Microsoft will make his offer$

[frag]

Day after day, CM grow in the wargaming community. This product had a lot more success than predicted. So know, what happen to this kind of successfull product … I will tell you : If Combat Mission take as small as 5% of the pie of Close Combat (and it will be more than that if Big Time Software decide to hit the shelves), Microsoft will move their ass in Big Time Software office and will make an offer to buy it, and for big $$$.

Here in Silicon Valley we are seing them running around like crazy for revolutionnary product. You have one here...

So surprise Charles, you’ll be a rich guy. Here where the good work send…

[This message has been edited by frag (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

CC3 is an example that happens in many game design companies: a falling away of purpose and a motivation on straight numbers

profit.

You can see it no better than in the way CC1 and CC2 compared to CC3, and how SSI's line for Panzer General died with the release of PG2 and never got back the elegance and simplicity older games.

So what did they do?

1) They abandoned development on the Mac platform. This may seem to make sense from a business stand point since the mac platform is only about 10% of the game buying audience, and if you look at the market psychographics it is the most uptight of the 10%. Crash causing bugs, poor user interface, and dorky graphics generally don't fly with the Mac crowd, but the PC crowd is so large you can find someone to buy almost anything. So dropping the Mac development saves money and allows you to cut a lot of corners with the game. PC gamers are not stupid though, and they note the problems with the game and do not buy your next one. PG 3D and 3, CC3, and others are examples of this. A classic example is the Sim City series which slumped when development ceased on the Mac platform. Now it is back.

2) Your Grognards are your main free advertisement vehicles, but your video gamers buy more games. Look at Steel Panthers: enough was there to make Grognards support the game on Usenet. I certainly did. But with the move in SSI to make the Video Gamers happy with snappier playing, the Grognards lost interest and quit the back channel communication needed to make a game successful.

3) Many game companies are very small. A falling out of the main developers can cause a flght of talent that kills your games. Look at Civilization and Civilization II. Based on a great but difficult to play board game, they defined a new generation of world building games and ruled the market. But piss off Sid Meier and the development team, and they jump ship to build Alpha Centuari while you jam out a nearly unplayable Civilization III CTP.

4) Failure to properly heed market research. Market research is great. It can also kill you. Sending out a survey asking what add on you would like to see in a game is a mistake I see over and over again. It generates bogus return and while the money people get their panties in a bunch over it, as a researcher I can tell you it is the beginning of the end. Instead you can do exactly what BigTime does and read these posts, and you can do other types of surveys that ask the question in a way that it can actually be answered.

5) Let me add a number 5. Selling out. I was a director for a number of years, and my residuals off of a stupid cubic zirconia commerical were higher than most game designers (if they get residuals) and my profit share take on a commercial show was much higher, nut I was not doing hard core sweat of the brow creative work. I was a skilled technician churning out video wall paper. Big Time will soon be dangled amazing sums of money (most on paper) in front of their face by all sorts of publishing houses to go corporate. Then, they will find out that it means getting only a trickle of money and having to write software to please a guy who thinks World War Two was the second stock market crash of 1986. Game designers are the most screwed over creative in the industry -- you can make more money maintaining the Barbie database for Mattel. And, the more corporate, the lower the games fall. Will Bungie survive Microsoft? Surprisingly, they might since Microsoft has a better games track record than some, but I bet they would not survive Hasbro.

Luckily, in most of this not Big Time is Big Time. Not much worried unless Charles marries Steve's dog and runs away to become a circus performer.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Maximus]

For people that continuously make mention of BTS being bought out by some bigger company, PLEASE read the Battlefront.com Manifesto!

The main thing is that Charles and Steve were both employees of the bigger companies and they got tired of the big companies' marketing execs throwing out unreasonable release dates. So they broke away and formed their own company to do their games the way they wanted to.

Just because BTS did not go "retail shelf" with Combat Mission, don't think think for a minute that they regret it. In fact, BTS is laughing their asses off at the big companies for their publication practices.

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

All that sleeps, awakens...

All that awakens, hungers...

All that hungers, feeds...

[Dittohead]

Steve and Charles will be so rich they may buy Microsoft!

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dittohead:

Steve and Charles will be so rich they may buy Microsoft! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which half?

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "It seems to me perfectly reasonable if a player wants to send one of his AFVs off at full speed in an attempt to draw fire, it's a legit tactic. So long as if that vehicle is alone, and it is unable to see/spot as well as if it were stationary, then you'll ge ta reasonable result out of the game. Better still so long as the player leaves vehicles in overwatch, he should still be able to garnish the info he's looking for even if it results in the death of the vehicle. It's a legit tactic even if a little harsh for the guys being the rabbit."

-Los

(And he KNOWS what he's talking about!)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Michael emrys]

It all comes down to a choice for BTS: Which do they value more, big buck$ or their independence? It's Charles' and Steve's call. If BTS had gone public and sold stock, it would be the call of the voting stockholders, which is why I continue to hope it will not be a road they choose to go down. Stockholders are notoriously bottom-line oriented, and they can be forceful in imposing their will.

Michael

[Slapdragon]

Stock holders are also oriented to the next quarter, and are sort of like sheep. No long term thinking, just munch grass and read the WSJ.

[pzvg]

Good points and ugly generalizations (ie; Slapdragon, we don't all read the bottom line) Point; Going retail means paying stores to carry your product (the software industry has the most screwed up distribution model around) by not selling retail, with the added overhead of buying shelf space, BTS adds quite a bit to the bottom line. In short, I think these guys have a good handle on things, and if they ever do sell to the "suits" It'll probably br figure that us little people can't get our minds around

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

Pzvg

"Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

[Oddball_E8]

and we probarbly wouldnt buy the game if microsoft bought out bts... would we?

(or even worse... Hasbro!!!)

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

Wof, wof, wof, wof... Thats my other dog imitation.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Luckily, in most of this not Big Time is Big Time. Not much worried unless Charles marries Steve's dog and runs away to become a circus performer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you haven't checked the Overview link lately, eh? Charles and Mr. Wiffles had a lovely honeymoon, and are currently working on an act with Leyla the Thousand Pound Woman and Moogli the Monkey-Boy.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.