i think my enjoyment of CMSF is starting to drop

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Darkmath:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lurker765:

Based on the comments by Steve in another thread the game is almost complete enough for them to move on to the next module. That implies that they believe the game is not in an early stage of development anymore.

..And from another thread, Steve said they are to release a dozen patches.

Given the release rate and the large negative opinion from the initial release, we can wait the next module for a while. </font>

[TheNathan]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lurker765:

Based on the comments by Steve in another thread the game is almost complete enough for them to move on to the next module. That implies that they believe the game is not in an early stage of development anymore.

..And from another thread, Steve said they are to release a dozen patches.

Given the release rate and the large negative opinion from the initial release, we can wait the next module for a while. </font>

[Sanok]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

It is easy to say, "if you don't like it don't play it," but that degrades BFC more than any of the players by implying that they could care less once they have your money. I don't believe that.

Believe it. BFC's stance from Day One of release was "Don't let the door hit you on your posterior on the way out." They wrote the game they want, which is fine. They don't much care if you (or I) want it or not.

-dale [/QB]</font>

[Manx]

Originally posted by Sanok:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

It is easy to say, "if you don't like it don't play it," but that degrades BFC more than any of the players by implying that they could care less once they have your money. I don't believe that.

Believe it. BFC's stance from Day One of release was "Don't let the door hit you on your posterior on the way out." They wrote the game they want, which is fine. They don't much care if you (or I) want it or not.

-dale </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by Sanok:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

It is easy to say, "if you don't like it don't play it," but that degrades BFC more than any of the players by implying that they could care less once they have your money. I don't believe that.

Believe it. BFC's stance from Day One of release was "Don't let the door hit you on your posterior on the way out." They wrote the game they want, which is fine. They don't much care if you (or I) want it or not.

-dale </font>

[Sardaukar]

That attitude only works if products are successful.

Selling bad product to customer and then tell them to take a hike is not a good idea.

But I guess some of us still "don't get it".

[sandy]

That CMSF is now available for 7.99 euros including delivery not only confirms my error in preordering, but also confirms its value in the marketplace...less than CM1

I still don't get it.

But maybe I am not the only customer who was not impressed.

[Guest]

Originally posted by TheNathan:

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

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lurker765:

Based on the comments by Steve in another thread the game is almost complete enough for them to move on to the next module. That implies that they believe the game is not in an early stage of development anymore.

..And from another thread, Steve said they are to release a dozen patches.

Given the release rate and the large negative opinion from the initial release, we can wait the next module for a while. </font>

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

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

So we are stuck with nerfed infantry?

Of course, Steve deserves the final word. If it's true, however, then I'm not coming back. $70 for a game that has a buggy, quirky infantry model... well, I'm not too happy but I'll try to help. Forcing me to pay for *another* game to get a proper infantry model? No. I'll go find entertainment elsewhere.

That seems pretty far-fetched, though. Based on what BFC has said, we can look forward to many patches to CM:SF to try and get it into a "great game!" state. To my mind it makes the most sense to work out the bugs in CMx2 in CM:SF, while they've just been hit hard once, rather than later after another release like this one. [/QB]</font>

[Guest]

You're right. RTFT I suppose. Thanks.

Well, then, I will see what 1.04 and 1.05 do for my gaming experience. Hopefully they'll fix the infantry up some.

Seriously, if I go ahead and buy the Marines module, what isn't going to get fixed in there? What am I going to have to wait for the next CMx2 module for? Or CMx2WW2?

CM:SF's release strategy I can live with. I'm not, however, paying my gaming money to keep owning crappy 80% finished games all leading up to some last, great nirvana of a game, which I may not even be interested in.

I want CM:SF. I want it complete. I've put my money and some of my time where my mouth is. I'm pretty dismayed that this is the decision that BFC has made.

[Redwolf]

The commercial reality is that CM is a runaway train. Fixing up CM:SF endlessly won't sell more copies of CM:SF. Steve has been very fuzzy and unclear before 1.03, to (IMHO) deliberately create the impression that more gameplay fixes are gonna be in the "gameplay patch" 1.03 than actually were. The same goes for the beta testers who promised huge improvements but omitted all details claiming NDA restrictions. The simpler minds and the "reality is what is in CM" crowd bought all that, then got hit by 1.03 reality (pretty much no gameplay fixes at all) and now stopped playing CM:SF. If you patch up CM:SF now, what additional sales are there?

The development capacity to fix up CM:SF at the same time that the next module is being developed is not there and can't be created without the commercial success to pay for it behind it. So development goes straight into the next module.

There would possible damage control strategies, such as keeping the engine compatible with the old game contents so that you can play CM:SF scenarios in CM:Marines or even CMx2WW2. That strategy is being followed by simpler games such as ATF and TacOps, but it hasn't been tried for a more complex game, nor do I think does CM's history indicate that this is an approach that BFC likes.

[ September 25, 2007, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[Jhereg]

I keep coming back to check and see if the problems with 8800s are fixed and same ole same ole story.

I have not even been able to get a feeling for this game as it does not work correctly on my main machine. I too bought the collectors edition.....Yaaaaay....right. Certainly will be my last pre order.

I have lurked on this board for years and until this title have never seen this kind of denial of reality from BFC before...Hell I even bought TOW just to send money their way(played once meh!). There is no reason a 3.3Ghz quad core with two 8800 GTX's running well above Ultra levels with 8Gig of RAM should run this as a slide show..all the above watercooled so please do not tell me its an OC problem. This system runs STALKER, SH4, Supreme Commander, Quake Wars demo all fluidly at 2560x1600 resolution.

God I am frustrated with this title. Even if the framerates are fixed will the pathfinding be...the TAC AI? I bought sets of the first CMs for friends to get them into strategy titles. I have been asked by them about this title and have had to tell them better to wait, but how much longer?

[Zemke]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:

Hoolaman,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />One thing that some people don't seem to grasp is that the TacAI requires a lot of programming time and testing. It is not fundamentally broken, nor is it limited by the RT engine. It is just not sophisticated at the moment because not enough time has been spent on teaching it "real" behaviour. So the fundamentals are there, but the subtle details are not.

I can't hear this anymore.

4 years of development! With CMx1 they had TacAI wise already everything that was needed. </font>

[TheNathan]

So, what I am reading is that the Battlefront team will essentially never completely fix their broken game, and all of us fans are SOL.

I am extremely dismayed, as I shelled out 60-something dollars for this game, only to learn it will never be fixed and is available for much cheaper elsewhere.

However, I also learned an important lesson. I will never again buy a BFC product out of good faith, and will wait a good, long time before making any future purchases of their products, just to ensure I will receive a decent product.

[Manx]

I intend to give BFC the benefit of the doubt with CM:SF and see how things stand after patch 1.04 or 1.05 (if there is one). If things haven't improved by then i really can't see the point in buying any future modules for it.

I'd take another look at the series again when CMx2:WWII appears.

[TheNathan]

Originally posted by Manx:

I intend to give BFC the benefit of the doubt with CM:SF and see how things stand after patch 1.04 or 1.05 (if there is one). If things haven't improved by then i really can't see the point in buying any future modules for it.

I'd take another look at the series again when CMx2:WWII appears.

That sounds like a good strategy, IMO.

[Steiner14]

I stopped playing CMBB one year ago.

Due to my disappointment with CMSF i became interested in CMx1 again - you know, the tactical, chess-like challenge in bigger battles.

I decided to join the meta-campaign of the battle of Lauban and yesterday i've set up my first training-battle and what can i say?

It's great! Finally exploring and learning terrain again! Thinking where the enemy may be, and where he may come along and where i need to place my troops. How will i conduct the advance? Will the Panthers take the lead? Or the StuGs with the infantry? Will i be able to bring the infantry guns fast enough forward and unhamrend through the woods?

And while i was setting up my units, i immediately knew, what CMx2 would have really needed:

Some graphical enhancements, like sun and shadows, alittle haze, soldier animations. Enough! No one was asking for and we didn't need hundreds of polygons on vehicles, if they can't follow realistical paths and we have to wait several graphics cards generations, until we can reach the level of gameplay again, CMx1 had reached already.

Then the core things, which would have been probably enough for each CM-player to make him buy CMx2: indirect fire of MGs and infantry guns (not in CMSF), calculations that respect the height of the turret when hull down (in CMSF you can even shoot through crests), a grid overlay (also not in CMSF), relative spotting, full battle replay (not in, thanks to unnecessary detail) to open a beer and watch a finished battle. Enough!

That would have been enough for a whole new engine and for several years of modules.

And here comes IMO the next very bad design decision into play: enormously reducing the scope. Ok, if you waste all your development time into useless 1:1 representations, that finally is not really 1:1, then you will have not enough time to build models, OOBs and scenarios.

If they would have gone an evolutionary way, which is the logical way, if you have reached such a excellent level, they could have started with a smaller scope in WWII, but not as tiny as in CMSF and extended it with every module. 10 modules? No problem!

And because of the evolutionary process, the engine would have reached it's final state much faster, too.

But now they have the tiny scope, a buggy and unfinished engine, and maybe 2 modules will follow (i doubt that even a second module will see the light of day, due to lack of interest in the wargaming community; the eye-candy players, have left CMSF already anyway). And then will come the WWII-release and will also have a tiny scope and receive only very few modules.

If i look back now with the new old CMx1 experience, BFC did everything to ruin the trademark CombatMission.

[ September 26, 2007, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Thomm]

While I am only 75% content with CM:SF at present, I nevertheless disagree with 95% of your post!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Caesar]

Originally posed by Redwolf

The commercial reality is that CM is a runaway train. Fixing up CM:SF endlessly won't sell more copies of CM:SF. Steve has been very fuzzy and unclear before 1.03, to (IMHO) deliberately create the impression that more gameplay fixes are gonna be in the "gameplay patch" 1.03 than actually were. The same goes for the beta testers who promised huge improvements but omitted all details claiming NDA restrictions. The simpler minds and the "reality is what is in CM" crowd bought all that, then got hit by 1.03 reality (pretty much no gameplay fixes at all) and now stopped playing CM:SF.

I think that is a bit harsh. In my experience, there were considerable improvements between 1.02 & 1.03. Admittedly there is still a way to go, but it went from being virtually unplayable to being really irritating at times.

If you patch up CM:SF now, what additional sales are there?

If they don't fix them, they can guarantee no more sales of modules and reduced sales of their next WW2 game. That is commercial reality

The development capacity to fix up CM:SF at the same time that the next module is being developed is not there and can't be created without the commercial success to pay for it behind it. So development goes straight into the next module.

You are making some assumptions here that may not be based in reality. The next modules (as I understand it) are going to be much the same code base, with maybe a few minor features and a bunch of different units for each side. One of the reasons Steve touted as being cause for the rewrite was the ability to add models etc without Charles having to be as involved. If that aim has been achieved, a module may not consume all that much of Charle's time so he can keep patching. Let's face it, the fixes are going to be needed for any future game or module so he might as well do it now.

Based on past performance by BFC and the commercial reality that they need to restore some faith in their customers, I suspect that we will be getting a few more patches yet and most of them are likely to contain minor feature improvements.

[Redwolf]

Dream on, man.

1.04 is already finished for a week or so in case you didn't notice. There's no way it significantly changed path-invention, infantry behavior or some of the more complex fire problems. Steve said there's maybe one more coming and from the tone of it with less changes than 1.04.

I didn't mean to say 1.03 was useless. Of course it improved the game a lot and made it playable for many people. But some fundamental problems were not addressed. That would only have been half as bad as it was if not both Steve and some beta-testers had blown expectations out of proportion by mumble-speech that the fanbois hooked on, and then they fell flat on their faces.

Now THAT is damaging business. It would have been better to put everybody on hold for a month or two. All this episode did is erode the fan base more and, worse, fracture it more. Now you have people dropping off over time and there's no chance to maybe get a multiplayer community going in -say- December.

Anyway. Everybody I talk about here already payed for the game. What's fixing it going to do about revenue?

[ September 26, 2007, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[rune]

redwolf,

Incorrect again. 1.04 is NOT done, matter of fact, more things are going into it. No, i won't post what, as then you will whine that I said something is in, and it may nto be included if it breaks something else. However, be happy to know we are on the 13th version of 1.04, and not due to bugs, but changed things. Is it the end all? Nope. Does it change gameplay, yep.

Rune

[SgtMuhammed]

Rune,

As one of the few I whose word I trust I do find that encouraging. Like I said. I will wait till 1.04 comes out to decide whether to dx this one or not. Believe me I am hoping for the best.

[The DesertFox]

Originally posted by rune:

redwolf,

[spip] However, be happy to know we are on the 13th version of 1.04, and not due to bugs, but changed things. Is it the end all? Nope. Does it change gameplay, yep.

Rune

Doesn´t matter which number the patch has, 1.04, 1.04m or 1.17 as long as you get the core problems solved:

Pathfinding

LOS/LOF

Adjusting Arty

Breaching

ATI/NVIDIA performance

everything will be fine and the forum will certainly calm down and switch to more pleasant topics once this stuff is squashed.

cheers

[JohnO]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

Dream on, man.

1.04 is already finished for a week or so in case you didn't notice.

Where are you getting you information from Redwolf? Because your wrong, were testing it again and it hasn't been release.

JohnO

[Redwolf]

Of course it's not released. Last week Steve posted that it was done and was intended for a Friday release but last-minute problems were found.

But that means feature-wise it was done last week.