Did piracy kill the commercial viability of CMx1?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Bartleby

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

Steve </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

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".

You're speaking about a different line of argument, not the one I am addressing. What you are talking about is an opinion and I can't argue with someone that their opinion is wrong no more than they can argue that their opinion is right. That is VERY frustrating for some people because they KNOW that their opninion isn't universally shared.

We see that every time there is a discussion of RealTime, for example. Right after someone gets done posting about how useless it is, how impossible it is to play, what a waste of effort it was to make is a post that says how awesome, easy, and exciting it is to play. So what happens next? Well, the typical thing you see in a debate over opinions is the "out of favor" side tries to make their position less based on personal tastes and more based on imperical comparisions. This is done in an attempt to give more credibility to their own personal opinion compared to the one that is in opposition. It's debate tactics 101 and you see in this thread as well.

Customer - "you made a big mistake with the direction of the game. You should have kept things as they were".

Battlefront - "we made no mistake, rather a deliberate move. We're sorry you don't agree with it, but if we kept the way things were we'd probably be out of business"

Customer - "not true! You just didn't market yourself well enough. There was a HUGE potential that you failed to get and now we have to suffer for it".

Battlefront - "based on what information? Our information shows that there is no such potential and in fact the interest from wargamers themselves was declining. Here are some imperical facts to chew on".

Customer - "I disagree that your facts are facts. Instead, I'm going to change my argument to say something else and ignore the facts as presented, yet I'll present none of my own".

Battlefront - "That's great... we have facts and you refuse to present counter facts. Could it be that you don't know what you are talking about?"

Customer - "Now you're saying my uniformed opinion is of lesser worth than your informed one? I'm offended!"

Battlefront - "You're changing the subject again".

This has gone on in many threads, over and over again. I'm not blind or stupid, Dale. I kow some people are very upset about design decisions we made. Just as I knew in 1998 and 1999 that people were upset about other designs decisions we made. I understand, probably better than you think, the reasons why people are upset about these changes. Yet on some of these issues we will not budge. Not even an inch. And that is not seen as acceptable by some that are missing said feature/s. Because they know that the argument of "I want it, therefore you will GIVE IT TO ME" doesn't make much of an impression on us (never has, never will), other things get dragged into the discussion.

The WeGoers vilifying the RealTime core of the engine is one of the most pervasive themes in threads like this. Fortunately the ones that prefer RealTime, or at least enjoy it, aren't saying that the problems they are experiencing with their game experience is because we supported WeGo. Logically speaking, they could blame the bugs in Pathing and LOS/LOF on the fact that we supported explicit WeGo features. And know that if they did I would have the same reaction: "Bullocks!"

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We see that every time there is a discussion of RealTime, for example.

This is the one I have the most difficult time getting my head around. Again, not having a system with the grafx "oomph" to do more than fiddle, I can't say that I've even really "played" the demo, but I don't see, conceptually, how having one play option necessarily detracts from the other. Well, except for not being able to fast forward - that would bug me. But the rest of it on that particular topic, I just don't get from mere reading.

-dale

[track]

Yet on some of these issues we will not budge. Not even an inch. And that is not seen as acceptable by some that are missing said feature/s. Because they know that the argument of "I want it, therefore you will GIVE IT TO ME" doesn't make much of an impression on us (never has, never will)

Give it up folks. It ain't going to go your way. BF has made up their minds. Many of these threads have turned into open fighting between customers and BF represantatives. This is not a good sign. I think I'll give it a few months rest and come back to see where it is going.

[Michael Dorosh]

None of this addresses the real issue; which in my opinion is that 1:1 representation, at present, simply doesn't do any more than heighten expectation of increased modelling of unit abilities/capabilities without actually explicitly modelling them.

So in order to get this 1:1 graphical capability in, the game has been stripped of other capabilities - WEGO TCP, random maps, etc. - but for what is apparently little gain.

This may simply be faulty perception, but I've mentioned this before - without any kind of detailed manual or Designer's Notes, for the "detail obsessed grog" CMX2 simply looks like "CM Lite".

Hence the frustration of the Old Guard. And as I've said before, all the good intentions in the world and reassurances by the developer won't change that. So at this point we are all talking in circles from our own well-meaning perspectives.

In short - if I'm going to see every soldier on the battlefield, I'll look forward to the day where they behave in realistic ways and I can get them to do realistic things with a minimum of fuss. Watching them fight to the death, but not engage in close combat, seems odd, as does watching them stack up to clear a house, but not have any stairwells or interior walls; watching them give buddy aid, but never seeing them surrender; watching them climb individually into vehicles and reload their weapons, but never throw grenades over top of a wall.

Do the RT players really care if this stuff ever gets in? Do they have a reason to?

Right now, the gains have been "under the hood" stuff, and physical appearance. The modelling (including TacAI but also the 1:1 rep points I mentioned, among others) seems to be an area that still needs to be developed. That's all fair enough, but once that does catch up - as we hope the intention is - then perhaps the CMX1 fans will be more satisfied that we have a worthy successor.

[bitchen frizzy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Do the RT players really care if this stuff ever gets in? Do they have a reason to?

I would think that they would. Unless I'm mistaken, the more twitch they are, the more insistent they are that individuals on screen do cool things like toss grenades and kung-fu kick each other in close combat. That's what they've come to expect, after all, since they've seen it done already and for years, though of course on much smaller scales.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by bitchen frizzy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Do the RT players really care if this stuff ever gets in? Do they have a reason to?

I would think that they would. Unless I'm mistaken, the more twitch they are, the more insistent they are that individuals on screen do cool things like toss grenades and kung-fu kick each other in close combat. That's what they've come to expect, after all, since they've seen it done already and for years, though of course on much smaller scales. </font>

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Do the RT players really care if this stuff ever gets in? Do they have a reason to?

Are we (RT players) somehow Untermenschen, just because we prefer a different way of playing the same game, mainly to save (real) time?!?!?

Because this is the way it comes across. And I am a little bit tired of reading this.

The current state of the game has got nothing to do with RT, or WeGo, but with the design decisions/abstractions and with the amount of work that has still to be put into the game.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Chelco]

I agree with Thomm, that came out a bit offensive.

I have a question for Dorosh: you have betaed the game, thereby you had a first hand of these "problems" since a long time ago. You kept this issues for yourself before release because of the NDA?

Don't take me wrong, I am not looking for an argument or calling you a liar. But your posts back before release didn't reflect any type of the issues you are posting now.

[Petrus58]

2nd Rollstoy's point about RT. There are some pretty snobbish, and frankly stupid comments being made which should have no part on this forum

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Do the RT players really care if this stuff ever gets in? Do they have a reason to?

Are we (RT players) somehow Untermenschen, just because we prefer a different way of playing the same game, mainly to save (real) time?!?!?

Because this is the way it comes across. And I am a little bit tired of reading this.

The current state of the game has got nothing to do with RT, or WeGo, but with the design decisions/abstractions and with the amount of work that has still to be put into the game.

Best regards,

Thomm </font>

[Petrus58]

Michael - who said my comment was aimed at you? It wasn't in fact, perhaps you took offence too quickly?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

None of this addresses the real issue; which in my opinion is that 1:1 representation, at present, simply doesn't do any more than heighten expectation of increased modelling of unit abilities/capabilities without actually explicitly modelling them.

Howard Johnson is right! IMO anyway.

I think a better way to get a wargame out of it would be to simply add more detailed voice cues that would kick in within a certain distance of a 3-man unit. But that's neither here nor there. Nor my decision.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Petrus58:

Michael - who said my comment was aimed at you? It wasn't in fact, perhaps you took offence too quickly?

I'm covering all my bases.

[Chelco]

@ Dorosh:

you have betaed the game, thereby you had a first hand of these "problems" since a long time ago. You kept this issues for yourself before release because of the NDA?

Don't take me wrong, I am not looking for an argument or calling you a liar. But your posts back before release didn't reflect any type of the issues you are posting now.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Chelco:

@ Dorosh: your posts back before release didn't reflect any type of the issues you are posting now.

Why would you have expected that anyone might have discussed underlying design issues in open forum before release? It seems to me that such a discussion would have been inappropriate and more than a little confusing, if for no other reason than no one had seen the game yet(!)

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I thought it obvious that in RT you have less time to scroll around and look at things like karate kicks as opposed to WEGO where you can rewind and watch to your heart's content.

Re-read your original post.

The way I read it was that RT players are the kind of people who do not care about actions like grenades being thrown over walls, etc.

NOWHERE did you mention "Karate kicks" at that stage of the discussion. That came later. I have no idea why you mention this in this context.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Chelco]

I understand and I agree. It would have been confusing then.

In retrospective, what is confusing now is that you said the game was very good. You mentioned something about "being sucked in by the gameplay" and CMSF being "classic CM", IIRC. Coming from an "old guard" CMer, your feedback got stuck in my memory.

Anyway, all said with the best intentions. Pre-release excitement is one of the greatest things if a game comes out as good as CMSF. Let's say I agree with your pre-release posts and not with the more recent ones.

All the best,

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Chelco:

I understand and I agree. It would have been confusing then.

In retrospective, what is confusing now is that you said the game was very good.

But the game is very good, and it is CM. I just don't feel that it is leagues "better than CMX1" from the perspective of a serious infantry company model. I do enjoy the game. I know it seems contradictory, but it's true. I think my enjoyment of CMX2 is far more visceral, though, than CMX1, which by nature was a little more cerebral. But that could be the subject matter, too - I mean, I didn't need to think twice about running a Stuart into the line of sight of a King Tiger; but the modern stuff I really don't have a feel for so the enjoyment may be a bit off. That's an individual thing. We all have our biases.

You mentioned something about "being sucked in by the gameplay" and CMSF being "classic CM", IIRC. Coming from an "old guard" CMer, your feedback got stuck in my memory.

Anyway, all said with the best intentions. Pre-release excitement is one of the greatest things if a game comes out as good as CMSF. Let's say I agree with your pre-release posts and not with the more recent ones.

All the best,

CM:SF does what it was intended to. And the changes have been very great - look at the editor, for example, and the graphics, and the artillery modelling. There are tons of other examples I could cite. For all that, it isn't the game I wanted it to be - and Steve knows that. He knows he wasn't going to please everyone with this, and I think that's why he's open minded enough to tolerate dissent on the forum; I hope my comments are seen as respectful even if I am not necessarily being constructive - though I do think this kind of discourse is good, even if it doesn't change anything.

I do think that CMX2 will evolve and hopefully more in tune with the things I want to see - if we're going to have 1:1 rep, let's have a reason for it and not just "under the hood" - but ultimately, I am certainly not the only customer. As it is, I stand by all my comments pre-release that CM:SF delivers on a lot of promises, and offers a lot of marked improvements over CMX1.

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

It's hard to blame the frustration at this point, Steve - like they say in Missouri - you gotta show me. I'm sure you will, but like you say - deeds, not words, eh?

There is another saying... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink If you choose to look at the glass as half full even when it is explained in detail, as you requested, why the glass is more than half full. It's a lot of wasted effort. I can continue to explain the benefits which others are having no problem seeing until I am blue in the face, yet it won't be good enough for you and some others. The only way to make you (and people like Dale) completely happy, or so it would appear, is to rerelease CMx1 with almost no changes. Since that is not going to happen, what is the point of going on and on and on about things that are NOT going to change?

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dorosh,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It's hard to blame the frustration at this point, Steve - like they say in Missouri - you gotta show me. I'm sure you will, but like you say - deeds, not words, eh?

There is another saying... you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink If you choose to look at the glass as half full even when it is explained in detail, as you requested, why the glass is more than half full. It's a lot of wasted effort. I can continue to explain the benefits which others are having no problem seeing until I am blue in the face, yet it won't be good enough for you and some others. The only way to make you (and people like Dale) completely happy, or so it would appear, is to rerelease CMx1 with almost no changes. Since that is not going to happen, what is the point of going on and on and on about things that are NOT going to change?

Steve </font>

[easytarget]

i thought this thread was supposed to of already taken place months and months ago in a beta forum?

/steve makes a mental note to self to reconsider wading into such quagmires in the future, realizing belatedly there is no upside to discussing stuff you've already made your mind up about - after all, who would be silly enough to foot the bill for such abuse in their own forum?! :eek:

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

Steve, had you actually read my post and responded to it, you might have seen it differed substantially from the remarks of others; instead, I got your patented "you don't get it" reply.

Because you can't have it both ways. You seem to be trying to play to two different audiences. So yes, I do see your comments differ substantially from the remarks of others because they are extremely confused. I'm not saying you have to love or hate the game, and nothing inbetween, but you can't seem to make up your mind about what you like and don't like about it, or at least why you do or don't. I'm not the only one to notice this apparent split personality of your postings. Again, I don't expect you to have a black and white viewpoint, but it would be nice if it were at least consistent from post to post.

Really, you don't need to sell me on the game. See my last post. I'm just trying to tell you where the disconnect might be.

The disconnect is that all this whining (or pining, if you wish it put a nicer way) for things which will NEVER be again is just wasted time and yet it still continues. If you REALLY want to talk about how 1:1 could be made even better, then why not start a thread about that? Instead you start a thread posing the theory that 1:1 was all a big mistake and now (even still) are saying that you don't see what value it adds to the game. Most rational people would conclude that you don't like 1:1 and you would rather see it gone, not improved. If not, then I'd say there is a pretty big disconnect between what you say in one post and what you say in another.

A better response would be for you to to think of ways in which 1:1 rep might be better improved in the future - and getting things like prisoners (and escorts), individual room modelling, better covered arc and area fire in, etc. Stuff I know you're already thinking about if not actively working on.

If people weren't so busy telling us we should go back to heavy abstractions maybe we could talk about something else.

In other words - admit that you want to make it better than CMX1 instead of insisting that it already is. It may be prettier than CMX1, but at the nitty gritty level in certain fundamental areas, it ain't there yet - and frankly, you've been honest enough so far to admit that, too. So why you would turn around and insist that anyone who agrees with you "doesn't get it" seems a bit weird(!)

At the nitty gritty level CM:SF is far superior to CMx1 in all ways, hence my comment about being able to lead a horse to water and not forcing him to drink. There are some bugs in CM:SF, sure, but CMx1 had plenty of those that were worked out. So no, I will not admit that CM:SF is less than CMx1 in any way in terms of the nitty gritty. Not because I am blind or stubborn, but because it is the plain truth. Liking the changes or not is an opinion that is separate from that discussion.

Likewise, arguing that CM:SF is perfect "as is" is certainly not an argument I'm putting forward. As I've said it is evolutionary now and will continue to grow and improve, just like CMx1 did over time. CMBB was superior to CMBO and I expect CM:WW2 will be superior to CM:SF. Whatever comes after CM:WW2 will be better still. That's just the way we operate; we never accept what we have is perfect because there is no such thing as perfect. CMx1 wasn't perfect after 7 years of development, CMx2 will not be perfect after another 7 years. That's just reality and there is nothing wrong with it.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If you REALLY want to talk about how 1:1 could be made even better, then why not start a thread about that?

I did that a week ago. Just bumped it tonight. It might be a more appropriate venue, as you suggest.

You keep talking about 1:1 representation, and maybe I am really talking about 1:1 modelling - which may very well be two different things.

[dalem]

Personally, I don't see how it's 1:1 when it's not really 1:1.

Doesn't really get more complicated than that for me.

-dale