Jon Hagstad Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 That's an amazing number of 'free' game patches from them. I love BF and CM series. But the patches are not "Free"! I expect a good product for my money, which CM:SF is now but not at 1.0. cheers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runaway!!! Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 For sure late 09 or early 10. That's what I figure it has to be, what with having to $ell off all the SF modules first, the Fox holes issue alone will take a couple of months easy and finally, the bit of patching after release. So yeah, that's about the time I'll buy the game. Just in time for it's first module. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrocles Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 It will be done when it will be done. Frankly I am glad they took the time to get CMSF in working order first before they zipped along onto making modules for it. I've long ago realized that most games that are truly worth your time will never be on time. I mean come on, when was the last time you saw Blizzard release a game ANYWHERE NEAR their touted release date? Yeah, but don't forget that CMSF was a frakkin' mess when released! But I think that was due to BF making a bad contract with the distributor/publisher(?) and being forced to release the game early. Hopefully, BF has wisened up a bit for CMN and I hope they don't get caught 'with their pants down' so to speak! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The only 'fundamental problem' really is an excess of expectations on the board. People resumed asking about CM Normandy three days after the Marine patch came out! BFC could've probably given us the basegame and three modules by now if only they'd stopped development at CMSF v1.03. And I think we're all happy we're currently playing v1.11 instead of v1.03. That's an amazing number of 'free' game patches from them. If you want a lesson in patience go visit the Grognards board. Now that's a patient group of people! I've been playing PBEM's with a friend. We only just been able to really enjoy the game after 1.11 as a CM franchise game. I'd still like to see a few improvements (movable waypoints and a los/lof tool for every unit spring immediately to mind) prior to saying I think it's the cats meow. But my general belief is that BF has done enough that I can salute their efforts and congratulate them on the work they've done making this game what it is today. I see no need to rehash the release condition of the game, BF has done their part to make that okay, but referring to "free patches" seems a bit hyperbolic to me. Sure, they could have taken the Crytek route and just released another title instead of fixing the first one, but I've got to tell you, I bought Crysis and will not buy Crysis Warhead or any other Crytek game because I don't think that business model should be rewarded. I guess what I'm saying is that if BF stopped development at 1.11 I'd be okay with it, prior to that, not so much... And since I'm buying the British module, 1.2 won't really be a free patch for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Yeah, but don't forget that CMSF was a frakkin' mess when released! But I think that was due to BF making a bad contract with the distributor/publisher(?) and being forced to release the game early. Hopefully, BF has wisened up a bit for CMN and I hope they don't get caught 'with their pants down' so to speak! Oh dear... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I don't want to wait for a Hindu pantheon module. Indeed -- a Hindui pantheon module would consist of upwards of 200,000 units. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavicula_Nox Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 It's broken and unplayable if they're not all included. This should be easy to implement and wouldn't take much time at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaragdadler Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 ...but of course not too less time, that it would constitute a sacrilege and would have to be fixed later or somefink !!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Scipio, I remember how Steve praised the advantages of the new CMx2 modular system with a release circle of 2-4 modules and one main title per year, IIRC. CMSF is out now for nearly 2 years and the only released main title + a single module in the CMx2 line. Correct, except we're at 1.5 years... not "almost 2". As others have stated this is for two reasons: 1. We had to do a lot more work on the basic game engine before moving forward. That delayed things about a year. 2. Marines took longer than expected because it was our first Module ever. 3. British is taking longer than expected because it's our fist mostly outsourced Module ever. 4. It always takes us longer to do anything than we think it does. In that sense, we're as bad as about 98% of all software developers out there Indeed I would be more than surprised if we see more than one main title each second or third year, plus one module per year. Definitely not going to happen. The primary delays experienced since CM:SF's launch were one time problems. They're behind us now. There seem to be fundamental problems that we neither know nor understand, but we suffer from them anyway... If by "suffering" you mean us taking the time to get things done right, correct. If by "suffering" you mean that our development schedule is somehow adding pain to your life, well... can't be helped! It's not our fault that nobody else is making games to keep you happily occupied in the meantime. As for "fundamental problems"... other than the ones mentioned above, I can only think of one. And that's the internal way TO&E is handled. It is the basis for the entire game and until it is nearly perfect we can't get much work done on the Module itself (besides artwork, usually). There's nothing wrong with the end product, it's just that the little delays here and there as it is whipped into shape add up. We've recently re-evaluated how we get TO&E into the game and we're streamlining the code and the tools to create the TO&E in the format which the code needs. Too late to shave time off of the British Module, but it will radically reduce certain time delays for NATO and WW2. Slaphappy, The supposedly truncated timeline for release of new products related to CMx2 has not seen fruition. To you it hasn't, but to us it has. We're doing so many things concurrently that you haven't seen yet which, under CMx1 code, wouldn't have even been started. Plus, we're only at the very beginning of the CMx2/Module development. The delays so far are not going to be repeated. Also, 2010 is not a release timeframe for CM: Normandy. And before you wisearses say 2011 , I'll say it is definitely going to happen in 2009. Probably a few months later than we wanted, but then again everything is always later than we want. But that's normal since we're a software developer after all. sfhand, I see no need to rehash the release condition of the game, BF has done their part to make that okay, but referring to "free patches" seems a bit hyperbolic to me. Yes and no. Look at the hundreds of fixes that went into CM:SF so far. How many of them were "essential" to the game being stable, decent framerate, etc? Not many as a percentage. How many of the fixes could REASONABLY be deemed "should have been in v1.0"? Quite a few, for sure. But the bulk of the stuff added came from customer feedback, suggestions, and our own sense of not being able to control trying to make our products better. In our minds, any REASONABLE person would see that we weren't obligated (in any REASONABLE sense of the word) to put in a ton of the stuff that chewed up patching time. Unreasonable people, obviously, think that a game should have everything it has in it now, everything a customer has ever asked for, and everything a customer might think of over the next 10 years. I think you all know the type of customer I'm talking about So, it is absolutely true that CM:SF 1.01 (which is what we shipped) needed quite a few significant patches to get it into a state that it should have been at earlier. But we went way beyond that. We always do, which is why we're always late on every product we've ever made and will ever likely make. Good reason to be late on a project IMHO! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldogchurchill Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 It's going to happen in 2009?!? My year just got a whole load better.... Thanks for the info, and clear reasons for delay. Yes, we all know CMSF was not the game it should have been when released, but one thing we also know is that when BF release a game, they support it and see it through to the end. Roll on Normandy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 As for "fundamental problems"... other than the ones mentioned above, I can only think of one. And that's the internal way TO&E is handled. It is the basis for the entire game and until it is nearly perfect we can't get much work done on the Module itself (besides artwork, usually). There's nothing wrong with the end product, it's just that the little delays here and there as it is whipped into shape add up. We've recently re-evaluated how we get TO&E into the game and we're streamlining the code and the tools to create the TO&E in the format which the code needs. Too late to shave time off of the British Module, but it will radically reduce certain time delays for NATO and WW2. Steve, Will this mean we will see a greater diversity of TO&Es utilizing common equipment in future releases (e.g. missing US Army light infantry forces in CM:SF). Also, will the new system be conducive to creating "on the fly," non-standard TO&Es for Kampfgruppen and US Armored Taskforces (without wreaking havoc on command & control)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Thank goodness for you guys taking the time to be late!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_the_wino Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Also, 2010 is not a release timeframe for CM: Normandy. And before you wisearses say 2011 , I'll say it is definitely going to happen in 2009. Steve Ce qui? Doth mine eyes deceive me? Where's the pre-order page? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Normandy in 2009? Makes me wonder whether the last CM:SF module will overlap with CM:Normandy or not (I would assume not??!?) In any case, 2009 appears to be become a rather crowded BFC wargaming year! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 ... sfhand, Yes and no. Look at the hundreds of fixes that went into CM:SF so far. How many of them were "essential" to the game being stable, decent framerate, etc? Not many as a percentage. How many of the fixes could REASONABLY be deemed "should have been in v1.0"? Quite a few, for sure. But the bulk of the stuff added came from customer feedback, suggestions, and our own sense of not being able to control trying to make our products better. In our minds, any REASONABLE person would see that we weren't obligated (in any REASONABLE sense of the word) to put in a ton of the stuff that chewed up patching time. Unreasonable people, obviously, think that a game should have everything it has in it now, everything a customer has ever asked for, and everything a customer might think of over the next 10 years. I think you all know the type of customer I'm talking about So, it is absolutely true that CM:SF 1.01 (which is what we shipped) needed quite a few significant patches to get it into a state that it should have been at earlier. But we went way beyond that. We always do, which is why we're always late on every product we've ever made and will ever likely make. Good reason to be late on a project IMHO! Steve Steve, thanks for being who you (BattleFront) are... Your commitment to your franchise is part of what I mean when I refer to being happy with CMSF as part of the CM franchise, i.e. I don't mentally seperate your company's standards and policies from the products you produce. I don't include myself in the group who are happily miserable about all things CMSF. My main belief about BF is that you aren't interested in making mediocre games, and as a result I have never come to these forums complaining about any of your games (if I ever do please refer me to this post...) because I feel it is in your nature to make games you would like to play, which means you go further than many would to improve your games. Additionally, I'll tell you straight up that I don't regret my pre-order of CMSF or my pre-order of the Marines module, nor will I regret my pre-order of the British module and the new WW2 family. Contrast that with my feelings and purchase choices about Crytek games and I think you'll see that because of your track record of making enjoyable games and your dedication to having them "be all they can be" (within reason) I support you. In my opinion you have earned my support in multiple ways which all boil down to the fact that I enjoy the games you make, a condition which is inseperable, IMHO, from your dedication to making good/great games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 It's going to happen in 2009?!? Didn't I tell you so, oh ye of little faith? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Since we are talking about a historical reference for the Normandy game, will the TO&E be based around, say, specific units of a particular corps or be more generic like "44 infantry battalion"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I thought you might like that bone AKD, Will this mean we will see a greater diversity of TO&Es utilizing common equipment in future releases (e.g. missing US Army light infantry forces in CM:SF). Yes and no. Remember that TO&E is nothing without the E part Believe it or not, there are things which IBCT has which SBCT and HBCT don't. For one, trucks! And of course it isn't the same truck as the Marines have. There are some other differences too. Not huge ones, mind you, but it must be kept in mind that even with better tools to do the stuff faster and with less development errors doesn't mean other issues go away. Research and tweaking the little details will remain a PITA. Also, will the new system be conducive to creating "on the fly," non-standard TO&Es for Kampfgruppen and US Armored Taskforces (without wreaking havoc on command & control)? The stuff I was talking about is all on the development side, not the end user side. To do "on the fly" stuff requires UI and programming. If I could snap my fingers "on the fly" Orders of Battle would have been in long before you guys even saw the first screenshot of CM:SF. Unfortunately, it's on a long list of features which are important enough to stay on a prime list, but seem to always fall below the cut. For Normandy I'm at least trying to implement something quick and dirty to fix the C2 issue. Thomm, Makes me wonder whether the last CM:SF module will overlap with CM:Normandy or not (I would assume not??!?) Yes, and that was always the plan. Or to be precise, if we had hit our goal of 1 Module every 4 months and Normandy 1 year later that would mean the 3rd Module would be released simultaneously with Normandy. In any case, 2009 appears to be become a rather crowded BFC wargaming year! Tell me about it sfhand, I don't include myself in the group who are happily miserable about all things CMSF. My main belief about BF is that you aren't interested in making mediocre games, and as a result I have never come to these forums complaining about any of your games (if I ever do please refer me to this post...) because I feel it is in your nature to make games you would like to play, which means you go further than many would to improve your games. Thanks! As for the mediocre games thing... if we wanted to do that we could have shipped CM:SF a year earlier and be done with Normandy last Summer. We could have done that by putting in about 1/5th the amount of detail and requested features that we did. Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know the glass half empty crowd focuses on what isn't in the game, but the ALWAYS do and ALWAYS will. The guys like you, who appreciate what is in the game already, are far more valuable sources of feedback to figure out what is still missing. Why? Because people with perspective tend to focus on the important stuff and NOT bog us down with laundry lists of things we really don't need to do (even if they would be nice to have). Or put another way, we listen to the well mannered types who lay out their requests rationally and with some degree of humility, not the ones behaving like 6 year olds who didn't get the latest Power Ranger Nija Turtle Pokemon doll with the Kung Fu grip after all that fuss on Aisle 6 of Toys Be Us. Just because someone screams at us that they are the center of the known universe doesn't make it so. Having said that, don't think for a second that just because you suggest something I'm going to drop everything and get it implemented. There's still a process Slaphappy, Since we are talking about a historical reference for the Normandy game, will the TO&E be based around, say, specific units of a particular corps or be more generic like "44 infantry battalion"? The key difference between TO&E (Tables of Organization and Equipment) and OBs (Orders of Battle) is generic vs. specific. All Rifle Companies are supposed to look like X, but whether they do or not for a particular unit on a particular day for a particular battle is highly variable. What we do, and have always done, is provide the TO&E and let the end users decide what the OB should be. So yup, CM: Normandy will have things like "44 Infantry Battalion" which the user can rename (like in CM:SF) and reorganize (add/delete units). We're also planning on adding pre-battle casualties as an option, better equipment management, and more. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 This is going to be very interesting! For it means that BFC basically competes with themselves in terms of CM:SF module versus CM:Normandy. Are you guys not afraid that the modules' sales will suffer from competing with the WW2 games? Or do you expect that people will buy both?? Personally, I am not exactly exited about having to fight for Normandy, again. But I am looking forward to the more moderate climate and the new terrain. So lets say I buy "Normandy". It is new, tons of stuff to try out, everybody exited! Will I buy a CM:SF module after that? Hmmm. I am not sure at the moment! I also speculate that the (evolving) CM:SF and the CM:Normandy engines will have more in common than one may predict now, if only to preserve the sanity of Charles who has to maintain both at the same time ... Well, time will tell! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Thomm, Are you guys not afraid that the modules' sales will suffer from competing with the WW2 games? Or do you expect that people will buy both?? What we know, not expect , is that people who love contemporary warfare will buy contemporary warfare games from us if the content interests them. People that like WW2 games will buy such games from us if the content interests them. If that's the same person or two different people it doesn't matter... we'll get exactly the same sales. Sure, if we cranked out games every month or so we'd be running into customer spending money problems, but we're never going to have so many releases in practice that we come up against people's spending maximums. Therefore, we will not only have overlap of modern and WW2 products, but we will have overlap of theaters within WW2 to some extent. For example, the last Module for the first family of WW2 games is slated to come out around the same time, or after, the 2nd WW2 family of games. I also speculate that the (evolving) CM:SF and the CM:Normandy engines will have more in common than one may predict now, if only to preserve the sanity of Charles who has to maintain both at the same time ... Well, time will tell! Already a known fact since last Charles is already supporting both concurrently The fact that he's adding stuff for the British Module didn't stop him from coding anti-tank guns, or vice versa. Again, this is why the CMx1 code base had to be chucked... it wasn't capable of concurrent development even within WW2, not to mention concurrent development with something other than WW2! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaragdadler Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 What about an option to pre-subscribe all future CMx2 products? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 What about an option to pre-subscribe all future CMx2 products? Just press the auto-pre-order button on the Battlefront toolbar! Best regards, Thomm PS: Thank you for the answers, Steve! If I read it correctly, it means that adding close combat to CM:Normandy is 99% of what is necessary to add close-combat to CM:SF, because of the common ever-evolving code base??!? Same with AT guns??! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Again, the major advantage to having a single code base is that when an element is coded it theoretically is available to any and all releases. Theory runs into a few problems here and there, the biggest having to do with TO&E and file formats. For example, a feature might require certain variables to exist that weren't coded into earlier units. Existing scenarios would break because they weren't made with a particular bit of information. Combat variables specific to something only used for one timeframe (like Modern) might not work with a new combat equation written for a different timeframe (like WW2 or the next gen Modern). All of these things can be worked around with an investment of time and testing, which is where the problems with backwards compatibility come into play. If we have to stop forward development to do work for something we've already done we're putting ourselves into a bad position. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Steve, Thanks again. I think I understand what you are writing. I am left wondering how Charles actually does this kind of programming, from a practical point of view. But I understand that I shall never find out. Must be some object-oriented wizardry. Or conditional compiling?! In any case, this is a nice subject to think aloud about. In terms of examples, let's take water. The CM:SF rendering engine can easily import water tiles, I suppose, *but* the CM:SF units do not know what to do with them, because they have no "can swim", "can dive", "can drown", or whatever, attributes. So water simply is not backfitted into CM:SF, because it would mean major changes to the data structures. Same with close combat: a CM:SF unit most likely has no concept of what a bajonet is (although I would be really surprised if stuff like this is not already provided for ), or which weapon is better suited for close combat (rifle better than submachine gun better than pistol). So, even the code (and perhaps even the animations) are coded up, there is work to be done that is time-consuming. Interesting to follow, one way or the other! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 And a counter-example: suppose "peeking around corners" is implemented in CM:Normandy. This should be transferable to CM:SF almost immediately, because every soldier can do it, right? No new variables for this one are necessary, just a different LOS algorithm. Best regards, Thomm 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.