Did piracy kill the commercial viability of CMx1?

[thewood]

And he has dirty towels (that will follow you)

[Cpl Steiner]

I originally played CMBO as a demo on a magazine cover. I had never heard of the game and did not buy the magazine because it was on the cover - I just bought the magazine each month.

When I loaded it up I was blown away. As a board game player of titles such as Squad Leader as a kid, I immediately had a nostalgia trip for SL and wanted to buy CMBO immediately. It's as simple as that for me - CMBO was computer SL as far as I was concerned. I think I went out and bought it the very next day.

I bought CMBB and CMAK as soon as each was released. I bought them for the improvements in the game engine mainly. I liked the Eastern Front setting of CMBB but CMAK's desert setting did not really appeal to me. Whenever I played CMAK I would always set it in Italy and play essentially a CMBO battle. I think if BFC had emphasised the Italian Campaign instead of the desert campaign it would have appealed more to non-CM-fans.

When CM:SF was announced I was very pleased with the decision. I'd seen the world turned upside down since 2001 with the rise of Islamic extremism and the various wars that followed, and thought it would be "therapeutic" to recreate some of these battles on my computer screen. Maybe this is a bad thing and I should try to understand Islam etc., but right now with all that has gone on in the world from 9/11 onwards, I just want to fight Islamic armies on my computer and deal with my emotions that way. Islamophobia - quite possibly - but there it is.

I think CM:SF first, followed by CMx2:WWII, is a good strategy for BFC. Lots of people may buy CM:SF who did not buy CMx1, because of the present day middle-east setting, and because WWII has been done to death. In fact, BFC might find that there subsequent WWII version of the engine sells less well amongst the general public. Hopefully the WWII grogs who didn't buy CM:SF and waited for the WWII version will boost sales when the next game is released.

I hope BFC will find my comments of some use.

[Dennis50]

Originally posted by thewood:

And he has dirty towels (that will follow you)

And I like that. It can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people, pc and unpc ...so if mike don't mind, I think I will take it as my sig line but modified slightly.

Regards,

Gunz

[Dennis50]

and ...my sig ..

Regards,

Gunz

[Michael Dorosh]

I approve. I only regret that your font is so small.

[Dennis50]

I must confess ...I don't know how to change that ..I'm old, ok?

Regards,

Gunz

[thewood]

Thats OK leave me out...

[Dennis50]

lol ..didn't mean too ..guess you need some recognition too ...let me think about it ...and trust me ..that's hard for me to do anymore!

Regards,

Gunz

[Janster]

Focus on direct download sales...being present on major gaming sites(wargaming in this case)

Know that most pirates who download your game would never pay for it in the first case..

And you can rest assured that the game will sell as much as it would sell without piracy.

Then its all up to the quality of your game imho.

Janster

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sirocco,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And I still think you missed a trick on how you presented both BB and AK. Perhaps not huge differences in sales terms, but I believe there was scope there for an increase.

No, it wouldn't have made a difference IMHO. The guys that complained the loudest about the demo did what? Bought the full game The row over the demo was you couldn't play it for 8 months. So if anything, the way we did it INCREASED our sales because people couldn't use the demo as if it were a full product. Though personally I think it was a neutral.</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

And you sold internet only for CM:BO, so one would naturally expect retail sales via Paradox to be substantially higher, wouldn't one?

I'm comparing apples to apples. No need for me to get more specific than that.

I have to agree with the comments about the marketing of CM:AK - the box art really gave no clue you could even play in Italy (NW Europe) which may have had a part to play in its perceived unpopularity - but of course, we don't know what the actual level of unpopularity is, since BF.C doesn't release sales figures.

It wasn't unpopular, it was less popular. If you read the posts of people who have commented on their purchase history you would see that a prettier box cover wouldn't have done squat. The game was old and tired by the time CMAK came out, by industry standards anyway. And like EVERY OTHER series like it, sales were lower with each release.

Guys.. think about it. SSI dumped tons of money into advertising and promoting their Panzer General successors, yet each one sold less than the one before. The reason is the same reason as CMx1. The first game was new, fresh, and exciting change on the market. CMBB was almost identical in most people's eyes, just with less appealing subject matter. So it sold less. CMAK was even more identical and even more dated with even less appealing subject matter, so it sold even less. This is how the rest of the market viewed it and, to some extent, even our core audience. It shouldn't take a genius to recognize rather simple market forces like this. We certainly weren't surprised by it, except that we didn't do as badly as the others.

BTW, we deliberately marketed it as "Afrika Korps" because it had name appeal. Calling the game "Soft Underbelly" or "Southern Sideshow" wouldn't have done well for sales Plus, if we harped on it being almost CMBO, then it probably would have hurt sales because people would have said "hey, I already have that so why do I need another one?"

Again... the grogs here are the minority and your view of things is skewed. It's why there are few wargame companies in existence... you guys are a minority and you're never right about marketing

I'm not sure anyone has suggested that CMX1 be prettied up and left the same, either, so that seems like a wee bit of a strawman. I think there are legitimate questions about the level of 1:1 portrayal in the new engine, some of which you've been kind enough to address, but new ones seem to keep cropping up. See the 8m grid thread currently running.

Again, you are speaking as a detailed obsessed grog. You are a minority. You are the one that bought CMAK and loved it, you are not the one that passed on it because it looked tired and dated. Your opinion on marketing, therefore, is not very valuable to us.

Siroco,

Well, we'll never know how many people looked at the CMBB demo and were turned off by it to the point they didn't purchase the game, at least outside active posters on this forum.

True, but do you have an idea how how many people looked at the CMBB demo and didn't buy it? No, you don't.

I thought the demo showed current players how different gameplay would be, which was a positive, but it didn't grab people in the same manner that the CMBO demo did.

Here we go again with the "I view the world this way so I must be right" sort of comment. I can not say it enough... CMBB was destined to sell less than CMBO and CMAK was destined to sell less than CMBB. These are larger market forces at work here that don't pay any attention to subtle details. Only grogs pay attention to that and the grogs were pretty much the ONLY people that bought CMBB and CMAK. So according to the data, we did better than we should have expected.

Did the CMBO demo give too much? I think it proved the concept, and to that extent it was a stroke of genius. But I do believe the germ of that demo should have been repeated in the CMBB demo, rather than the cover open ground against machineguns and get shot to pieces CMBB version, which was downright frustrating, and needlessly so.

As I've already said 1000 times before, if you think the demo hurt sales... prove it. We've got empirical data and 15 years in this industry and we see the opposite. Why do you think your opinion overrules ours?

And a quick check... you did buy CMBB, right? I should be able to rest my case with that, but I doubt it

Really... if someone wants to challenge my points, start by using something called "facts" instead of personal opinion. Find me a wargame series that made a bunch of games in a row, from the same engine, that sold a large amount up front and similar, or more, games in successive releases. If you can identify some series that bucked the long established trend, then we have something to discuss. But until then, accept the fact that your own personal opinion is coloring objective judgement. We, on the other hand, are in the business of staying in business.

And why are we discussing this anyway?

Steve

[ August 16, 2007, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Canuck]

I'm sorry Lt Bull but your whole premise is a little ridiculous. First of all, CMx1 sold less and less each time because it is a niche game and niche games tend to sell less after the first one. The hardcore wargamers will buy all the sequels but all the casual gamers who decided to give it a try the first time will not.

Originally posted by Lt Bull:

I used the Madden and Total War franchises as an example. No sign of either of those titles going bust, even though they still both basically deliver the same gaming concept each time with a few enhancements here and there.

Secondly, your comparison to Madden and TW is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Madden and TW are HUGE and it has absolutely nothing to do with copy protection. Those games are steamrollers for completely different reasons.

A quick search of one torrent site shows that over 2000 people are currently downloading Madden 08 and over 1000 people are downloading MTW2. I seriously doubt that the entire CM series has ever had even half that many illegal downloads over its entire existence!

[Battlefront.com]

Cpl Steiner,

I think CM:SF first, followed by CMx2:WWII, is a good strategy for BFC. Lots of people may buy CM:SF who did not buy CMx1, because of the present day middle-east setting, and because WWII has been done to death. In fact, BFC might find that there subsequent WWII version of the engine sells less well amongst the general public. Hopefully the WWII grogs who didn't buy CM:SF and waited for the WWII version will boost sales when the next game is released.

We actually think we'll do very well with the WW2 title. We expect it to sell as well, or perhaps similarlly, to the current Syrian setting. The reason is that the subject matter and setting are very different from each other. CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK had more in common with each other than than not. There is almost no similarities between the SF setting and Normandy. Plus, it isn't like we're going to release the same exact feature set. We planned, all along, to introduce things with each new title so we could keep things fresher than we were able to do in the past. Having said that, we expect subsequent WWII titles using the CM engine to sell less well. So eventually we will get to the point of diminishing return on the CMx2 engine as well and transition it to CMx3.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Canuk,

To add to what you wrote:

Secondly, your comparison to Madden and TW is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Madden and TW are HUGE and it has absolutely nothing to do with copy protection. Those games are steamrollers for completely different reasons.

True, but there is more to it than that. Each successive game has a huge reinvestment made into it. This is done to offset the normal loss of customers. Even still, I bet their sales are not as good with each title as the one before unless they make a radical change.

What Lt Bull (and others) fail to understand is that CMBO started out looking tired and dated even though it wasn't. Therefore, from a general customer perception standpoint, we were behind the curve before we even released. We argued with people until we were blue in the face that we weren't because no other game had an outdoor environment with so many units as we did. Very true. However, ironically Lt Bull pointed to one such game that eventually came out that did have such an environment. TW wasn't in our minds specifically when we decided to make CMx2, but the general concept that we had to do something different very much was.

Again, I'm not really sure why we are discussing this. The move to 1:1 (and other changes) were done very deliberately based on solid information and facts. We already know we made the right decision and we're only in week 3 of release. Trying to say we made a mistake is not only silly, but it is also pointless. What you see in CM:SF is basically what you will see forever. We're never going back to the CMx1 style game system. Period.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We already know we made the right decision and we're only in week 3 of release. Trying to say we made a mistake is not only silly, but it is also pointless. What you see in CM:SF is basically what you will see forever. We're never going back to the CMx1 style game system. Period.

Steve

You're speaking purely about success from a commercial standpoint, Steve. Which is fine, that's why you're in business. You sold a lot of games in other words. One doesn't normally argue with success, and I don't think anyone is trying to do that. They'd be foolish to try.

I don't think everyone who points out the advantages in the simulation modelling of the CMX1 engine is some sort of "CMX2 hater". Granted there are some of those here on the forum. I like both games, personally.

I suspect dalem, Lt Bull and others like them, simply regret that you feel development of the initial engine is a dead end. We're in no position to argue with your financial goals - but some have a hard time looking past commercial success when mourning unrealized artistic excellence - no matter how impossible that endeavour may have been financially or technically. That's all.

In other words - some aren't seeing or caring about the impossible code that CMX1 was written in, and don't care how much money you could or couldn't make with it, they just like the elegance and simplicity of the engine and feel it still had potential to deliver a decent company-level game. No more, and no less, than that. Just talking, is all. At least, that's my impression. If anyone is seriously suggesting otherwise, well, it's hard to argue with the guy with his hand on the jar, and the money in his wallet. We do appreciate the clarification of "why" things need to be the way they are, though.

[Darren J Pierson]

Steve,

Saying that those of us who bought and loved CMAK are those whose marketing opinions don't matter to you does seem like a bit of a cold comment. I'm assuming you mean that those who loved CMAK are not the targets of marketing because we will buy your product anyway and the marketing needs to target the undecided? Or are you just channeling Derek Smart here? Are you trying to piss off the old guard? You are doing well.

Why am I writing this? Just need to realize that this was only ever a business relationship anyway.

[ August 16, 2007, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Darren J Pierson ]

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Really... if someone wants to challenge my points, start by using something called "facts" instead of personal opinion.

Well, we're kind of short on facts, given the very fact that we don't have access to sales data, or what might have been if things had been done differently. Ergo it's all opinion and speculation, and some of that speculation is your own, I might add, informed speculation; but then some of us are also informed, too.

Anyway, not my bat and ball.

[Neepster]

I also agree that I think it was the subject matter that reduced the sales... I mean CMAK? Come on! N. Africa is probably the least popular theatre of WWII, even worse than Pacific Island land combat...

BFC would have been far better off making CMAK backward compatible with CMBO as well as having the N. Africa/Italy stuff.. Redo the original scenarios with new features and pawn it off as an upgrade plus new content. Heck, the forum members and beta testers would have done the scenario work...

Even better would have been to have CMAK become CM Europe or something and have all theatres represented. I mean they already had all the models from CMBB and CMBO... Yeah it would have cannibalized CMBO sales, but how much of those were still going on with CMAK and CMBB out there...

[tc237]

So your saying do a Matrix and release a 10 year old game w/ user made scenario pack?

The howling would have been worse then it is now.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Guys.. think about it. SSI dumped tons of money into advertising and promoting their Panzer General successors, yet each one sold less than the one before. The reason is the same reason as CMx1. The first game was new, fresh, and exciting change on the market. CMBB was almost identical in most people's eyes, just with less appealing subject matter. So it sold less. CMAK was even more identical and even more dated with even less appealing subject matter, so it sold even less. This is how the rest of the market viewed it and, to some extent, even our core audience. It shouldn't take a genius to recognize rather simple market forces like this. We certainly weren't surprised by it, except that we didn't do as badly as the others.

Actually the latter versions were less interesting, different without being better, and in the case of the 3D one, WAY different to no purpose.

They were very different from each other, not just "same old same old ho hum".

Different is not always better.

-dale

[Darren J Pierson]

I have no doubt that the best thing for BFC is CM:SF and whatever they decide to do with the new engine. That is just my opinion, but the BFC folks seem to be passionate about what they do and they are still in business. Just because SOME of the older customers disagree doesn't make those opinions correct. If hardcore wargamers were really a truly profitiable demographic, we wouldn't face a monopolistic market situation. BFC provides us with all that we are going to get in 3d tactical gaming.

Customers can either buy the product, which signals that we are happy with the direction of the market or not buy it which signal displeasure. If we buy the games simply because they are all that are out there then we reward folks for not giving us what we want. If we don't buy then the market is considered too much of a niche and no more games will be made and we are out of luck. (Note, I am not saying CM:SF fits into any of these categories myself - it is clear that there are lots of opinions on the game including it is fantastic and on target - all puns intended).

As a long time adventure gamer I have seen the near demise of that part of the hobby. When main stream publishers make an action-adventure hybrid and it fails, they complain about the non-existant adventure customers. They fail to realize that they didn't really make an action game nor an adventure game and lost both groups. Many adventure gamers are told to suck it up and buy them anyway or we won't get anything. We have to decide, is half-baked crap better than nothing?

The only real hope for customers is to actually have a comptetive marketplace where we can vote with our dollars, pounds, yen, etc. And the products have to be different enough to clearly show what we are actually voting for with our money.

We can talk about what would have been better with CMx1 forever but I don't think it will help anyone very much. As an academic exercise there is nothing wrong with it but I hope people don't think that they are going to resurrect the old beast. I don't think BFC will ever produce a product that they feel is in any way shape or form inferior or a rip off. Whether folks will like it or not is different, but we shouldn't take it personally if a game isn't our cup of tea.

[Darren J Pierson]

Originally posted by tc237:

So your saying do a Matrix and release a 10 year old game w/ user made scenario pack?

The howling would have been worse then it is now.

Yet some folks like that and buy up Matrix's games. Their model isn't a complete failure it would appear. Not that I disagree with you in this particular case.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Really... if someone wants to challenge my points, start by using something called "facts" instead of personal opinion. Find me a wargame series that made a bunch of games in a row, from the same engine, that sold a large amount up front and similar, or more, games in successive releases. If you can identify some series that bucked the long established trend, then we have something to discuss. But until then, accept the fact that your own personal opinion is coloring objective judgement. We, on the other hand, are in the business of staying in business.

And why are we discussing this anyway?

Steve

Steve, I think you've pointed this out already, but isn't it inevitable that successive releases will sell less, assuming you're moving into more specialized territory each time? I mean, overall?

If I sell 10,000 units of "Farm Boy" and you think you can still sell more, don't you then make "Farm Boy: Corn", and "Farm Boy: Soy Beans", etc.? If that's true, you're automatically "excluding" buyers from your initial base each time because people interested in farming might not necessarily be interested in farming soy beans, right?

Again, not a challenge, just trying to re-state something that I think you've already said a few times.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

we will get to the point of diminishing return on the CMx2 engine as well and transition it to CMx3.

Steve

Steve, I shared an elevator with a marketing guy once and because of that I can tell you that you are doomed to fail unless you follow my plan.

CMx3 = Bulldozer Mission: Dirt Pile. "You can drive it, but can you survive it?"

CMx4 = Grog Mission: Beyond the Forum. "Shatter gap? I'll give you shatter gap!"

Solid gold, baby.

-dale

[Darren J Pierson]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

we will get to the point of diminishing return on the CMx2 engine as well and transition it to CMx3.

Steve

Steve, I shared an elevator with a marketing guy once and because of that I can tell you that you are doomed to fail unless you follow my plan.

CMx3 = Bulldozer Mission: Dirt Pile. "You can drive it, but can you survive it?"

CMx4 = Grog Mission: Beyond the Forum. "Shatter gap? I'll give you shatter gap!"

Solid gold, baby.

-dale </font>