M113 ?

[John Kettler]

I saw three M113s in that vid. There was one functioning one on the road in desert tan and two wrecked ones on HET trailers. Of these, one was still on its tracks, while the other had neither tracks nor rubber on its bogey wheels. Noticed also how heavy the body armor's gotten. One sequence clearly showed three fully kitted out soldiers, complete with the much discussed groin armor plate.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ May 16, 2008, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Dragon67]

Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dragon67:

This is an interesting new vid on Youtube. Check out the two shots of M113 followed by a Stryker at 4:24 and 4:27 consecutively. I had to do a double take on the Stryker because with the wheels gone I thought it was a LAV without treads at first. Very sad.

Ummm... Those are both M113's. </font>

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[M1A1TC]

I think that was the plan, but since so many things in CMSF were broken at launch and still being fixed, putting in extra vehicles is on the back burner.

There are things they could fix in a matter of hours, but since the fix list is huge, we have to wait months and months for a certain fix a lot of people want (Quick Battles for example)to be fixed

[JasonC]

On econ, I don't think you understand it as well as you suppose. You've got one Marine module for CMSF then on the WW II, right? With tons of core game engine upgrade requests, and presumably lots of serious modeling changes for WW II (e.g. C3I, towing guns, etc). And you think the way to maximize resale value of extra content is to have just two people (programmer and artist) slowly add things that literally hundreds of users would give you for free? How about next, you try to argue that the way to sell the maximum number of games is to have only one scenario, designed by you, per release?

Value is being added in gobs by your vibrant user community. In the form of scenarios and support and mods and opponents. The same sorts who made entire Pacific mods for CMAK would happily add every vehicle in NATO and the Warsaw Pact from 1947 to the present, long after you've moved on to WW II - if Charles spent 2 weeks making that possible and writing automated test files, instead of adding 1-3 extra vehicles. Where is the comparative advantage? In throttling fans as though they are cheapskates who have to be milked five times? Or in letting them provide each other 20 times the content? Why'd you release a map editor again?

By all means, exercise editorial control. Let user submitted vehicles go through an automated test battery and back to the submitter with annotated failures. Let beta testers bang on sets of them rolled into themed groups. Get up a dozen or two scenarios showing them off before releasing a batch of new additions.

But you really needn't worry about whether CM fans will buy a WW II version if you make one and it has extra features and core engine bugs are being stomped. Nor need you worry that your two people, one coding engine upgrades, are going to run out of content to add, so you have to be careful not to use it all up, or something. You'll retire first.

Apparently, we do need to worry that we'll only have a thin slice of modern weapons by the time you've move on, probably for several years, to WW II. And that we will never get a tenth of them. And that the same will occur in WW II. Sometime around 2020, maybe we'll have a third of the items needed for a good Kiev-Zhitomir operation scenario pack. Oh wait, we already do.

Which is why I am currently merrily making more CM scenarios for your users. CMBB ones, that is.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Dragon67,

BTW- you know that could not have been Iraq seeing as to how the devs here claim there is not an M113 within 10,000 miles of Syria...

No, I just said the ones that are don't matter from our perspective. Just like the fact that my money at my local bank is near millions of other Dollars. It's a fact, but when I go to withdraw money only my account balance seems to be relevant

Adam1,

Wasn't one objective of the new model (CM2) that you would be able to have Dan adding models without slowing down development? I guess I'm not really sure how it works or what the trade-offs are at this point.

No, the point was to make it as streamlined as possible. And yes... believe it or not, it is a LOT more efficient than it was before. It used to take Dan, Charles, *and* me to get them in. And whenever any bitty, tiny thing needed to be tweaked... all three of us had to be involved. That's not true now.

But Dan's time per model increased dramatically in some ways. Thousands of polygons vs. hundreds, the need for 4 LODs instead of 2, having to "code" for hatches, needing to specify crew positions/responsibilities, plot out where the vehicle systems are that can be hit/damaged/destroyed, etc.

Remember... we did not say we were putting less breadth in the game and less depth... we said less breadth and MORE depth. The extremely detailed models are a big part of that.

M1A1TC,

I think that was the plan, but since so many things in CMSF were broken at launch and still being fixed, putting in extra vehicles is on the back burner.

No, we've been quite clear about this... what ships with the game in terms of units is all that will be in there. We are not patching in units for free. Otherwise there would be nothing for the Modules, right?

There are things they could fix in a matter of hours, but since the fix list is huge, we have to wait months and months for a certain fix a lot of people want (Quick Battles for example)to be fixed

There's another reason... the QBs that people want would take us months to program and test before releasing (and then have the complaint cycle start fresh ).

JasonC

On econ, I don't think you understand it as well as you suppose.

Sure, it's a possibility. But I think there's a greater chance you don't know what you're talking about since I've done this for 15 years and you haven't and, more importantly, the decisions I make matter and yours have no relevance since you have no stake in this other than your $45, which of course you want the sky for.

You've got one Marine module for CMSF then on the WW II, right? With tons of core game engine upgrade requests, and presumably lots of serious modeling changes for WW II (e.g. C3I, towing guns, etc). And you think the way to maximize resale value of extra content is to have just two people (programmer and artist) slowly add things that literally hundreds of users would give you for free? How about next, you try to argue that the way to sell the maximum number of games is to have only one scenario, designed by you, per release?

Completely faulty logic to support a particular bias you have which is, in short, to have everything you could possibly imagine for $45. Having dozens of units to play with and one scenario would mean having all those dozens in at once. Likewise, having one unit on each side and billions of maps is more feasible, but quite dull. Having dozens of units on each side and unlimited scenarios is a complete game experience.

Value is being added in gobs by your vibrant user community. In the form of scenarios and support and mods and opponents.

Value is added to the players once they have already purchased the game. We don't see a dime from this. And no, I do not think that someone decides to buy our games based on what Mods are available. I've seen no evidence of that.

The same sorts who made entire Pacific mods for CMAK would happily add every vehicle in NATO and the Warsaw Pact from 1947 to the present, long after you've moved on to WW II - if Charles spent 2 weeks making that possible and writing automated test files, instead of adding 1-3 extra vehicles. Where is the comparative advantage?

For us... staying in business, which if you were 1/2 as smart as you think you are would register as a major concern for you too. Oh wait... once you have the sandbox you don't need us anymore. So what was your point again?

In throttling fans as though they are cheapskates who have to be milked five times? Or in letting them provide each other 20 times the content?

So what you are saying is that Disney should allow you to buy a lifetime pass for Disney World for $10 and allow you to come in and visit it as many times as you like in exchange for you making pictures of Mickey and Minney in different and amusing costumes?

This is the thing... we are an entertainment company. We give a certain amount of entertainment per product we make and sell. If there isn't enough content in there to entertain, then we have a flop. If we have enough the game sells well. That's the bottom line and we have no obligation, nor economic incentive, to give more. You have no right to more. If you don't agree, then don't buy the game. That's the decision you have to make.

Why'd you release a map editor again?

Because without it there wouldn't be enough content. With it there is.

By all means, exercise editorial control. Let user submitted vehicles go through an automated test battery and back to the submitter with annotated failures. Let beta testers bang on sets of them rolled into themed groups. Get up a dozen or two scenarios showing them off before releasing a batch of new additions.

So you are saying that not only should we give away the farm for $45, but then we should invest more money in managing the stuff that results from it without any further economic incentive? Yeah, what a good idea.

But you really needn't worry about whether CM fans will buy a WW II version if you make one and it has extra features and core engine bugs are being stomped. Nor need you worry that your two people, one coding engine upgrades, are going to run out of content to add, so you have to be careful not to use it all up, or something. You'll retire first.

No, we'll see declining sales of future games because people will have had their fill with the previous one. CMBB took 2 years to make and was significantly different than CMBO. It sold less, yet it had tons more content. CMAK then came out and was a significant improvement over CMBO as well, yet few people that bought CMBO also bought CMAK. Why? Because the itch was scratched and could still be scratched enough if they wanted to do that. By your reasoning sales should have been going up or remaining flat, not declining.

Apparently, we do need to worry that we'll only have a thin slice of modern weapons by the time you've move on, probably for several years, to WW II. And that we will never get a tenth of them.

Boo-hoo, you're breaking my heart. Check the advertising that comes with CM:SF... it's $45 for the Syrian setting you got. If you don't like that, don't buy it. If you don't want the Marines stuff, don't buy that either. If you don't want the Brits, take a pass on that too. It's your choice.

Which is why I am currently merrily making more CM scenarios for your users. CMBB ones, that is.

Which nets me zero in the bank, doesn't it? The funny thing with you "give everything away for free" guys is that you always end your arguments by highlighting the economic disincentive in giving away too much as if that proves your point, when in fact it proves ours.

Adam1

The price would have to go up quite a bit if that was the case though, it'd be worth a lot more than $45 bucks.

Not according to JasonC's logic, which is "I want it all and don't want to pay for it" mentality. You are correct, however, that we could sell CM:SF for $125 and open it up to endless modding. The downside is we'd probably sell about 1/10th as many copies, making the 3 fold increase per unit sold hardly worth it.

I'm also "concerned" (love this game too much?) that many systems won't make it in before it's time to move on to WW2.

The plan has always been to have parallel development going on. Then, when the engine itself has advanced significantly enough, we'll upgrade the game environment for that particular genre (or what we call "family") of products. Meaning, we are actively developing content for the contemporary setting long after WWII comes into play. And why not? The customer overlap between contemporary warfare and WWII isn't that large, so it's feasible to have parallel development going on. In fact, that's what we designed the CMx2 code base to do.

You're mistaking a critical eye for lack of love there.

I prefer critical eyes comments with perspective side by side, otherwise it sounds like complaining. Hmmmm... deja vous... I swear I had this same exchange 6 or 7 years ago

One comment on free improvements: we should expect that the original CMSF should be freely patched until it works the way it aimed for. Nearly there, not totally, but really close... That's a half full comment for you

Thanks, and yes... that's why we put the Marines Module and WWII development on hold for so many months. We wanted to make sure we were taking care of our current obligations rather than getting ready to fleece the masses (as JasonC likes to view it) with new content.

However, there is no reason the customer should expect to get expansions to the *engine* to be free.

Cool... so you want to take over arguing with JasonC for me?

There is probably a whole bunch of potential buyers out there who would be more interested in a whole new theatre module rather than a force branch/unit module, for example, and would be willing to pay maybe 40+ bucks for it. Who knows.

Oh, I definitely agree. I can tell you that this will happen. I'm sure I've even said this in the past, but in case I haven't made it clear enough... the contemporary setting will indeed move into the temperate zone. When we do that the Syrian setting, by definition, goes away. What will the Red forces look like? I dunno... but did you catch wind of that parade last week? We did.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Now, I want it to be clear to Modders out there that we like the work you do because it does enhance the quality of the game experience for many (which is JasonC's main point, supposedly) without compromising our ability to be around next year as we are this year and have been for the last 8 or so years. What we're against is creating an extremely expensive, unique product and selling it for far less than it costs to make and support. Or packaging it up in a way that requires a huge up-front pricetag that will scare away all but the most hardcore of gamers (and those who are willing to put their money where their mouth is too). To try either of these approaches only to basically have to immediately start all over again so we can remain in business just isn't something we will do. If we were forced to do things JasonC's way we'd quit and do something more worth-while with our time. Yup, the idea is about as appealing to us as eating a handful of strychnine. It doesn't matter if you think it's Kool-Aide and we should have a go anyway

The free market acts as judge and jury, but it is the strength of the product that makes the case and, therefore, determines if the free market is also the executioner So if you feel that I'm defending our vision of CM strongly it's because you're correct. Our livelihood depends on the validity of our decisions, therefore there isn't anything more important to us as a company. So if I sometimes sound rather down on people's flights of fancy, it's because we aren't interested in self destructive behavior in the name of short term gain for a few customers. Long term everybody is better off if we're still around for years to come.

Steve

[ May 16, 2008, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

What will the Red forces look like? I dunno... but did you catch wind of that parade last week? We did.

Steve

You first heard it here guys.

[John Kettler]

Hurrah! Topol-Ms are in! Actually, that's great news, Steve (via Normal Dude). Speaking of that parade, did anyone find a good set of shots? Just got to see the force arrival stuff some nine days before.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

"If you don't like that, don't buy it."

Didn't have to, as it happened. Quirky thing is, some people buy games to play them with other people.

"If you don't want the Marines stuff, don't buy that either."

Not planning on it.

"If you don't want the Brits, take a pass on that too."

Wilco.

I'd say in the original CM, about a quarter of the value came from modeling breath in an art and extra vehicles sense, which certainly hit the saturation point for me around CMBB (though I happily bought CMAK). The main ideas of the design were easily another quarter and there throughout, and of course most interesting when new advances, in CMBO. The editor and QB system alone, were another quarter, most of that value already there in CMBO, some dependent on the model breath of the later titles. The community adding endless scenarios (mods too, but for me anyway the scenarios were a bigger deal), easily another quarter, and essentially there all along, though growing with time as made scenarios and secondary web services accumulated in the ecosystem.

Once all an extra module was adding, was more of the first, naturally the marginal value to a buyer was small.

When I asked about comparative advantage, you said "staying in business", which shows no understanding of the term. Anyone can provide some value to others by laboring enough on things they want done. But if others could do the same, while not being able to provide services of as high a value, then it is a mistake for those with more options for adding value, to focus on those tasks. Charles shouldn't be making models, let alone scenarios, for example.

Users can make scenarios easily from free, given an editor. So it would be silly for your limited supply of workers to spend their time making scenarios all day, trying to add content in that fashion. Clearly, a game with tons more good scenarios available is more valuable to the users, and therefore sells more. Your "we don't see a dime" from that is just nonsense - the demand for your games is higher, more are sold, because of such things. If you had only 3 scenarios per module no one would buy them, etc.

There is no economic reason for adding art and models to be any different. Technically it might be a bit more demanding, and might require more in the way of review infrastructure (though most of that could be code). But the economics of it are the same - you get a lot of added content added for all users free - actually through those people's labor voluntarily donated of course. That added content is valuable to other users who are more likely to buy the game as a result. They are also more likely to play it longer and be around for the next offering.

Instead the idea of limiting the content to what one artist can do in an attempt to raise its scarcity value, is a typical "restrictionist" mistake, exactly parallel to producing as little of a product as possible in an attempt to raise its per unit price. It fails in the presence of substitutes. Don't provide enough and yes, those who want the thing most will still be around and will repay for it. But others who would have bought more content, won't, when the content fails to clear what they can get from substitutes.

In my own case, money has nothing to do with it. The amounts are simply trivial. The rate determiner is my gaming time. CMSF content, as yet, doesn't come close in breadth or interest to CMBB. No amount of content restriction or salami slicing can change that. Content unrestriction potentially could. But others will have different specific preferences (like modern more, novelty, like the new engine more, etc) and thresholds.

That is the demand cloud. Econ tell us that providing more overall and providing it efficiently (user added content adding very little to total real cost) will reach farther into that cloud and sell more copies, just like lowering the price would. With what elasticity, it doesn't say.

The point about moving on to WW II soon was, you aren't retaining even salami content slicing value if you never add the content yourselves, in some new module. If other labor input constraints and higher subject demand make you move on, content left undone in the old area is not being used at all.

You've elaborately told us at great length you'll never get around to adding various things. Them being done by others would move demand farther out into the more-content area, them not being done isn't going to let you sell another module containing them, since you'll never get to it. Naturally, you could plan timing of release of editors with that in mind.

Personally I don't expect you to figure these things out and execute on them. But not because the opportunity isn't there.

[Dennis50]

Does this all mean goodbye?

Gunz

[M1A1TC]

Steve

How about making users pay for extra content like many other game do? Say if someone wants that M113? Sell it for $4-5. Someone wants that MAUS model? Pay $4-5. Someone wants Bridges? Sell it for $10

Does this sound feasable? Or how about allowing someone in this community who is a 3-D moddeler create models, and you can sell them, just pay them commission or something.

[mikewhol]

I'd do the models for no fee.

I am an experienced in 3d Max, and have a few commercial projects under my belt already.

Only thing I would ask for is the credit for doing the work.

[M1A1TC]

There you go Steve

Someone is willing to make models for free. All you have to do is to sell them and make money. Seems like a good deal, and gamers get what they want - extra content like M113s

[JasonC]

GunzAbeam - goodbye from who? Not me certainly. I'm happily making CMBB scenario packs, and occasionally trying new CMSF situations.

[Combatintman]

Jason C,

One minute you're whining about lack of content and then say you're not planning on buying the Marines or the British Module both of which will add extra vehicles and TO&Es?

Hardly a reasoned argument is it?

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by M1A1TC:

There you go Steve

Someone is willing to make models for free. All you have to do is to sell them and make money. Seems like a good deal, and gamers get what they want - extra content like M113s

There is a danger of splintering the community too much by the availability of "mini mods" if you want to call them that. Think about the problems it could cause Multi-player and scenario design.

[M1A1TC]

All you would need is an automatic mod download. Have you ever played free multiplayer game Enemy Territory? When you attempt to get into a match, it downloads any mods needed automatically. It can be done with CMSF as well

An if your opponent really wants to play, it will be a greater incentive to pay for those extra units that you have

[Battlefront.com]

Combatintman,

Hardly a reasoned argument is it?

Sure it is, but it it's obscured by false justifications. JasonC wants everything and he wants it for $45. So to him it's more important to spend no more than $45 in total rather than to have more game content to play with.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

JasonC,

When I asked about comparative advantage, you said "staying in business", which shows no understanding of the term.

Man, just when I thought you couldn't be more of an arrogant know-it-all... you top my expectations. Congrats (I guess).

Anyone can provide some value to others by laboring enough on things they want done. But if others could do the same, while not being able to provide services of as high a value, then it is a mistake for those with more options for adding value, to focus on those tasks. Charles shouldn't be making models, let alone scenarios, for example.

Obviously, which is why Charles doesn't make the models. Dan does that. He doesn't make the textures, other people do that. Heck, Charles doesn't do most of the game research and game design, not to mention sales support, marketing, or much of anything else other than higher level direction and coding. So yeah, I think we do understand the point that programmers should program.

Users can make scenarios easily from free, given an editor. So it would be silly for your limited supply of workers to spend their time making scenarios all day, trying to add content in that fashion. Clearly, a game with tons more good scenarios available is more valuable to the users, and therefore sells more. Your "we don't see a dime" from that is just nonsense - the demand for your games is higher, more are sold, because of such things. If you had only 3 scenarios per module no one would buy them, etc.

Correct, which is what I already said. I also said that your analogy is flawed:

"Completely faulty logic to support a particular bias you have which is, in short, to have everything you could possibly imagine for $45. Having dozens of units to play with and one scenario would mean having all those dozens in at once. Likewise, having one unit on each side and billions of maps is more feasible, but quite dull. Having dozens of units on each side and unlimited scenarios is a complete game experience."

There is no economic reason for adding art and models to be any different.

Sure there is. The upfront investment in the game engine itself is not paid for by any one single release. There simply aren't enough of you guys out there interested in this sort of thing to do that. So either we radically reduce the game engine's features or we get more money out of the pockets of the people that want such games. The delicate balance is to make sure that the individual feels like he gets his money's worth out of each thing he purchases. If he plays the game for several months, he's more than got $45 worth of entertainment. Anything over that is simply gravy. Therefore, there is a need to make sure that there is that amount of content in there to enjoy, there is no need to put in any more.

Technically it might be a bit more demanding, and might require more in the way of review infrastructure (though most of that could be code).

Coding takes time, which is even more time that needs to be compensated in a monetary way. It also needs to be supported, which further extends things.

But the economics of it are the same

No, they are not. But you're not a businessman, are you? You're at least not a niche wargame developer, right? So yeah, I'm not surprised you aren't on the same page as us. You're not even reading the same book.

Instead the idea of limiting the content to what one artist can do in an attempt to raise its scarcity value, is a typical "restrictionist" mistake, exactly parallel to producing as little of a product as possible in an attempt to raise its per unit price. It fails in the presence of substitutes.

No, it fails because the perceived value is lower than the actual price. It is also only possible to maintain a given engine for a certain length of time before it slides into mediocrity or discontinuation through lack of sales. I can point to several games like that and, in fact, entire companies if you like.

Don't provide enough and yes, those who want the thing most will still be around and will repay for it.

Or provide enough and people willingly, if not happily, purchase the extra content because they were satisfied with the value of their existing purchase. This is the majority of gamers out there, even wargamers. Most companies release "battle packs" and what not, some of which are nothing more than scenarios.

But others who would have bought more content, won't, when the content fails to clear what they can get from substitutes.

True enough. That's why it is important to have enough value for the Dollar. When competition comes around the value equation probably changes.

In my own case, money has nothing to do with it.

So on principle you won't expand the content for CM:SF? Well, each to his own then.

That is the demand cloud. Econ tell us that providing more overall and providing it efficiently (user added content adding very little to total real cost) will reach farther into that cloud and sell more copies, just like lowering the price would. With what elasticity, it doesn't say.

This is the first thing you've said that I agree with. Which is why we've increased the ability of CMx2 to deliver more (quantity and diversity) quicker than CMx1 ever could. It's tough for you to see that now because we're just getting started on that.

The point about moving on to WW II soon was, you aren't retaining even salami content slicing value if you never add the content yourselves, in some new module. If other labor input constraints and higher subject demand make you move on, content left undone in the old area is not being used at all.

Correct, which is why content will continue to be added to CM:SF as we move onto and push into WWII.

You've elaborately told us at great length you'll never get around to adding various things. Them being done by others would move demand farther out into the more-content area, them not being done isn't going to let you sell another module containing them, since you'll never get to it. Naturally, you could plan timing of release of editors with that in mind.

And everybody that wants to see games from us in the future should be thankful We'll just keep doing what we do best... bumble along for another 10 years in an industry that tends to kill off even the "best" wargame companies within 5-10 years. But hey... what do we know about staying in business, right? We're just silly guys who do this for a living instead of someone with know knowledge, experience, or risk for being wrong.

Prove me wrong... start up a wargame company and do it your way. Then we'll talk. Otherwise all you are doing is saying the same thing you've been saying all along... you want it all and you only want to pay $45 for it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

mikewhol,

I'd do the models for no fee.

I am an experienced in 3d Max, and have a few commercial projects under my belt already.

Only thing I would ask for is the credit for doing the work.

That's a very generous offer! We actually need 3D Max guys from time to time for contract work. Email me about that.

But the problem here is what you suggest fixes only one of two of JasonC's beefs with our model. He not only wants more stuff faster, he doesn't want to pay for it. Fundamentally he wants more than $45 should ever cover.

M1A1TC,

Someone is willing to make models for free. All you have to do is to sell them and make money.

It's not that simple...

Sequoia,

There is a danger of splintering the community too much by the availability of "mini mods" if you want to call them that. Think about the problems it could cause Multi-player and scenario design.

Yes, this would indeed happen. Even if...

M1A1TC,

When you attempt to get into a match, it downloads any mods needed automatically.

Which would then require that person to pay, of course. This requires other things which in turn can break, need to be maintained, go wrong, etc. It's not out of the question, but it's not desirable because Sequoia's point about fractioning the customer base is still true. Worse, even, than Modules could ever do. Now instead of having a couple of variables ("do you have Module 1 and 2, or just 1?") the ability to play a scenario made by another player is now approaching random. The ability for the scenario maker to ensure that a wide range of people can play it is totally eliminated.

For us, having single units/vehicles be purchased on a case by case basis ("unit a la carte") is more viable than getting them for free. But it isn't really attractive to us for other reasons.

Steve

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

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

What will the Red forces look like? I dunno... but did you catch wind of that parade last week? We did.

Steve

You first heard it here guys. </font>

[JasonC]

"Hardly a reasoned argument is it?"

Sure it is. There isn't that much content in CMSF yet. There is enough in CMBB to take all of my gaming time. That is the bar all the accumulated CMSF content has to clear in my personal case. If at some future point, there is enough in CMSF to make it as interesting as CMBB, perhaps I'll devote most my gaming time to CMSF.