount of content of CMBB, if that means that most of the new stuff is infantry formations. Who cares? What I want is game mechanics development, bug fixes and something done about the horrible UI (apart from the DRM scheme that disables people who they plug in USB joysticks or soundcards, WTF?, and the so-called distribution that has broken patch files with no checksums on third-party websites and cuts off downloads after some period although all downloads are bit-for-bit identical, WTF^2).

CM went from a game representation where units were point-like (which looks bad of course) but had the same level of positioning and control to a scheme which is incorrectly called 1:1 - because now the representation is 1:1 but control is not. This looks better but had exactly the consequences some of us predict back when it was announced, which is that the TacAI for positioning those sub-control soldiers isn't smart enough (surprise!), that there are many edges around combat that have unrealistic results, that fortifications have been made even more difficult to get right, that players need a PhD in "action spot mechanics", and to top it all off the 3D performance, especially when panning, isn't anywhere close to acceptable with all that junk being drawn. And that is after completely naive LOD (level of detail) which looks like crap. Add to that loss of e.g. unit scaling which made CMx1 much more playable without ruining anything (because you can scale back to real size with a keystroke). At least we got rid of the stupid command delays but that's just one of those things when commenting out some misguided code in CMx1 would have been a fix, too.

So, anyway. Now we see a release frequency (games and modules) that is way below targets stated by Moon, even recently, and not only that, the list of new stuff in CMx2:MG is just ridiculous considering the time that passed, if you don't find new infantry formations exciting.

On top of that we can shake our heads about that big deal Steve made out of the "problem" of duplicate units, and infantry formations at that.

If you find that all the development effort, hour for hour, is put into the right place, more power to you. But since everything is behind every timeline that BFC themselves posted, you might be a little alone in that.

[Ron]

...you might be a little alone in that.

Lol! It seems to me that the 'alone' descriptor, to put it mildly, would be more appropriate to your distorted viewpoint. You are entitled to hold whatever opinions you wish, but wow you are out to lunch, your

rants from what I understand are basically meaningless, without context or perspective. You don't appear to have any grasp of the larger simulation picture at all. Apart from the occasional outlier, I do not suffer from any of those issues you describe. Just to give some feedback from one who plays the games and modules regularly - there is too much content too fast. The idea that it would be beneficial to release more faster is just ludicrous.

[OmniJackal]

*YAWN*

What about Bagration Steve...?

This is the most important thing that has ever been said on any forum anywhere ever.

[JonS]

Buddy. This hobby and game style has always been of interest to a few and will always be that way if the past in wargaming proves anything.

As for if it dies out completely, I think not, but to become mainstream, I think not also. So it comes down to being realistic and trying to work in a market that exists and to make a living doing it and not trying to change the world as to what people find as entertainment for their lives.

I think we will see the hobby decrease in size by the shear fact that a large portion of us that find it entertaining are from a era that our dads were in that war or time period. thus part of the reason we connect with it so well. but as we die out, the hobby will decrease.Yes we pick and continue to see younger players enter the hobby, but not in the same quantities. Their age group have other interest and most of that age group do not have the ability to want to think deep tactics. They have learned run and gun is what works and thinks that is what war is all about. Oh dear, help our future.

Good post ... apart that bit of moral panic at the end

[Vanir Ausf B]

So, anyway. Now we see a release frequency (games and modules) that is way below targets stated by Moon, even recently

What was that release frequency?

[kohlenklau]

Hey Vanir,

Back a few posts in this thread you said:

"The problem with staying strictly "on-topic" is that there hasn't been any new news in quite some time, so we are reduced to overviews and recaps. Looking back, this thread was basically dead until Redwolf started handing out free financial advice and I predict it will die again pretty fast when that blows over."

Well, I guess if we don't get an actual post from Steve maybe this thread can at least serve as a collection point for any snippets of intel from other threads like the scenario design DAR, etc. It IS already stickied. Right up until the dang module releases?

HEY!! We need a midnight release party! I took my boys to one for some XBOX game. They had sodey pop and pizza and free stuff!!

[BLSTK]

You do realize that in this scenario Redwolf would be Captain Kirk? Just sayin'.