Jump to content

Wow to the new demo!


Recommended Posts

Just thought I'd post some positive stuff with regards to the latest demo. I think it's pretty amazing and on the strength of this I am going to invest in the full monty directly from BFC. Thanks a lot chaps! I never thought I would say that. I have tried two demos prior, and just couldn't get on with it at all. But I've just spent a couple of hours with the new demo and I'm loving it! It seems so much better than before. Curious eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

haha. Oops. I just purchased CMSF, Marines module & the British module, installed the first two fine, then installed the British module and BOOOOM. No license key. Turns out I registered my address to hotmail, and I have just read that for some reason hotmail is black-listing that particular site, hence no emails. No email equals no license number! How annoying :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a similar-but-different problem with Hotmail & BFC too, so I grabbed a gmail email address just to use for BFC stuff. Hotmail's caused me more problems than it ought in other instances too. The number of people I steer to my alternate gmail address is growing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha. Oops. I just purchased CMSF, Marines module & the British module, installed the first two fine, then installed the British module and BOOOOM. No license key. Turns out I registered my address to hotmail, and I have just read that for some reason hotmail is black-listing that particular site, hence no emails. No email equals no license number! How annoying :(

No, it's not blacklisting "that particular site". It seems that at the moment hotmail is blacklisting a lot of sites, including battlefront.com. Hammer away at hotmail support, that's probably the best chance to get this resolved quickly. Our repeated attempts to contact postmaster.live.com have so far not resulted in anything other than the same automated replies. Battlefront.com is not blacklisted anywhere (and never was), so their ban is completely out of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the topic of the demo. Last night I stumbled on *another* gamer site that had a loooong thread with a small number of poster just trashing CMSF. Reading down the posts I started to doubt any of them had played the game since before the old v1.07 patch! It was pretty obvious none of them bought a module. Some of those teeth-grinders really should take phil stanbridge's advice and just play the latest demo, try out the Brits and Marines. 2007 was a long time ago guys, its not the same game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was incredibly impressed with the latest demo I have to say. I have played every CM game up to this, and I was not that impressed with Shock Force initially as it was pretty unstable on my pc (originally). But I gave it a third chance earlier today and after two hours playing the British demo, I was sold. It was simply excellent fun. I was reading up about the pending Normandy game, and that convinced me to try again. I'm so glad I did! Now to try and get this British module to work lol.. doh But that aside, which is a techy issue, I think its $70 well spent. Kudos guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the topic of the demo. Last night I stumbled on *another* gamer site that had a loooong thread with a small number of poster just trashing CMSF. Reading down the posts I started to doubt any of them had played the game since before the old v1.07 patch! It was pretty obvious none of them bought a module. Some of those teeth-grinders really should take phil stanbridge's advice and just play the latest demo, try out the Brits and Marines. 2007 was a long time ago guys, its not the same game.

I think it would be reasonable to register and "spam" them with that recommendation.

No matter what you think about CMSF as a whole, I have never seen anybody deny that the 1.1x-1.2x code is much better than the first iterations. If there was real work done one the code nobody would mind recommending a re-try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be reasonable to register and "spam" them with that recommendation.

To be honest redwolf I don’t think its worth the effort. There are a few out there with an axe to grind whom will trash any future efforts on our part purely because they have overwhelming need to be correct. The fact that they are continuing to put so much effort into trashing a game that was released over 2 yrs ago alone is a pretty good indication of that, hell I don’t even remember what I was playing two years ago. Ive even seen a few state that the Normandy game will never be released. If they truely want to give the game another shot they know where to find it, but I doubt we will get an honest opinion either way.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't specifically about GS, right?

GS?

We like some good trashing but I'm pretty sure most over there did run newer code and I haven't seen somebody say Normandy won't be released.

Heh yeh it was stated a while back, not going to mention the poster as its not necessary...it did amuse me as I was working on a Jpz-IV at the time. ;)

As I say though, I just dont think its worth the effort to bother with these guys which is why I havnt read their stuff in some time. Last time I was there I noted a handful of posters that are purely interested in boosting their own egos and self worth, and I wouldnt except an honest opinion from them even if they played the game daily. The fact that they take every opportunity to trash the game two years after release is a good indicator that there is more to their motives than meets the eye. One would imagine that the healthy thing to do would be to accept that the game wasnt for them and move on, lifes too short...

And do note that as Thomm says Im only talking about a small group...the problem is that they are so loud with their opinions that it drowns out any valid input from *either* side. As such I dont think its worth any the time of Mikey to post there as you suggested (though you now say most have tried it anyway?).

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elmar,

Pictures or it didn't happen.

I have pictures, does that count? :D

As for the long term axe-grinders... at some point hyper critics become irrelevant simply because they clearly aren't interested in anything but hearing themselves rant and/or heaping abuse on others so they can feel good about themselves. Not much good can come from such skewed views of reality. Which is why I haven't been back to GS since the first week of February ;)

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elmar,

I have pictures, does that count? :D

Nope. You would just give us another manipulated version of the same screenshot, wouldn't you? As observed earlier, that simply doesn't count. ;)

According to the laws and customs of da Interweb, until Kwazydog provides a screenshot of the aforementioned Jagdpanzer IV we must doubt his story. We can thus assume the lads at GS are really mere loveable scamps unjustly maligned.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few out there with an axe to grind whom will trash any future efforts on our part purely because they have overwhelming need to be correct.

Which is mostly nonsensical. They behave as they were those who have officially charged BF.C with making CMx2, following a series of specifications THEY decided and which are required by a written contract, while it is quite the opposite: BF.C is OFFERING us CMx2 with a series of specifications BF.C has decided, plus a significant series of other features that come from user wishes/advices (which, by the way, is not so commonly seen in other software houses).

And it's very, very simple: you like it? You buy it (what's more, you can even try it with the demo and you are not obliged to buy it sight unseen); you don't like? You don't buy it and you can design yourself your own wargame with all the desired features (obviously better than CMX2 :D) or you find somebody else which produces wargames better than BF.C.

I have restrained myself so far in getting into this kind of discussions (I was busy with playing CMSF... :D), but this time I wanted to express my humble opinion on what I think should be a blatantly obvious question.

I think people should be happy with CMx2 they way it is now, considering the effort made so far, considering that it will be continuously improving and that it will offer in the future a range of different theaters that could keep us playing virtually 24h/7d.

And, by the way, I think that all of us should remind that basically CM is a GAME and not a life-saving device, so we should give it the importance a game normally deserves in our lives.;)

My 2 €cents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha. Oops. I just purchased CMSF, Marines module & the British module, installed the first two fine, then installed the British module and BOOOOM. No license key. Turns out I registered my address to hotmail, and I have just read that for some reason hotmail is black-listing that particular site, hence no emails. No email equals no license number! How annoying :(

What do you mean? Is hotmail junking your sales confirmation from BFC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean? Is hotmail junking your sales confirmation from BFC?

Yup. I normally receive sales emails from BFC but this time round I did not receive both emails from the store with my details etc, furthermore I couldn't login to retrieve my details OR change my password whilst it was forwarding to hotmail. But it's all sorted now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is mostly nonsensical. They behave as they were those who have officially charged BF.C with making CMx2, following a series of specifications THEY decided and which are required by a written contract, while it is quite the opposite: BF.C is OFFERING us CMx2 with a series of specifications BF.C has decided, plus a significant series of other features that come from user wishes/advices (which, by the way, is not so commonly seen in other software houses).

And it's very, very simple: you like it? You buy it (what's more, you can even try it with the demo and you are not obliged to buy it sight unseen); you don't like? You don't buy it and you can design yourself your own wargame with all the desired features (obviously better than CMX2 :D) or you find somebody else which produces wargames better than BF.C.

I have restrained myself so far in getting into this kind of discussions (I was busy with playing CMSF... :D), but this time I wanted to express my humble opinion on what I think should be a blatantly obvious question.

I think people should be happy with CMx2 they way it is now, considering the effort made so far, considering that it will be continuously improving and that it will offer in the future a range of different theaters that could keep us playing virtually 24h/7d.

And, by the way, I think that all of us should remind that basically CM is a GAME and not a life-saving device, so we should give it the importance a game normally deserves in our lives.;)

My 2 €cents

Exactly, and bears repeating, maybe again and again :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicdain,

And it's very, very simple: you like it? You buy it (what's more, you can even try it with the demo and you are not obliged to buy it sight unseen); you don't like? You don't buy it and you can design yourself your own wargame with all the desired features (obviously better than CMX2 ) or you find somebody else which produces wargames better than BF.C.

There is the rub... the hyper critics can't find anything that really floats their boats, so they take it out on us for not giving them what they want. This started way back when we said the first game of CMx2 was to be Modern. The assumption was it would be WW2, probably Normandy, simply because up until that time we had only made WW2 CMs. But it was a customer assumption, not something based on anything we said (e.g. "Battlefront is all about, and only about, making WW2 games").

Therefore, lloooooooooong before CM:SF ever came out there was a bunch of people already very, very mad at us for not doing what they wanted us to do. They wanted us to fail and "get back" to "serious" wargaming or go out of business. They did not want to us to succeed. This was clearly demonstrated when CM:SF was released with its problems. A customer who truly respected us would have been supportive, even though critical, of a company which had historically given them far more than they ever paid for, they were abusive to the extreme. Instead there was deliberate, out-of-the-way attempts to cause us harm (which didn't work, of course). The funny thing is that they called themselves "loyal customers". With loyal customers like that, who needs psychotic enemies? :)

This really is our own fault, when it comes right down to it. We engage with you customers in a way few game companies (or any entertainment companies, for that matter) ever would dare to do. We listen to even the hairbrained stuff you guys come up with ;) and try, as best we can, to make a better game with your feedback. This has given some people an overblown sense of entitlement. But there is no entitlement because that would require us making a customized game for each individual person's personal tastes. That's obviously impossible. Which is why we get into some heated discussions here when we say "no, it's not going to be that way". We make it, you decide to buy it or not. That's all there is to it when everything else is boiled down.

Obviously it is in our best interests to make products you guys want to buy. Which is, after all, why we interact with our customers far more than other companies would ever dream of doing in their worst nightmares ;) CM:SF came about because many people expressed the desire to play something other than WW2. The continued very strong sales of CM:SF prove that modern warfare has a strong audience in general and that CM:SF is a good fit for many specifically. Which is why we will continue to do modern stuff long into the future.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One supposes having a small minority perpetually upset is a compliment. Have you ever noticed how occassionally the same movie can make it onto critics' 'best film' and 'worst film' of the year list? How can a film be both best and worst? They're products that generate enthusiasm. "Apocalypse Now" made it onto several worst films lists back in 1979. We're still talking about "Apocalypse Now", nobody remembers the contoversy-free "Airport 79".

If nobody hates you you must be doing something wrong. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...