Did piracy kill the commercial viability of CMx1?

[Member # 16622]

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

As a long time adventure gamer I have seen the near demise of that part of the hobby..

Offtopic but get Sam & Max, Season 1. Huge amount of modern adventure goodness. As good as the classics of the genre. Google it.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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

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.

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.

Steve

I am a detailed obsessed GROG and I know it. I bought CMBB because it dealt with the Eastern Front and CMAK because it dealt with the Afrika Korps and still have PBEM games going on in each, but Steve brings up a good point, Grogs are and always have been a small niche market, we may not like it but it is a fact of life.

Any game company which wants to grow and make money has to appeal to a broader audience.With CMx2, BFC is trying to appeal to a more mainstream gaming market while still trying to please the Grog community, a tough challenge, as anyone who has visited a IL-2 or Silent Hunter forum can see. We Grogs tend to be the most demanding and critical group of gamers there is, which is probably why there are so few mainstream realistic simulations around, since most companies don't think the potential sales are worth having to deal with such a complaining bunch.

My 17 year old son and his friends are all World of Warcraft players. His eyes used to glaze over whenever I would try to get him interested in CMBB or CMAK. However, he does find CMSF mildly interesting, so BFCs gamble may pay off. I personally hope it does, since I know it is the only way we will continue having realistic/semi-realistic tactical combat simulations coming to the market, even though I realize I will probably never see a CMx2:Eastern Front or CMx2:North Africa.

[thewood]

In reality, that is only true thinking inside the box, as marketing people say. SB has done well for itself selling to a niche, even before the military stepped in. They raised the price. That is what will have to happen for niche games like wargames to survive. I think I am actually paying less now than 10 years ago for some games.

I would have gladly paid SBPro-like prices for continued extensions of CM, instead of watching BFC risk the mainstream trenches. I eventaully bought 3x each of the CM series. Wargames like CMSF are just too complicated for the bulge in the demographics. Unless you really dumb them down. I am worried CMSF has only pushed hex/turn wargamers further away, yet is too complicated (even in just the concepts) for the next generation. Many times the next generation just wants blow things up.

[ August 17, 2007, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: thewood ]

[Battlefront.com]

Sanok,

Personally, I think the reason BB sold less than BO and AK sold less than BB, was the drastic change in the infantry modeling. Yes, BB and AK is more realistic, but a lot of players don't know how to use realistic tactics. Even a lot of players that have done CMx1 for years, can have difficulty playing well. People liked the BO uber infantry. I have regular opponents that hate BB and AK, just because they can't enjoy the game with the more realistic infantry modeling. It appealed to the more hardcore wargamer, but not to the rest.

I believe it's really as simple as that.

Nothing is EVER as simple as that in gaming I challenge you to read the posts of people here who say CMBB is the best of the three and yet they didn't have interest in buying CMAK. That is at odds with what you just stated. Sure, I bet we lost some people because CMBB and CMAK required better tactics and some people just weren't up for it. I have no doubt about it. We also know, for sure, that we lost a lot of people with the subject matter. As I've said, a game without Americans doesn't sell as well. We've learned that not only with CMx1 games but other wargames we've released over the years. And other arguments which I've already made.

If we left the infantry modeling in CMBB/AK the same as CMBO I doubt we would have sold any more or fewer units. The overall decline was inevitable.

Lt. Bull,

It looks like many of us are trying to offer our own opinions on what was THE major reason why the CMx1 franchise died the way it die.

There is a reason why you guys are called gamers and we are called publishers... so everybody is entitled to an opinion, but when you guys start thinking you know how to run a publishing business my eyes begin to gloss over. Most of the thinking so far in this thread is so far off I don't even know where to go with it. This is a prime example:

BFC failed to adequately market, package and sell the fundamental gaming concept/system that was unique to CMx1 (mainly the WegO system) to a market that extended beyond your hardcore grogs into your more general "I like strategy games" kind of crowd, despite having developed and introduced to the market a new, unique, ground breaking and powerful gameplay system for potentially representing a whole range of tactical level combat engagements that surpassed the scope, scale, realism and detail of what any contemporary RT(S) or turn based game could or could ever hope to achieve or emulate.

First, marketing costs a ton of money just to get 5 minutes of attention. Money has to come from somewhere and it certainly doesn't come from wargamers. You guys are great people, but there aren't nearly enough of you. Ask yourself... how many wargame companies are out there now compared to 5 years ago and compared to 5 years before that?

Second, you can't sell a concept to people that don't want it. CMBO made a HUGE splash and got a lot of attention and sold about 10 times more units than we had thought we would. It did not make us rich, it did not push us into the greater market. And with each release the novelty wore off and we lost customers. In fact that is the fatal flaw in Lt Bull's convoluted logic:

We had customers, in hand, and they were sold on the concept. Yet they grew tired of it too. MANY people have posted that here, yet the evidence is being chucked aside because it supports our arguments.

I do not believe for a moment that the CM game/name inevitavble HAD to go down the RT route to make it commerically viable

It doesn't matter if you believe this or not. You aren't the one whose job depends on making the right decision. All you risk is the purchase price of one game, we risk our careers. So yeah, we've thought about this a LOT more than you have. We've also got more information than you have. So please... stop presuming you are in the same position we are because you are not.

Sirocco,

You accuse people of wrongheaded thinking, but honestly, Steve, if you think better presenting titles wouldn't help with sales, even after the botched release of CMSF, there's no hope. The five years is a bit of a strawman, too.

Why is the five year thing a strongman? It's the entire basis of the CMx2 strategy. Are you saying that I'm lying? As for the the declining sales thing... you obviously did not read at least one of my posts. CMx1 was inherently stuck in WWII ETO. We ran out of marketable source material and therefore the engine was dead. That should be the end of the story, but we have so many people who think they are game marketing gurus it isn't.

CMx2 was designed explicitly to avoid the problems with the CMx1 game system. We can dramatically change the subject matter. We can change many of the game elements rather fundamentally too. And we are not starting off with a game system that is dated.

The "unique" selling point of CM isn't WEGO, or RT, for that matter; it's a higher fidelity representation of small unit combat combined with a simple interface and good, if not cutting edge, graphics.

This is the problem with you guys trying in the peanut gallery. You can not agree on what made CMx1 great, you can not agree on what it did wrong, you can not agree on ANYTHING yet you wish to think that there was one right way to do CM:SF. Coincidentally, that one right way is also the way you think it should be. You guys really don't see this?

If we had released CM:SF with a basically CMx1 game engine with prettier graphics I can tell you there would be as much discussion about what we did "wrong" as there is now.

thewood,

I believe that WEGO was a factor, the right concept at the right time. It drew in wargamers who dismissed RT and also brought in some people from less grog-like areas who dismissed turn-based. I still have to explain WEGO to people who think CM is the same type type of turn-based game as Steel Panthers. That goes to the marketing of the concept.

I agree with this. 5 years ago the entire market was in a different place. We managed to do something that was well timed and did reasonably well with it. The game companies that insist they can rely on their past successes for their future usually fail. There are literally hundreds of game companies out there that made "hits" and only a small number exist today. This is a brutal business and you have to innovate or you go out of business. Simple as that with one exception. You can also scale your game development efforts to your core audience and just be happy with the modest return on time invested that comes from that. Purposefully setting ourselves up to remain forever stuck in such a niche within a niche market is not what we want to do with our lives. We'd voluntarily close our doors and move onto other vocations before we did something like that.

I have been looking at some of the non-wargame forums and CMSF is getting beaten up for being too complicated and difficult to play. I think the setting and concepts are inherently difficult for non-wargamers, just like the nuances of Madden or other sport franchises. No matter what format BFC chose, very few RTS games ar going to come over and get hooked.

All we need are some of them to come over, not a lot. We feel the market is there and we think we've already seen evidence that we've tapped into it. How much? Hard to say at this early stage of 3+ weeks post launch, but we know we didn't totally miss the mark. And since we're in this for the long haul, we keep a long term perspective about what we can do as well as what we have already done.

Steve

[Dennis50]

SBPro as I understand it was not made for the niche war gaming crowd but more so for the military ..a number of different militaries if I'm not mistaken. ProPE was for the general public and the price was high so as to not offend the major buyers (military). Plus ProPE of course does not do everything the military version does, understandably. The version for the gaming public SB2 still has not seen the light of day and when it does it will be much cheaper.

The next generation wants to blow stuff up ..So do I (lol) but I kinda disagree CMSF is too complicated but rather it is ..Blow stuff up with a little attitude.

Btw ..I own SBPPE ..it's fun but I find it just a little bit shallow for lack of a better word.

The guys over on their forum are divided between the grogs and the gamers ...and they are discussing right now how to get multi-player back up ..it seems to be getting comatose.

Did I make any sense at all or am I doing the ramble thingy.

Regards,

Gunz

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There is a reason why you guys are called gamers and we are called publishers... so everybody is entitled to an opinion, but when you guys start thinking you know how to run a publishing business my eyes begin to gloss over. Most of the thinking so far in this thread is so far off I don't even know where to go with it.

Most people don't know they can run any business until they try. Till then no harm in discussing. It's free (is any time really free though? ) and a great way to explore ideas and get other poeples views on things. Formal market research can be very expensive.

It is obvious there is a difference of opinion here.

I understand that this discussion is kind of like having people looking over BFC's shoulder as they work, going through their laundry basket looking for clues trying to help explain and understand for themselves what led to the abandonment of the truly innovative gaming concept/platform by it's creators, especially when much of it is second guessing the decisions that have been made by BFC right through CMx1 to CMSF. It would tick me off as well, but I wouldn't for one discourage it or simply write it off because I am the publisher and they are not. It's all academic now. The horse has bolted. Does it really matter? BTW I certainly am not trying to tell BTS how to run their business. It is too late for that.

I think BFC/CMx1/CMx2 would make an excellent choice of focus for a case study to be discussed/researched in depth by students in a business/innovation/marketing course. I think BFC/CMx1 was a classic case of a small time company with limited resources and capital, that came up with an excellent innovative idea/concept for a game system, but found themsleves unable to fully commercially exploit, develop and enhance the concept beyond really their first attempt, ultimately ditching their innovation in favour of pursuing a more conservative product model. There are lots of "what if" questions worth discussing that certainly do help in putting things in perspective as far as determinig the potential commercial viability of a game system like CMx1 BEYOND the context and scope of resources, budget and business direction that BFC had at their disposal.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Most of the thinking so far in this thread is so far off I don't even know where to go with it. This is a prime example:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />BFC failed to adequately market, package and sell the fundamental gaming concept/system that was unique to CMx1 (mainly the WegO system) to a market that extended beyond your hardcore grogs into your more general "I like strategy games" kind of crowd, despite having developed and introduced to the market a new, unique, ground breaking and powerful gameplay system for potentially representing a whole range of tactical level combat engagements that surpassed the scope, scale, realism and detail of what any contemporary RT(S) or turn based game could or could ever hope to achieve or emulate.

First, marketing costs a ton of money just to get 5 minutes of attention. Money has to come from somewhere and it certainly doesn't come from wargamers. You guys are great people, but there aren't nearly enough of you. Ask yourself... how many wargame companies are out there now compared to 5 years ago and compared to 5 years before that?</font>

[-E]

Hmmm, I bought CMBO because of the pre-release buzz. After experiencing CMBO I pre-ordered CMBB whole-heartedly because of Gary Grigsby. I pre-ordered CMAK, but didn't really enjoy open deserts too much (although I tried to track down enough stuff to do the Normany thing a few times, I always ended up with something desert-like in the middle of my game). I pre-ordered CMSF because of inertia. Although my inertia lost serious steam with the current implementation of Quick Battles, so unless the next CM is back to the Eastern Front, we'll see. I doubt I'll ever buy CMC (because I believe I'll never have the option).

[GAGA Extrem]

As for me, I would like to make an interesting statement here...

...sorta ironic...

...because I know someone who disconvered the CM series (iirc it was cmbo) via 'the big bad donkey' and is now proud owner of original CMBO, CMBB and CMAK...

[jep]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I found the CC2 style campaign boring, repetitive, and downright aggravating. Just a reminder that opinions can differ

Opinions do vary, but that's a little too straightforward to say. Why I like CC campaign? Because I am lucky enough to have a regular opponent. A campaign, as a minigame, gives us an excuse to enjoy several single scenarios. Tactical aspects in campaign adds some flavour too. Should I fight until routed from map? Should i retreat until that easy to defend map? What troops should i buy? I guess people who do not like CC campaign play it as a single player. I do not like that too (I am not sure if that because easy AI or repetitive campaign). Now if somebody decides he do not like CC campaign as a multiplayer game, our opinions differs. I think that a good game A) allows me to employ new strategies to outsmart my opponent (CMx1), gives me a (multiplayer) campaign with a tactical flavour (the Close Combat series) and inludes a full potential of the CMx2 engine C). Oh, and to lesser extend I would like to see a nice graphics too (Theatre of War). Obviously I am waiting impatiently for the CM: Campagns release.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Yes, the CM:SF campaign is a better as a singleplayer game (a multiplayer campaign should be more like a gameboard). However, I think what's important is that Close Combat shows us how easy it is to create a campaign with a tactical flavour. Actually, it seems for me that CMx2 allready includes all the core components of CC2 like campaign. Basically, what Steve described as a "boring, repetitive, and downright aggravating" is not about CC2 style campaign but what scenario designers do.

[C'Rogers]

Lt.Bull,

Have you ever had the experience of meeting a person who gave CMx1 a serious try and just didn't like it (maybe you have said so, don't recall all your posts). You are a person that loves CMx1 (as am I), the thing is that there are a large amount of gamers that just don't like it. I have had copies I have given to friends returned to me.

If that doesn't work I don't think marketing would have helped much more. Sure I imagine there are some people out there who would love CM and never heard of it (probably, like myself, people who could care less about WWII). But the cost to reach them is probably well more than the worth.

As for could CMx1 have been further pursued, sure. However I don't think CMx2 is nearly as far away from CMx1 as you make it out to be. I don't think RT is nearly that big an issue (and if WEGO worked better it wouldn't even be mentioned). 1 to 1 representation is more of an issue perhaps, but that is (IMHO) more do to people wanting to play CM as a battalion level game then a company.

I don't see how BFC made any decisions that took CMx2 away from CMx1. Sure there are some thing that I (in my infinite wisdom) would have done differently. But that is more an issue of priorities then design decisions.

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

Lt.Bull,

Have you ever had the experience of meeting a person who gave CMx1 a serious try and just didn't like it (maybe you have said so, don't recall all your posts). You are a person that loves CMx1 (as am I), the thing is that there are a large amount of gamers that just don't like it. I have had copies I have given to friends returned to me.

If that doesn't work I don't think marketing would have helped much more. Sure I imagine there are some people out there who would love CM and never heard of it (probably, like myself, people who could care less about WWII). But the cost to reach them is probably well more than the worth.

Of course I can appreciate that there are a lot of gamers that didn't find BFC's CMx1 offerings worthy of their time/$.

The ones I have come across would say something along the lines of it's boring (when does the action start?), I don't have enough time (to sit there and plan), I have to think too much, why isn't it RT (like CC), the graphics could be better.

If we were talking about food, they were looking for something quick n' tasty, familiar, easy to eat, something they could chow down while standing up...basically fast food. As we know, CMx1 is more like something a little bit more exotic than the ordinary, can take a while to cook and would require you to take the time to sit down, enjoy and savour, morsel by morsel. It is just a different experience.

In this respect, CMx1 would never probably attract the "fast food" crowd or gamer, but it should appeal to gamers who are disposed to investing a bit more time and tactical/strategic thought into their gaming. Certainly there are many other games that demand this from the player as well. Many empire building games, or games with lots of things to control and do, games that engage the mind more than say motor skills (speed/accuracy at using computer hardware/software). This certainly is one of the major boxes that first need to be checked in the gamers profile before moving on. At this point, it still represents quite a large portion fo the potential gamer market.

Having established this, things get a little more specific and particular. At this stage here the look and feel of the game will start to be a factor, the art, the graphics (even if it is suprficial) and the GUI -> does the software easily allow the player to interact and feel comforatble with the mechanics of the game without detratcting from the fun? At the same time does the game (including demo) efficiently and effectively do a good job of introducing and highlighting the BEST aspects of the game and teaching the player how to play? Some game companies specifically put in a lot of effort into demos/turorials/walk through videos (the kind of marketing that I think BFC have neglected) to ensure ANYONE who engages the demo/video etc is sure to come away knowing how to play the game and what the "fun" in the game is. All these kind of aspects really have NOTHING to do with the actual concept behind the game you WANT them to play and enjoy.

It is very easy to appreciate just how influential these kind of "non-game concept" factors can be in determinig whether a potential gamer ends up liking or not liking the experience of playing game. The following extreme example will hopefully drive home my point.

Just consider a realtively successful game that many of you should be familiar with, Rome Total War for example. The developers invested quite a bit of time/$/resources from it's overall budget in to it's marketability. Now I will ask you to consider a bunch of hypothetical changes to that game which WILL NOT do anything to affect or alter the the game concept itself, but will affect the way the game is presented, percieved, communicated and engaged by the player. Most of these things I would consider to fall under the category of "marketing factors" more or less, and are really just cosmetic in most cases.

1) The resolution stays the same but the color palete is now only made up of just enough colours to achieve the game design intention eg. to distinguish different units, terrain on the map etc. Think mono colored units/objects where possible.

2) The aspect of the game engine relating to graphics/animation is replaced by one that reduces the resolution and detail of the 3D models used in the game to a point where they functionally communcate what is neccesary to the player for them to play the game, albeit in a much less graphically realistic way. It is in fact almost indistinguishable visually from the one used in an earlier Total War release 5-6 yeras ago.

3) All font used in the game is now also rationalised to one style and is not of the kind one would consider ergonomically legible (think some overly fancy/curly style that is not familiar).

4) All keyboard commands related to the game are now randomly shuffled but still allow a player to functionally use them (though they may not be associated with keys that follow any logical or even intuitive order)

5) The frame rate of the game is reduced to just at or below "playable", making investment in a higher end graphics card no better for playing this game then the cheapest model available.

6) All music and sounds is now midi based and mono, in some cases it is removed if it has no functional gameplay purpose.

7) All graphic art not functionally part of or necessary to the gameplay (eg. box art, title art, menu art, manual art, in game texture maps of objects) is replaced with mono coloured backgrounds. If graphical differnetiation is requied for gameplay purposes, it is replaced with child-like abstract fingerpainting where possible. Think a DOS looking mouse driven GUI ingame.

8) The game manual is fully complete and contains ALL the text, info and images of the original but is now formatted in and printed from Notepad in B&W. Anything within the game which may of "assisted" or "eductaed" the player on how to play the game, has now been removed from within he game and instead incorporated and explained within the manual.

9) There are no ingame tutorials, narrative help or tool tips that would otherwise repeat anything that one might be able to learn about find by RTFM.

10) The demo is simply a time based version of the full game, in that a player would not even know it was a demo if they were playing it. It does nothing more to sell the game to a player than what the full game would, other than being free to downlaod.

Functionally, the game concept/mechanics itself has NOT been changed. The rules of the game have not changed. The tactics to play and win the game still apply and have not been changed. It is essentially the SAME playable game in every respect. Except for one "minor' thing....the way it was presented/marketed. The very presentation of the game alone would probably ensure that a vast majority of it's current customers would not even bother much past their first few minutes/seconds of viewing the game/demo/screenshots etc. So regardless of how good or bad your game concept was, people aren't even going to bother trying to learn it, and you would never really going to know exactly why.

In fact, if you are OBLIVIOUS to the influence of those factors, you might primarily attribute the commercial failure of your game to some aspect of the game mechanic like "We should have included a "Move to contact" command" or "We should have incldued the "Trevesian Light Horse" cavalry unit" or "The Carthagina Elephants are too powerful", or "The game should have been Wego instead of RTS", or even "Maybe people aren't that interested in the Roman theatre of operations". You may of actually had a GEM of a game concept but you simply failed to market it correctly.

These are the very "game concept" type of reasons for the commerical demise of the CMx1 franchise that I hear coming from BFC and others elsewhere in this thread and forum. And this is why when I heard BFC's main focus of change from CMx1 to CMx2 was NOT to address these "marketing" type of issues that most likely affected sales of CM in the past, but to instead focus on trying to play around with and "sexying up" the "game concept" by introducing RT as their main focus, 1:1 representation and eliminating things likes abstraction and a lot of other core things found in CMx1 , that I began to question fundamental basis of what BFC were trying to achieve with CMSF.

NOTE: Ultimately, a game WILL be judged on the depth, scope and challenge provided by the game concept itself, if the player ever gets that far of course. This is where I believe CMx1 stumbled. Even though I thought for a niche wargame company, BFC did better than most wargame companies, I don't think they did quite enough to make people see past those kind of "marketing factors" I listed above to really have a chance to feel comfortable enjoying the GEM of a game concept that made up CMx1. I am certain that there was a large (critical?) chunk of the market that would otherwise have appreciated the CMx1 but could not/did not because either they got the wrong impression of for what it was about by the way it may of been presented/marketed to them by BFC .

I know that only the hardest of hardcore "I don't care about graphics" (war)gamers could see past that list of 10 changes I listed and still be able to see and appreciate the game concept/mechanics for what it is, and this is exactly the market traditional wargame companies seem to (want to?) cater for. I don't know if it is just a desire to just focus on "the game concept" too much or an inability to know how to communicate/relate with the general market or if they just ignore that side of selling games.

Many traditional wargame companies seem to rely on and deicate too much of their budget/resources to the "game concept" as their main selling point. "We just care about great gameplay. Graphics, art and the sort are secondary to us." All very well, but you will scare off a large part of the market before they even get to see that great "game gameplay" if you don't assign the right balance of marketing $/resources to it.

I thought BFC were going to re-address that imbalance with CMx2, but to me, with the way things are with CMSF, they seem to have missed the mark again. I think BFC chose to instead focus on reinventing the wheel with CMx2 (unlearning and breaking a lot of what wasn't broken in CMx1) rather than ensuring they didn't scare customers off like I have described above. Perhaps their investment in transforming CM into a graphical 1:1 representation of tactical combat (basically addressing points 1) and 2) in my list) and RT style gameplay was seen as the one missing element that would magically address all the marketing deficiencies of CMx1. Looks like they have created a whole new bunch of problems for themselves, while leaving a whole bunch of others unaddressed and weakening their game concept at the same time. Not the step forward I was expecting.

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

As for could CMx1 have been further pursued, sure. However I don't think CMx2 is nearly as far away from CMx1 as you make it out to be. I don't think RT is nearly that big an issue (and if WEGO worked better it wouldn't even be mentioned). 1 to 1 representation is more of an issue perhaps, but that is (IMHO) more do to people wanting to play CM as a battalion level game then a company.

I don't see how BFC made any decisions that took CMx2 away from CMx1. Sure there are some thing that I (in my infinite wisdom) would have done differently. But that is more an issue of priorities then design decisions.

The move to primarily bring the scope and scale of CM back to the company level and below is probably my biggest issue with CMx2. This goes hand in hand with the move towards 1:1 graphical representation of as much as possible and toward RT-centric style gameplay (which by definition limits the scope and scale of what is possible) as being the mode of play primarily supported and encouraged by BTS. I personally liked the scalability/flexibility/choice that CMx1 gave the scenario designer/player to create the range and scope of battles. It seems that many features that worked in CMx1 WeGO are missing from CMSF Wego because they would otherwise be considered excessive/un-neccessary/innapriopriate when considering CMSF RT style gameplay, as the CMSF WeGo and RT user-interface and command set are IDENTICAL!! This is KEY when considering how RT has affected Wego gameplay in CMx2.

eg. What hapopned to all those unit commands we could issue in CMx1? I am almost certain we will never see them again because they would be inappropriate/distracting/impractical when considering their implications on RT gameplay.

[ August 20, 2007, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[xor+]

Originally posted by Sergei:

The divine truth is that CMBB sold poorly because it had some Italians in it, and CMAK sold even worse because it even had Italy in it. This is why you don't see them in CMSF upcoming modules list.

I've heard rumours about a secret module: Saving Signora Sgrena...

[DavidFields]

My guess is that a game company benefits from having two types of customers:

1. The ones who play it a few times and then go onto something else--hopefully they enjoy those few times. This will make the company the bulk of its money. Civ4 has released...at least two follow-up expansions in about a year. I don't think most people played all there was in the original Civ4 before buying the expansions. Or the original Empire Earth, or Empire Earth2, or Age of Empire3.

2. And those, at least with this type of product, who stick around, comment on the games, mod them. My guess is that many of these types are....thrifty. They aren't getting two $60 games for there birthday in November, and then another 3 $60 games at Christmas. Am I wrong that most of the people on this forum buy their own games, not get them as gifts?

BFC, I would suggest, needs the first type of customer to survive, and tolerates/enjoys the second type--in part because most of the people in BFC are likely the second type themselves, and because of the technical and practical feed-back.

I have CMBO/BB/AK. I was trying to play BB/AK in historical order. I got "stuck" on Descent on Malame, since I consider it just an awesome Operation. Have hardly touched BB--I dream about retiring and having time to enjoy BB...which would takes months and months, if not years, to thoroughly consume..which would make me a lousy customer.

[And rampant pirating of these games? Just because the girl looked good to you, you are deluding yourself to think that everyone else is trying to hit on her. The graphics of the CM1 series had a obsolete look from the get-go. Unfair, but superficial looks carry a lot of weight with the crowd.]

BFCs business model seems similar to the makers of EUIII, HOI2, Victoria. I very much hope they survive. Perhaps they should be given some slack.

[ August 22, 2007, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

[Tarquelne]

Am I wrong that most of the people on this forum buy their own games, not get them as gifts?

It's considered the worst of insults to receive one as a gift. IIRC M. Dorosh and M. Emrys - two of our most prominent members - broke up over CMAK given as a birthday present.

BFCs business model seems similar to the makers of EUIII, HOI2, Victoria.

But even with CMSF they have a long way to go on the inclusion of initial-release bugs. (It's the creation of patches that keeps a programmer happy and productive. Take note, Steve.)

[Battlefront.com]

Lt.Bull

OK then. BFC HAD to go down the RT path with the CM series because, with the resources they had, they were never capabale of doing anything more commercially with CMx1 than what they had done. BFC have made their decision, reinvented their vision for what they want CM to be (CMx2) and basically burnt their bridges with respect to commercially pursuing the development of the concept of game that CMx1 was. Despite this, the concept of game that CMx1 represents and it's market potential outside of what BTS represents still exists.

This is the part you refuse to comprehend... we didn't burn any bridges, they were burned by the games themselves. We were out of subject matter, we had code that couldn't be massaged into doing anything new, and we had a customer base that was so small that it wasn't even worth releasing a Talonsoft style "Complete Gold Super Edition" that just rehashed what was already done. You can go off into fantasyland and say there is some massive untapped WeGo market just waiting for 7 year old looking graphics and massive visual abstractions, but we have two things you don't:

1. Experience to know such a market DOES NOT EXIST

2. Our butts on the line

Again, you can ramble on about whatever you like, but you're just wasting virtual space in doing so. You're premises in this thread are absolutely contrary to reality. Sure, you are entitled to an opinion, but it is just that... an opinion. It holds no value beyond that.

With BTS now out of the equation, it is worth discussing, even academically, using CMx1 as an example, what it would take from a developer, in terms of game design, marketing and budget to make the gaming concept that basically was CMx1 a commercially viable franchise proposition. This breaks the discussion wide open without fear of making anyone feel they are telling BFC how to run their business, as developing the kind of game CMx1 represents is no longer of any current or future interest to them.

It breaks the discussion wide open into a black hole. There is no future for CMx1, which is why we moved on to CMx2. Again, you can have the opinion that we are wrong, but you might as well be arguing with a planetary scientists that the world is flat. We know there is no market for it or we would have continued to leverage what we already had. You REALLY think we wanted to spend 3 years rewriting something just for the heck of it?

This discussion however now is clearly diverging from the original thread topic so it might need to be resumed elsewhere.

Uhm... why? I think it has been thoroughly demonstrated that your opening post was as wrong as just about everything else you posted. Piracy had nothing to do with anything. The $2 CDs of CMBO on the streets of Baku and Hong Kong weren't responsible for CMx1's development deadend. To suggest otherwise is akin to the Nazi's "stabbed in the back" conspiracy theory for how Germany lost WWI. Trying to explain away the obvious because you don't like it isn't a very productive use of anybody's time.

CMx1 had its day in the sun and, like hundreds of games before it, the day ended. Perhaps it will come back as a retro thing like Space Invaders and PacMan have, but that's about all that can be hoped for.

Steve

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Interesting discussion, but now I'm clueless about the BFC strategy.

So if I've undestood correctly BFC, CMx1 had a very small history TBS grog customer base, insufficient to support the company. So what's the move ? Going to non-historical, yet realistic/detailed, RT.

So the old customer base is mostly disappointed - I'm in that case and am really not alone...

And now where's the new customer base ? Apart from US military buffs it looks even smallish !

No way the RTS crowd will ever been hooked by a game so sophisticated, where for a non-specialist it looks like there's 3 units : Infantry, APC and tank.

Plus the graphics, even if way better than CMX1, are still worse than the current standards. The models are close, but the terrain is really subpar.

Recently there's been a steady trend of WW2 themed RTS, from Blitzkrieg to CoH. These had good success because they mixed the historical "romance" and the RTS standards. What does CM:SF ? None of both sides.

Sadly I really think that forgetting its faithful customer base and go running after some fantasy "mass market" where BFC is unable to compete will end in failure.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yeah, I don't understand the move to RT. I assume they must be expecting to pick up a lot of customers who would not look at a turn-based game, but from all the comments CMSF is apparently not easily accessable even for CM vets. CM is too hardcore to ever be more than a niche product.

[bartleby]

Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

Interesting discussion, but now I'm clueless about the BFC strategy.

So if I've undestood correctly BFC, CMx1 had a very small history TBS grog customer base, insufficient to support the company. So what's the move ? Going to non-historical, yet realistic/detailed, RT.

So the old customer base is mostly disappointed - I'm in that case and am really not alone...

And now where's the new customer base ? Apart from US military buffs it looks even smallish !

No way the RTS crowd will ever been hooked by a game so sophisticated, where for a non-specialist it looks like there's 3 units : Infantry, APC and tank.

Plus the graphics, even if way better than CMX1, are still worse than the current standards. The models are close, but the terrain is really subpar.

Recently there's been a steady trend of WW2 themed RTS, from Blitzkrieg to CoH. These had good success because they mixed the historical "romance" and the RTS standards. What does CM:SF ? None of both sides.

Sadly I really think that forgetting its faithful customer base and go running after some fantasy "mass market" where BFC is unable to compete will end in failure.

Most of the discussion here is going to be hypothetical or anecdotal, simply because we lack the marketing information. That said, I think you look too coldly on "the RTS crowd." RTSs are plenty complex; if anything, CM:SF simplifies by eliminating base management or economics. Most gamers aren't stupid and are surprisingly open to new things. I don't think any specific design decision in CM:SF would outright make it untenable for mass success. It comes down to marketing at that point, and I won't comment on that since I don't know about it.

On the other hand, BFC did manage to avoid some things that could have - namely infantry abstraction and a total lack of real time. As an experiment, try to think of the last major hex-based title that was a mainstream success. It was probably something like Panzer General, and that was about a decade ago. I don't think games like Civilization or Axis & Allies count because they're not trying to be tactical simulators. What kinds of games have taken their place? Well, ironically, games like CMx1 are a decent guess. Hex-based games are dead. There is an increasing expectation of at least the form of realism, and BFC have to respond to that reality. Dorosh made some excellent points in his design thread that I agree with about designing for effect, but I that's a different subject. While gamers aren't stupid, as a group we often look at forms instead of content (see what I said about anecdotal?). Even if 1 to 1 leads to less realistic outcomes at times, the alternative is seen as worse.

While I wish WeGo was an option for multiplayer, I must admit to loving real time. One of the things I'm most interested in is time in battle and from turn-based to WeGo to real time was a natural progression. It's a totally different experience from CMx1.

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Yeah, I don't understand the move to RT. I assume they must be expecting to pick up a lot of customers who would not look at a turn-based game, but from all the comments CMSF is apparently not easily accessable even for CM vets. CM is too hardcore to ever be more than a niche product.

Nah, I think most of the grumbling is a synergistic effect from being skeptical about modern war and annoyed about bugs. If the pathing and TacAI were better, this place would be a lot quieter. I can't see people having conniptions if the only problem was the lack of WeGo in multiplayer.

[Thomm]

Strange, I always thought that CM:SF can still be played WeGo?!

I cannot say for sure, though, because playing it since release day I never chose WeGo mode, not even once (and I bought all three CMx1 games, thus I am an "old customer", too).

The game hopefully will get patched up to a state where WeGo becomes more playable for guys like Pascal or Vanir, but to blame RT for the problems and not some unfinished programming is not productive.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Vanir Ausf B]

I actually like modern warfare.

If developement hadn't been split between RT and WEGO I doubt some of the issues we see would be present, e.g. inability to modify waypoints, conduct ambushes in WEGO, no LOS tool. This is very basic stuff that was present in CMBO v1.0. It's nothing that could not be fixed in patches but I have not seen BFC commit to doing so.

But my comment was more to the point that I don't see CMx2 making headway in the crowded RTS market. It's a wargame. I could be wrong, but Panther Games' Airborne Assault series is realtime and I don't see it topping the sales charts.

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

This is the part you refuse to comprehend...

we didn't burn any bridges, they were burned by the games themselves. We were out of subject matter, we had code that couldn't be massaged into doing anything new, and we had a customer base that was so small that it wasn't even worth releasing a Talonsoft style "Complete Gold Super Edition" that just rehashed what was already done. You can go off into fantasyland and say there is some massive untapped WeGo market just waiting for 7 year old looking graphics and massive visual abstractions...

Wooh wooh wooh up partner!! I feel like I am having words put in my mouth then having to deal with the fallout. I understand that there may be a difference of opinion but misunderstanding me is a different thing. Maybe I just need to be a bit even more pedantic about explaining things though I am sure I tried to spell it out before.

Perhaps my use of the term "CMx1 concept" as opposed to just "CMx1" is the source of this apparent misundertanding and confusion.

"CMx1" = the actual games (CMBO, CMBB, CMAK), their engines, the subject matter as historically coded/packaged/marketed/sold by BFC

"CMx1 concept" = the fundamental concept behind the gameplay/game design that made up CMx1, and all it's possibilities, market and commercial potential, realised or unrealised, not limited to just the historical interperations of the game concept as commercially represented in CMBO, CMBB and CMAk as published by BFC (though they take credit for being the first to commercially explore/publish and define the concept). The concept doesn't belong to anyone, including BFC (except for the commercial use of the registered name "Combat Mission" I believe). I think something like Panzer Command might be considered a "CMx1 concept" kind of game, but I have no practical experience with it to be better informed (well the one that I did have left me unimpressed ).

eg. In the same way that the main "concept" behind the game series Chessmaster is the game we know of as chess. The Chessmaster series is just one commercial package, INTERPRETATION or REPRESENATTION of the game concept we know of as chess. The game of chess does not BELONG to the guys who make Chessamster, and Chessmaster does not define all there is to know about the commercial viability/potential/possibilities of making a chess based computer game (though I believe they are one of the market leaders). Other companies are free to publish their own version/interprestaion of a computer chess game. Maybe they have better ideas on how to design better GUIs, or package and market the game within their own software engine to make it a better overall experience and game package than Chessmaster.

So going back to the BFC quote, I hope it can be seen that I did not envisage or make reference to a fantasyland that includes a 7 year old CMx1 engine (as we know it), in any of my posts.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Again, you can ramble on about whatever you like, but you're just wasting virtual space in doing so. You're premises in this thread are absolutely contrary to reality. Sure, you are entitled to an opinion, but it is just that... an opinion. It holds no value beyond that.

Thanks for the encouragement.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It breaks the discussion wide open into a black hole. There is no future for CMx1, which is why we moved on to CMx2. Again, you can have the opinion that we are wrong, but you might as well be arguing with a planetary scientists that the world is flat. We know there is no market for it or we would have continued to leverage what we already had. You REALLY think we wanted to spend 3 years rewriting something just for the heck of it?

Again a misunderstanding of my term "CMx1 concept" seems to have led to the need for these comments. Yes CMx1 is dead, and so is BFC's interest in the concept of game it represented. I understand that. It is/was BFC's baby and their baby alone, loved by many (but not enough it seems), it lived only one life, the one BFC chose for it and then they killed it (for whatever reasons). It is almost as if BFC are annoyed that so many people turned up for the funeral and keep revisting the grave site talking to each other wondering what went wrong and what could have been and how great it would be if the soul of CMx1 (the game concept) could find a new home in a new fresh body and live again, bigger and better than it ever could in the one BFC gave it, rather than attend BFCs baptism of their newborn CMx2.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lt Bull:

This discussion however now is clearly diverging from the original thread topic so it might need to be resumed elsewhere.

Uhm... why? </font>

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

...and we had a customer base that was so small that it wasn't even worth releasing a Talonsoft style "Complete Gold Super Edition"...

we may be "small", but we are cute, furry and love to be scratched on the belly...no wait, that's my dog...

..anyway, we have a good sense of humour, does'nt that count for anything?

[Battlefront.com]

Bartleby

While gamers aren't stupid, as a group we often look at forms instead of content (see what I said about anecdotal?). Even if 1 to 1 leads to less realistic outcomes at times, the alternative is seen as worse.

Very true. The people reacting most vocally against the changes made in the core engine tend to gloss over the benefits those changes bring with it. One way to do that is to view CMx1 as some sort of perfect balance of things and therefore any change can only be negative. Remind them how unrealistic the terrain was, how limiting the options were in the Editor, etc. and the discussion generally moves onto something else because it's hard to argue against an informed comparison instead of an emotional one.

The 1:1 thread Dorosh started up is a perfect example. Sure, there are abstractions in the current system, but they pale in comparison to CMx1. So people concerned about abstractions can argue that CMx2 is inferior, but in doing so they can't also argue that they care about realism. It would be like someone arguing that they prefer women/men for relationships who are intelligent and considerate, yet every one they hook up with is some brainless bimbo/jerk who has nothing more than great boobs/pecks. At some point the difference between words and actions has to be pointed out

Vanir,

If developement hadn't been split between RT and WEGO I doubt some of the issues we see would be present, e.g. inability to modify waypoints, conduct ambushes in WEGO, no LOS tool. This is very basic stuff that was present in CMBO v1.0. It's nothing that could not be fixed in patches but I have not seen BFC commit to doing so.

These issues didn't have anything to do with RT. For example, we didn't include a LOS tool because we feel it is redundant. Since we already have a ton of Commands we felt including it was not a good idea. I have no idea why this is such a problem for people. Movable waypoints, and dozens of other things, weren't put in for one reason or another and none of them had to do with RT.

But my comment was more to the point that I don't see CMx2 making headway in the crowded RTS market. It's a wargame. I could be wrong, but Panther Games' Airborne Assault series is realtime and I don't see it topping the sales charts.

Apples to oranges. Operational games have always had a hard sell because regardless of how they are executed. Simply having something "RealTime" doesn't do squat for a game. It's got to have something else. In the case of Airborne Assault, the operational level means no "whizbang" stuff you get from tactical and no resource management stuff you get from strategic. On top of that, Airborne Assault is a "command level game" and that reduces their appeal even further since most wargamers, even, don't like such things. You've been around long enough to know that we've argued against any such attempts to make CM into a "command level" game. Lastly, Airborne Assault suffered from having no Americans in it. I can not tell you how much I think the latter reason sucks, but our sales experience has shown that the bulk of our game audience is American and they want things that are familiar to them. Again, I think this sucks but it is what it is.

What this all means is that RT itself doesn't do much for a game if the game itself has limited appeal. In the case of Airborne Assault, I don't think RT helped or hurt it, therefore it was a neutral factor in its appeal to people.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... the negative reaction against RT by WeGo people is emotional and not rational. Early on we had entire threads claiming that there was NO WeGo at all anymore. The only explanation I can come up with is deep rooted fear of WeGo being phased out in favor of RT. I've said many times already that this will never happen, however emotional reactions that run as deep as this aren't easily placated by words. It's going to take a while for the fear and anxiety to go away.

Steve

[ August 23, 2007, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[BigDAS]

Geeze, and I thought I was wordy!

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

So people concerned about abstractions can argue that CMx2 is inferior, but in doing so they can't also argue that they care about realism. It would be like someone arguing that they prefer women/men for relationships who are intelligent and considerate, yet every one they hook up with is some brainless bimbo/jerk who has nothing more than great boobs/pecks. At some point the difference between words and actions has to be pointed out

Steve, you're way off base.

One can argue that CMx2 is inferior if it fails to pay off in certain ways that one feels are key. If the most important thing one cares about are big jugs, then Twiggy is an inferior partner as compared to Mamie Van Doren. Bottom line, end of that story.

You're projecting your own preferences onto people. Someone mentions abstraction mismatches, force picks, or interface issues, and you respond by making fun of their inability to grasp how "realistic" CMx2 is. Well, who cares about bullet trajectories when desired features are lost? You could make the most realistic simulation of sprinkling paprika in my eyes ever conceived and you'd be missing the point if you kept crowing about its "realism".

-dale