sell on Steam?

[sburke]

Is it Bad Analogy Day or something? First someone compares Steam to an HMO, now someone is comparing selling a PC Game on a PC Game Market to a subway. Seriously, I didn't get a card.

 

And no, I don't have a crystal ball that will tell me the future, but the fact that Slitherine and Matrix (amongst many, many others) keep publishing niche titles to steam tells me it's not a losing proposition for them, because they keep doing it...

okay continue to be snide and argumentative.  I tossed a bone in the hope that one of you guys might help me find information that would lend credence to your argument that somehow moving to steam was going to introduce Combat Mission to this "millions" strong audience.

 

I asked for some assistance finding some possible numbers, your response, I don't need it and besides millions of people are on steam.  Millions of people translates to 209 threads on a comparable game.  Color me unimpressed.  Hey good luck convincing BF.  Millions, countless as the stars in the sky, oh lo and behold the vast multitude that will converge upon ye through the magical portal of blessed riches.  yeah sure.

[AttorneyAtWar]

okay continue to be snide and argumentative.  I tossed a bone in the hope that one of you guys might help me find information that would lend credence to your argument that somehow moving to steam was going to introduce Combat Mission to this "millions" strong audience.

 

I asked for some assistance finding some possible numbers, your response, I don't need it and besides millions of people are on steam.  Millions of people translates to 209 threads on a comparable game.  Color me unimpressed.  Hey good luck convincing BF.  Millions, countless as the stars in the sky, oh lo and behold the vast multitude that will converge upon ye through the magical portal of blessed riches.  yeah sure.

 

I am going to be nit-picky here, no one said Steam would attract millions, but the fact that steam does have over 60 million users is a good way of saying that the community is large and exposure to at least some of those 60 million people would garner some considerable attention to Combat Mission, at least to a percentage of that, of course CM is niche but it doesn't hurt!

 

As for numbers well, only Matrix and Slitherine know there true numbers and from what they talk about on there Steam community pages when people complain about there pricing on these games (Especially Command: Modern air naval operations, which gets A LOT of flak for there price) they are selling above what they thought they would. That in of itself is an interesting and positive outcome for those company's taking a risk no?

Edited January 6, 2015 by Raptorx7

[Rambler]

Please don't turn this into a rant topic.

 

 

Agreed, please keep this civil. Steam would boost up this game company a lot.

 

What I posted is hardly an uncivil rant. A strongly worded opinion on why I don't think now is a good time for BFC to put their titles on Steam? Yes. No apologies if I offended your sensibilities. If BFC put their games on Steam, I would like them to succeed too. However, it's become apparent that they've been stretching themselves pretty thin upgrading and maintaining three, soon to be four, separate titles, with a fifth on the horizon. Do you seriously think the average Steam gamer is going to tolerate waiting 8-9 months for a patch to fix game breaking bugs like what happened with RT? Hardly. If BFC decides to put their games on Steam, I think they need to get their house in order first. You only get one first impression.

[von Luck]

okay continue to be snide and argumentative.  I tossed a bone in the hope that one of you guys might help me find information that would lend credence to your argument that somehow moving to steam was going to introduce Combat Mission to this "millions" strong audience.

 

I asked for some assistance finding some possible numbers, your response, I don't need it and besides millions of people are on steam.  Millions of people translates to 209 threads on a comparable game.  Color me unimpressed.  Hey good luck convincing BF.  Millions, countless as the stars in the sky, oh lo and behold the vast multitude that will converge upon ye through the magical portal of blessed riches.  yeah sure.

 

Would you like some assistance with this?

 

First:  Steam forums are not front and center for any game.  As mentioned earlier in this very forum you dont go to steam to read through their forums.  I rarely venture onto any forum as they are typically a complete waste of time but I can count the number of times I'v been to steam forums on one hand.  So the important take away from this is to remember that the Steam forums are not indicitive of anything.  Got it?

 

Second:  You seem to be missing the key to this problem.  I'll break it down super simple.  Immagine a pie - apple pie!  MMmmmm ok so this pie is home made but you only get one slice!  Delicious!  Now immagine a pie thats approx 200,000 times larger than the first pie.  Each pie is sliced into quarters - which slice is larger?  Big take away here - the bigger the pie equates directly to proportionaly larger slices.  Steam community is huge and represents a largely untapped market. 

 

 

Now for more important news here's some additional postulation over steam sales and how that affects developers.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/174587/Steam_sales_How_deep_discounts_really_affect_your_games.php

Edited January 6, 2015 by von Luck

[astano]

Question for quantifying this subject.  ... Can someone who is more familiar with data collecting at Steam maybe fill in some?

 

I don't have any expertise on Steam numbers but FWIW the "community" (i.e. forum) aspects of Steam probably aren't the best way to measure sales.  The best source for Steam data that I'm aware of is Steam Charts, which tracks the number of players of a game at a given time/over the last 24 hours/last month/what have you.  Here are some numbers for games being specifically tossed around in this thread or that are broadly similar to CM:

 

Unity of Command - 43.1 average players at a time over the last 30 days; 358 all-time peak

 

Close Combat:  Gateway to Caen - 25.8; 240

 

Command:  Modern Air/Naval Operations - 15.7; 83

 

Flashpoint Campaigns - 12.0; 88

 

Graviteam Tactics - 10.9; 33

 

Theatre of War - 4.6; 26

 

This data is of pretty limited use to the discussion (if you can even call it that anymore) for a few reasons - most obviously, it shows people playing, not sales numbers - but it is the best that's out there unless publishers decide to release their own sales figures.  The best this can tell us is that (for example) at least 33 people bought Graviteam Tactics from Steam - without knowing more about GT's history (when and where it was first released, how many copies it sold there, its history on Steam), I don't think there's much that can be done with that tidbit alone.  It's also possibly a bit misleading because I believe that each of these titles were directly available from the publisher for a significant length of time before being on Steam, so I'd hypothesize that most of the core fans probably bought them early and directly rather than later through Steam (which means those purchases won't show up on Steam Charts, and while that's useful for determining how many new people might buy a CMSF re-release now it might not tell us how many people would buy CMBS if it launched tomorrow).  Along similar lines, we also have no idea if any of these titles ever got any of the exposure that appears to drive a lot of the sales on Steam and would drive most of the hypothetical additional sales from moving there - significant front page placement, daily, holiday, or flash sales, etc., and furthermore there's no way to know if a Steam launch (rather than re-release) would have garnered them such attention.  We could probably figure that out too, to a certain extent (there are sites that track Steam discount history), but I'm too lazy to do it.

 

And of course, we can make all the assumptions from this data we want and it doesn't really get us anywhere, not least of all because none of us are BFC and can't make these decisions for them.

 

As far as my two cents, I am agnostic about Steam for Steam's own sake, but I find it remarkable that I have never seen an ad for CM anywhere.  I stumbled across CMSF solely by chance looking for another type of game altogether, and I think it would be great if more people knew this sort of game was out there.  I think Steam would be a great way to do that but I trust BFC to make the decision that's right for them.

Edited January 6, 2015 by astano

[sburke]

Thanks Astano and Raptox7.  I appreciate the attempts to make this more of an informed discussion versus what seems to be the only reply I am getting otherwise which is essentially- Steam is the big mall. you have to sell there cause it is the big mall.  I hate friggin malls and the Apple pie there is lousy.

 

I have been looking at the matrix site.  Command Air and Naval has a very active forum, some 4500 threads.  CMRT in maybe half the time frame (not sure when threads started on that game as original release was Sept 2013) hit just under 1700.  The one interesting thing to me on the Steam community hub for this game is, the actual game had been out for a while.  Most of these people knew it, they were simply hoping that when it hit Steam it would be discounted.  That to me doesn't mean a large untapped market.  It seems more a market that simply wants a lower price.  That becomes a whole other discussion as now you are talking a discounted product that BF doesn't even get 100% of.  As to Matrix selling more than they thought they would, that is somewhat ambivalent.  I don't know what figures they started with.  They might have assumed that hitting Steam would start out abysmally slow.  They also may be getting sales that might have gone to their own website with 100% of revenue, but folks are simply buying it because they'd prefer getting it on Steam.  As Astano noted, really hard to get a good read on what any of this data might mean.

 

One bit of info that is in your list Astano struck me.  BF has another avenue to understand what Steam may or not do for them.  Theater of War.  It seems Battlefront may potentially have a much better source for what Steam could do for a game in the same genre than just vague pronouncements of "go to the mall, everybody goes to the mall".  Thanks that was actually a really good find.

Edited January 6, 2015 by sburke

[AttorneyAtWar]

Thanks Astano and Raptox7.  I appreciate the attempts to make this more of an informed discussion versus what seems to be the only reply I am getting otherwise which is essentially- Steam is the big mall. you have to sell there cause it is the big mall.  I hate friggin malls and the Apple pie there is lousy.

 

I have been looking at the matrix site.  Command Air and Naval has a very active forum, some 4500 threads.  CMRT in maybe half the time frame (not sure when threads started on that game as original release was Sept 2013) hit just under 1700.  The one interesting thing to me on the Steam community hub for this game is, the actual game had been out for a while.  Most of these people knew it, they were simply hoping that when it hit Steam it would be discounted.  That to me doesn't mean a large untapped market.  It seems more a market that simply wants a lower price.  That becomes a whole other discussion as now you are talking a discounted product that BF doesn't even get 100% of.  As to Matrix selling more than they though they would, that is somewhat ambivalent.  I don't know what figures they started with.  They might have assumed that hitting Steam would start out abysmally slow.  They also may be getting sales that might have gone to their own website with 100% of revenue, but folks are simply buying it because they'd prefer getting it on Steam.  As Astano noted, really hard to get a good read on what any of this data might mean.

 

One bit of info that is in your list Astano struck me.  BF has another avenue to understand what Steam may or not do for them.  Theater of War.  It seems Battlefront may potentially have a much better source for what Steam could do for a game in the same genre than just vague pronouncements of "go to the mall, everybody goes to the mall".  Thanks that was actually a really good find.

 

That is a good point sburke, we don't know how much they are selling and if anyone does there a liar! (Hehe, unless they work for them) however its great that they are selling above there expectations and finding Steam to be worthwhile for there products. As for the Steam community pages I like to read through them, especially on games like Command, you do get a sense for what people will pay for, I think Combat Mission wouldn't have problems with a price point of 50$ considering what you see is what you get, especially with a demo. Command doesn't have the "presence" like Combat Mission does, flat 2d graphics and circles and lines moving across a map put many people off especially at 80$,(Command is great by the way) CM will not have that problem.

[Battlefront.com]

Sigh. Here's yet another thread with people telling us they know our business better than we do. You know, the guys who have been doing it successfully for 20 years 24/7/365. I don't build real rockets for a living, but I have built some really nice model rockets in my day. Maybe I should go on over to a NASA discussion forum and try to impress those ignorant scientists with my really super duper awesome knowledge of rocketry?

I've been making war and strategy games for 22 years this year. I can tell you that the entire time there's been someone telling me (not suggesting, mind you) that there's some magical way to grow wargaming. It starts with "all you need to do is..." and fill in the blanks with whatever strongly voiced opinion that someone happens to hold. Never, and I mean never, have I heard this sort of thing from someone who has made wargames for a living. Why? Because anybody who has done so knows it's a fool's errand. Wargaming has always been, and will always be, a niche market.

Once in a very long while a game that appeals to wargamers also appeals to a broader audience. However, for every one that succeeds the road is littered with failures. A popular wargame is like a pet rock or a Swatch watch. It came as a surprise to everybody, lasted for a blink of an eye, and nobody was able to duplicate it. Smart people shy away from betting everything on something that statistically is likely to fail.

In short, the argument to go with Steam so we can grow the market sounds great, but so does world peace. I wouldn't bet on Steam growing our business any more than I would bet that Islamic terrorists are reasonable people deep down inside.

What the doubters don't understand is that there are risks and costs to put our eggs in the Steam basket. If there weren't, of course we would have been on Steam for years already. What Matrix and others do is up to them based on their specific conditions. My impression is their direct sales have never been as good as ours so they probably do benefit more than not by being on Steam.

Oh, about advertising. We used to do a lot of advertising. Expensive advertising even. We weren't impressed with the return on investment so we stopped. I know it's wrong of me to talk from experience and not theory, but that's the downside of having to live with the ramifications of decisions and not.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

That to me doesn't mean a large untapped market.  It seems more a market that simply wants a lower price.  That becomes a whole other discussion as now you are talking a discounted product that BF doesn't even get 100% of.

I've brought that up in most of the previous discussions, but it goes ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIP... right over the heads of whomever is passionately arguing for us being on Steam. Steam is in many ways the continuation of the retail model. It's a model we firmly rejected in 1999 when we shocked everybody by being one of the very first game companies to be Internet sales only. People told us we'd never make it without retail. Who would have guessed we'd not only do fine without retail but that we'd stay in business longer than most retailers, their distributors, and the big publishers dependent upon them?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

For me, the one thing I do not like about the way Battlefront operates is the key system having limits and we customers being forced to rely on Battlefront to use a product we bought and paid for.

I've heard similar complaints about Steam, though perhaps they've moved past that.

 

I recently had to replace a hard drive.   Except when I went to unlicense my copies, it would not work.  I tried contacting Battlefront only to have my emails rejected..  I could not wait and ended up taking care of things on my end.   Now for the last 3 weeks I have been trying to get a response out of Battlefront even here on the forums because every email I send them is being rejected by their servers.. and the weird part is the rejection is not happening right away rather days later when I suddenly get an email stating as much.

No idea what you're talking about. We have a Help Desk and you do not need an email address for it (though it is a better experience with one). Customers who have license issues are always helped, sometimes within minutes of posing a request for assistance. Granted the norm is more like half a day as we don't have 24/7 coverage. I am the guy that deals with license issues and I know nobody has been waiting "3 weeks" for help.

 

I have so far not heard from anyone at Battlefront regarding my request for help even though I also posted over a week ago here on the forums as well requesting it and why.

We don't provide personalized tech support on the Forums. First, because it's not what the Forums are here for. Second, we need personal information in order to help and that isn't something you should post publicly. Third, because we have specialized Help Desk software that exists for a reason.

 

I am not a happy customer because I own a number of their products.. and cannot use any of them because I cannot reach Battlefront to fix the issues with the elicense system.

BS. You can reach us, you just aren't following directions on how to reach us.

 

If Battlefront were to close up, every single one of us would own hundreds if not thousands of dollars of Battlefront products that we would eventually be unable to use at all because of the way the system locks us out after a few activations.   IF the un-license system were flawless then perhaps it might not be such an issue.. but it is not.

Nobody would be happier to do away with copy protection, or find a flawless system, than us. Unfortunately we live in an imperfect world full of imperfect people who want something for nothing.

 

And THIS is why I think a Steam move would be a good thing for Battlefront, in my opinion.

My opinion is it wouldn't. And my opinion carries more weight. Not just because I am more informed, but because I have far more to lose than you do if Steam turns out to be like a WKRP Turkey Drop.

Steve

[Macisle]

Okay, old timers...

 

One good thing came out of this thread:

 

A link to keep on file for the next round of Attack of the Steamers!

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117381-sell-on-steam/?p=1568189 (Steve's post #133)

 

I think there's a damned good chance that Battlefront will be around at least until the current crew passes retirement age.

 

As for Steam? Who knows.

 

(Couldn't resist. Okay, now I really am leaving this thread.)

Edited January 6, 2015 by Macisle

[Battlefront.com]

OK, now that I've vented some I'll be a little more kind hearted about something which, if you didn't pick up on, I'm pretty passionate about (i.e. staying in business).

We do have some experience with selling products outside of our direct sales model. Specifically we sell products with Apple, Google, and Amazon. Apple alone boasted a year and a half ago that it has 500 Million users. Let me repeat... 500 Million. Have our products on App Store (iTunes) rocketed us to stardom? No. Which means the argument that being on Steam is going to magically increase sales because it has a large base is demonstrably false. Faith based sales ventures aren't a good idea.

The sales we get from our most widely appealing game (CMBN) on iTunes is a fraction of what we sell ourselves. However, we do feel that it's reaching people we don't normally reach. It's probably worth continuing, but not worth expanding.

Why wouldn't we mimic what we do on Steam with what we do with the App Store? Because Apple's terms and conditions are mostly compatible with our business strategy. Steam doesn't have the same going for it. Even if Steam could deliver 10 times what the App Store does for us, we'd likely still turn it down because it's sales terms stink.

Nobody wants to expand Battlefront's customer base more than us. Nobody wants fewer technical headaches more than us. More importantly, nobody wants Battlefront to stay in business more than us. We don't think Steam will improve our sales, we think it will likely increase our technical headaches, and we have some concerns it could hurt our chances to stay in business. Therefore, no Steam.

Steve

[frez13]

Yes I understand you have a lot to risk to put on Steam. I implore you to think about this suggestion: put one older CM game on Steam (say Shock Force) and see how it sells. Not putting all eggs in one basket that way. But I thank you for taking the time to reply and interact with us.

[Battlefront.com]

We have let some others sell our older products. Granted, nobody as big as Steam, but we definitely do have partnerships with others when we think the conditions are good. The sales from those sources tend to be OK to start with and then dwindle down to nothing fairly quickly. We expect the same from Steam, except with a much bigger headache to get it setup and a vastly lower chance of getting any money back from it to justify our expenses.

I have learned never to say never, but I don't foresee us diverting any resources to publishing on Steam in the near future.

Steve

[von Luck]

while I'm ecstatic that Battlefront is the self proclaimed NASA of grognard strategy I fervently wish that an exploratory expedition be taken to the Steam moon.

 

I feel that comparing Steam to Apple iTunes Store is unfair.

I could be mistaken however last time I touched bases with people I knew who use Apple computers and systems weren't “Gamers”. Apples vast market share comes from things like hand-held devices. . .

iPhones, iPod's, Tablets and such.

 

All of this then leads to the fact that I really don't think you can compare 500 million users that download music and play farmville on their phones to say ... 65 million users that explicitly play computer games. I think it is reasonable to assume these markets are distinctly different from each other.

 

I have seen a lot of success in very “niche” market games recently as they seem to be reaching out to discover and build their player base. I don't see Battlefront taking significant efforts in reaching out. This makes me concerned because I don't feel like this franchise is particularly well known. I have seen strong indications that based upon the success of games that I consider vastly inferior to CM that there is a broader market on Steam that could be accessed.

 

To sum this up I would like to suggest Apollo 11 – the Steam lunar landing.  I have seen allot of aggressive posturing over “not one inch” with Steam. Maybe they're not the boogie men of yesteryear. Maybe instead of postulating over how there is presumably no significant market there you could sell an old CM title. Minimal work needed to make it Steam “compliant”, Minimal risk to sales because its already flat-lined. Wouldn't knowing more positively how your games might perform in Steam make more sense then speculating?

 

von Luck

Edited January 6, 2015 by von Luck

[sburke]

 

 

First - comparing Steam to Apple iTunes Store.

I could be mistaken however last time I touched bases with people I know who use Apple computers and systems weren't “Gamers”. Apples vast market share comes from things like hand-held devices. . .

iPhones, iPod's, Tablets and such.

 

Actually I don't think that is quite accurate, there has been a lot of demand from MAC users for BF to port CM to MAC and it is no small effort on their part to do so.  Is that base as large as PC users?  Doubt it, but it is also not insignificant.

 

* Note when CMBN was released in 2011 a big part of the announcement was MAC support.  Helps to know some history.

Edited January 6, 2015 by sburke

[Mord]

Steve, you are spitting into a howling wind. A deaf, blind, howling wind.

 

 

 

Mord.

[von Luck]

Actually I don't think that is quite accurate, there has been a lot of demand from MAC users for BF to port CM to MAC and it is no small effort on their part to do so.  Is that base as large as PC users?  Doubt it, but it is also not insignificant.

 

* Note when CMBN was released in 2011 a big part of the announcement was MAC support.  Helps to know some history.

 

FY 2014

 

11% of 500M is 55M is < 65M Steam GAMERS.  Your total apple computer users is still less than Steams gamer following.  I would say those markets are distinctly different.

 

To add credence to this if you say the small share of computer gamers out of that number is making noticible sales for Battlefront than perhaps landing on the Steam moon is more entising?

 

von Luck

 

EDIT*

 

my numbers are old

Edited January 6, 2015 by von Luck

[Battlefront.com]

I feel that comparing Steam to Apple iTunes Store is unfair.

Imperfect, of course, but not unfair. The point is that sheer numbers mean nothing. You yourself did a good job of illustrating that by asking the question "sure, but how many of the 800 million users of the App Store are interested in games?". Pretty close to the question you should have asked, which is "sure, but how many of the 800 million users of the App Store are interested in playing hardcore wargames?". (note that I just found a more recent number of 800 million vs. 500 million)

But you only went halfway. You need to ask the same question of the Steam base. "How many of Steam's 75 million some odd users are interested in playing hardcore wargames?"

The answer to both questions is for sure "a very small fraction". I have no doubt that Steam's user base has a vastly higher percentage than App Store, but on a magnitude of 10 or so? I don't know, but even if we gave Steam a 20 fold better percentage rate that still doesn't excite me from a sales standpoint.

 

All of this then leads to the fact that I really don't think you can compare 500 million users that download music and play farmville on their phones to say ... 65 million users that explicitly play computer games. I think it is reasonable to assume these markets are distinctly different from each other.

Absolutely, as wargaming is a distinctly different market segment from general gaming. From a conceptual standpoint Computer User = Wargamer just as much as Gamer = Wargamer. Wargamers are a subset of Gamers who are a subset of Computer Users.

 

I have seen a lot of success in very “niche” market games recently as they seem to be reaching out to discover and build their player base. I don't see Battlefront taking significant efforts in reaching out. This makes me concerned because I don't feel like this franchise is particularly well known. I have seen strong indications that based upon the success of games that I consider vastly inferior to CM that there is a broader market on Steam that could be accessed.

Currently the temperature outside my house is -5 F (-20 C). I love the cold, I love the snow, I love the fact that my nearest neighbor is 1/2 a mile in one direction and 3 miles in either of the other three directions. Now, how likely am I to get someone from Phoenix, Miami, or Rio to buy my house if I put it on the market? Exactly

Wargaming appeals to a select few. It will not change by being exposed to more people. All it will do is expose more people to a game they don't want.

Plus, our primary beef with Steam is the lack of control over pricing and the way they apportion royalties. Given that we have little faith that they could boost our sales, we don't see a reason to give 'em a shot. Even with an older product. We *do* let others sell our older products because they have more agreeable terms for those sales.

 

To sum this up I would like to suggest Apollo 11 – the Steam lunar landing.  I have seen allot of aggressive posturing over “not one inch” with Steam. Maybe they're not the boogie men of yesteryear. Maybe instead of postulating over how there is presumably no significant market there you could sell an old CM title. Minimal work needed to make it Steam “compliant”, Minimal risk to sales because its already flat-lined. Wouldn't knowing more positively how your games might perform in Steam make more sense then speculating?

To follow your analogy, if von Braun dreamed of going to the moon in 1944, do you think it would have been worth Germany putting their resources behind that idea? Iron Sky proved that even if they did, it wouldn't have mattered anyway

Seriously, where you see opportunity we don't. Where we see risk you don't. Where we see effort you don't. We approach risks as a business you don't. It's really that simple.

If we were risk adverse we would never have created our own company. We would never have been Internet only starting in 1999. We never would have done half the things you take for granted. The key is we only take risks when we think the rewards are worth going for. And on the point of Steam, we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the outcome of the risk/reward equation.

Steve

[von Luck]

To follow your analogy, if von Braun dreamed of going to the moon in 1944, do you think it would have been worth Germany putting their resources behind that idea? Iron Sky proved that even if they did, it wouldn't have mattered anyway

Steve

 

A man can dream

 

 

von Luck

[m0317624]

Wargaming appeals to a select few. It will not change by being exposed to more people. All it will do is expose more people to a game they don't want.

 

Citation required. I often hear this claim being thrown around, yet nobody ever seems to be capable of providing even the tiniest scrap of proof to back it up. The idea that a genre which is about war and combat is somehow only of interest to a tiny group of people, far smaller than the group of those interested in driving a delivery truck or a train for example, is quite simply ludicrous (and often stinks of elitism).

 

And even if it were true, Steam access would still mean a far greater exposure to those select few and thus increase revenue. Right now you'd still only be reaching the select few of those select few who happen to blunder into this site.

Edited January 6, 2015 by m0317624

[Mord]

Face it Steve, you just don't know what you are talking about.

 

Wind. Spit. Repeat.

 

Steamie-Kirishna! Steamie-Krishna!

 

Mord.

[AttorneyAtWar]

Face it Steve, you just don't know what you are talking about.

 

Wind. Spit. Repeat.

 

Steamie-Kirishna! Steamie-Krishna!

 

Mord.

 

Yeah Steve stop having a rational and calm argument with people!

 

This is actually nice, everyone got a few answers and the discussion is still going, if your bitter about it at this point just leave the thread, NO ONE is making you stay and read it.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Raptorx7

[Battlefront.com]

Citation required. I often hear this claim being thrown around, yet nobody ever seems to be capable of providing even the tiniest scrap of proof to back it up.

How about this. You are challenging the position of a 22 year industry veteran who believes this yet still makes wargaming his life. How about you provide proof that I'm wrong? To paraphrase you, I've had many people claim the position I stated is wrong and yet nobody ever seems cable of providing even the tiniest scrap of proof to back it up.

 

The idea that a genre which is about war and combat is somehow only of interest to a tiny group of people, far smaller than the group of those interested in driving a delivery truck or a train for example, is quite simply ludicrous (and often stinks of elitism).

No, it's real life. Your position, on the other hand, is ludicrous if you think that everybody is a blank slate and can be equally attracted to whatever is thrust in front of them. Wargaming has ALWAYS been a niche and ALWAYS will be. Why? For the same reasons the most intelligent news media will always play second fiddle (by a LONG shot) to tabloids. It is why you will never see a chain of restaurants that serves decent, healthy food overtake McDonalds. Call it elitist if you want, I just call it reality. As a businessman I have to work with reality, not wishful thinking. Well, if I want to stay in business anyway.

You can have the best opera production in the world available for free, with no dress code, and I bet you'd see the upper crust not go and hardly anybody else would show up. Why? Because opera appeals only to those who like it. It's as simple as that. I love symphonic music, I hate opera. I don't care how many times you put it in front of me, I know I don't like it. So catering a very expensive and lavish production for "my benefit" is a STUPID idea.

People like what they like, they don't like what they don't like. It takes a heck of a lot more than exposure to change the equation. That is not elitism... it's self evident.

 

And even if it were true, Steam access would still mean a far greater exposure to those select few and thus increase revenue. Right now you'd still only be reaching the select few of those select few who happen to blunder into this site.

Again, you don't have the same appreciation for the realities of Steam's business model from our perspective as the developer. You certainly don't have even remotely the same realistic, sound view of the market as we do. Which means, not surprisingly, you have come to a different conclusion than we have. But as I've said over and over again... you have NO skin in the game, so it's a very safe thing for you to conclude when you have absolutely nothing to lose. Well, except Battlefront's products since if we go out of business I'm not sure when, or even if, someone will pick up our torch. There are few as resourceful AND stupid as us to make wargames of this quality.

Steve

[Mord]

Yeah Steve stop having a rational and calm argument with people!

 

This is actually nice, everyone got a few answers and the discussion is still going, if your bitter about it at this point just leave the thread, NO ONE is making you stay and read it.

 

 

 

I'll reply in any thread I wanna reply in, you dig? Take your own advice. Don't like it, don't read it. Goes both ways.

 

He isn't having a discussion he's giving you guys the same f***** answers he's given a hundred other times that then are ignored...

 

Steve: For the hundredth time this is our position (insert long explanation).

 

Steamie-Krishna: Nuh uh!

 

Steve: Uh huh.

 

Steamie-Krishna: You are elitist!

 

Steve: That's our answer.

 

Steamie-Krishna: No it isn't

 

Mord: Something, something, something (usually halfway witty).

 

Angry Steamie-Krishna: You can't post here, this is for converts only.

 

So on and so forth...until Steamie-Krishnas have conquered all of gamedom.

 

 

Mord.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Mord