a few questions about the vehicle pack

[poesel]

Some bits are not clear to me.

Player A has the pack, player B doesn't. Both players have v3.1 (which does not yet exist for B, I know).

A starts a QB. A can buy VP vehicles. Can B, too?

B starts a QB. B can not buy VPs but can A?

There is a scenario with VP vehicles.

Can A start and play it versus B?

Can B start and play it versus A?

There is a campaign with 3 battles. 1 and 3 have no VP, 2 has VP.

Can B start the campaign?

What happens when he reaches battle 2?

Since currently no one except BFC can answers these questions I would ask you to refrain from answering unless you are from BFC.

I would like to avoid that the answer is buried on some back page after all the speculation.

Thanks.

[Hister]

Nope, the one not having patch 3.10 can't play the game with the player that has. This in turn will be remedied in the future so that it will be possible for the player who has vehicle pack to sport these special vehicles and player on the other side won't be able to but both will be able to play against each other. An extra incentive to buy those packs for players who don't have it.

[poesel]

@Hister - please read my post. I assumed B has the v3.1 patch which does not exist, yet.

What I did not write is the assumption that both players have all modules to be eligible to use the VP vehicles.

I'm referring to Steves post here:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1561122&postcount=63

I've read it several times but it still does not answer my questions above (or I did not understand it, sorry).

[Pak40]

@Poesel71

First off, he doesn't say that this will be enabled with the 3.1 patch (whenever that comes out), so don't assume that it's 3.1 funtionality

"The couple guys that suggested we have a more-or-less "unlock" approach will be happy to know that we have already taken steps to make this happen. I can't say when it will come about, but it is our plan to do it at as soon as we can. We have already made a major technology shift to support this behavior."

Secondly, this answers all of your questions:

All CM players of a specific Family get access to all CM content for that Family, whether they've paid for it or not. If they have not paid for it they can use the content in H2H games with other people who have purchased the content.

In other words, if you only paid for the base module and you play someone that has the VP then you get to use the VP when you play Head to Head with him.

His examples only included modules but I assume the VP will be included as well. Of course, this means that everyone will have to have all the modules, engine versions, and VP installed regardless of what they've paid for. It will probably be a license level that checks whether you have purchased a particular product or not and therefore "unlocks" it for single player use.

[poesel]

Hmm, I assumed that this functionality came with the new activation system and was only not of any concern since right now you need the VP for v3.1 anyway so there are currently no mixed games possible.

Oh well, I have overlooked the 'I can't say when it will come about' part so the point is mute and we will know when its ready. Forget I asked.

[Hister]

OK, sorry poesel71 and thank you for clarification Pak40.

[John Kettler]

I find some of the notions advanced here to be intriguing, somewhat akin to the situation regarding someone who has rare cards in what I liked to call Tragic: the Slathering. If both players have the same game version, I have no trouble at all with the notion that one might have Funnies, say, while the other didn't. Such asymmetry was, after all, not at all unusual, given the rarity of such things. Contrariwise, if BFC were to allow game capability sharing in H2H, that would be a great kindness, but I wonder whether that's a good thing or a bad thing for BFC in the long term. If H2H is live people playing the game, as opposed to PBEM, that's one thing, but if H2H is deemed to be any battle not against the AI, then it may not be so good. Here's why. Many people play against one or a handful of people exclusively. That's certainly been true in my case, except where tournaments are involved. If that's what's going on, then only one or two people in that group need to have the various modules and packs for a given game for all in that group to benefit. I'd think this would limit the potential sales accordingly.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Fizou]

JK, Im also a bit puzzled about this strategy and how it will affect sales. Would it not be better if two players could do battle but only the one with the actuall purchases could use new content. I think that would trigger more sales if anything.

[eniced73]

If vehicles will be available to me when playing MP (against an opponent that did purchase the pack) even though I did not purchase the pack, how am I to acquire the necessary files to model the new vehicles? Are the new vehicle files included in the new patches? Or will they be available some other way? I am assuming they will be locked files that you install and only available in single player when you purchase and then activate.

[Pak40]

I find some of the notions advanced here to be intriguing, somewhat akin to the situation regarding someone who has rare cards in what I liked to call Tragic: the Slathering. If both players have the same game version, I have no trouble at all with the notion that one might have Funnies, say, while the other didn't. Such asymmetry was, after all, not at all unusual, given the rarity of such things. Contrariwise, if BFC were to allow game capability sharing in H2H, that would be a great kindness, but I wonder whether that's a good thing or a bad thing for BFC in the long term. If H2H is live people playing the game, as opposed to PBEM, that's one thing, but if H2H is deemed to be any battle not against the AI, then it may not be so good. Here's why. Many people play against one or a handful of people exclusively. That's certainly been true in my case, except where tournaments are involved. If that's what's going on, then only one or two people in that group need to have the various modules and packs for a given game for all in that group to benefit. I'd think this would limit the potential sales accordingly.

I think it would impact sales negatively if they didn't do this. It seems that people would get frustrated trying to play Head to Head with all the different modules and versions floating around. There are lots of people put off by the current system and don't bother to buy the base game, modules or upgrades simply because of the hassle. And it would be a HUGE PR triumph for them to announce a revamped licensing system. There might even be a multiplayer renaissance for CMBN as well as a sales bump.