'Card Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 I realize this has probably been discussed over and over again on this forum, but I missed those conversations and a thread search turned up a lot that was irrelevant and nothing that was pertinent to the actual question - so I thought I'd toss it out there and see if any of you old-timers could explain the reasoning. In a nutshell, what's BFC's problem with mods? To clarify - I'm not talking about 'mods' as in 'skinning'. I'm talking 'mods' as in "taking the basic game and adding troops, vehicles, weapons, buildings and terrain to it." Real mods, in other words. The gaming industry as a whole has embraced user-generated content. Admittedly It took awhile to get there, but (most) developers have finally realized that allowing (even encouraging) community-made mods adds significant 'legs' to the basic game. Not to mention the fact that a thriving mod community can really pump a game's sales by creating a wide variety of 'games' all based on the same engine, all of which require the basic game, and some of which will appeal to a segment of the market that wasn't interested in the original. If my recent thread 'Am I the only guy here who is sick of WW2?' illustrated anything, it's the fact that there are people in this community who would dearly love to see the CMx2 engine utilized for just about any conflict, real or hypothetical, from near-future US versus China all the way back to Clubs versus Rocks. So why exactly doesn't BFC want to capitalize on that kind of interest? What we're talking about is basically a win-win situation for them. It's essentially free labor, and if a user-generated mod sucks, the modder gets blamed and it doesn't reflect negatively on BFC at all. If a mod is great, it adds value and sales to their product. As I said, I'm sure this has been discussed, and I'm sure their reluctance has been explained. I'm even reasonably certain that there is probably a good reason for it - these obviously aren't dummies, after all. I just can't find the right thread and I was hoping someone could give me the rundown. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 You are right it has been discussed a thousand times. Skinning and sounds that's all you can do. Here's a recent answer from Steve to a similar question: Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Hi guys, Yeah, opening up the data and models is not on our agenda. We're too small to survive doing that. We've had lengthy, and sometimes heated, debates with people and it's never convinced us that it is in our best interests to open up the modding to that degree. Remember, once we let the genie out of the bottle there is no putting it back in. If we let you guys into CM:SF then we have to completely rewrite the way data and models work in CM:WW2 or it will be as equally open to modification. As I said, that's a good way to not get anything else out of us because we'll be out of business. I do hope we can add more variety to skins like allowing scenarios to, by default, look for specific MODs instead of requiring the player to overwrite before playing. This means someone can make a scenario with, say, 3ID soldiers and as long as you have that MOD the game will use it, otherwise it will use the default. I don't know when this will happen, though. Could be quite a while. Steve You might like to read the whole thread: Mods and so on -- 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Card Posted December 29, 2007 Author Share Posted December 29, 2007 Crap. That thread was just a few weeks ago and I missed it - but I appreciate the link, Ww. That's exactly what I was wondering about. While I have to say I disagree with BFC's conclusion, reading their thoughts on the topic certainly answered my question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luderbamsen Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 There are pros and cons to everything, this issue included. For one thing, CM isn't your run-of-the-mill game and there is an awful lot more to accurately modeling a particular unit than damage value, hitpoints and rate of fire. Bickering aside, this thread is an example of a drawback. I'd like Aussie troops too and reskinned troops and vehicles just don't cut it. I appreciate the visual quality of skin mods but it doesn't really change anything. But as always, I'm mainly interested in content. I want content. I want authenticity and high quality. I'm not going to bother with something that isn't BFC quality (or at least very close to it) just because it's free and the person(s) who made it aren't proffessionals. I don't give a hoot if it's made by BFC, modders or some 3rd party commercial entity. I just want plenty of good content on a regular basis and I'm more than willing to pay for it. BFC would undoubtedly love to produce tons of content for me, but profitability is an obvious issue (and even if it was profitable, adding numerous members to the staff would have problems all of their own). Basically, I'm not saying "Give me mods" but rather "give me content". How and by whom doesn't matter to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
76mm Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 I don't give a hoot if it's made by BFC, modders or some 3rd party commercial entity. I just want plenty of good content on a regular basis and I'm more than willing to pay for it. BFC would undoubtedly love to produce tons of content for me, but profitability is an obvious issue (and even if it was profitable, adding numerous members to the staff would have problems all of their own). Basically, I'm not saying "Give me mods" but rather "give me content". How and by whom doesn't matter to me.In another thread, Steve said that BFC is considering allowing "licensed" individuals or groups to develop content. I have no doubt that there is a critical mass of hard-core players with the skills to develop high-quality content, and given the constraints on BFC's resources, this is the only way we're going to see anything with even a small fraction of the breadth and scope of CMBB (for instance). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLM2 Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 At least let the first engine be modded. There's so much potential being thrown in the trash in the old engine and I really dont like the new one, its completely foreign gameplay. I've been playing talonsoft's campaign series im so disturbed Im getting my moneys worth out of the mousepad however, got tired of using my bedsheets as a mousepad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Well I guess they take the position that its their intellectual property and they don’t want to put it in the public domain. Certainly when we had our CMAK Australian version developed we had to pay for it, not just get the source code and start playing with it. Perhaps if you contact Steve and suggest a number to write on your cheque? Oh and Happy New Year for tomorrow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Card Posted December 30, 2007 Author Share Posted December 30, 2007 Perhaps, but it's hard to ignore examples like MadMinute Games. It's not a perfect comparison to BFC, but is similar in that they're a small group targeting what has to be considered a 'niche' market. Their first game TC:Bull Run got some good reviews and sold fairly well. Their second game TC:2nd Manassas, was really little more than an expansion pack (new units, new battlefields, some tweaks to the engine) so you'd normally expect it to sell to the same people who bought the first one, right? Instead the sales of the second game have far outstripped the first, and as I understand it MM feels the primary reason for the increase is that they opened the second game up for mods. It's literally exploded what you can do with the basic game, and seems to have drawn in a lot of buyers who may or may not have been interested in the ACW. It's not just gaming, you know. Paradigms are shifting all over the place and consumers not only like, but are growing accustomed to having some influence and creative stake in their entertainment. Mods seem to me like one way that impulse gets channeled (and utilized by forward-thinking developers) in the gaming community. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Sure, but at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter what you think (or I or anyone else on the forum not associated with BTS / BFC thinks), if BTS / BFC wants to keep control of it then that is their decision to make, no matter how right or wrong you may feel it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Originally posted by 'Card: Perhaps, but it's hard to ignore examples like MadMinute Games. It's not a perfect comparison to BFC, but is similar in that they're a small group targeting what has to be considered a 'niche' market. Their first game TC:Bull Run got some good reviews and sold fairly well. Their second game TC:2nd Manassas, was really little more than an expansion pack (new units, new battlefields, some tweaks to the engine) so you'd normally expect it to sell to the same people who bought the first one, right? Instead the sales of the second game have far outstripped the first, and as I understand it MM feels the primary reason for the increase is that they opened the second game up for mods. It's literally exploded what you can do with the basic game, and seems to have drawn in a lot of buyers who may or may not have been interested in the ACW. [snip]Maybe I missed this on their site, but it looks like the only modding going on is for things that you can already mod in CM - new maps and new scenarios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Card Posted December 31, 2007 Author Share Posted December 31, 2007 Originally posted by gib: Sure, but at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter what you think (or I or anyone else on the forum not associated with BTS / BFC thinks)Obviously. In fact, you could say exactly that about 90% of the things that are discussed here - but this is a forum where people have conversations. It's not (or shouldn't be, anyway) simply a feedback system where people try to sway BFC's opinion one way or another. In fact, if that's all it was then I wouldn't bother posting here. I do post here because I (generally) enjoy participating in discussions with people who have similar interests. In this specific case, I'm honestly not all that interested in whether or not BFC decides to allow mods with their engine. As a 'niche' gamer, I'm more interested in the mod movement as a whole, and how it poses both a potential threat and a potential asset to small developers. The threat, as I see it, is that by allowing extensive mods developers basically give up the option to make money from expansions. The asset lies in the potential for increased sales of the basic game by having significant value added to your product without any real investment. So my question (and the ongoing gist of the thread) wasn't directed toward persuading BFC one way or the other. The question was to find out what their reasoning was behind the conclusion they've reached. Originally posted by Andrew: Maybe I missed this on their site, but it looks like the only modding going on is for things that you can already mod in CM - new maps and new scenarios.It goes a little further than that, to the extent where new weapons, mounts and equipment can be added in addition to skins and maps. I also think it's really interesting the way they don't just promote the work of the mod community, but really move them to a front-and-center (almost fully-integrated) position on their website. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 one downside to letting more than just the bmp's and wav's be modded can be easily demonstrated by OP Flashpoint... there were tons of mods for that game... but almost everyone had their own idea of how to model armor and weapons so you wound up with light tanks that were nigh indestructable and heavy tanks wich could be destroyed using a rifle... it even went so far that the modding community itself tried to regulate it by introducing a couple of "standardized" armor and damage rules... but that never seemed to catch on... so if they allowed complete modding for CM what we would end up with is something similar... everyone has an oppinion on how strong a particular tank or weapon is... no matter how groggy they are... just look at all the cries for making the tiger stronger in the old CM games... despite it being modeled on factual numbers... sorry... but if you want to keep CM "realistic" (wich is kinda what its known for right?) you just cannot allow modding beyond textures and sounds... ps. i love mods and modding... usually takes me 10 minutes after buying a new game before i rip it apart to see what can be changed, but for CM i have a completely different oppinion... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luderbamsen Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Originally posted by Oddball_E8: one downside to letting more than just the bmp's and wav's be modded can be easily demonstrated by OP Flashpoint... there were tons of mods for that game... but almost everyone had their own idea of how to model armor and weapons so you wound up with light tanks that were nigh indestructable and heavy tanks wich could be destroyed using a rifle... it even went so far that the modding community itself tried to regulate it by introducing a couple of "standardized" armor and damage rules... but that never seemed to catch on... so if they allowed complete modding for CM what we would end up with is something similar... everyone has an oppinion on how strong a particular tank or weapon is... no matter how groggy they are... just look at all the cries for making the tiger stronger in the old CM games... despite it being modeled on factual numbers... sorry... but if you want to keep CM "realistic" (wich is kinda what its known for right?) you just cannot allow modding beyond textures and sounds... ps. i love mods and modding... usually takes me 10 minutes after buying a new game before i rip it apart to see what can be changed, but for CM i have a completely different oppinion... You're right about that. Free content (mods) is no replacement for quality content. Which still leaves us potentially short on content. Part of the reason why this wasn't much of an issue with CMx1 was that it included just about every bloody unit you could imagine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 yeah, but this version is easier to implement new stuff for... so once they get the bugs worked out new stuff will be easily added... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Oddball is correct. We've had this discussion a couple hundred times over the last 10 years. At least it feels like that There are several reasons why we do not, and will not, open up the game engine to the sorts of fundamental modding that some people would like: 1. CMx1 and CMx2 are designed to be as realistic as possible. Since we are basing things on that standard, there is no reason to allow people to have their own interpretation of reality. If we have something wrong we will fix it. Better to have a singular authority acting as judge than to have no authority at all. 2. There aren't enough people interested in wargaming to make an open ended "wargamer's toolbox" a viable option. If we had code to throw away, that would be different. That's what the big companies do. For us, it takes several releases to recoup the expense of the game engine's development. If the releases are nixed because our limited audience can make their own versions before we do, we're out of business. In another 8 or so years we can see if MadMinute's strategy has paid off for it, but as I sit here now I say it's too soon to judge. 3. This is a very small community. Having different mods for the same subject matter inevitably causes the community to fracture. Much like religion, bickering and outright fighting results even though the fundamental structure and belief system is the same. Games that count their customers in millions instead of thousands actually benefit from this fracturing since subdividing the customer baser keeps them happier and easier to cater to. It's death for a community of our size since each faction wouldn't be large enough to be self sustaining. There are other reasons, but these three are in my view the most important. Any one of them is enough to nix the idea of an open ended "toolbox" approach, but together it kills the idea dead several times over. In case I've not been clear enough the past 1000 times this has been discussed... Combat Mission will never, ever, EVER be made freely modable to the extent being requested. It is simply a waste of everybody's time and energy to rehash the same arguments every couple of weeks or months. We've held this position firmly for 10 years and it's even more strongly held now than at any time in the past. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 I wonder if you could get defence companies to sponsor the addition of a new vehicle or unit from their latest range? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 aah... but therein lies a whole new problem... how many defence companies are 100% honest about their products stats? id say 0%... like the lovely dr. house sais... everybody lies. naah... it would have to be independently researched... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.