Jump to content

Combat Mission: Gold


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Rocket-Man:

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

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I can't say this strongly enough or frequently enough, apparently, becuase you guys just don't seem to get it. CMx1 is dead and will not be brought back to life. Please, just let it go... you're wasting your time.

Steve

Well that should be clear enough to all and I guess there isn't a need for additional posts. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Bruce70:

A lot more businesses have gone under because they tried to do too much. "We are going to produce a game with everything that any customer has ever asked for" is a ridiculous business strategy.

I disagree with it being a lot more. And your straw man that a combined release of CMX1 would be "a game with everything that any customer has ever asked for" is singularly unconvincing.

Be that as it may, a lot of companies have ignored profitable business opportunities they could have easily profited from for one reason or another.

Too many people seem to be getting emotional about this whole discussion. Emotion really has nothing to do with it, it is strictly a business decision. It all boils down to one question: Could Battlefront make money with a combined CMX1 release and if so, would it be more money than they could make doing something else?

Unfortunately the answer seems to be that Battlefront refuses to even consider the idea.

[And before anybody points out once again that the programming staff at Battlefront is so small that they would have nobody to work on something like this, I will again point out that the coding could be done entirely out of house, even going so far as to have it done on a commission basis so no initial outlay of funds would be required]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by gibsonm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rocket-Man:

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

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I can't say this strongly enough or frequently enough, apparently, becuase you guys just don't seem to get it. CMx1 is dead and will not be brought back to life. Please, just let it go... you're wasting your time.

Steve

Well that should be clear enough to all and I guess there isn't a need for additional posts. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Rocket-Man:

Unfortunately the answer seems to be that Battlefront refuses to even consider the idea.

Maybe they considered it and the magic 8-Ball came up with "Are you effing kidding me?!? No."

Just because we don't like the answer doesn't mean we didn't get one. I mean come on - there's asking and dreaming, and then there's whining.

-dale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Rocket-Man:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rocket-Man:

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

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I can't say this strongly enough or frequently enough, apparently, becuase you guys just don't seem to get it. CMx1 is dead and will not be brought back to life. Please, just let it go... you're wasting your time.

Steve

Well that should be clear enough to all and I guess there isn't a need for additional posts. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all boils down to one question: Could Battlefront make money with a combined CMX1 release and if so, would it be more money than they could make doing something else?

Unfortunately the answer seems to be that Battlefront refuses to even consider the idea.

Your first point isn't quite true, there is also the factor of what there enjoyment factor would be. They seem to enjoy working with a new engine and really don't want to touch the old. So not only would the money have to better but it would have to be worthwhile to cover there distaste of working with what they see as an "inferior" design.

On the second topic Steve has said they have thought it over. The thing is they did the thinking many years ago (I believe he said the decision was done right after work on CM:BB began). As for outside contractors, again I believe he has pointed out that they see it as more work than it would be worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lt Bull:

Very intereting Timskorn. You are exactly the kind of customer I would of expected to be otherwise interested in CMx1 but didn't buy any of the sequels for the reason you mentioned.

Would you say you didn't buy the CM sequels was primarily becasue you were "sick" of the CMx1 concept (essentially WeGo gameplay) or was it for other reasons?

Can you perhaps mention what were the top 3 or 5 things in your list of reasons for buying the CC sequel CC2?

The main reason I bought and enjoyed CC2 over the original was the grand campaign, simple as that. It added much more meaning to each battle. If CC2 had simply been CC1 but in a different setting with different weapons, I wouldn’t have bought it. The graphics for CC2 were also updated, and the UI looked better. Overall, it gave me the impression I would be getting an entirely new game using the existing core model of CC1. I had no qualms about shelling over full price for it because I felt like I was getting a full product.

I felt like the sequels to CM1 were more like expansions. New environment and new weapons. Since I play a lot of other types of games a person like myself has to choose where to best spend their gaming money. I figured why spend money for a whole new game that I can get a fairly equal experience from the original?

And no, I didn’t tire of the WEGO. I loved that aspect of it. It was a tense, and INTENSE, experience to watch the battle develop in 60 second timeframes…and there was nothing you could do about it during that time. A very unique and entertaining experience.

I play RTS games and the RT aspect of Shock Force didn’t interest me. I see that word now and it just sounds so old and tired. Big deal. The setting didn’t excite me either. What can I say, I love WW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

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

I certainly understand the above point, but is there any chance that BFC would consider a fix for what is preventing CMBB and CMAK from running properly with the new Nvidia cards? I realize these are old games and certainly BFC has no obligation to maintain them at this late date. However, for old fans who would very much like to keep playing them until CMx2 WWII is released (2008-2009?) it would be a godsend.

I've CMAK installed on the computer that I'm writing this on. The video card is an 8800GTX w/WinXP and 162.18 drivers. The game runs fine here, with AA.

PoE [/QB]</font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Timskorn:

Why am I not too surprised by that very response? I too would echo much of what you said having also bought CC1 the CC2 (I stopped at CC3 as CC4 just blew) however it never stopped me from buying CMBB and CMAK after first buying CMBO. I was keen to play with the new features that were added each time but I did feel that I was also perhaps investing in a good gaming concept I hoped I was encouraging and would continue to be expanded upon by BFC into the next game engine iteration. I didn't exactly get that right. :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by kgsan:

PoE, my set up is an Intel Core 2 Duo Processor with 2 Gig of RAM, a 256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS, and running Windows Home Premium Vista 32bit. CMAK ran fine on my 5 year old rig with a Pentium IV and 128MB NVIDIA 4??? Video card on XP. Not sure what the source of the problem is, but from the CMx1 tech support forum it's clear I'm not alone. All my other old games run fine on the new rig. In any event if there were a possible solution from BFC it would be great. Simply hoping, not expecting.

Ahh, the tech support forum appears to indicate that the problem is with Windows Vista. Your post didn't indicate such, but I have to assume that this is the case. While I don't have a fix for you, I can offer you hope. This very well may not be an Nvidia problem but one that's owed to M$. If so, perhaps their Service Pack 1 for Vista will fix it. If not, I'd suggest the following:

1) Create at least two partitions on your HDD

2) Install WinXP to the first

3) Install Vista to the second

That setup will hold you over for a LONG time.

I realize that this is off topic. Then again, the entire thread is off topic. That it hasn't been moved is likely a sign of the respect that BF has for it's long-service customers. That so many of you have continued to heap mud on BF is likely a sign of how little respect that you have for them, UNLESS OF COURSE, BF BENDS TO YOUR WILL. Were they to do so, some folks might be more favorably disposed towards the developer and publisher, but I'd hardly characterize the relationship that ensued as one that was born out of respect.

PoE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Rocket-Man:

Again, why does every assume that a project like this would have to be accomplished by the existing staff at Battlefront? They could do what every business in the world does when it has a money making opportunity and does not have enough staff to do the job: Hire more help, contract it out or have somebody do it on a commission basis.

BFC is afraid of the support nightmare. It's easy to say "no support", but in practice that rarely works out. In particular if the code is as screwed up as indicated (which probably is not very much so compared to other stuff you see everywhere).

There are programmers out there who can quickly dig through and make changes to any code that basically works (CMx1 does work, and pretty well, no crashes etc.).

But the problem is that those programmers are sought after and can earn big bucks when some large corporation calls them to "port that mission-critical system running on our 50ties mainframe written in a language we don't know, and the last guy who worked on the stuff died 5 years ago and the only documentation we have is this stack of 3x5" cards that his daughter found in his nightstand. But we can't read them, they might be related to his hobby of Sumerian cuneiform script."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redwolf, right on.

Apart from uber-hackers (who as a group are extremely ill-suited to working alone on a game, in my opinion), if you hire contractors, you have to support them. Charles would be looking at several months of getting those programmers up to speed and supporting them over a theoretical 18-month project.

Really, that's how outsourced development works in the cases where a company needs that development to have a particular look and feel (like oh, say, a game with an existing fanbase and a "unique" presentation). Even providing them a spec to work from (because remember, there *isn't* one) is going to take Charles' and BFC's time.

Also, commission? On a product that probably wouldn't move all that many units? You'd have to be nuts.

I need to let this thread die, but there are a number of realities to development contracting and their product that BFC is apparently well aware of. Let's just assume that:

a) They've explored the alternatives.

B) They understand them.

c) They've made their decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, there no way to contract this out. That leaves "no pay unless finished".

So what happens if you give it to a programmer who finishes it or not and if he does he gets 1/3rd of the sales?

Possible scenarios:

</font>

  • It's a standard-issue programmer who doesn't get anywhere with the difficult source code.</font>
  • It's a total techhead who doesn't get anywhere for personal or business reasons, randomizes BFC and it's not his fault of course.</font>
  • It works out and the new game competes with future CM titles.</font>

You see the last scenario isn't as clear as you think. Surely you need to get some urgent bugfixes in, such as the fortifications victory points in CMBB. And the programmer might have his/her own ideas about auto-sneak-exhaustion and whatnot. Obviously you correct some armor values that were based on outdated research. There's a fine line between just bugfixing and improving.

[ August 21, 2007, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think though that this sums up many of us. We are nuts. How else do you explain our devotion (my wife would say obsession) with a game that has been out for 4 years.

Crazy as this sounds I would still pick up the gold edition if they produced it (and I still have 3 copies of CMAK sitting in my shelf that I have not been able to give away to interested friends yet).

My hope is that the CM:C will breath new life into the game and offer support (as they will have to, to support Vista etc) to maintain their product.

The Wego PBEM is the best implementation I have found yet and have convinced enough people that I have 3-4 PBEM games going at any one time. Will this devotion change BF’s mind, No, but it may give them pause for thought if CMx1 come up with an insurmountable problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would buy this - if it ever saw the light of day!

CM is a wasteland for me now.

CMBB and CMAK won't run on my Vista/nVidia8800 rig and CMSF (bought only out of loyalty to BFC - no interest in the subject at all) doesn't run well and is, frankly a disappointment and doesn't, for me, bode well for a WW2 iteration.

The whole CM experience is, sadly, starting to slip away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by RT North Dakota:

Well look what that group of clowns who had HARPOON managed to piss away!! - Would still play it today if I could find a decent editor for the platforms and weapons.

I know the UK and Australia, still use it as a teaching aid, and it's a fantasitically powerful basic system development tool.

Could you give me their address so I can hunt them down and kill them? I loved that game and was eagerly awaiting Harpoon IV. Bastards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Canada Guy. smile.gif I was just referring to a developer working on a low-sales-numbers project on commission as nuts, though. I don't think it's nuts to want to play your ideal game.

To work for 12-18 months, for *commission*, on something that you can't be sure will sell an appreciable number of units (what's the ceiling, 30-40,000? BFC would know and will have taken this into account, I'm sure)... that *is* nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

To work for 12-18 months, for *commission*, on something that you can't be sure will sell an appreciable number of units (what's the ceiling, 30-40,000? BFC would know and will have taken this into account, I'm sure)... that *is* nuts.

With no "real" changes that the dummies would see, only obscure bugfixes like victory points, armor values etc. and no new units over CMx1? I think you can take the highest forum member number as the ceiling.

On the bright side, there's no chance Paradox or CDV might even remotely be interested smile.gif

What's with these tossers and not releasing the patch, anyway? Do you guys have 1.02 yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...