Hello Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 (edited) Dear Battlefront.com I have a few reasons why you could put out the Black Sea DLCs without getting any or little backlash. First off, the game came out before the Russo-Ukrainian war and this game and DLCs are not meant to represent or recreate it. There are already games coming or already out about that are based on the real Russo-Ukrainian war. The other thing is that there isn't going to be a lot or any attention from the outside world if you put the DLCS out. To be honest, this community isn't humongous and is not going to get any media or news spotlight. No one is going to be upset if you put out DLC for a fictional turned historical game while other people are making games based on it. At least put out the Marines DLC since they aren't in Ukraine fighting Russians (hopefully). I would really like you put the DLCs out (especially the Marines one) and would definitely buy then. I think I am not the only ones who are excited for the Black Sea DLCs. Thank you for taking some of your time to read this. From, Hello There Edit: Can you at least take consideration of this Battlefront.com Thanks Edited April 24 by Hello 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvseydlitz Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 I think that it should not matter if the conflict is going on. The defense industry plays "what if-" scenarios all of the time. War is either historical based or something plausible for present or future. Anyone playing wargames understands this ..those who find it negative are almost certainly NOT wargame customers anyway 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigim Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 Everyone would buy this game 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurian52 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 This has already been discussed to death over the last two years. There is no doubt that plenty of people would buy it, myself included. But Battlefront, and their partners at Slitherine, have decided that it would almost certainly be a bad PR move. However we feel about it, the matter has been decided and there is no point in us discussing it further. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony P. Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 (edited) Was gonna say just that. The reasons (plenty of them) have already been discussed and explained, and this post doesn't bring any new argument into the equation. It's sad, I agree, but there's naught to be done about it (unless anyone has a fairly substantial favour to call in from Mr V. Putin, C/O Kremlin. Edited April 25 by Anthony P. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornGinger Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 (edited) Battlefront still doesn't know how to properly do the coding for the FPV-drones. As those little critters have an important impact in this conflict, Battlefront wants them to function and be used properly in the game. So you'll just have to wait some more. In the meantime you can go to Steam and find out more about the comment above which states that "There are already games out about that... war" and maybe even buy one or two of them. Edited April 25 by BornGinger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony P. Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 That's got absolutely nothing to do with it: the war depicted in CMBS is a fictional war (as you might've guessed from the fact that the USA is part of it). FPV drones were never intended to be part of the game, and the explanations as to why the DLC was shelved give no reason which includes drones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 Elvis provided an answer in the Black Sea forums, as this thread apparently was started in three different forums. I haven't had a chance to post this for a while, but Hi Mom! * * FYI forum old timers will recognize this as meme on these forums meaning this thread will soon be locked, and has no intention of insulting anyone's mother, which someone took it to mean once. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 Oh man, haven't seen a Hi mom in a while. Good times, good times... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hello Posted April 25 Author Share Posted April 25 Where can I see the forums for the explanation for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunbather Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 (edited) 5 hours ago, Centurian52 said: This has already been discussed to death over the last two years. There is no doubt that plenty of people would buy it, myself included. But Battlefront, and their partners at Slitherine, have decided that it would almost certainly be a bad PR move. However we feel about it, the matter has been decided and there is no point in us discussing it further. I just want to reiterate that Matrix/Slitherine will publish Broken Arrows this year and they have been advertising it heavily since 2022. Although the game is 'fictional' it literally has all the TOE from the current war (drones, heavy airstrike jets, heavy bombers, Bradleys, T-90s and Armatas) and the maps look frightingly similar to what we've seen on the news in the past years. Broken Arrows is set in the Baltics (which makes it completely fine, I guess) and yet after a 30 minutes match with 8 players, the map looks exactly like Mariupol. Sorry, but I have a great distaste for double standards. And denying the release of the Black Sea module, yet putting so much PR effort into a game like Broken Arrow is just too much. And we didn't even speak about the seriousness of Combat Mission which could even be called educational, whereas Broken Arrows is a competive game for fun. And to multiply that: Combat Mission is a niche product, whereas Broken Arrows will be a beststeller relative to wargaming standards. (similar to CM: Red Thunder and Steel Division 2 if you will.) Edited April 25 by Sunbather 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 29 minutes ago, Sunbather said: double standards Just wanted to say that BFC are not Matrix/Slitherine and vice versa. From memory BFC decided not to release the Black Sea module in the current circumstances, and publisher Matrix/Slitherine agreed with them. If Matrix/Slitherine proceed with other 'similar' titles, that's nothing to do with BFC. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunbather Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 (edited) 1 hour ago, Vacillator said: Just wanted to say that BFC are not Matrix/Slitherine and vice versa. From memory BFC decided not to release the Black Sea module in the current circumstances, and publisher Matrix/Slitherine agreed with them. If Matrix/Slitherine proceed with other 'similar' titles, that's nothing to do with BFC. I interpreted it more like a mutual understanding. On a more lighter note (or heavier): I'd rather they publish more content on an existing conflict instead of releasing a game about a 'fictional' conflict. If for example they release Combat Mission: Tiger Dragon, three years later China will invade Taiwan! We've already seen it happening twice. Edited April 25 by Sunbather 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 10 minutes ago, Sunbather said: We've already seen it happening twice Agreed. I'd rather have historical, like CMRT Barbarossa but I realise I may be in a diminishing client base in that respect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vkhani12345 Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 As much as this topic has been spoken about on the Forums I do agree that CMBS needs to at least have something added to it and Battlefront could add the vehicles that were ready as free DLC since right now they'll just be wasted or reskinned for a different game. That way they're not profiting off the situation and the community is happy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony P. Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 I'm not quite convinced that working for free constitutes a viable business model. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.