More campaigns!

[Skwabie]

I finished all of them! Scenarios are boring so fresh outta materials atm!:mad:

[poesel]

If you want them you can make them you know?

[Skwabie]

I'd rather buy them from BFC since I wonder if playing self-made scenario is fun after already knowing the AI plans. Yes there can be several but still.

Oh yeah... dynamic campaign is a total wet dream!...

[Erwin]

When you consider it takes experienced designers months to make a good campaign, I can't understand why anyone would want to play their own campaign. CM1 campaigns took several weeks to design and those used the same map. I was sick of what I made after that amount of time spent testing etc.

+1 to buying professionally-made and tested campaigns (and mods for that matter). Gaming (for some of us at least) is supposed to be a leisure activity.

[sburke]

When you consider it takes experienced designers months to make a good campaign, I can't understand why anyone would want to play their own campaign. CM1 campaigns took several weeks to design and those used the same map. I was sick of what I made after that amount of time spent testing etc.

+1 to buying professionally-made and tested campaigns (and mods for that matter). Gaming (for some of us at least) is supposed to be a leisure activity.

The designers who work on the CM releases are likely going to be way too busy given the increase in BFs capacity on new material. Odds are new material for CMBN and CMFI is going to have to come from the community. This will only become a bigger issue over time as BF continues to churn out product.

Based on current thinking from BF, we will have the following over the next couple years

CMBN

CMFI

CM Eastern Front x 4

CM Modern at least one new game and a re release of CMSF

CM Bulge

CM Vietnam - okay BF has consistently said no, but I keep wishing

That is 8 separate game families and the return of what many still consider the best. (10 if you count my wish)

Maybe you won't want to play yours, but someone else will and then maybe they will be encouraged to create one in turn. BTW what is professionally made? Most of the campaign and scenario designers are not on salary.

It is a worthwhile consideration to see if there is a market for selling campaigns/scenarios as the labor as you noted is fairly extensive. How that then conflicts with the current model for distribution and the expectation of what comes with the game is a whole other problem. I don't think that however is the hold up. The issue isn't people aren't getting paid, the problem is a lack of folks willing to try their hand at scenario/campaign creation.

CMSF did eventually have a wealth of material, but it was the only CMx2 product for a very long time. Honestly I think the real answer is going to be tied up in what editor improvements come over time. If the actual creation of scenarios can somehow become a little less labor intensive, that would help a lot.

In the meantime, the only real answer is the community needs to get more involved. BF is apparently quite healthy, that must mean there are plenty of us buying the game. Time to roll up your sleeves and contribute.

[womble]

CMSF did eventually have a wealth of material, but it was the only CMx2 product for a very long time. Honestly I think the real answer is going to be tied up in what editor improvements come over time. If the actual creation of scenarios can somehow become a little less labor intensive, that would help a lot.

I think the fragmentation of the creative base is going to turn out to be a problem. As you say, SF had a monopoly for years, and even with the reactivation of all the "WW2 only" players, the creative base hasn't doubled since then, to allow the same number of sceario-creation-hours for each of the two new families (and that's assuming all the SF designers switch all their output to WW2), and I doubt adding the OstFront grogs in will make enough of a surge in player numbers to allow the current "voluntary" model to remain viable. Good tools (including some ability to copy-paste, so people can build independent elements that someone else can combine) will make a difference, but I think there might come a point where BFC has to pay for new maps/scenarios/campaigns, even if they can't sell them, just because they need them to make the "next family" a viable product.

Having some sort of cross-family import process might help, too, especially across the OstFront families.

[PaulMG]

It would be nice if EF maps could be used in the Modern game. NATO and WP battles would be on the same ground, just different buildings and roadways in some places.

[Genosse]

I'm a newbie, what is the health of the BN and FI scenario/campaign making communities?

[Mr.X]

Hey,

like said above, with the growing number of moduls, it will become a problem for Battlefront to create enough new stuff for the community. IMO it is very important for a really "living" game to get especially new campaigns regularly. And the solution for this problem would be easy:

BF would sell Campaign/Scenario-Packs including for example 2-3 campaigns and 7-8 single Scenarios. I would pay 10-15 Dollars (even Euro ) for such a pack. The designers would participate with for example 5-10% of the income.

I have made three campaigns for CM and invested dozens of hours. But with a wife and kids and working as a traumatic surgery, I can´t explain this time consuming hobby to my family. They say: "You are crazy to create such stuff for nothing" and they are right.

I have sent a message to BF one or two years ago and asked them, if it would be possible to get paid for creating campaigns but they didn´t even answer.

Regards

Frank

p.s.: Of course, there may be many much better designers outside than me, but until now I haven´t found any user-made campaigns for CMBN/CMFI except my ones....and that´s a pity...

[Erwin]

+1 re Mr X's comments. Nobody expects us to volunteer to improve Bill Gates' Windows OS - even if we had the ability. Just because we like playing games doesn't mean we either have the time, talent or even enjoy making mods or scenarios. Our contribution is the hundreds of dollars we happily pay sight unseen for new product. Why do we regularly get the "Time to roll up your sleeves and contribute" guilt trip?

The reason we customers are paying hundreds of dollars for a CM2 "family" of games is so that we can spend our leisure time doing what we enjoy - playing. If some folks have the talent and enjoy producing mods and scenarios for free, that is wonderful. But, expecting untalented or time-stressed paying customers to additionally volunteer to do work they may hate in order shoulder the burden of keeping a game series going is not viable.

[sburke]

+1 re Mr X's comments. Nobody expects us to volunteer to improve Bill Gates' Windows OS - even if we had the ability. Why do we regularly get the "Time to roll up your sleeves and contribute" guilt trip?

Because you bought the game as is, not with the promise that BF would continue to develop material. It isn't about volunteering to develop CMBN's engine, the comparison doesn't quite make sense. Once the last pack is out I don't see BF spending any further energy on CMBN, they are too small an outfit for that.

If you don't feel like you want to contribute, fine that is your choice. For my part I was just trying to point out that the resources BF has will have their hands full with the planned releases. Additional material if it is going to happen is going to have to be created by the community. It isn't about a guilt trip, it's just a fact of life.

[Erwin]

You make the assumption that all our skill levels are the same. Even if most of us had the skills and time, or enjoyed doing the WORK required when we are trying to find relaxation, it would result in largely mediocre product that would upset everyone. Then we'd be hearing "Why don't you roll up your sleeves and learn to program so you can make the game better."

The game needs to expect to be judged on the same level as any other professional entertainment product. It is not in CM1 territory any more. And sure, if BF doesn't want to support CMBN or CMFI anymore, let's move on to East Front.

I do worry that there is a growing problem of fragmentation of the customer base. But, let's hope for the best and see what happens in the next releases.

[sburke]

The game needs to expect to be judged on the same level as any other professional entertainment product. It is not in CM1 territory any more. And sure, if BF doesn't want to support CMBN or CMFI anymore, let's move on to East Front.

I do worry that there is a growing problem of fragmentation of the customer base. But, let's hope for the best and see what happens in the next releases.

I don't think I am following you here and perhaps I am just missing your message. AFAIK no other game out there promises to continue to provide material after the point of purchase.

To use two examples War in the East and Command Ops, they do not provide additional material unless it is part of a larger release similar to a module (in the case of WiTE) or nothing at all (in the case of Command Ops).

edit - correction Command Ops appears to have an add on module for their Bulge game.

So I think any expectation that BF would be expected to do scenario releases is actually judging them different. Scenario packs was an aspect of SL and ASL that I think is long gone. This isn't to say BF would never release a scenario pack - who am I to say. It just doesn't seem to be the best use from their view of the resources they have to typically draw on.

As to BF supporting CMBN in point of fact BF has already gone a step further in stating they WILL continue to update the game engine as it develops keeping CMBN current. That is far and beyond what I think we have come to expect from most developers.

[Skwabie]

What?... Salute to the campaign makers out there then, for I was thinking when I buy a module some of the funds go to the scenario/camp designers for sure. The editor, having used it myself is by no means efficient. What Erwin says about months to make a campaign seems about right to me and I generally finish a campaign within a week. It's not only labor intensive but also labor inefficient so to speak, it's not like the campaign is dynamic you get years and years of replay value out of it, or that one can easily make changes to the existing campaign and create a spinoff for himself, in which case I'd be thinking my hard work will do many people quite a lotta good at least. As things are currently I'd be lacking the incentive to go on without some form of financial motivation.

Coming from long and dedicated years of flight simming where everything is free dev, the cycle is indeed vicious in that devs make mediocre stuff, users complain, and the "why don't YOU make it yourself" gets thrown around a lot it ends up indeed a depressing experience and I was simply tired of it, despite the glorious outlook that there's a bunch of noble ppl willing to work for free for the great cause. When it comes down to it, heck I'll be damn straight, is that money matters. Payware stands for better quality for natural and apparent reasons.

I mean, here we have a great game engine and a bunch of well made pixel equipment and units, but it's kinda hard to find a good battlefield to fight them on. I never am for one just to get the game for some grog study, but to take them out and fight them.

P.S. the future packs for BN/FI, wouldn't they contain new campaigns and scenarios that we buy? Or are those still just new equipment?

[A Canadian Cat]

Honestly I think the real answer is going to be tied up in what editor improvements come over time. If the actual creation of scenarios can somehow become a little less labor intensive, that would help a lot.

Indeed. The addition of the map overlay for example took scenario creation from no way to possible for me. Not that I have done much but I do have another one on the go.

Good tools (including some ability to copy-paste, so people can build independent elements that someone else can combine) will make a difference, but

Yes, that would be nice. Copy and past across maps of map elements, units and even plans.

I think there might come a point where BFC has to pay for new maps/scenarios/campaigns, even if they can't sell them, just because they need them to make the "next family" a viable product.

I am not so sure about this. If the have a stable of people creating scenarios and campaigns for them that can keep up the pace of game and module creation then they are good to go. So far I do not see the scenario content for their published titles lagging behind.

[Mr.X]

There is one point during these discussions (there have been similar threads in the past), I still can´t understand:

What risk would BF take, if they would sell Campaign-Packs? Costs for producing some disks? IMO it would be a win-win situation. Either the community would be glad to have new stuff of high quality and the majority of the customers would pay 10 or 15 Dollars ...or the whole idea would become a failure, because almost nobody would buy such stuff - in this case, BF had to throw some CDs into the garbage can

[Mord]

Steve stated that packs could be anything they wanted and that some could even be a series of battles or campaigns. So, it's not really anything to fret over until they get the whole pack thing going.

One thing I can guarantee though, if they do release a pack that is exclusively scenario focused there'll be just as many people bitching that BFC charged for it as there are people saying they'd be happy to pay. LOL.

Mord.

[Vanir Ausf B]

There is one point during these discussions (there have been similar threads in the past), I still can´t understand:

What risk would BF take, if they would sell Campaign-Packs? Costs for producing some disks?

Possibly opportunity cost. The number of people who create this content and their time are finite resources. People making campaigns for a CMBN or CMFI campaign pack means fewer people working on campaigns for the East Front and modern warfare games. Unless they have extra time available so they can do both at once, but we don't know if that is the case.

One thing I can guarantee though, if they do release a pack that is exclusively scenario focused there'll be just as many people bitching that BFC charged for it as there are people saying they'd be happy to pay. LOL.

No doubt I can hear it now: "What? No new units? BFC is charging me money for stuff I could just download from the Repository for free or make myself? WAAA!!! "

[poesel]

Charging for scenarios or campaigns would mean that they have to be put under DRM. I don't know if that is even possible.

Then there is the psychological impact on creators: now they make because they want. If the same product is suddenly being sold then there is a price tag on it. It feels unfair if some get money and others don't. So they may as well stop making these things. I doubt that the market would accept a price that would reasonably pay scenario creators.

I would start making scenarios as soon as they could be played H2H. Playing versus the AI is somehow not satisfying.

[LukeFF]

+1 re Mr X's comments. Nobody expects us to volunteer to improve Bill Gates' Windows OS - even if we had the ability. Just because we like playing games doesn't mean we either have the time, talent or even enjoy making mods or scenarios. Our contribution is the hundreds of dollars we happily pay sight unseen for new product. Why do we regularly get the "Time to roll up your sleeves and contribute" guilt trip?

The reason we customers are paying hundreds of dollars for a CM2 "family" of games is so that we can spend our leisure time doing what we enjoy - playing. If some folks have the talent and enjoy producing mods and scenarios for free, that is wonderful. But, expecting untalented or time-stressed paying customers to additionally volunteer to do work they may hate in order shoulder the burden of keeping a game series going is not viable.

Apparently you've not much experience in the world of combat flight sims, where the games with good mission editors have resulted in a lot of good, enjoyable, and fun missions and campaigns from the community of players. Il2 is a good example of that, and there's no reason why the CM games can't be the same way.

[womble]

What risk would BF take, if they would sell Campaign-Packs?

They'd be taking the risk of spending a lot of treasure to make a pack of stuff with the expectation of selling it, when the content they would be selling is freely copiable (as the current model goes). First they'd have to have some way of attaching DRM to scenarios/campaigns that they make (and probably only that they make. Given the current railery against the DRM on the base product, I can't see that going down well with the punters.

I am not so sure about this. If the have a stable of people creating scenarios and campaigns for them that can keep up the pace of game and module creation then they are good to go. So far I do not see the scenario content for their published titles lagging behind.

Not at initial release, perhaps, but part of the appeal of the games, which BFC themselves are leveraging by offering an upgrade path for every family as the engine develops, is their longevity. Who will buy engine/v5.0 for BN when there's no new content being put out to play using that engine?

In some ways, the need for more content is going to be largely driven by RT players; I can't imagine finishing anything but the most rudimentary campaign in the space of a week, even devoting all my waking hours to it.

[Glubokii Boy]

With a steady release of new modules i'm sure there will be no big shortage of new scenarios to play if we buy them all.

The problem as i see it is for people who are intrested in a specific theatre and time period and therefore would prefer to play a specific CM-game.

I understand and mostly agree when many says that the additional scenarios will have to come from the comunity but sadly that does not seem to be happening to any great extent.

I feel its a shame if the modules more or less "dies" after some months because of the lack of scenarios. I would be more than happy to PAY for an additional scenario pack

to the modules i like.

I don't understand why somebody would complain about having to pay for that...I would be like buying A NEW MODULE (only cheaper) with the only difference that it is set in the same theatre and time period as a previous module...

[A Canadian Cat]

Given the current railery against the DRM on the base product, I can't see that going down well with the punters.

That is for sure. Punters - I like that term. I hate DRM systems too but I do not see it going away ever - sigh:(

Not at initial release, perhaps, but part of the appeal of the games, which BFC themselves are leveraging by offering an upgrade path for every family as the engine develops, is their longevity. Who will buy engine/v5.0 for BN when there's no new content being put out to play using that engine?

There you have a good point for sure.

[A Canadian Cat]

No doubt I can hear it now: "What? No new units? BFC is charging me money for stuff I could just download from the Repository for free or make myself? WAAA!!! "

Hee Hee for sure - those would be the punters right?

What might work is trying scenarios to a pack by having those scenarios require one of the special units from the pack. If the pack has DRM and the scenarios depend on units from the pack they are good to go. Of course that is still not quite a scenario only pack but close.

[sburke]

Not at initial release, perhaps, but part of the appeal of the games, which BFC themselves are leveraging by offering an upgrade path for every family as the engine develops, is their longevity. Who will buy engine/v5.0 for BN when there's no new content being put out to play using that engine?

In some ways, the need for more content is going to be largely driven by RT players; I can't imagine finishing anything but the most rudimentary campaign in the space of a week, even devoting all my waking hours to it.

I would!

It may in fact happen that as the additional releases come, there are new capabilities that drive renewed interest. Look at all the requests for fire - if and when we get it, that will alter what is capable of being portrayed. I expect Arnhem might be revisited then. As RepsolCBR noted people have their own preferences over time period and units.

That is actually the cool thing about BF's strategy of keeping them current. If I want to go back and create a scenario for CMFI or CMBN, I am not doing so with an outdated engine. Sort of like sitting on CMBB and wanting to do a CMBO scenario and not liking that certain features aren't available. Yes the output of material might be slowed, but take a look at the CMSF forum. Folks re still generating material despite CMSF not having all the 2.0 capabilities (yet).

Also the game versions may enhance the ability to create scenarios making it more approachable. To be honest, I think the difficulty is overblown. You don't have to do a big map, it doesn't have to be historical, it just needs to be interesting. Hell I have done 4 now. If I can do it, I think just about anyone can. You don't even have to create new maps. I don't think anyone would object to seeing maps reused especially if the orientation is shifted, time of year etc.