Fire and Rubble

[Aragorn2002]

14 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:

$$$

[BFCElvis]

31 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:

agreed, but there is nothing wrong with talking politics in a civil manner, should you consider a politics seperate forum?

No.

Quote

bad idea?most likely 

Yes.  

[BFCElvis]

30 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:

$$$

To a degree. Umlat's post on the previous page sums up Steve's stance (in his own words) pretty well.

[Battlefront.com]

To expand on the $$$ aspect.  Our customers have the freedom to NOT buy something made by Battlefront.  What they want is to be happy with their purchase.  If they don't think something will make them happy, they don't purchase.  Therefore, if Battlefront wants to stay in business it has to keep people happy.  Which is why we make decisions based on how many people we can make happy.  A nice side effect of making people happy is we make money   It's a win-win for everybody.

The tricky bit for us is balancing customer happiness with profitability.  Sometimes we make games that we know won't sell as well, but the cost and risk is lower so profitability is still acceptable.  On the other hand, sometimes we avoid making games we think will sell well because the cost or risk is too high.

The reason Battlefront has survived for 20+ years is we refuse to risk more than we can afford to lose in any one release. We are wargame developers, not gamblers.  So when we look at making a game that will take 2 years to do, we had better be assured of making enough people happy to pay us back for our time.  Otherwise no more Battlefront.  Our confidence that an early war game can do that is low.  We've got plenty of better "bets" to make with that amount of time.

Steve

 

[Bearstronaut]

11 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

To expand on the $$$ aspect.  Our customers have the freedom to NOT buy something made by Battlefront.  What they want is to be happy with their purchase.  If they don't think something will make them happy, they don't purchase.  Therefore, if Battlefront wants to stay in business it has to keep people happy.  Which is why we make decisions based on how many people we can make happy.  A nice side effect of making people happy is we make money   It's a win-win for everybody.

The tricky bit for us is balancing customer happiness with profitability.  Sometimes we make games that we know won't sell as well, but the cost and risk is lower so profitability is still acceptable.  On the other hand, sometimes we avoid making games we think will sell well because the cost or risk is too high.

The reason Battlefront has survived for 20+ years is we refuse to risk more than we can afford to lose in any one release. We are wargame developers, not gamblers.  So when we look at making a game that will take 2 years to do, we had better be assured of making enough people happy to pay us back for our time.  Otherwise no more Battlefront.  Our confidence that an early war game can do that is low.  We've got plenty of better "bets" to make with that amount of time.

Steve

 

I'll buy anything you guys make. Your games are probably my favorite games of all time.

[E5K]

Russia with Kursk and Stalingrad would make me happy. Anyone else ??

[Glubokii Boy]

19 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Our confidence that an early war game can do that is low.  We've got plenty of better "bets" to make with that amount of time.

Steve

 

Where do you guys draw the line for "early" ? 

Do you considder summer 1942 (case blue  )  to be to early ?

[Malaspina]

44 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

To expand on the $$$ aspect.  Our customers have the freedom to NOT buy something made by Battlefront.  What they want is to be happy with their purchase.  If they don't think something will make them happy, they don't purchase.  Therefore, if Battlefront wants to stay in business it has to keep people happy.  Which is why we make decisions based on how many people we can make happy.  A nice side effect of making people happy is we make money   It's a win-win for everybody.

The tricky bit for us is balancing customer happiness with profitability.  Sometimes we make games that we know won't sell as well, but the cost and risk is lower so profitability is still acceptable.  On the other hand, sometimes we avoid making games we think will sell well because the cost or risk is too high.

The reason Battlefront has survived for 20+ years is we refuse to risk more than we can afford to lose in any one release. We are wargame developers, not gamblers.  So when we look at making a game that will take 2 years to do, we had better be assured of making enough people happy to pay us back for our time.  Otherwise no more Battlefront.  Our confidence that an early war game can do that is low.  We've got plenty of better "bets" to make with that amount of time.

Steve

 

I've read somewhere that TW Three Kingdoms, which is set in China, sold one million copies in its first week on Steam. That's approx. U$70 million in five working days!

CM Korean War would be a clever choice.  

[danfrodo]

So following up on what Steve's said over time: once they had Normandy game, then doing east front 1944 (RT) meant only investing in one side's new OOB for the most part.  But going to 1941 the entire German and Soviet OOB is different than anything that currently exists, so is huge investment.  Doing Italy meant adding some features, but not entirely new sets of vehicles, uniforms, etc.  Which also gives me hope that we'll at least get back to 1943 someday since we already have most of the equipment

But Steve's made it clear the investment for Barbarossa is very high and therefore very risky given that the market is not as big as some of us (like me) thought it would be.  I expect we'll see more Black Sea/modern, plus more existing stuff ported to Steam, as lower risk / higher benefit choices for a while.  I am now expecting, instead of east front, some CMCW-NATO and CMBS-NATO releases ~2022+.  Dutch, brits, germans, maybe even French vs Russians type stuff.   The Russian side doesn't change so only need to add one set of new stuff.  But maybe I'll be surprised.

Meanwhile, back on F&R related stuff, there's a new Fall of Berlin youtube series coming from a channel that previously did some nice work on Stalingrad.  Series preview:

 

[Commanderski]

The problem the Soviets had with that large of a force on such a small area is that they basically became a "target rich environment". The Germans couldn't help but hit anything Soviet if they just aimed in that direction. The Soviet losses were huge as they were ordered to take Berlin by May 1 (Mayday).

The battles and scenarios hopefully will reflect that.

[Anonymous_Jonze]

6 hours ago, Bufo said:

I prefer the cold war periods because of the variety of the weapons. Also I hate that in WW2 infantry squads don't really have a weapon against tanks. I love IFV. I love ATGMs.

The Cold War battlefield is just more complex than the ww2.

If you look at WW2 CM titles as chess, then a cold war title is like chess upgraded.

This is why CM is so great. There's something for everyone. I feel the opposite actually. I think the lowered lethality of WW2 enables a lot of imagination. Plus all those Sherman variants 

[wadepm]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

I expect we'll see more Black Sea/modern, plus more existing stuff ported to Steam, as lower risk / higher benefit choices for a while.

So, just another game company.  Oh well...

[Aragorn2002]

4 minutes ago, wadepm said:

So, just another game company.  Oh well...

Nobody expected Cold War to happen, so let's wait and see.

[mjkerner]

40 minutes ago, wadepm said:

So, just another game company.  Oh well...

Hardly.

[Anonymous_Jonze]

44 minutes ago, wadepm said:

So, just another game company.  Oh well...

That's unwarranted.

[Bulletpoint]

5 hours ago, umlaut said:

 

Quote

Barbarossa would be a massive, huge, incredibly hard slog to get done because we have practically nothing needed for that setting other than the terrain.  And for sales?  Well.  We don't think it would be strong enough to justify that major an effort.  Same thing for Western Front 1940.  Just too much work for too little customer interest.

 

Quote

The problem is that for a 1941-1942 game pretty much all of the units and organizations have to be created from scratch.  Limiting the scope of forces for both sides certainly reduces how much new stuff we have to come up with, but the minimum is still a large amount of work for (in our view) a questionable return for our time.

 

But isn't this also the case for CM: Cold War? Didn't you also have to create all the new vehicles, tanks, soldiers, and weapons from scratch with this game?

Isn't a Cold War title also kind of niche?

[ASL Veteran]

21 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

But isn't this also the case for CM: Cold War? Didn't you also have to create all the new vehicles, tanks, soldiers, and weapons from scratch with this game?

Isn't a Cold War title also kind of niche?

Guess we'll find out

[DerKommissar]

I wanted to do my high school Remembrance Day speech about the Boer War. But because it was largely forgotten (ironically), it had to be about Afghanistan or WW1. The audience cannot be yourself, unfortunately.

Cold War is hot right now due to 80's nostalgia and even Call of Duty is on that band wagon. I'm just happy that some saint decided to fund Fortress Italy, as it is often forgotten. 

From what I gather, BFC is going to give Black Sea and Final Blitzkrieg some love next. I'd love to see those titles expanded, hoping to see USMC vs VDV and Commonwealth vs Very Late War Germans.

This being said, the Eastern Front is the biggest and baddest front in history. I will buy any game set in it (WW1 & 1812 too). Who knows? We may see a Renaissance of '40s nostalgia in the next decade or so?

[SlowMotion]

59 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

But isn't this also the case for CM: Cold War? Didn't you also have to create all the new vehicles, tanks, soldiers, and weapons from scratch with this game?

Isn't a Cold War title also kind of niche?

IMO it's a game that happens between WW2 and modern. No other CM game from that era exists using the latest engine and it allows people to try what-if battles using units of cold war days, time that many CM players still remember whereas most with own WW2 experience have already died. I hope this will be a popular title for BF, not niche.

Edited April 15, 2021 by SlowMotion

[Artkin]

Uhhh all I heard Steve say was CM3

Case blue - kursk would be insane

Edited April 15, 2021 by Artkin

[ASL Veteran]

Did Steve really say CM3?  I think someone who was dreaming about Barbarossa said CM3 but I'm not sure Steve said it ...?  Or did he?  I would be surprised if he did.

[Artkin]

9 minutes ago, SlowMotion said:

IMO it's a game that happens between WW2 and modern. No other CM game from that era exists using the latest engine and it allows people to try what-if battles using units of cold war days, time that many CM players still remember whereas most with own WW2 experience have already died. I hope this will be a popular title for BF, not niche.

the word "niche" in this context meaning: requiring a lot of work and time spent developing new things

[Artkin]

Just now, ASL Veteran said:

Did Steve really say CM3?  I think someone who was dreaming about Barbarossa said CM3 but I'm not sure Steve said it ...?  Or did he?  I would be surprised if he did.

He will make it rain we just have to dance a bunch

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

But isn't this also the case for CM: Cold War? Didn't you also have to create all the new vehicles, tanks, soldiers, and weapons from scratch with this game?

Isn't a Cold War title also kind of niche?

I think CMCW started out as a labor of love by a couple of long time modder/users and so was presented to BFC as a partially completed project, so low investment.  And the best surprise I've had since.... since..... well, gosh, ever?

I am still surprised though that east front isn't the most popular thing since chocolate and ice cream, but sounds like it's not.

[weapon2010]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

So when we look at making a game that will take 2 years to do, we had better be assured

what is the decision process to be "assured"? sounds like a risky and difficult decision to make.