Don't Let Shock Force Die!

[Redwolf]

Well, Amazon's sales rank is the only data we can look at. Given that all CM versions were sold both directly from bfc.com and through retail publishers that also sold through Amazon, the same way for CMx1 and CMx2 I'm not inclined to toss out the only source of data available. I fail to see how CMx2 should somehow be relatively less popular with Amazon.com shoppers than CMx1.

[Lethaface]

Well it doesn't have to fill your pockets

If BF tells their pockets doing better then ever i'm not the one to question that. Apart from the spreadsheets Moon told us about it will also show during their ATM visits

Back on topic; I will probably still play CMSF after CMN came out because of the modern and asymmetric warfare. It will still have certain edges over CM:N (Kornets and Apaches). Ofcourse CM:N will have nice new features which aren't in CMSF, but I guess it won't be worlds apart from CMSF. Over time the difference gets larger and larger, which in the end will result in the ultimate 'kill' of CMSF by CMSF2 (which I hope will have new features not necesarily present in CM:N). And the proces goes on Vice versa.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

The happy news is that there are a lot of CMx2 games and modules on the way… hence they will have to abandon the older games as time moves on..

But for very cheerful reasons… all those new ones they are developing… .

Lots and lots to look forward to..

All the best,

Kip.

PS My vote would be the Ukraine for CMSF2… most credible and fun setting… in my view.. but who knows what the powers that be have in mind..

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

Well, Amazon's sales rank is the only data we can look at.

So what? If it isn't even remotely relating to reality, what good is it if you can look at it or not? I've personally never looked at Amazon's sales numbers to see how things are going. That's because the data I have is actually valid

Given that all CM versions were sold both directly from bfc.com and through retail publishers that also sold through Amazon, the same way for CMx1 and CMx2 I'm not inclined to toss out the only source of data available.

Right, but you should toss it out because it's not the only source of data. I'm a source of data and I'm saying, without any qualifications, that the Amazon sales numbers are bunk. They don't have any meaning. Not to us, nor to you. So why use bad data? Kinda tends to lead to bad conclusions, doesn't it?

I fail to see how CMx2 should somehow be relatively less popular with Amazon.com shoppers than CMx1.

I have no idea and, funny enough, I don't care We use real sales data to help us with our business decisions.

As Moon said, I've not been shy about saying how the games have ranked RELATIVE to each other. From best selling to least here's the ranking with retail sales factored in:

CMBO - by far the top dog. No other CM product comes close to it. On sale for 9 years.

CMBB - a lot less than CMBO, but definitely our 2nd best seller. For sale nearly 7 years.

CM:SF - not up to CMBB quite yet, but only on sale for 2 years.

CMAK - on sale 5 years, but started at $35 instead of $45. Probably still beat by CM:SF even if price was higher.

CM:SF Modules - 1.5 years and a few months respectively. If added to CM:SF it would probably rival CMBB

Now, there are some interesting things that we have to take into account. First, the retail market back in 2000/2002/2004 was VASTLY stronger than the market is today. Especially for games like ours. Therefore, CM:SF's retail sales revenues were significantly lower than CMx1 game products. CM: Normandy's will be even lower, unfortunately. The market is getting slaughtered by console games, direct downloads, lower advertising/marketing revenue (you have no idea how much retail used to make from MDFs, end caps, etc!), and a handful of "AAA" products which tend to soak up most of the free floating customer cash out there. And even those games are in big trouble, as article after article we've read reinforces.

What this means is that in terms of overall income CM:SF is solidly in 3rd place. In terms of direct units sold, it's pretty close to CMBB. CMBO is still way ahead of all the other games.

In terms of profitability things are a little more dicey. CM:SF compares to CM:BO since both were the games which developed the game engine itself. Time to complete was about the same (3 years), however CM:SF cost a lot more to make than CMBO because the production value is vastly higher. CMBB took 2 solid years to make and had production costs not too different than CM:SF, month for month. CMAK had the lowest development time, but also had higher development costs than CMBO in total. So from a cost standpoint the most costly to least is:

CM:SF

CMBB

CMAK

CMBO

But here comes the big difference. CMx1 is a dead engine. Whatever we put into that is an investment that can not be recouped beyond ever reducing residual sales. It's why CMAK had almost no new features in it. It simply wasn't in our best interests to load that sucker up with stuff, likely not see a single extra sale because of it, and then have to toss the code into the trash bin.

CM:SF, on the other hand, was part game and part game engine. Therefore, we expected to take a big up-front development hit with CM:SF so we wouldn't have to start from scratch in a few years (as CM:SF was started from scratch). In fact, it is unlikely we will ever make another ground up game engine. Instead, we'll probably just swap out older technology bits for newer bits when we feel we need them and leave the rest of the existing stuff alone.

All of this means that we now look at the investment made in previous games as being a part of the expenses of the subsequent ones (to some extent, anyway). So when we add CM:SF's development and sales to its Modules and to Normandy we expect to be better off than we were with CMBO and CMBB added together. Which is good for you guys because it means we're going to keep making games instead of not

Now, if people think they can figure out all of this from Amazon.com's sales ranking, well... that's their choice. But my advice is to not listen to them any more than you'd listen to someone who gets their opinions about the current healthcare reform debate in the US from the The Weekly World News. It's also in print and also available to the public.

Steve

[ChrisND]

Now, if people think they can figure out all of this from Amazon.com's sales ranking, well... that's their choice. But my advice is to not listen to them any more than you'd listen to someone who gets their opinions about the current healthcare reform debate in the US from the The Weekly World News.

I heard that Bat Boy still plays CMBO.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, but Anthem Blue Cross won't cover the costs of his species change operation, so he's had to cut back on gaming.

Steve

[Redwolf]

Steve, what you are saying is about what I figured from the Amazon numbers anyway, namely because no CMx2 modules show up at Amazon. I was commenting on Mickey's remark that would indicate that CM:SF was vastly more successful than CMBO because it escaped the hardcore niche or something to that effect. That wasn't quite plausible.

[Redwolf]

Hi,

The happy news is that there are a lot of CMx2 games and modules on the way… hence they will have to abandon the older games as time moves on..

But for very cheerful reasons… all those new ones they are developing… .

Lots and lots to look forward to..

All the best,

Kip.

PS My vote would be the Ukraine for CMSF2… most credible and fun setting… in my view.. but who knows what the powers that be have in mind..

I think the point here is that some people would like to have code improvements from WW2 backported to the modern warfare variants of CMx2. Namely fortifications, towed guns (with required animations), AA guns firing ground level, foliage/vegetation cover and concealment and whatever else is in the works for Normandy.

Much of this would be required to take CMx2:modern to Europe and/or into the 1970ties. Some of the more attractive topics would be affected, namely 1973 Arab/Israel, European cold-war-hot scenarios and the like.

Not to mention a decent foliage model and fortifications combined with modern soldiers can do Vietnam.

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

Steve, what you are saying is about what I figured from the Amazon numbers anyway, namely because no CMx2 modules show up at Amazon.

Well, you appeared to be comparing CMx1 (three games) to CMx2 (a single game). So just wanted to clarify that.

I was commenting on Mickey's remark that would indicate that CM:SF was vastly more successful than CMBO because it escaped the hardcore niche or something to that effect. That wasn't quite plausible.

Not than CMBO, no. As we've been saying the biggest, widest audience out there is WW2 Normandy centered on US vs. German forces. Nothing else comes close to this, so given the same conditions (graphics, market timing, retail availability, etc.) no other topic, no matter how well executed, will come close to topping a well executed Normandy game.

It's possible that CM:SF will ultimately beat CMBB in terms of overall sales, despite the latter having a huge chunk of retail revenue. If one accounts for how much of CM:SF's development effort was the game engine and how much CMBB's was just content... CM:SF has already beat CMBB from our perspective. Based on previous discussions of CMBB sales (going all the way back to 2002/2003), I'm going to guess this won't sit well with the Eastern Front fanatics

As a reminder to the newly arrived... I consider myself an Eastern Front fanatic. However, I'm an Eastern Front fanatic without any illusions as to my relative importance to the overall wargaming market place. Important, but definitely not top dog. Though we should be, darn it all

Steve

[Pvt. Ryan]

By the time you get to the Eastern front the engine will have matured a great deal and it would be unthinkable that dog mines won't be included.

[Lethaface]

I think the point here is that some people would like to have code improvements from WW2 backported to the modern warfare variants of CMx2. Namely fortifications, towed guns (with required animations), AA guns firing ground level, foliage/vegetation cover and concealment and whatever else is in the works for Normandy.

Much of this would be required to take CMx2:modern to Europe and/or into the 1970ties. Some of the more attractive topics would be affected, namely 1973 Arab/Israel, European cold-war-hot scenarios and the like.

Not to mention a decent foliage model and fortifications combined with modern soldiers can do Vietnam.

I believe that 'backport' has been decided to become a 'forwardport' into 'CMSF2' (not the actual title I guess), for which the base game will focus on a more balanced large scale all out conventional warfare between the largest BLUE and RED forces currently available.

Modules regarding asymmetric warfare (a la syria) aren't mentioned yet IIRC, but I presume there will be

Of course I would like to have the CM:N features being transported back into CM:SF at a module price, but I don't think it is likely to happen (not to mention free). However CM:Afghanistan is probably somewhere in between all of this. I am curious what it's price will be from BF, didn't read about that before. I guess it will be a 45'er though.