More Bulge Info! (and a few screenshots...)

[PanzerMike]

I can only speak for myself, but i find the price tag a steal. Considering the number of hours of enjoyment I got out of these games. But again, I appreciate that for some people the price for these games is a different matter.

 

Regarding the content of the new Bulge game, isn't it a bit premature at his point to pass judgment on that?

 

All I know is, that a whole bunch of people are busy making content for the new Bulge game. And regardless of new features in the engine, making the content is a LOT of work.

Edited May 19, 2015 by PanzerMike

[c3k]

It's fine to WANT a low price. Seriously. However, you've attached a couple of assumptions into your WANT: not much new content, and not much effort to create.

 

Without going into the obvious debate, let me ask this: after the first full-price game, when would it be appropriate for BFC to charge for another full-price game? Meaning, if they released "Poland, 1939!" (which I want), since that starts the East Front, how could they ever charge more than an add-on module's price for anything on the East? I mean, "Barbarrosa, 1941" would only be a tweak of Poland's maps. A lot of the tanks, artwork, etc., would be similar. Then again, "Gates of Moscow" would be just like June of '41, only with terrain colored white. And looking west, sure, $55 for "France, 1940" would be "fair", the next battle for France, "Greatest Day" would just recycle the East Front's German gear and paste it on top of "France, 1940"'s terrain.

 

In such a manner, you could argue that BFC should only ever charge "full" price for the first game they made and that everything else is an add-on module and ought to cost $20. (Or whatever number you like.)

 

The value of an object is not determined by the person who is selling the object: it is determined by the people who want the object. So, the market will determine if BFC's pricing strategy is correct or not. 

 

Here's another way to look at it (if you want): Imagine that BFC goes out of business in a year. So, Spring of 2016 there is no longer any hope of any patches, no vehicle packs, no new theaters, no new conflicts, etc. The ride is over. If, at that point, someone were to ask you, "When you bought "Bulge" for $20, would you have spent an extra $35 if that would have kept BFC in business?" 

 

I'm not arguing your points. I'm just trying to introduce different perspectives to what may be behind the pricing and the whether or not you're buying a module, or insuring a future for a game series you enjoy.

 

I hope "Bulge" has enough content and that it's good enough to be deemed worth the advertised price.

 

Regards,

Ken

[hobo]

I want to pay more.....for a BF game with a true dynamic campaign engine.  

[Bil Hardenberger]

I'm currently playing a Bulge PBEM and I can say that it is going to be worth every penny.

 

Unfortunately that's all I can say about it.  

[Odin]

Oh joy price again as a topic.  I, personally, know nothing of pricing strategy but one thing that stuck with me talking to a fellow in the marketing department where I work about price was his statement "if there are at least some customers out there who decided *not* to buy because of price you probably have the price set correctly".  I guess from the above recent post the price is still to low because @Odin still plans to buy

 

Well your marketing guy has confirmed many of my prejudices about marketeers; and Ian It's also not just about Bulge, there will undoubtedly be a Jan 45 - May 45 module which we'll be asked to pay an additional $35 for, and then there will be numerous other titles in the series which we'll be asked to purchase. But how many of those titles will be sold as full games when they only really warrant a module? I think I pay my dues to BF, and I understand they are a small company providing a niche product, so I'm happy to pay a more than I would for the average game title/series. However, it really annoys me when games companies try  ask their customers to pay for a new game when it consists of content which amounts to no more than a module's worth.  Going by ChrisND's opening summary I personally feel standards of content will be drastically diminished from what we have come to expect, based on past purchases of  other CM2 titles.

 

If we will be getting a new game's worth of content I would say fine, I'm happy to pay a full game asking price, and as you say Ian it ultimately comes down to where each individual draws the line on what they believe to be sufficient new content. However, for me I believe Bulge will be falling woefully short. BF has stated there will be no engine upgrade included, and judging by ChrisND's statement, Bulge's content will be an equivalent to what Market Garden or GL offered. Arguably Commonwealth Forces offered more than what Bulge will (again going by ChrisND's statement), as it came with a new engine upgrade and almost certainly more units.

 

If BF were including v4 in Bulge for me that would just, and only just, warrant a new game (given most of the units are already available), but we won't even be getting that, and even that would still leave the pain in the arse issue of installing another game and Gigabytes worth of mods.

 

To go back to Ian's marketing colleague, perhaps he'd also tell you if a business takes its customers for granted, offering poor value for money, trust will be broken which will ultimately result in a smaller customer base. If the new Bulge content does not drastically increase from what ChrisND has listed, in my view (and the views of others if posts in this thread  are anything to go by), BF will damage its relationship with a significant portion of its longstanding customer base. 

 

I hope I'm proven wrong and there will be a lot more in Bulge than what ChrisND listed if it is to be marketed as a new game at a full game asking price. I'll just finish by saying I have a lot of respect for BF in allowing gamers to make posts which critique their games or policy as it demonstrates they are a company willing to listen and respect their customers' views. I also know from personal experience they've taken onboard suggestions posted in the forum, so I hope you're listening BF and please don't take this as an attack -  when push comes to shove I love CM and I am forever grateful for you publishing the game which  I dreamed of as a kid.

[LukeFF]

I feel we are being taken for granted as we will receive little new material for our $55 while we'll also go through the hassle or installing a new game and mods which is perhaps an even bigger bug bear for me than paying an extra $20.

 

Oh, please. Installing the game involves clicking on a few buttons and just waiting for the progress bar to move from left to right. Mods? Totally optional, and it's only a hassle if you want to spend the time hunting for mods instead of just playing the game. You make the process sound like the installation of some DOS game from the late 90s with 20 3.5" floppy disks. 

Edited May 19, 2015 by LukeFF

[Odin]

LukeFF Mods for me and many others are a big thing as they are a big improvement graphically and soundwise over the stock game. BTW The installation of them is much more time consuming than that of a DOS 90s game, and they eat up a lot of harddrive to boot 

Edited May 19, 2015 by Odin

[sburke]

LukeFF Mods for me and many others are a big thing as they are a big improvement graphically and soundwise over the stock game. BTW The installation of them is much more time consuming than that of a DOS 90s game, and they eat up a lot of harddrive to boot 

That is purely a personal decision though. No matter what BF does someone is always going to want something different and they will mod it. So for example if I want unit patches for one specific combat formation (which actually is one of the mod types I really like). That isn't on BF that is just my thing and that I actually can do it is pretty cool.

Regarding pricing. Question - where do you define the line between what is considered worthy of a full game and what is a module?

I ask because BF has explicitly defined a line where they feel the amount of content that loads is what they feel is an upper threshold for a "family". I am sure they wrestled with that a while trying to optimize for the game, their labor and the price. How many man hours of BF time goes into a $55 game based on expected sales. Personally I have never been disappointed and I think you will need to actually see the game before you are in a position to feel that content wise it is worth it or not.

BF definitely has a bit of a sliding bar. CMBS introduced a lot of new stuff, this was on top of the rest of the content. I fully expect from a number of man hours to price, CMBS was a loss relative to CMFI and CMRT. Sales figures would affect that equation but we have no info on this. I did not hear anyone crying out when they first launched a UAV or an ATGM was shot down by APS or a laser warning went off that BF charged too little for CMBS. It is always one sided, BF always charges too much, never too little. That for me usually invalidates these discussions. They are not objective about cost versus value. They are strictly oriented towards your/our wallet and not Battlefront's. There isn't anything wrong with that per se,but again they aren't objective.

[Odin]

Personally I have never been disappointed and I think you will need to actually see the game before you are in a position to feel that content wise it is worth it or not.

 

Neither have I, but I think I've explained over the course of my previous posts as to why I believe Bulge will represent a significant drop in value for money when compared to the other CM2 titles. Even Chris listed units already available in the CMBN family (eg Jagdpanther) as 'highlights', which I thought was scraping the barrel. From what I've read in Chris's post, Bulge does not offer any more content than what I would reasonably expect a module to offer - which is why I think BF are pushing the goodwill of its customer base by marketing Bulge as a new game with a new game pricetag.

 

Sburke, you present the work BF put into CMBS almost as a reason to be grateful to accept whatever BF decides to offer us in Bulge. To me that is the wrong way of looking at things. I believe BS demonstrated a level of content which BF should aim for every time in a new title. Some might defend BF by arguing that as a smaller company it is unreasonable for us to expect BS levels of new content for every new game - I would agree with this. But judging from what has been listed by ChrisND, Bulge will be falling way below what was offered in FI or RT. I say this because Bulge will be largely utilising a pre-existing unit base with no new engine upgrade - which they will in turn expect us to pay for as an add-on to Bulge. 

 

Sburke you tell me to quit my whining and wait for the game's release before I judge it  (if more politely than how I've phrased it). But again that makes no sense to me; now is the time to raise these concerns, because once the game is released our feedback will be meaningless in regards to improving the content of the Bulge title, as the good ship Bulge will have already set sail (unless we want to pay for it as additional DLC!). This is why I whinge now, rather than later.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Odin

[c3k]

You also assume that EVERY customer should be forced to buy CMBN before they can play Bulge. (An add-on requires the base game, first.)

Perhaps BFC is trying to NOT make Bulge dependent upon multiple previous purchases?

[Odin]

You also assume that EVERY customer should be forced to buy CMBN before they can play Bulge. (An add-on requires the base game, first.)

Perhaps BFC is trying to NOT make Bulge dependent upon multiple previous purchases?

Please read my first post on the subject on page 20

[A Canadian Cat]

Yawn!

 

I'm now tired of silly conversations about pricing - and the game is not even released yet. If you don't think it is worth it by all means don't buy it. 

 

I will now attempt to ignore all further pricing discussions around the bulge game. Wish me luck

[Odin]

I've tried to be as polite as I can Ian, but damn you test my patience. This is not a 'silly' thing. To me it is a fundamental issue which shows BF are willing to drastically lower the bar in terms of the content they offer in their titles - which is a longterm issue. Sorry I bore you by not jumping up and down over Bulge, but to me this is a fudamental issue about how BF treats its longstanding customer base. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I think I should get the game free for my quality posting on this forum and stunning good looks.

 

I'm pretty pumped Bulge is getting a game.  It's a battle worth  whole game.  Really tired of the largest battle for the US Army in Europe simply being a growth onto a game about Normandy.  I keep mentioning that fact because its worth repeating.  The June-September into early October fighting was on terrain, and with troops and equipment that would look totally alien to January 1945.  

 

And Normandy is cool, but something like 120% of all World War Two FPS, Strategy games, etc, etc etc take place sometime between June 6th-June 7th.  Obviously going a bit over the top here, but it's nice to have a game doing justice to the 7-8 months of war that happened after the pursuit phase wound down.

 

 

 

I've tried to be as polite as I can Ian, but damn you test my patience. This is not a 'silly' thing. To me it is a fundamental issue which shows BF are willing to drastically lower the bar in terms of the content they offer in their titles - which is a longterm issue. Sorry I bore you by not jumping up and down over Bulge, but to me this is a fudamental issue about how BF treats its longstanding customer base. 

 

Seriously go and look at other companies that make strategy games.  Then come back and tell us if it's any better.  A certain company/game series I know had broken/messed up models from the first game, then fixed up maybe one or two, someone complained because the fixed version was still dramatically casual observer level wrong, and then simply opted to rarely/never update even terribad messed up models for the next two games.  

Put this in perspective with the level of care and detail put into the fiddy flavors of Shermans or Panzer IVs that persist throughout the CM line of games.  And not only that, the fact that for reals if I started a thread complaining about something broken, there's a good chance I will actually hear from the person who made the game in a somewhat productive manner.

 

I mean they're not perfect as a company, CMSF was a near disaster at release for instance, but I'm hard pressed to think there might be an unrealistic expectation for how far your 20 bucks will carry you.  

Edited May 19, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[Bil Hardenberger]

I think I should get the game free for my quality posting on this forum and stunning good looks.

 

I am scratching my head trying to figure out how you managed to get such a reputation in such a short time.  You must an amazing fellow.    I've got my eye on you.

 

Oh, and of course I agree with everything else you said.. actually, the period from October though the end of January 1945 is my favorite period in the ETO.  Looking beyond the first title in the Bulge family, the potential for some very interesting follow on modules gets me very excited about what's to come.  

[Fizou]

Odin, they havent lowered the bar yet. We dont know what things other than units and formations are in, but its stil in alfa. Im sure we will know more in due time and it will be more features to warrent full game price.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I am scratching my head trying to figure out how you managed to get such a reputation in such a short time.  You must an amazing fellow.     I've got my eye on you.

 

I'm a highly opinionated former M1A2 SEP V2 company commander.  It's made me somewhat popular over on the Black Sea part of the forum.

 

 

 

Oh, and of course I agree with everything else you said.. actually, the period from October though the end of January 1945 is my favorite period in the ETO.  Looking beyond the first title in the Bulge family, the potential for some very interesting follow on modules gets me very excited about what's to come.

 

Same.  I read "Company Commander" and "A Time for Trumpets" as a cadet, and I still go back and reread them every now and then.  It's really a very interesting part of the war.  Seems odd that it tends to get even less attention than Market-Garden.

 

I'm very excited for the post-Bulge possibilities.  The whole gotterdammerung aspect of the very late war is compelling, as is the possibility of making some fairly modest "what if" type scenerios.  I think Pershings are a shoe-in for a "to VE day" module.  I wonder if the one Super Pershing merits inclusion though.  It's certainly historical, saw combat...but man one vehicle is a bit uncommon. 

[ASL Veteran]

Yawn!

 

I'm now tired of silly conversations about pricing - and the game is not even released yet. If you don't think it is worth it by all means don't buy it. 

 

I will now attempt to ignore all further pricing discussions around the bulge game. Wish me luck

That's probably a good policy because there is nothing inherently wrong with Odin's stance.  His opinion is his opinion after all.  The only relevant question is whether he will personally purchase the game or not and why he feels that starting a discussion about this is accomplishing anything of value for the community.  He is stating his opinion and he is no doubt attempting to influence someone or something - perhaps he thinks that he can get BFC to add some of the unspecified things that he thinks would make a purchase worthwhile.  Of course he would have to specify what a value purchase would be for him before he can make that case and it is much easier to simply say 'there isn't enough there for me' which makes a worthwhile discussion difficult.  Especially when he refers to 'the community' and 'customers' or perhaps even 'the collective' instead of just speaking for himself as an individual and what choice he intends to make as an individual.  He doesn't just want to say 'I don't want to buy the game because I don't think there is enough content for me to justify a purchase.  Nope, because

 

"to me (Odin) this is a fundamental issue about how BF treats its longstanding customer base"

[delliejonut]

I stopped worrying about the price of BFC's products long ago. Why? Because I realized I'm not buying a game, I'm buying a drug And a powerful one at that.

 

You can do as many of the cheaper drugs as you want but you'll never get as high as the good stuff. And lord knows you don't ask your dealer for half price because "This bag has the same stuff in it as last time".

[c3k]

A board-game manufacturer has announced a pre-publish pricing for a new game about the British/Canadian beaches at Normandy. The design really is a -g-rand -t-actical -s-ystem. Sorry for the stuttering. Anyway, I own the other 3 games in the series (market garden has 2 games and one in north africa.) The replayability is far less than CM. You get less gaming for your purchase. The pre-pub, discount, price? About $200.

 

Were I to decry that price (since it is just a modification of the market-garden games: same series), I'd be hooted and hollered off their forum.

 

Shrug.

 

Just pointing out that boardgames go for a LOT more than CM. You can argue if it's worth it or not (boardgame cost vs. CM), or just ascribe this post into the "non sequitur" basket.

 

Every consumer has to make their own choice. The sum of those choices determine success. BFC has been far more successful than most other developers. This falls into the "let me tell you how to run your business" thread.

 

Now, if you have some CONCRETE ideas as to what you'd like to see in Bulge in exchange for the full game price (beyond what ChrisND posted), let's hear 'em.

 

 

Edited to keep the ghost of my Latin teacher resting comfortably

Edited May 19, 2015 by c3k

[Rinaldi]

 

 

Why? Because I realized I'm not buying a game, I'm buying a drug

 

Stop pointing out our collective problem! That's the first step, and I don't want to take it.

[sburke]

yeah have looked at those in fact Broadsword and I had used one as an op layer and it was promising.  Then BF screwed us and released CMRT.  Broadsword is an East front semi grog. 

 

Note the normal price of the game is $264.  If you want the full Market Garden Experience on that system, be prepared to shell out $400.

 

I might have spent $400 on all my CM games so far and I can not only do all of MG, but Normandy, a good portion of the Italian Campaign, a sliver of the East Front and two weirdo games about a hypothetical conflict in Ukraine 2017 or Syria 2008......

 

And my cat can't f**k with my game. Oh and the AI absolutely sucks in those games.  I sat there for 3 days waiting for the AI and finally rage quit.  Ended up losing a few parts and had to buy the darn game all over again.

 

Now we aren't comparing apples and oranges here.  Those guys have physical items they need to print at cost.  It is not just software.  That is what confuses people.  They equate physical items to cost instead of labor to create physical items to cost.  Software has physical labor as well.

 

No I will not go on to quote Das Kapital.

Edited May 19, 2015 by sburke

[kohlenklau]

On this page 21 of the forum, please raise your hand if you have gotten or will get a BFC game for "free"...

 

Let me count, hold 'em up...thanks...1,2,3,4..come on, keep 'em up....5...,6...hmmm....maybe 7. that last one could be a maybe..... maybe 6 or 7 people on this forum page get the game "comped" for services rendered to BFC.

 

Amateur Economic Theory:

BFC is not registered as a non-profit organization. They are not a charitable group. There is no philanthropy involved. They are here to make money and stay in business. Mama wants a new pair of shoes. Cha-ching!

BFC needs play testers, beta testers, scenario authors. It seems reasonable they would be more apt to renegotiate with the ones who show a protective attitude toward BFC in the forums. And it seems natural and reasonable that a playtester, beta tester, scenario/campaign author would carefully watch his criticism of the game, the company, the game price, etc, etc. She would naturally want BFC to charge a healthy higher price to keep the company in excellent financial health. More games, more modules, more testing, more free games. 

 

 

I'll pay $60 if I get a schwimmwagen!

Edited May 19, 2015 by kohlenklau

[sburke]

I know you meant it in jest, but speaking for myself. I generally buy the game anyway and have also been known to gift it. BF isn't losing any money on me for beta testing. What I gain is less financial and more about

1 watching the development process. I find it very interesting to see the decision making process to the extent I can at battlefront.

2 contributing even if in a small way to what i think is by far the best game out there bar none

3 getting to interact with a bunch of folks I have a very high regard for, both BF employees and beta testers

4 I save money spending time on this hobby. My other one, carpentry, is far more expensive.

[kohlenklau]

I know Steve. That was very cool of you to help out "s" when his chips were down. I also have already pre-gifted a copy to a modder who has done some special contract work for me.

If I had a nickel for every hour I played CM or did something CM related it would offset the purchase costs.

 

Bulge is gonna be just awesome. I sickly almost hope it doesn't get here until the winter if you know what I mean.