Even more ranting in praise of the Cold War for CMX2 :)

[Kellysheroes]

Let's do some math here and sort of show how the new module system will work for Battlefront and for us.

Now, CMBB came about 2 years after CMBO. And just for simples sake I'm just going to use 1000 customers as a base and $40 for each game including shipping/handling and all that stuff.

CMBO made them $40,000 in initial sales.

Then in 2 years time they made $40,000 on 1000 sales of CMBB.

Then roughly a year after CMBB they made another $40,000 on 1000 sales of CMAK. (they double their profit margin here by putting another game out in a years time vs two years.)

Now, lets look at the upcoming modular system. Initial module will be $40 (remember these are just simple round numbers to make the calculations simple and understanding the priciples of it easier).

Now, the ??? comes into play, how many of the origional 1000 customers will buy the first module? Let's say there is a 20% loss of the customer base just as an example (might be more, might be less, it's merely an example figure). So, only 800 copies sell at $40 a shot, roughly $32,000 initally for the new type game.

But, then a mere 8 months later a new module appears, and once again only 800 customers buy this one, but, it will only be $20 for the module instead of the initial $40. So, now, they make $16,000

Now, comparing CMBO and the time frame to CMBB, they only made $40,000 on 1000 sales of CMBO, but, with the module system, they will net $48,000 in 8 months ($32,000 + $16,000) of the new release.

Then every 8 months a net of $16,000. Which three 8 month periods would be 24 months (two years) the time between CMBO and CMBB, so the intial $32,000, plus 3 x $16,000 (48,000) equates to a grand income of $80,000 which "equals" out to the same income they had overall with CMBO and CMBB in two years.

We the consumer will now have (4) modules, (those of us that buy each one of course).

In essence we'll still be getting the same "value" for our $$ in cost, but, we probably won't get the "longevity" of each game like we did CMBO/CMBB/CMAK that's the kicker and that is what will turn some consumers off to the new idea of module based games vs full theater of operations and all those vehicles, infantry, etc. etc. all in one package.

I'm guessing a 20% loss in consumer base is probably extreme for the initial release, probably closer to 10% or even less. And as that % keeps going down, it means a greater profit margin for Battlefront in less time over a period of 3 years. Which is good for them and us in the long run, keeps them in business and us in new/different types of wargames.

I'm sure their expert economist has figured this out way ahead of me, thus, the reason for the change in deliverance of the games to us in the future modules system.

I know I for one will be picky and choosey, I bought CMBB merely because I liked getting "everything" in one game, but, never really have been a big fan of the Russian front games. So, with the module system I'll most likely pass on those and probably only buy the American modules since those theaters interest me most. I have a feeling many others will be as particular and picky as I am.

Then of course there will be games made outside of the WWII theater altogether. Who, knows what kind of sales figures they will get on those types of games. I can already tell you I'm not a Doom Scorpions from Outer Space fan already. lol

[Battlefront.com]

As was said by me, and others in this thread, you guys were spoiled beyond belief with what we did before. And it cost everybody, including you guys, a lot more than you think. OK, perhaps not in money shelled out for games, but VERY long wait times, less innovation than we could have otherwise done, and no other type of game other than WWII. Frankly, we'd rather shut down Battlefront and start making FileMaker Pro addons than go through another 9 years of what we've already gone through. So...

We ain't doing any more "mother of all front" games ever again. Accept it or don't, but whining won't change it. The previous development strategy was unsustainable for us (I'm talking more about interest level) and we aren't idiots enough to repeat it.

Even if you paid $100 per title you STILL got far more than you ever would have from any other 3 wargames ever released. So even start down that road because I'll just mark you down in the "ungreatful, spoiled rotten, selfish customer" list and remind myself to not listen to you any more.

Now, I do understand the desire to have lots and lots of gameplay options open to you at the tips of your fingers. I love it too... which is why I slaved away for 9 years to make games that did it. But, as stated above, this is definately one of those "be careful for what you wish for" things because it took a serious toll on all of us. Sure, the games we produced are classics and set the bar really high... but in terms of volume of content... we most certainly set it too high. We don't have the energy nor the interest to try and reach that again.

Instead what we are doing is taking the energy, time, and money we spent making a couple hundred vehicles (most of which nobody uses), hundreds of voice samples, and other stuff and investing this in NEW directions. Better game, better environments, and more variety of subject matter. All with shorter release times. It is a sustainable strategy and we expect even most of the whiners here to shut up after a while because they'll recognize it is a better thing overall. Not without sacrifices, of course, but when has innovation ever happened without somethings being left behind? Like hexes, phases, and all the other crap we abandoned years ago.

Again, some of you seem to forget that we've always have to fight against the "I don't want any change, give me what I've already got AGAIN" mentality. We don't listen to it because it is reactionary and harmful to everybody, including themselves. Same thing this time around.

What I can't stress enough is that you guys are picturing CMx1 with less units and smaller scope. Bad, bad, bad, bad! CMx2 is an entirely different experience. Quite a bit of the enjoyment of CMx1 came from the variety of units, but in CMx2 it will come from the variety of gameplay. Tons of units are not necessary, even if they were possible.

As for the Chicken Little comments I see here based on the scant information I've put out so far... grow up. Or at least pretend to grow up. Either one is fine with me so long as the "it's all over for me... this is going to suck" comments get shoved where they belong (hint... it is a dark and smelly place... and I ain't talking about the Peng thread ).

yeah... yeah... I know... some of you are going to get your panties in a twist over such hard language. But like any spoiled child left in a room with me for more than 5 minutes would know, you're just going to have to deal with it. You don't have to like what I say, you don't even have to hide concerns about diection... but the whiney "I want the whole box of cooooookiesssssss!!!" crap is just a wasted bunch of keystrokes.

If you can't get with the program, then log off and wait for the demo. It's as simple as that. Better for everybody since it leaves the bandwidth open for more rational discussions.

End of rant

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If you can't get with the program, then log off and wait for the demo. It's as simple as that. Better for everybody since it leaves the bandwidth open for more rational discussions.

End of rant

Steve

Sounds familiar...

[Michael Emrys]

Yes it does. I dunno, Tonto, I'm just along for the ride.

Michael

[Kellysheroes]

LOL Steve, now look who's whinning. lol You should know by now "change" always begats trouble at least for a little while. I could list some "amendments to our constitution" as some examples of changes many did not want to see.

I for one am not knocking the system, I'm just stating how I individually feel about it. It's not a whine, it's not a rant, it's merely a fact.

You give me random generated battles, I'll buy most of them, of course I already know I won't buy all of them, since now with modules you give me "more selection" of choices too.

Heh, we've all probably been on that side of the fence drooling and waiting for the next game title release, only to be disappointed when it was finally released, I felt that way about Rome Total War, spent two whole years on that forum giving feedback and discussion and the challenge of that game is nothing compared to your games. I beat the Very Hard/Very Hard difficulty the very first time through, I was thouroughly disappointed in the challenge level of it.

Modules, full campaigns, all in one package, whatever, if the game has no challenge to it, it doesn't matter how it's delivered, so that's really the most imporant feature next to random battle generator in my book.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

A random battle generator is an absolute essential as far as I am concerned.

Irrespective of wonderful graphics, relative spotting, advanced ballistics or anything else, I really do not want my gaming experience to be entirely in the hands of scenario designers.

I want the freedom to be able to roll up a random (or otherwise) battle without designer bias or constraint.

I have the exact opposite opinion. If there were no random generator, I wouldn't even notice

[Battlefront.com]

Now, back to practical stuff...

A random battle generator is something that we should be able to do. I'm just saying that if push comes to shove, I'd rather have a better scenario editor or a number of other features. We're not going to rush CMx2 out the door without major features, however we will not get ourselves into any more "1 year" development cycles that take 2 years to complete. It just can't happen that way any more. Get paid once every 2 years and work even harder in the 2nd year and you'll see that it isn't something you'd want to repeat more than a couple of times in one lifetime

As for speculation about customer retention and all of that. Kellysheroes missed one critical thing, and I'll explain it in abstract terms...

CMBO came out and was so mind blowing that 1000 people bought it (I'm just using Ken's number ). CMBB came out and 500 people said "well, it isn't all that different" or "I want to play as the Americans" or "I've had a life change that put gaming on hold" or any number of other reasons to not buy the sequel. That puts sales at around 500, but some new people find the game and buy it. Let's say that yields a total of 750 people for CMBB. So for two years of development we actually have fewer customers.

A year later CMAK comes out. Out of the 750, 300 or so opt out for one reason or another (similar to CMBB), which leaves 450. Some new people come in and guys who did not buy CMBB come back to buy CMAK. Let's say 150. That brings the total to 600.

This means that for 3 years of solid development has netted us about the same number of people that bought the first game, which also took 3 years. However, revenue wise the total is far less because CMAK was sold at a lower starting price. That's not a sustainable business model over time, especially if the haul of money was fairly modest (i.e. if we made $1 Billion off of CMBO, why should we care? But we didn't, so we do).

Why the reduced number of customers each time? Primary reason is lack of reinvestment in the core engine. While the hardcore are generally happy to play (basically) the same game for 4 years, hardly anybody else is. Especially since the game was written for 7 year old technology.

In other words, the hardcore get jazzed about PzIV variants and being able to play out some obscure battle against a bunch of hardly ever dicussed enemy troops... everybody else gets jazzed about the game system. And I am NOT just talking about graphics here.

CMBO was wildly popular because the game system broke new ground. CMBB and CMAK did not break much new ground, nor subject matter (i.e. WWII ETO for all three), and therefore weren't all that interesting to a pretty big chunk of people who bought CMBO and loved it. And there are other groups that also opted out of CMBB/CMAK for other reasons (mentioned above).

So here is the irony. Some of you guys are criticizing us for trying to milk more money from the same cow. Yet the strategy you guys are proposing we stick with does exactly that, just in a different way. We're not about milking something... we want to keep doing new things and expressing new ideas. We don't want to keep redoing the ETO every 9 years with some new technology thrown in. BORING!

Egads... that sounds like another rant! Sorry about that! So I'll throw you another bit of info to chew on...

We are not planning on 20 modules at $45 each. No way. We'll probably release 2-3 Modules per title with a price that seems fair for the content being provided. They will work seamlessly with the previous purchases, or at least as seamlessly within a particular front (I am not promising that you can play Americans vs. Russians just because we released Western and Eastern modules of some sort. Though we might!). You might never get as much content as you did for the past CMx1 games, but you'll have lots of other Battlefront CM type games to choose from instead. In short, you'll not be wanting for things to play even if we ONLY give you the Battle for St. Lo. (which I am not saying is the plan).

Our philosophy is to give you something that won't put down for weeks on end, and keep coming back to for months later EVEN with new titles available to you. If you see us market a St. Lo only game... it is because we feel the gameplay value fits this mold. If we don't, then we'd obviously be releasing something different. It would be suicide for us to ignore gameplay value, so obviously we won't.

Steve

[ June 02, 2005, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[junk2drive]

"Even if you paid $100 per title you STILL got far more than you ever would have from any other 3 wargames ever released"

I have SPWW2 SPMBT SPWAW all free, still on my HDD. I don't care for East Front but bought BB to learn CM waiting for CMAK. Bought BO to have the set. Will probably buy Matrix's CL if I need the core for the next "module".

We need to get in touch with the "Axis of Evil" and the Aussies and get them to buy a training version of CMx2. That way we will get all the sheep and goats and feta and salami.

Kim Jong Il will demand some interesting pictures for the UI too.

[Battlefront.com]

LOL Steve, now look who's whinning.

Nah... that's a virtual spanking The difference is I have power and influence over what I'm talking about

You should know by now "change" always begats trouble at least for a little while.

Believe me... I know. The two Michaels just made a joke about that from the last time I bothered to talk about stuff

There is a difference between expressing an opion and whining. An opinion is "I really love battle generators and don't really know how it is I could love a game without one". Fair deal. Saying "give us a battle generator or the game will suck" is also an opinion, but its becoming more of a whine. "If you don't give me a battle generator I won't buy your crummy game" is just a whine disguised as an opinion. One common thread to all three is a lack of imagination. I have an easier time with lack of imgination than I do whining.

Steve

[Pugilist]

any chance of a Canadian distributor for the CMx2 games/modules?

More modules (thumbs up) means more ordering and shipping (thumbs down)...if the Eurotrash have their own distributor why can't yer friendly neighborhood Eskimos?

Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere.

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If you can't get with the program, then log off and wait for the demo. It's as simple as that. Better for everybody since it leaves the bandwidth open for more rational discussions.

End of rant

Steve

Sounds familiar... </font>

[Battlefront.com]

We have some retail distribution in the Great White North already. We didn't for the release of CMBO or CMBB, but shortly thereafter. Modules, however, won't be in retail as stand alone products. In order to do that we would HAVE to make the price pretty high because otherwise there wouldn't be anything left for us Electronic distribution will likely be the only way the modules are released anyway.

No, you won't have to buy all the modules. However, each successive module will not be inclusive. So if we have a game that is Normandy, a module that is Bulge, and another which is Commonwealth... you wouldn't get the Bulge stuff if you just bought the Commonwealth module. You do, however, have to purchase the initial release because all modules will do is add functionality, not act as stand alone games. If that were the case we'd have to charge for them as stand alone games, which is not what we're talking about here.

Of course if you wait long enough we'll bundle things together. It's one of the primary ways to extend the "shelf life" of a product. So let's say you don't buy the game or any of the modules... perhaps a year or a year and a half later you'll probably be able to purchase them all together as a single product for less money than if you bought them separately 6-18 months earlier. But anybody that is willing to wait 18 months to save $20 or so is a bit silly in the head if they really like the game.

Steve

[kgsan]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Now, back to practical stuff...

We are not planning on 20 modules at $45 each. No way. We'll probably release 2-3 Modules per title with a price that seems fair for the content being provided. They will work seamlessly with the previous purchases, or at least as seamlessly within a particular front (I am not promising that you can play Americans vs. Russians just because we released Western and Eastern modules of some sort. Though we might!). You might never get as much content as you did for the past CMx1 games, but you'll have lots of other Battlefront CM type games to choose from instead. In short, you'll not be wanting for things to play even if we ONLY give you the Battle for St. Lo. (which I am not saying is the plan). . . .

Steve

One question which might clear up, or at least focus, some of the concerns (if y’all are ready to get into this type of detail . . .) is whether BFC is envisioning:

1) a series of modules which together would equal a single uber-front game in the CMx1 series (i.e. have most the units and terrain from the whole front), or

2) a series of modules, from perhaps different fronts, covering situations that the company thinks would make interesting (if smaller scaled) games, but which would not attempt to provide, even over the course of several modules, a “complete” front. From the comments so far, I am inclined to suspect the latter.

[Brent Pollock]

With all this talk of additional modules, I can just see that I'll be using some sort of multi-CD changer to keep up with all of my PBEM matches

[Ardem]

hahaha more CD drives to install.

Problem is steve the people on this forum are teh Hardcore, if your looking for the non hardcore better start posting on Age of Empires website heheheh.

If you think we whine you should take a look at those forums, I would be grateful if I were you hahahhaa.

Well it time to sit back wait and see I reckon, then when it come out trying what we can use and abuse what we can for meta-gaming. I wonder if any of the BFC guys ever played any meta-campaigns

[Kellysheroes]

Wow Steve, I'm thouroughly amazed you didn't sell as many copies of CMBB/CMAK as you did CMBO. I mean I'm a tough nut when it comes to buying computer games, but, your series as you said gave more than any other 3 wargames combined. How could anyone not buy all 3?

I don't even like the Russian front, but, I was right there waiting for my copy just because of all it offered. Now, I have as many different types of random generated battles as I want vs all types of units and countries.

I guess my percentages of 20% customer base loss wasn't so far fetched afterall if you are giving fair comparison figures to actual sales of the CMx1 titles.

Now, I'll give examples of why I like random generated battles and why it's a must for me in my purchases. Random adds that continous "whatif" to a game. A pre-set scenario or scenarios gets boring and stale. You eventually learn where everything is setup, where it's going to move (the ai), it's like playing the same game of chess over and over with no variations. With random at least in the CMx1 series, there's plenty of variation to what I will face, how I will deploy and of course the terrain changes from battle to battle and of course the AI handicaps. And being able to "buy" my units each battle just increases that randomness to the battle and the outcome. Many games though I just let the computer AI buy my units for me and I play what it gives me. This has unlimited value to me. It's what's made Battlefront the best game developer in the world to me.

And as far as saying if it doesn't have a random battle generator, I won't be buying the games, isn't a threat or a whine, it's just a buying preference fact in my case. I'm so addicted to random generators (blame it on Civilization I hehe) that if a game doesn't have one, I'm just very prone not to buy it. Except in the case of HPS Gettysburg which has 100's of scenarios and even the campaign game can play out differently each time through it. It's a different kind of random in that how you play one scenario determines the next scenario you play. I kinda like that also, but, it's still not as good as a pure random battle generator to me.

Even a game as old as "monopoly" has a random system to it in the "quick game rules", you get random properties at the start each time you play it, I always liked the quick game rules vs the regular game.

And as far as challenge, for each type of battle situation, I've always been able to handicap the AI enough to get a challenging game out of it. Oh, I know many think it's a cheat and whatnot, but, overcoming the odds has been part of real warfare for centuries, so, I don't mind giving the AI advantages as long as I feel challenged.

I'm not much into PBEM or internet games. I'm prety much a solitaire type player when it comes to computer games. Tried AOE online when it came out and there were so many hacks and cheats, just never enjoyed playing against humans. Humans are devious, they will cheat to win, they will lie, steal, lol, just about anything to win it seems even a mere game. I had a friend growing up when we played board wargames that would "slide" the dice everytime so he'd always get those 1's or 6's, we finally had to make him roll them out of a cup. lol KYLE ARE YOU OUT THERE? HAHA

With an AI, you already know what cheats it gets, it never deviates or adds its own cheats beyond that. Those I can deal with, human cheats I cannot.

So, my interests in CMx2 will of course be the randomness and the challenge level. Those are just my buying preferences, just hope you don't let me down. But, really "Doom Scorpions from Outer Space"? You really aren't going to make a module on that are you? lol I probably could deal with a "Storm Troopers" module though, had the AH version of that game.

[Andreas]

The moment CMx2 appears I will shell out €6000 or so on a new rig (I am thinking high-end G5 with a nice 30" LCD screen), the only reason being that I want to play it in style. At the moment I still keep my five year old G4/400 around, just so that I can play CMBB/AK.

I let a proper economist figure out what that indicates about my 'Willingness to Pay' for CMx2, and how it affects the market clearing price.

[ June 03, 2005, 02:11 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

If there were no random generator, I wouldn't even notice

Same here. I've never used it and have not the slightest intention of ever using it. Just a different style of play.

[shrug]

Michael

[Andreas]

What's a random battle generator?

Is Jim saying that my battles are not good enough for him?! Shock, horror, gasp!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

But, really "Doom Scorpions from Outer Space"?

It's Space Lobsters of Doom. Jeez, can't Texans get anything right?

Michael

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

No, you won't have to buy all the modules.

Steve-

Is my comparison to the (Initial + Modular) release strategy of the ASL series a fair comparison to your goal for CMx2?

-dale

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

If there were no random generator, I wouldn't even notice

Same here. I've never used it and have not the slightest intention of ever using it. Just a different style of play.</font>

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Andreas:

What's a random battle generator?

Is Jim saying that my battles are not good enough for him?! Shock, horror, gasp!

No problems with your creations, Andreas, as well as with several other good scenario designers.

Unfortunately not all designers are equally good; some are not so good and all can produce scenarios that are not to my taste (huge battles, for instance)

I just really like having that open-ended option of punching up something random, semi-random or specific, whenever I want.

Despite the defficiencies, the present generator can produce some nice surprises, although it requires a little work.

I'm curious as to why some folk have not tried it or don't even want to try it?

[Andreas]

I did. Did not like it and started to make my own scenarios.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Andreas:

The moment CMx2 appears I will shell out €6000 or so on a new rig

[...]

I let a proper economist figure out what that indicates about my 'Willingness to Pay' for CMx2, and how it affects the market clearing price.

I don't know about your 'willingness', but it sure does give one a clue of your 'capacity' . Sheesh. I hope BFC doesn't pick you as an average customer. But you're right though, it's time to start thinking about ze upgrade. That's gonna hurt.

About the QB generator, one thing that people seems to like a lot is to be able to control all parameters of a battle. Somehow the exact opposite thrill of a man made scenario, but useful for competitive play.

My 0,2 canadian cents

(€6000 = 9,188 CAD)

[ June 03, 2005, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]