When

[Rick]

I think that most of us that you assume are in group 1 are actually somewhere in between. I definitely want BTS to be happy with the complete nature of their game. Just feel that the line needs to be drawn on the perfection process somewhere.

[Thomas Davie]

Rick; I guess I'll fall into group 3 (be honest did you really expect me to fall into line ); I will buy no wine before it's time.

Tom

[Guest John Pender]

Again take your time get it right, give us a good manual and a good AI. I dont care how long it takes just waiting for an estimate how long we should expect to wait. Can I at least get the poster now. Im only joking

[Herr Oberst2]

Manuals? Manuals?

We don't need no stinkin manuals...

[kingtiger]

BTS Take your time. The last thing I need in this world is Combat Mission to miss the mark. Think about it: high taxes, inflation on the horizon, losing my hair, pollution, global economic catastrophies and a plethora of old boring games and bad excuses for war simulations.

PG2 is really the only game to have held my interest and only because it has evolved into something more like chess for me.

East Front has really glitchy sensitive bad code with slow moving vehicles and plenty of problems.

SSI Again: Peoples General is no different than PG 2 and PG-3D is worse than either PG 2 or Peoples.

MORE SSI: Panzer Commander is just not a good game.

Then someone throws Panzer Elite into the mix, and calls it Public BETA. I call it public relations fiasco.

All I have to say is Combat Mission is my last hope. Please don't release a bug riddled junky BETA for general release. Carefully choose your BETA crew. Get it right and take all the time in the world. If you don't I may have to go back to drinking beer and spending all my free time chasing tail. Oh and thanks alot for the Panther print, I'll have it framed and displayed above my Panther model.

[Marko]

kingtiger,

I think you were being too harsh on the guys who created Panzer Elite. I am thrilled with the idea of a public beta. This will help to rid the game of bugs, particularly those video and multiplayer bugs which had games like Unreal releasing patches for over a year! To describe it as a "public relations fiasco" suggests to me that you aren't as interested in the game aspects of Panzer Elite as its marketing aspects. But I could be wrong about that!

But you know, I think buggy games aren't the greatest evil in the game world. I don't fret too much if the game doesn't work properly right out of the box. Software development is a really complex thing. But I do fret and steam if the developers of the game don't subsequently (and fairly rapidly) fix the game with patches. Boy, does that get my gander up!

Marko

P.S. It was nice to see you confess that hair loss is on a par with pollution and global economic catastrophes! Reminds me of that Monty Python song, "I'm So Worried".

[Guest KwazyDog]

Hehe, sounds like to didnt buy either Flaon 4 or Battlecruiser 3000 Good games, but damn, talk about buggy. BC3000 took about, hmm, Id say 2 1/2 years to get a final release version (which we then has to pay for), and Falcon 4 is about 8 months past release and still being fixed.

Dont get me wrong though, they are both pretty good games, and Im glad the authors stuck by them, and finished them. The BC3000 story is especially an intersting one...

[Doug Beman]

Tom said:

---------------------------------------------

Rick; I guess I'll fall into group 3 (be honest did you really expect me to fall into line

); I will buy no wine before it's time.

---------------------------------------------

Here's what I say:

There's always beer...

mmmmm...beer...

DjB

[Zackary]

I think those of us who post on this board forget that not everyone has access to, or regularly uses, the internet. The release of a program with some bugs or without some features (or vehicles as discussed above) works a tremendous hardship on such purchasers. If I were one of those people (which I was until less than two years ago), I would be enraged if I bought a game that the designers rushed to production with the mindset that the users could simply download the patch or update or supplement or whatever you want to call it.

I am tempted to pre-order this game, but I will not do so if it looks like the copy I get, which would be from the initial release, will not have all features. I would rather wait two or three months until the CD sold by BTS already includes everything. I am really irritated that my current favorite game (CWG2) requires a patch. CWG2 is a game I envision playing for years to come and it is quite irritating to know that I will always have to keep the patch stored somewhere. I would much prefer having a new CD of the game with the patch already incorporated. Bottom line is, I will not pre-order unless there is an option whereby I can request that shipment of my copy be delayed until all vehicles, etc..., have been incorporated into the game.

Please don't misunderstand me. I really appreciate the reasons the rest of you have given for releasing the vehicles serially and for rushing the release date. In my opinion, however, it would be unfair to purchasers who are not online, and players such as myself would consider it an inconvenience.

------------------

Zackary

[Guest KwazyDog]

Zack, dont worry, I think the guys working on CM want to get it right, and wont release it in any way shape or for before its ready.

As for patches though, I am under a different opinion here. There are two type of patches in my opinion.

For a start, there are patches like those being made for Falcon 4. These are patches to make a game playable that was bug ridden in its initial release, which was rushed out in time for Christmas. I totally agree with you here, that game designers should not release a product just to rush it out. Falcon as you buy it off the shelf is pretty much unplayable in multiplay, with crashes being frequent. I am glad that Microprose is supporting the game, but Im not happy at all that I wasnt aware that I was basically buying a Beta and was not informed about it before my purchase. This is a practice I hope does not become the trend. Having said this, as a programmer, I can assure you that it is very hard to get all bugs out of a program without wide scale testing. There are just too many combinations of hardware out there to cover every possible combination. I think with the complicated games available these days, it is impossible for it to be TOTALLY bug free at release, and thus I think that for almost every game released these days, there will have to be patches. Its is a fact that unfortunately cannot be overcome.

The second 'type' of patch is the one that adds feature to a game. These to me are like a bonus, adding features to a game that you didnt expect in the first place, and are a bonus to recieve. Probably Fleet Command is a good example of this. Current the game plays fine, but the next patch will apparently allow you to load you aircraft with different weapon loadouts before takeoff. This is a feature I didnt expect in the game, and am extrememly glad its being added in (hehe, it makes the game a set closer to acceptable ). These patches should be encourage, and Im very glad that game companies are taking the time after a games release to add such features.

Dont take this the wrong way, I understand where you are coming from, and each it entitles to their own opinions Ive been playing games for a long time, and I remember the days when patches werent so common, and those little bugs you find in a program werent fixed. Today, even people whom arent on the net should are able to contact the program supplier and get them to send you a CD with any relevant patches, and most companies are happy to do this. I think patches, wether good or bad, are something that are pretty much here to stay.....

[Guest Big Time Software]

Zackary,

Don't worry. We will not release CM until it is ready. That means that it does everything you have been told it would do. Does this mean that every feature we have been hoping to get in will in fact be in there? 100% no way on that. But this is true for ALL games. If we held CM's release up for every little feature we wanted to see in the game we would probably NEVER release it My example above was about the vehicles. We will have more vehicles in CM than you can shake a stick at, but not every WWII vehicle will be included for sure.

We are planning on giving everybody an update on CM's projected release after we hit Beta. That is very close to happening, BTW...

Steve

[Ben Galanti]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> We are planning on giving everybody an update on CM's projected release after we hit Beta. That is very close to happening, BTW... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How's the AI coding going? I know that you guys were planning on going beta soon after the first cut operational and strategic AI's were in.. Just curious.

[Guest Big Time Software]

AI coding is going well. The computer just captured a road junction from my heroic, but ultimately doomed plucky little reinforced rifle platoon...

Charles

[hopkins]

I agree with the majority; get it right. Of

course if you could just drop me an alpha or beta version in the mean time..... }

tom

[NCrawler]

Although I will not pre-order the game (learned the hard way about that from Sierra), I'm sure that I will purchase it after fooling around with the demo. My question is this; after I buy the game, how will you handle upgrades? Will you give free upgrades for minor revisions and charge a nominal fee for major revisions, or will all upgrades be free for registered users?

------------------

Jon Johnson

Steel Lightning Productions

[This message has been edited by NCrawler (edited 08-26-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jon, yeah, we can understand your position all too well. Far too many games look good only to be utter crap when released. Then they aren't supported on top of that! Disgusting, but common

We will most likely release at least one or two revs of feature enhancements. These will be "above and beyond the call of duty" type features. In other words, ones that we have to bust our butts to make, not just changing a variable here and there.

We *might* sell these as an expansion pack, but NOT unless we feel we can add the value for the buck. In otherwords, if we think we can sell you a $15 addon pack that will make you thrilled to spend the money, then we will do it. But on the other hand, if we think you would look at it and say "eh, not really worth it" then we won't. Tough call, but we have to balance your perception of value with our exepense of time and money to make it.

Bug fixes, tweaks to existing features, and minor enhancements will NOT be charged for. And under no circumstances will we release a Combat Mission II, at full price, for what should have been in Combat Mission I. I think alot of you wargamers out there know what I am talking about here... but I can't name names

Steve

[NCrawler]

Thanks for the prompt reply and I fully understand your position on upgrades. The only way that I ever buy software anymore (not counting games that I follow) is by trying the demo out first. I pre-ordered Football Pro 99 from Sierra, received a VERY buggy game and then instead of patching or continuing to develop FBPro 2000 as a replacement, Sierra cancelled all further production of the FBPro Series. They did this to pursue their Bull Riding simulations. I don't know about you all, but I ain't no cowboy and could care less about Bull Riding. I will never buy another Sierra product...

Sorry for the OT; CM does indeed look good and the play-by-play between Fionn and Moon is really a good marketing strategy. Keep up the good work and as I said earlier, you can expect my registration after trying out the demo (I'm sure of it <G>).

------------------

Jon Johnson

Steel Lightning Productions

[Pixman]

Hi NCrawler. Playing the devil's advocate (once again), I just have to chime in on the behalf of Sierra. I do this for a few reasons: 1) Steve produced a Sierra product, and a damned good one, in Civil War Generals 2; 2) The same Sierra that disappointed you with FP99 is the one that brought you (and me) FP 98, which many believe to be the best football game to date; 3) Sierra has developed strong partnerships with some pretty good development shops (like Dynamix and Impressions) without totally squelching their individualism (at least from this outsider's perspective -- Steve may have another opinion, having been on the inside); 4) "Never" is as strong as a word gets. Sierra is too strong a player in the arena to rule out their producing a quality game with a theme that interests you in the future. It would be a shame for you to miss out when they do; 5) If we were all summarily judged by our weakest moment or worst decision, none of us would have a chance. FP99 was clearly one of the weak points in Sierra's history.

Food for thought. My wife just stole my soap box, so I have to go.

------------------

The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

[NCrawler]

I used to purchase almost all of Sierras' titles, back to the days of Kings Quest 1. The way that they handled the FP99 situation has convinced me that they are just a bunch of greedy French corporate types now. They will never produce anything that I am interested in. I don't play first person shooters, I don't ride bulls, I don't race cars or play baseball and their air sims leave a lot to be desired. I think that I will stick with Microprose and SSI for my gaming needs.

IMO, FP96 and FP97 were far superior to the bug-ridden FP98.

------------------

Jon Johnson

Steel Lightning Productions

[Guest Big Time Software]

I do not want to say too much about Sierra's internal workings, but I will say that much of our Manifesto can be applied to them However, as Pixman says, Sierra can STILL produce a good game or two each year. Caesar III (released after I left) was a good one from what I hear. Also Half-Life is probably one of the "smartest" FPS games out there. However, Sierra's Dog To Great ratio has not been very good for years. The corporate turmoil surrounding their various owners has not been helpfull either.

Steve