Hype and Whining

[Ketil]

@thewood:

Do a search on Amazon for Brent Nosworthy.

He did a dissection of the tactical level of Napoleonic warfare.

You might also find Paddy Griffith of interest, though he may be harder to find in bookstores. My local library had a couple of his books much to my surprise.

Chandler is good as well, but is more of the larger picture for the most part.

[DaveDash]

I've heard the I'm a consumer and thus should be entitled to X.

Fact of the matter is, video games are actually pretty damn cheap. I don't know what you pay in the U.S. but a PC title in NZ ranges rom $80 to $120 bucks. I understand they're even cheaper in the U.S., which is where the big market is.

These days you really pay for what you get, I wouldn't actually mind paying more for a computer game (and keep the console games cheap) and got some real quality stuff.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Rick:

...However, this is a business that without some support from the customers, might disappear...

An interesting point. You know those "How old are you" threads that pop up periodically point out a glaring truth. Most guys who play wargames and read their forums are not in the "targeted demographic age" that generally purchase games. As a group we're most likely a sub class category for targeting by game publishers. If this is true than what should we do to encourage game developers to create games we want rather than what 30 million 12-18 year olds clamor for and purchase first day/full price?

[ December 03, 2007, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]

[C'Rogers]

I wouldn't actually mind paying more for a computer game

Well I think this is kind of the idea of the module system. We aren't going to hit nearly as many people but we will get the people we have to buy more per series.

[thewood]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

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

...However, this is a business that without some support from the customers, might disappear...

An interesting point. You know those "How old are you" threads that pop up periodically point out a glaring truth. Most guys who play wargames and read their forums are not in the "targeted demographic age" that generally purchase games. As a group we're most likely a sub class category for targeting by game publishers. If this is true than what should we do to encourage game developers to create games we want rather than what 30 million 12-18 year olds clamor for and purchase first day/full price? </font>

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by thewood:

If CMSF fails, someone else will come along. Maybe BFC stumbling a little and moving from CM1 will open up an opportunity for a ToW or Panzer Commander to refocus. [/QB]

That is certainly the law of market forces. Perhaps BFC stumbling a "little" with the resultant angry outcries excoriating them for even trying to expand their market appeal will actually make developers of TOW and Matrix products NOT wish to improve their products but simply play it safe and avoid losing this tiny market niche they try to eek out a living in. So the question remains: how do Niche consumers encourage Niche Developers to keep providing innovative games?

[thewood]

You seem to blame customers for not liking a product. I do not think there is some evil conspiracy to drive BFC out of business.

I have heard this arguement for years about letting good companies make bad product. Don't complain too loudly, you may drive them out of business and the where will we be. It is some kind of misguided loyalty.

The way companies stop making bad decisions and bad product is outcry and low sales. You usually have to have both. Look at GM, they made some great cars but really stunk it up in the 80s and 90s. Would they have changed if people stayed loyal for the sake of loyalty. Well guess what, they didn't change until late 90s. Then people realized GM wasn't going to change, so they went to Toyota. Now GM is changing. That is market force. Its imperfect, but it works in general.

I still remember interviewing a senior GM sales executive in 2000. When I mentioned GM's declining sales and Toyota's increasing sales, he blamed customers not getting how GM had invested so much money in product design, how it was driving cost out of its supply chain, how it was offering more options on new cars. He never once thought GM was the problem, it was all customers not getting it.

The way to stop the "stupid" customers from crying out is two things, communicate efficiently and have a good product. BFC has been spotty in communications, and the product was pretty screwed up on release.

If BFC wants people to not be influenced by the hue and cry, fix the damn demo! I bet that has driven more people away than anything any one can say on this forum.

[MarkEzra]

Two corrections first:

I have not blamed any customer. If blame need to be assigned it falls at the feet of the developer

I have not called any customer "stupid"

Certainly Low sales and high complaints will catch a companies attention. But unlike your example of GM, BFC acknowledged and set about correcting the product defects immediately. And continue to do so. BFC's Top management communicated directly with customers on a very regular basis. That is not the case at the moment. Seemingly a management decision to devote full time to their next effort to resolve customer complaints... V1.05. But certainly some customers will be angry at not having an update.

let's look at the GM customer pool. Any driver, anywhere may consider a Chevy. Surely that's 100 million people. How many autos are produced by GM each year? Frankly I don't know...perhaps you do. Could we agree that 100,000 units wouldn't be too far off? If GM produces bad quality vehicles and provides bad customer support then that 100 million people WILL look elsewhere. As we know, they did. Most car sales in the US this year is from a Japanese Company. Now the case of BFC is somewhat more problematic.

In a Niche market like Wargaming There only are a handful of developers, generally struggling to keep their business afloat. By enlarge I would expect a four year development of a new product would be out of the reach of most of these developers. Since realistically the price of their product can't be more than say $100 US dollars and units of sale in the thousands, not the millions, it would be Pretty tough to pour a whole lot of resources into R&D.

So what can the small pool of Wargame enthusiast do to encourage more and better game developers?

[thewood]

Continue buying broken product? I have no problem buying product that is not perfect. I especially don't mind if the company comes in and does a mea culpa and says we learned a hard lesson. I really expected BFC to do that after a week or so. What we got was being told we don't get it. Funny, we don't hear that any more.

btw, there are still plenty of companies producing and developing wargames, mostly along the BFC model, Matrix has dozens, BFC hosts quite few, Shrapnel has a lot. Those are just off the top of my head.

To answer your question, only buy games from companies that don't follow the big distribution model. Companies have been successful without it, and now have significant evidence that you really can't be successful with it. If you are trying to mainstream a product, distribution is a must. Wargames are not mainstream anymore and developers that think they are will have difficulty making that model work.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by thewood:

To answer your question, only buy games from companies that don't follow the big distribution model. Companies have been successful without it, and now have significant evidence that you really can't be successful with it. If you are trying to mainstream a product, distribution is a must. Wargames are not mainstream anymore and developers that think they are will have difficulty making that model work. [/QB]

And I certainly agree. Supporting the companies that produce game that I care about is the right way to go. Avoidance of mainstream marketing seems well advised, too. But to not be too much of a "Fan Boy" to your view, let me point out that the hugely successful Close Combat series was a MS product and to this day is ardently played and discussed. So it seems that some games CAN break through. The CM series did not. I noted earlier that BFC noted revenue slips with each release of CMx1. With a Great product, terrific reviews and an enthusiastic, loyal fan base, BFC was not able to increase revenue or market share. Really a quandary. Perhaps something all of us "Nichers" may want to consider.

I have appreciated your input on a pretty dry subject. But I've touched on all the points I had on the topic... Be my guest to have the final word

[thewood]

CC was what eight years ago. wargames were still on the edge of being mainstream. Even BFC eventually inked a distribution deal with CMBO. Today wargames as strategy games are pretty much dead as mainstream. BFC is competing against the likes of ArA and BF2. Even sims have become niche.

My advice is for anyone wanting to make wargames is have a 2nd job or income, don't plan on being rich, and don't try to be too fancy. Stick to your roots and deliver gameplay over graphics. Graphics seem to add a huge level of complication in the PC world and you can put out a good wargame with avereage graphics. If you make a wargamer go out and have to buy a PC to run your game, game over.

The only exception to that is if you can get the military to fund it, or part of it. That has been a somewhat successful model for companies like HPS. The only problem with that is it can easily pull you away from your roots and you can just become another contractor crushed by the Pentagon.

[dalem]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

So what do you think we can do to encourage small developers like BFC to produce the products we few care about?

Oh, I dunno. How about spending 7 years talking up the game via word of mouth whenever possible, buying multiple copies to give as gifts, forming and maintaining a thriving online and personal community with multiple national and international "nodes", creating and hosting thousands of scenarios and game mods for users on our own dimes, and engaging the developers with wish lists and suggestions?

No wait, we tried all that, and got no results.

So I guess the answer is "nothing".

-dale

[Dirtweasle]

You forgot to mention road-trips to various cities where customers got sneak peeks at new series releases like BB or AK.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

So what do you think we can do to encourage small developers like BFC to produce the products we few care about?

Oh, I dunno. How about spending 7 years talking up the game via word of mouth whenever possible, buying multiple copies to give as gifts, forming and maintaining a thriving online and personal community with multiple national and international "nodes", creating and hosting thousands of scenarios and game mods for users on our own dimes, and engaging the developers with wish lists and suggestions?

No wait, we tried all that, and got no results.

So I guess the answer is "nothing".

-dale </font>

[helm123]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

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

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

So what do you think we can do to encourage small developers like BFC to produce the products we few care about?

Oh, I dunno. How about spending 7 years talking up the game via word of mouth whenever possible, buying multiple copies to give as gifts, forming and maintaining a thriving online and personal community with multiple national and international "nodes", creating and hosting thousands of scenarios and game mods for users on our own dimes, and engaging the developers with wish lists and suggestions?

No wait, we tried all that, and got no results.

So I guess the answer is "nothing".

-dale </font>

[Guest]

CC: the series as a whole, maybe yeah. But there were gems in there -- CC2 and CC3 were GREAT. The AI wasn't perfect, it wasn't always balanced, but with a little work it was a fun game, especially if you were willing to create or use balance mods. Also, the campaigns, especially the grand campaigns, were great.

On-topic, though -- honestly I just don't care. I've been thinking about it for the past couple weeks and I can't see CMx2 going anywhere fast. I have moved on to other systems until I see an improvement.

That's not to say I won't buy BFC products, though. I will be pre-ordering HistWar when it comes out, certainly, and I've got an old SC PBEM rivalry that will be settled shortly with a fresh-from-the-box copy of SC2. I just will think twice about the CMx2 products.

Mark -- to me it sounds like other folks have gotten more involved in some aspects of the CM community than you have. You don't play ladders, etc. I'm not sure you fall into the hardcore MP contingent, which seems to be the folks that are really pushing at the moment. So when people say "they" didn't get results, perhaps they mean the "they" that aren't primarily talented scenario designers but are instead crazed MP fanatics?

I'm not sure which one of those groups BFC would prefer to have on their side, but I think crazed MP fanatics are probably a mean percentage of their userbase.

Anyway, just my musings as I sit and listen to an idiot here at work talk about something he doesn't understand.

Pip.

[MarkEzra]

[Guest]

Hey Mark. I know, or have surmised, most of that based on the statements of yourself and others.

That's why I think of you as a talented designer. Your recent post about your PBEM habits (in a convo with Abbott, if I remember correctly) led me to believe you were not a hardcore PBEM'r, as the case may be -- more "social" as you say it.

Regardless, thank you for taking the time to write all that up, I now have a much better appreciation for your contributions. I wish I had bios like that for all of the folks that were legends around here.

Lastly, cheers, no offense meant.

[Rick]

One thing that I wanted to add to the market forces discussion that has been going on here, is that there are some industries that respond strongly to other forces than those commonly considered "market forces." I suspect that wargaming is one of those. I apologize for bringing up the photography analogy again, but there are certainly decisions that I don't let market forces make for me, such as what subjects to photograph. I photograph that which I am passionate about.

I suspect that if wargaming were to reach the point where market forces were the only thing driving it, the genre would disappear entirely. This would be some of the logic for stating that the attitude we show developers might impact availability of the games, they're not just doing it for the money, as there isn't that much money in it. No one likes doing stuff for people when insults are the thanks you get. I'm not saying we should happily take our messed up CMSF and be happy, as there still is a customer/merchant relationship here. I'm only saying the attitude that has previously been called the "witch hunt" is quite likely counterproductive. BFC needs to know that we expect CMSF fixed and that we will most likely be more cautious with the next release, but I think that's about as far as the negativity needs to go.

[Guest]

I think you make a good point, Rick. I think, however, that for this product a bit of a "witch hunt" was in order. This product was botched.

If you bought a digital camera where, for example, image stabilization had been improved while the auto-focus (a staple of compacts at least) had been completely cut to make room for it, AND it was released early and would only randomly save every second or third picture that you took until they patched it, would you be happy?

Now, your analogy considers that this is a specialized camera. Okay -- it's a special high-altitude jungle bird camera. Only a few companies in the world make them. At best, maybe 50K people across the globe would want one, let alone buy one. Also, this model was the ONLY one with auto-focus, which you absolutely loved.

Do you tell the company, "Gee, I think this was bad. I'm going to be real careful about buying from you in future." Or do you rail on them until they get it fixed?

I'd rail. Because these guys made GREAT products in a tiny market, and they just took their previous standards and threw them out the window. If they don't bring their standards back up you, as a customer with no other options in the auto-focusing high-altitude jungle bird camera market, have no other real choices.

[dalem]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

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

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

So what do you think we can do to encourage small developers like BFC to produce the products we few care about?

Oh, I dunno. How about spending 7 years talking up the game via word of mouth whenever possible, buying multiple copies to give as gifts, forming and maintaining a thriving online and personal community with multiple national and international "nodes", creating and hosting thousands of scenarios and game mods for users on our own dimes, and engaging the developers with wish lists and suggestions?

No wait, we tried all that, and got no results.

So I guess the answer is "nothing".

-dale </font>

[Rick]

The only problem with that analogy is that for photographers a camera is a tool and a game is well, a game. Although, still not a bad point.

One thing causing disagreement is I think there are widely varying opinions on the state of the game at v1.04. I think we can all agree about initial release though.

Pro level cameras are kind of a niche market already. That's the main reason they cost so much, the camera companies just can't turn much volume with them.

[Guest]

Yeah, sorry, that was a horribly over-extended analogy. Glad the point still came across, though.

As for releases, well, the initial release is what we'd like never to see repeated. The later patches everyone expects. The state of the game as it stands now is primarily affected by the decisions they made when producing it, as opposed to the rush they were under to get it out the door.

Edit: Oops, meant to bring that analogy full-circle. Honestly, WEGO (the "auto-focus" of the analogy) is awesome. BFC had it, they rode to the top on it, and now they've killed their implementation of it. I'd be very interested to see where they go with its dead carcass.

[ December 03, 2007, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Phillip Culliton ]

[Rick]

Phillip, hope you didn't think I was insulted, just explaining that I would react differently to the two different situations.

My feelings on V1.04 are essentially what I was getting at in my fist post. I find it enjoyable and playable although I don't find it as wowing as CMx1. The thing is though in my mind I don't think that is much a problem with CMSF as it is the fact that CMBO was the first 3d, simultaneous execution, tactical level simulation, that tried to evaluate based on real math and data rather than assigned armor values, and it was pretty for a wargame too. CMSF is an evolutionary advancement on that rather than completely innovative. In other words, CMSF is a good game that had expectations placed upon it that are impossible to live up to.

Even though I like CMSF, I really wish BFC had applied their innovation to a completey different sub-genre of wargame. Like see what they could do revamping their air combat games perhaps. Apply their innovation to operational or strategic gaming.