Excited... but apprehensive...

[Bil Hardenberger]

I love the idea of doing a modern game.. but I fail to see how a US vs. Syrian game can hold anybody's interest (unless you are a soldier training for deployment in the region).

I'm sorry but the setting for this game sure sounds like it was right off a military wish list for a CM type training aid. I think they are in cahoots not that there is anything wrong with that.

I hope there will be a generic OPFOR force present with standard Russian equipment so some real interesting scenarios can be created. The blue on blue capability is a start in the right direction, especially if more armies than the US and Syrian are present.

Bil

[Treeburst155]

I don't think the game is INTENDED to provide long term player interest. The idea being, you burn out on Syria just about the time the next CM2 game is released. I believe Steve has even said as much.

Treeburst155 out.

[Battlefront.com]

Bil,

Frist, apparently you've missed me ranting over the past year about having given you guys way too much for your buck with the CMx1 series. We don't expect the shelf life to be measured in years like CMx1. If we did we'd jack the price up to $200 a copy

We picked the Syrian setting partially because it is plausible, but overall because it is the most interesting of all the possible scenarios out there. Iran... well, that was a second pick, but Syria is certainly better.

As for the DoD connection... nah, we came up with this one all on our own. It was only AFTER we decided on this setting that I came to find out that it is actually the template for current planning and training. As one source told me, "we're simming something that looks identical to Syria in every way, except it isn't called Syria but [fictious name I now forget]". So it is a coincidence in that we didn't really talk go anybody that suggested that path, however it isn't a coincidence that we both idependently came to the conclusion that Syria is a potential theater of operations in the near future.

Steve

[Bil Hardenberger]

Steve, yeah I missed that... I don't have the time to check all these threads and read all 9000 plus messages.. I wish I had your spare time

Well it was very astute of you guys to choose this subject, I applaud you. As for the longevity of the product, if you include a good variety of terrain and some generic OPFOR units then that would be assured. Why not shoot for along shelf life? Who knows how long it will be before you can come back to this setting?

Bil

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

apparently you've missed me ranting over the past year about having given you guys way too much for your buck with the CMx1 series.

Phah! Over in the GF we are once again discussing the awesomeness of X-COM( released in 1994).

Oh, if only BFC and Firaxis could sit around the table and agree to make CM:Enemy Unknown together. I might never see daylight again! :eek:

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, yeah I missed that... I don't have the time to check all these threads and read all 9000 plus messages.. I wish I had your spare time

What's "spare time"? Redirecting counter productive and ill informed speculations and what not about our games is part of my job description. I'd of course rather hit myself in the forehead with a board and rusty nail combo sometimes, but someone has to come here and straighten things out

We are not purposefully shooting to make our games short lived, that's just the likely outcome of making a game that suits a more reasonable development schedule and return on effort. What people are asking us to do, even though most don't think they are, is to work twice as hard for the same return just so someone doesn't have to buy another game for a longer period of time. Not a sustainable business model

In the end we'll still likely deliver far more than any other game company delivers for the average game price. It's just that we aren't going to the 100 times more thing that we did with CMx1. We simply can't afford to even if we wanted to (and we very much don't). We spoiled you guys rotten with CMx1 games and now it is time to be only half spoiled rotten.

Steve

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In the end we'll still likely deliver far more than any other game company delivers for the average game price. It's just that we aren't going to the 100 times more thing that we did with CMx1. We simply can't afford to even if we wanted to (and we very much don't). We spoiled you guys rotten with CMx1 games and now it is time to be only half spoiled rotten.

Steve

Grrr...I hate it when you make sense! You guys have delivered the best. I see no reason to expect anything less then the same quality in your future games and modules. Modules sound interesting and fun. It seems they may deliver variety much more quickly. It will take a bit to get used to but I think I will live.

[ October 11, 2005, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We don't expect the shelf life to be measured in years like CMx1. If we did we'd jack the price up to $200 a copy

Steve

I don't have a problem with that; in fact I applaud the notion. In life you generally get what you pay for.

If the WW2 CMX2 "experience" is one, two or three games and x number of modules, so much the better. Perhaps the grand scope of CMX1 can be recaptured, with all the improvements and gizmos of CMX2 included.

How much is that worth?

I would certainly be up for it, whatever the cost

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

"we're simming something that looks identical to Syria in every way, except it isn't called Syria but [fictious name I now forget]".

SYRIRAN?

[Bil Hardenberger]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We are not purposefully shooting to make our games short lived, that's just the likely outcome of making a game that suits a more reasonable development schedule and return on effort. What people are asking us to do, even though most don't think they are, is to work twice as hard for the same return just so someone doesn't have to buy another game for a longer period of time. Not a sustainable business model

In the end we'll still likely deliver far more than any other game company delivers for the average game price. It's just that we aren't going to the 100 times more thing that we did with CMx1. We simply can't afford to even if we wanted to (and we very much don't). We spoiled you guys rotten with CMx1 games and now it is time to be only half spoiled rotten.

Steve

Steve, I understand completely... well, you can always sell follow-up modules after CMSF is released to keep in interesting. I'd be getting every one of them regardless.

Come out with CMSF, then come out with a US Army training package that concnetrates on NTC and the US v. OPFOR, etc.

I think you guys are genius's by the way... you get more money from your fans for less work. Excellent business model. I'm going to have to adopt it

Bil

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

SYRIRAN?

SYBIAN?

[Popfreak]

I see a "Priceless" commercial out of this thread soon.

BTW, Steve, Great news with CM:SF I have no worries it will be everything you guys say it will be.

I remember a long time ago during an E-mail exchange with you, during the CMBB beta testing I think that you said something "You'll really love some of the things coming in the future"

Looking forward to CM:SF, especially the Marine module.

I hope it works on my laptop, need any more testers?

Pop

[Londoner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We don't expect the shelf life to be measured in years like CMx1. If we did we'd jack the price up to $200 a copy

I bet half the forum would still pay $200. Shame it's not really practical to put on the shelf at that price!

I won't pretend to know anything about running a small business, but doesn't Steel Beasts cost roughly that? It's been around for a while no? So one would (naively perhaps) assume it's at least a viable product from a business standpoint?