Jump to content

"We're tired of WWII..."


Recommended Posts

This is basically the reason given for switching themes. Don't you guys think Paul McCartney gets tired of singing "Let it Be?" But the consumers still want it. Come on Battlefront - the biggest successes in life are those who specialize. Why would you want to be good at all eras of war and master of none? You already had such a head start with the WWII theme. Why couldn't you simply just give us the theme we wanted? :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Tripps:

I'm tired of US v (Current Enemy) simulations that continually flood the market.

I agree with Der Kuenstler, BF had a head start with the CM engine and WWII, hope they dont muck it up.

What the hell are you talking about? Flood of current simulations? Name me one. And it can't be a stupid shooter either - like First to Fight or Counterstrike. Name me one modern wargame of simulation caliber.

I can name you two or three WWII ones for every single modern one you can name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Der Kuenstler:

This is basically the reason given for switching themes. Don't you guys think Paul McCartney gets tired of singing "Let it Be?" But the consumers still want it. Come on Battlefront - the biggest successes in life are those who specialize. Why would you want to be good at all eras of war and master of none? You already had such a head start with the WWII theme. Why couldn't you simply just give us the theme we wanted? :(

Jeez, waiting an extra 6-12 months for the next module to come out (which is definitely WWII) is not a big deal. Some people are acting as if BFC proclaimed yesterday they would never revisit WWII again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Der Kuenstler:

You already had such a head start with the WWII theme. Why couldn't you simply just give us the theme we wanted? :(

Yep, contemporary tactical-level combat...life is sweet. tongue.gif

Because after licencing CMAK to the Aussie DOD they can see the potential of making a game which is a thinly veiled attempt at an Iraq simulator and rely on the redneck dollar to keep them going while they hawk it around.
Yep, contemporary tactical-level combat...life is sweet. tongue.gif

err, didn't I just say that? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Paul sings Let it Be it's over in 4 minutes.

When BF.C makes another WW2 game, it consumes every waking moment of their business lives.

I don't see why so many are upset about it not being WW2 right off of the bat. Steve's reasons concerning complexity are exactly right.

I am more concerned with choice of theater, but I have come to trust this company and will throw my money at them for this product as soon as I can.

Fa-Shizzle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that is 6-12 months on top of whatever the development time for CM Screw Forigners turns out to be. For those who would be less than thrilled with having to play a computer game entirely as the US we have another 6-12 months wait for a *possible* non-US centred game on top of that.

In short, unless you are an American it's all vapourware. Even if you are American, your WW2 'module' is still so far away as to be a definite maybe dependant on many things.

Their financally prudent choice no doubt, and I guess if the Iraq simlulator goes down well with the military then they won't need to give a stuff about wargamers, American or otherwise, any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

[QB] Except that is 6-12 months on top of whatever the development time for CM Screw Forigners turns out to be. For those who would be less than thrilled with having to play a computer game entirely as the US we have another 6-12 months wait for a *possible* non-US centred game on top of that.

You don't have to play entirely as the US. Just in the campaign. You can play any side in the single scenarios.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

V is correct. Although I don't know how people can perform the same song 1000 times in their lifetime, I doubt they could sing the same song all day long for a few years in a row. That's what it is like to work on an intensely detailed type of game, such as CM. But that isn't the major reason we didn't go with WWII.

The major reason we went with contemporary warfare is because we wanted to. Unlike some people on this Forum, we have other interests in gaming. In fact, so do a lot of people on this Forum (though the complainers seem to always miss that fact). We made the decision to go Modern for other reasons that were explained in the Announcement. Namely, to create the most flexible engine we would have been in trouble if we started with WWII or anything earlier.

See... we've always wanted to do other games other than WWII. The CMx1 engine simply wasn't going to allow that to happen. So the primary reason for the CMx2 rewrite was to allow us the ability to do modern, future, ACW, whatever. By definition that means that some of our titles are not going to be WWII. Just so happens the first one isn't and the second one is. It really is as simple as that.

As for the various mudslinging lines of argument (we switched for the money, we siwtched for military contracts, we switched just to piss people off, etc.) all I have to say is... well, nothing. I'd violate the Forum rules if I did. But they are all bunk. What these weenies don't understand is that we've been in talks with militaries, of various sorts, since 2000. Military contracts are terribly hard to get and even harder to fulfill. They are not seen as being our primary bread and butter, so we'd be fools to pursue them at the expense of commercial releases. Maybe during the Reagan era when the Pentagon was handing out money to whomever showed up with a Purchase Order (real or not, accurate or not, reflecting cost or not, etc.), but in this era of tight budgets the money tap simply isn't that easy to turn on.

Anyhoo... someday these childish slaps in our face will go away. But we expected a lot of them and therefore aren't really bothered by them. Just like the ASLers and CCers gave up after a while when we were making CMBO. Or later when CMBOers whined about us going to the Eastern Front instead of back to the Western Front. Which they whined about again when we released CMAK. You guys can be your own worst enemy sometimes.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

Except that is 6-12 months on top of whatever the development time for CM Screw Forigners turns out to be. For those who would be less than thrilled with having to play a computer game entirely as the US we have another 6-12 months wait for a *possible* non-US centred game on top of that.

In short, unless you are an American it's all vapourware. Even if you are American, your WW2 'module' is still so far away as to be a definite maybe dependant on many things.

Their financally prudent choice no doubt, and I guess if the Iraq simlulator goes down well with the military then they won't need to give a stuff about wargamers, American or otherwise, any more.

OK, then can you tell me why no one in Europe (or insert your country here) has decided to start their own company to compete with battlefront and release Euro-centric games first? :D

It's the same reason the US owns all the physical infrastructure and naming agencies which make the internet possible; we started the computer revolution, we were on the cutting edge, and we get to reap the benefits tongue.gif

So calm down, and realize that, chances are, you'll only have to wait a few months for BFC to do a Euro-mod and neutralize all your complaints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh rah-rah, but I'm not going to start on who invented what. I don't mind playing as the US from time to time, but not having the option to do anything else for the next couple of years from what was the brightest star in computer wargaming is pretty poor. I and probably others don't want an anything centric game - we want choices.

Oh and I don't doubt Steve that your income from military contracts is not your primary source, but by god you'd like it to be wouldn't you. Having a product to show is an important step. If you weren't looking for that kind of action then you could have chosen something far less offensive to many than an Iraq simulator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the whole "you American companies should make stuff for us because we aren't making it for ourselves" line of reasoning is pathetic. We are a commercial enterprise. Making games is how we earn a living. We are not a Non-Profit company, nor are we making games as as some form of charity. Nope, we make games that are more or less assured to pay us back for our work.

If we wanted to be money grubbers we'd never have been in wargaming in the first place. Heck, I wouldn't be in gaming at all if it was all about the money (the payback sucks, sorry to say). So obviously money isn't our prime motivation. However, having a company and paid employees does require money and therefore money must be a part of our business plan. Anybody who scoffs at this is obviously a paid employee of someone else who understands this concept. Or is unemployed, one or the other.

Honestly, you guys should feel lucky that we even CARE to put in stuff that isn't US centric. And we really do, otherwise how can you explain CMBB? Not a single American unit in that entire game, even though there were some lend lease stuff present. Eastern Front is still my #1 military passion and area of expertise. But of course all this gets overlooked by little Billy and little Johnny when they don't get exactly what they want. Throwing tantrums apparently makes some people feel better about themselves.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and I don't doubt Steve that your income from military contracts is not your primary source, but by god you'd like it to be wouldn't you.
If some government would hand us a pile of money and we'd never have to sit on Forums and listen to ungreatful, short term thinking, ill mannered, and forgetful gamers who can't do anything but whine and complain when they don't get exactly what they personally want (to HELL with everybody else!), yeah... that is pretty damned attractive. Especially right now. But it isn't something we think will happen so I guess we're stuck with you lot and you're stuck with us. Why don't you make the best of it instead of the worst?

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

Oh and I don't doubt Steve that your income from military contracts is not your primary source, but by god you'd like it to be wouldn't you. Having a product to show is an important step. If you weren't looking for that kind of action then you could have chosen something far less offensive to many than an Iraq simulator.

WTF?

These guys are not in business to please you! They are trying to make a living. If they took a military contract tomorrow and quit making games I would thank them for what they had already done. I would still consider them a great bunch of Wargamers and wish them the best of luck!

[ October 09, 2005, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

I owe you an apology.

*Ahem*

I hereby apologize to Steve particularly and BFI in general for concluding BFI has changed its target customer from real wargamers, to the rah-rah-America crowd that likes the see M1A1 blow stuff up, hang the realism. I thought that was the case, and I still see grounds for that conclusion, but I now see I am probably wrong.

(True, I still have my doubts no one at your company saw the marketing advantages of put an "almost-Iraq" simulator on the market, before you took the decision to produce CMSF. I'm sepktical that way.)

But your arguement that an engine able to handle modern wars is the best way to have an engine to handle the older wars has (finally) sunk through to me. I'll buy that logic, it's solid. Again, my apologies for requiring a weekend to realize what you guys are up to. Yes, you told us that up front. I wasn't paying enough attention.

I could get nitpicky and wonder why you couldn't have done Vietnam or Yom Kippur, for instance, after all they have guided missiles and smart munitions. But heck, if you guys want to take a crack at notional modern war instead, it's up to you and I'm sure you'll do a great job. I may not like the game, but heck, maybe I will.

As a final aside -

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Eastern Front is still my #1 military passion and area of expertise.

I trust that some day, some how, you will get your chance to do WW2 East Front with the new engine.
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
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...