Sequoia Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 I was curious if there was anyone besides me that would be willing to pay for mini-updates to CMX2 games. For example, say CMAK was a CMX2 game and it was feasible for Battlefront to do a mini-update that allowed one to download the King Tiger, the JagdTiger, the Pershing, the Cromwell and the Challenger into CMAK for use in Westerfront scenarios. How much would you pay for such an update? I'd pay $7.50. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 $15 But then again, I'd be using them as 'virtual modeling kits' for modding purposes and would therefore be comparing the expansion pack to the prices of plastic kits A better example with proposed CMx2 expansion kits might be - How much would you pay for a CMAK patch including properly functioning LRDG/SAS troops, or paratroops that actually float down from the sky!? [ May 19, 2006, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ng cavscout Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 How much would you pay for a Nato VS Warsaw Pact in the 1980's module/expansion? I would do $50.00... For a patch that take CMBB up to the level of CMAK, I would do 15-20 easy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted May 20, 2006 Author Share Posted May 20, 2006 I mentioned once I would pay an extra $10 to add the heavy artillery to CMBB for use in Combat Mission Campaigns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 NATO vs Warsaw Pact expansion pack? Just how much of the original game would survive? I don't think we'd be talking 'expansion pack' there, we'd be talking 'new title'. Me, I'd pay big buck to have Space Lobsters fighting on the Syrian side 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinetree Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Me, I'd pay big buck to have Space Lobsters fighting on the Syrian sideSo would the Syrians,I bet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo ferricus Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Should we be teasing battlefront like this? i bet we'll have a downloadable bonus pack with NATO and space lobsters galor once they see what kind of money people are willing to spend... Me? My wallets empty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guderian's Duck Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 I was curious if there was anyone besides me that would be willing to pay for mini-updates to CMX2 games. Isn't that the entire point of Battlefront's new modular approach? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samurai man Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 I'd happily pay $50-$100 for a CMAK upgrade to ETO with king tigers, M36 jacksons, etc, larger maps, follow the leader command. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo ferricus Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 I'd be glad to lay down $500-$1000 for extra tanks and bigger maps as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rai kitsune Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Originally posted by NG cavscout: How much would you pay for a Nato VS Warsaw Pact in the 1980's module/expansion? I would do $50.00... For a patch that take CMBB up to the level of CMAK, I would do 15-20 easy. 1980s Nato and warsaw with all the untis & air power modled i'd probably be willing to pay somewhere around £125 (and upwards) for its a huge area and i in all honesty would expect to pay more than £125 for all the units modeled (also regarding what someone said before about this being like plastics i see them more as like the little pewter figures except instead of just paying for the model i'm paying for the mould too) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 There would be some loud weeping & wailing on the board if BFC didn't jump directly into a WWII N.W. Europe title following the release of Shock Force. Awhile ago the consensus was that 'we' wanted to see (in this order) CMSF; WWII European Theater title; CMSF expansion pack; European theater expansion pack. And by then the glaciers will have melted and we'll go back to living around campfires. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 Originally posted by samurai man: I'd happily pay $50-$100 for a CMAK upgrade to ETO with king tigers, M36 jacksons, etc, larger maps, follow the leader command. YES YES YES this thread should have a NEW title me too! seriously! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 Originally posted by MikeyD: There would be some loud weeping & wailing on the board if BFC didn't jump directly into a WWII N.W. Europe title following the release of Shock Force. Awhile ago the consensus was that 'we' wanted to see (in this order) CMSF; WWII European Theater title; CMSF expansion pack; European theater expansion pack. And by then the glaciers will have melted and we'll go back to living around campfires. Hell yeah! Dirka Dikra DIRKA!!! P.S. Team America FYI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSX Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 I love the CM WW2 games, but I would love to have a 1980's NATO Vs Warsaw Pact game before a WW2 title. This is what I hoped SF would be initially and is probably why I was so dissapointed with the choice of Theatre for the first game. Just imagine leading your T-72's into the Fulda Gap, I'd pay a lot for that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ng cavscout Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 Originally posted by GSX: I love the CM WW2 games, but I would love to have a 1980's NATO Vs Warsaw Pact game before a WW2 title. This is what I hoped SF would be initially and is probably why I was so dissapointed with the choice of Theatre for the first game. Just imagine leading your T-72's into the Fulda Gap, I'd pay a lot for that. there is Tacops. It isn't quite the same though, not even close actually. I like Tacops, don't get me wrong, but I like CM better. Of course, that may have something to do with the fact that my guys die alot more in Tacops than they do in CM. Too bad they can't take the research already done in Tacops and put it in a CM engine..... And I agree with you GSX, I would love to see an assault by the Third Shock Army driving towards Hannover. Heck, how about elements of a Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment slamming into a troop of 11th ACR? Soviet and Belgian infantry fighting it out over the approaches to a bridge over the Weser? Polish Marines VS Danish Territorials in the suburbs of Copenhagen? I know it has been brought up before, but maybe if we keep talking about it they will put it back on the development possibility table? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted May 30, 2006 Author Share Posted May 30, 2006 Well a Full Bore NATO vs Warsaw pact is not what I meant by a mini expansion, but okay all you NATO fans, let's say you got a NATO game but it didn't have Sheridans or the JagdKanone. What would you pay for a download that gave you those vehicles? MikeyD, I wouldn't have to have a game in which you saw paratroopers actually descend. I would be content if the scenario started with the paratroopers on the ground but there were parachutes as terrain decorations on the ground for flavor. I'd like to see heavy weapons being able to be unmanned at the start of a scenario then being able to be manned by a capable crew. I'd like to see gliders on the ground, again as terrain decorations, but also providing cover and full of heavy weapons and even jeeps. Falling paratroops would be cool but not a necessity for me. Can any one think of an instance of Airborne troops dropping into battle besides the poor Poles at Arhem? Well okay the German glider troops at Eben Emael, but it was rare. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Let's agree that a CMx1 expansion topic is entirely hypothetical - ain't never gonna happen... unless they sell-off the x1 game engines rights to some design house in Bangalore for the spending money. But CMx2 expansion packs - how big/small would we prefer them to be? What scale are we imagining? Some seem to want to see simple vehicle packs (BMP-3, T-80, etc.) with little in the way of organization. There was some enthusiasm earlier about creating a Marine Corps expansion pack to CMSF, which would be a lot of chain-of-command structural changes but not much by way of new weapons. . And others want to see entirely different armies (Turks, British, etc.)! Me, I'd be happy to see a range of plug-in structures (petrol station, Roman ruins, barracks buildings, etc.) These suggstions seem to range from a couple megs worth of download to a couple gigs! What range could you see as either too small to pay for, up to too expensive for any expected incremental benefit? [ May 30, 2006, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted May 30, 2006 Author Share Posted May 30, 2006 I do agree, a CMX1 expansion will never happen. From what I understand of Steve's posts, the Engine was too restrictive to make such a thing profitable. Sure it would sell to grogs but we grogs (if I may include myself) have to remember we're only a small part of a market that, to steal the phrase, "all German tanks are Tigers and all guns are 88's". I want Battlefront to be around for a long time and wouldn't want them to do something that wasn't profitable. With the hinted at versatility of the new Engine however, it may be profitable to cater to the Grog market and offer smaller downloadable only expansions of say, a handfull of vehicles that there's a call for or, as MikeyD suggests, new terrain features. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazex Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Originally posted by GSX: I love the CM WW2 games, but I would love to have a 1980's NATO Vs Warsaw Pact game before a WW2 title. This is what I hoped SF would be initially and is probably why I was so dissapointed with the choice of Theatre for the first game. Just imagine leading your T-72's into the Fulda Gap, I'd pay a lot for that. Mmm, cold war gone hot. Easily THE setting I would like too for CMx2. Paying more than $100 for that would be no problem... Just think of the Mi-24:s hovering over the autobahn waiting for the SU-24:s to deliver their first strike. In the distant the roar of the east german T-64:s as they pass the border. All out war, with no given winner. What a dream insted of US vs. Syria... /Mazex 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Mazex: Welcome to the revolution comrade. There are still the occasional die-hard, cold-war-gone-hot nutters about, despite Steve and Matt cruelly crushing our hopes. Me and Kip Anderson are often to the fore, but there are others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I recall someone at BFC (Moon?) seemed pretty much set against producing a Cold War game ...for rather obscure reasons. Maybe they can see down the road to future collaborative efforts and think there would be too much competition between similar titles. Maybe they LIKE the Cold War idea but just like a dozen other ideas that much MORE! They have only so many hours in the day to produce this stuff (especially considering CMSF seems to be behind schedule). You've got to think, it'll either be a Cold War game or a WWII N.W. Europe game; a Cold War game or a Space lobsters game! Me? I'm waiting to be surprised by the announcment of a Pacific theater game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I thought that it was Steve, but I might be wrong. I've yet to hear a convincing argument against a Cold War era game. BFC saying "we're not doing it", while a convincing statement of intent, is hardly an adequate reason. But then, the only reason I'd be likely to accept is "It will make your computer explode instantaneously, horribly maiming you, stewing your tea and salting all your plant pots so you cannot grow chillis. Then I'd have to se it proved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 As I recall BF"s logic was pretty straight forward. If it didn't happen , We don't do it. As CM:SF is a "future" war, and in effect designed to let us use current weapons and tactics, and recreate current conflicts in the Middle East then it gets in by default. What we can get is Korea, or Arab v Israel. or GW1, which gives you a fair range of the equipment on offer, so you can make Cold War scenarios galore if you want. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.