CM2:N Marketing Plan

[DavidFields]

Just curious.

To what extent is CM2:Normandy being designed/marketed for each of these groups.

1. Current or recent military who were "recruited" to CM2 because of its time-frame/specific weapons/tactics. Possibly never played CM1. How does one walk them over to WWII, were the weapons may seem, relatively, like toys (at least CM2:N is not early war WWII)?

2. The older or more history minded crowd. Probably your smallest, but most loyal crowd?

3. The 16-30 year old, non-military, (probably male) crowd. Likely the biggest potential audience? I can't see one ever getting the "twitch" (Halo) gamer. But how would one get the Call of Duty people to cross-over? Allow personalized insignias on the AFVs, to get some role-playing aspect to it (without going the Close Command route)? Or would that cause irreperable seizure activity among those in group 2?

4. Oh....and is non-Western Europe, non-North American demand significantly monetizable? (In other words is there demand, and will it actually result in money to Battlefront?)

5. And I assume you have found some obscure historical account of the Luftwaffe flying some Finns into Normandy to help with defense, so as to bring in that significant demographic.

I suspect these issues have been thought about [other than, perhaps, the Finns] in some detail?

[Michael Emrys]

And I assume you have found some obscure historical account of the Luftwaffe flying some Finns into Normandy to help with defense, so as to bring in that significant demographic.

Actually, it's all we can do to keep the Finns from taking over completely. With the invention of the internet, they have come storming out of their little country, apparently intent on conquering the entire planet. Fortunately, the necessity to learn a little English first has applied some restraints on them, but it is doubtful how much longer that will stem the tide.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Rankorian,

1. Current or recent military who were "recruited" to CM2 because of its time-frame/specific weapons/tactics. Possibly never played CM1. How does one walk them over to WWII, were the weapons may seem, relatively, like toys (at least CM2:N is not early war WWII)?

None. There's nothing specific that needs to be done for this crowd. Even in the CMx1 days we had a ton of military and ex-military fans of the game. We know of a few generals who played on a regular basis. Most officers have a strong schooling in military history as part of their commission, therefore they are already exposed to many settings (not just WW2, of course). In fact, we made a special version of CMAK for the Australian Army for their historical studies course work.

When you get lower down in the ranks you find that a lot of them have an obvious and inherent interest in historical military settings. When out of uniform they have even been known to pursue those interests even more than they did when they were in uniform.

In short... these folks will come along for the ride automatically.

2. The older or more history minded crowd. Probably your smallest, but most loyal crowd?

This is the easiest crowd to cater to since our primary goal is to make the most realistic/accurate wargame possible. We've never disappointed this group with any CM release in terms of that aspect of the game. They might not like the setting, user interface, particular implementations of real world factors, etc. true enough. But they know that the core of the game is absolutely designed for serious minded wargamers.

3. The 16-30 year old, non-military, (probably male) crowd. Likely the biggest potential audience? I can't see one ever getting the "twitch" (Halo) gamer. But how would one get the Call of Duty people to cross-over? Allow personalized insignias on the AFVs, to get some role-playing aspect to it (without going the Close Command route)? Or would that cause irreperable seizure activity among those in group 2?

This is the largest and toughest crowd to cater to, therefore we limit how much energy we spend trying to woo this crowd specifically. We could spend endless amounts of time adding all kinds of really cool "atmospheric" stuff (graphics, audio, features, etc.) since there are endless ideas to latch onto. The problem is that if we spend time on adding a feature to support "clan tanks" we have not spent the time on something else.

Sometimes it makes sense to support a feature like this because it ALSO appeals to the other groups. For example, we have spent a lot of time improving the graphical environment of CM between CMx1, CM:SF, and CM: Normandy. We will continue to make graphical improvements over time. The reason for that is just about everybody who matters, in terms of demographics, values the immersion quality of the game. It's what has made CM a huge success instead of a minor niche product.

As it so happens, a strong atmospheric presence is mandatory for non-wargamer types. Therefore, because we aren't making a 2D top down dry and boring wargame CM is not automatically crossed off the list of the larger serious gamer groups. The degree of our appeal is likely directly proportional to their interest in thinking instead of twitching. Those who are solidly twitch only will probably never like CM. Those who really like twitch games, but also like to think when they play (even if only occasionally), may like CM. We've seen this over and over again since we first released CMBO.

What this means is that since the atmospheric stuff is a top priority because our core audience wants it, by definition we are setting the stage for cross over appeal. What we do beyond that has to be considered very carefully since investments that have only cross over appeal may harm core appeal. Which might be more harmful than helpful.

4. Oh....and is non-Western Europe, non-North American demand significantly monetizable? (In other words is there demand, and will it actually result in money to Battlefront?)

No, there isn't much to chase down that isn't already covered by our primary territories of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, the European Union, the few developed but non-EU European states, and the "Russian market" (which is larger than Russia). China is likely not a big market for our games despite its huge population base.

5. And I assume you have found some obscure historical account of the Luftwaffe flying some Finns into Normandy to help with defense, so as to bring in that significant demographic.

As Emrys has correctly pointed out, we fear the Finns taking over the world so we're trying our best to remain independent of their influence for as long as possible.

Nähdään myöhemmin!

Steve

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Lol, I don't fit into any of those groups and I love CMSF and expect to love CM:N.

[MeatEtr]

But what about the cowbell lovers group? Are they hard to cater too as well?

P.S. Yes I know the cowbell joke is over done by now. But I can't help myself, gotta have more cowbell.

[tagge]

cowbell (Englanti - Suomi)

• lehmänkello
  
• karjankello (s)

[GSX]

When you get lower down in the ranks you find that a lot of them have an obvious and inherent interest in historical military settings. When out of uniform they have even been known to pursue those interests even more than they did when they were in uniform.

In short... these folks will come along for the ride automatically.

Er, not really. I fit exactly into the category of serving military who likes wargames and loved CMBB etc. I also like SF a lot too, but Im not an automatic sale for CMN. If the Demo is good and its an improved SF then I will buy it. However, if it doesnt match up to CM-1 for ww2 then I will just continue with what I have.

So im definitely NOT along for the ride....

[Battlefront.com]

Ah... poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was:

In short... these folks will come along for the ride automatically if they are interested in it

The point I was making is that we do not need to do anything SPECIAL to attract those players, just make a good game. This is different than trying to attract military contracts, which absolutely requires a long list of specialized features which may or may not appeal to others.

It would be silly to think that just because someone was in uniform they would buy a CM game. If that were the case I'd be retired by now

Steve

[DavidFields]

Steve, thank you for the thoughtful reply.

I definitely think that with CM2 you have closed the graphics gap. [CMBO graphics being totally not acceptable in today's market, and probably CMBB infantry graphics also non-acceptable.]

But I think the market struggle issue is beyond just finding people who "want to think". My sense is that Battlefront fundamentally rejects the "Hero" game model. Units are valued according to their training, equipment value, and what they achieve. But [except for the rare Whittman or Band of Brothers scenario] CM does not emphasize the individual.

Because....it would be bad military tactics to give extrodinary value to one person/unit (at least, since after the time of David and Goliath)?

For those who want their "You are there" to emphasize "YOU", this may not be attractive. CM seems, to me, to philosophically emphasize teamwork, common cause, and selflessness.

Not always an easy sell? Don't many people want a hero--hopefully themselves or their buddies. And something other than a Flag, or building objective, to save.

[i agree with what I see as the CM/Battlefront philosophy. But in the wider society of popularity, of course, Avalon Hill did not become the household name of Lucas's Jedi-filled Star Wars--and I think it was more than the subject matter which was different, otherwise someone would have just cinemetized AH products.]

[Sequoia]

Just curious.

5. And I assume you have found some obscure historical account of the Luftwaffe flying some Finns into Normandy to help with defense, so as to bring in that significant demographic.

I suspect these issues have been thought about [other than, perhaps, the Finns] in some detail?

I know you were joking and I'm sure Tagge or Sergei will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Finland never considered itself at war with the Western allies. Finland joined Germany not as an ally but as a co-beligerent when Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941. Finland saw it as a continuation of the Winter War when the Soviets attacked them in 1939.

[DavidFields]

Sequoia,

I was joking, but I am fascinated by your point. Most WW2 games just put Finland in the Axis, and I had not given it much thought.

But does your point mean that if the Western Allies could have knocked Finland out of the war, they would not have, or would have to have declared war on Finland independently? They would be "allowed" to bomb German troops in Helsinki, but not Finnish ones?

And as an addendum to my previous post: I find it interesting that Battlefront has not (yet) had a "Owner's Record" board in the CM game--giving medals for accomplishments, or tracking number of scenarios played won, or number of different units killed--"Rankorian has been awarded the title Tiger-killer". Yes it could be easy to manipulate by the owner. But it would probably would be very popular, and would not affect the scenario game play. But philosophically offensive to Battlefront?.

[Michael Emrys]

...or would have to have declared war on Finland independently? They would be "allowed" to bomb German troops in Helsinki, but not Finnish ones?

Britain declared war against Finland, but I think it was mostly a pro forma gesture of solidarity with the USSR. I am not personally aware of any belligerent activity taken against Finland. Some or all of the Commonwealth countries may have also declared, but that too is something I have no information on. The USA did not declare; I am not aware of the status of relations between Finland and the remaining Allies. It's a topic not without interest though.

Michael

[tagge]

I know you were joking and I'm sure Tagge or Sergei will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Finland never considered itself at war with the Western allies.

Yes, you are both right Sequoia & Rankorian. It just was something that had to be done for the sake of survival. We wished we could have been like Switzerland or Sweden, but once again we got caught in the middle of superpowers at the time.

On the lighter side, it´s our Independence day today (6.12.1917)! I´m celebrating it with a six-pack of lager while making a CMSF PBEM-map for my PBEM-buddy. Syrian Mech Inf vs. Brit Armoured Infantry, should be fun...

[Piecekeeper]

One thing I think that you could have done better is the trailers. It often shows a battle without showing the real benefits of the game...the tactical part. I think a trailer where you could see how you manage waypoints,cover arc etc would wake the interest for more people. The waypoint system is the most unique thing with this game i think and not the graphic ore the models (although I love them).

[Battlefront.com]

Rankorian,

But I think the market struggle issue is beyond just finding people who "want to think". My sense is that Battlefront fundamentally rejects the "Hero" game model. Units are valued according to their training, equipment value, and what they achieve. But [except for the rare Whittman or Band of Brothers scenario] CM does not emphasize the individual.

You are correct that we do not fully embrace the concept of "heros" with our games. However, we are introducing some more elements to make unit achievements more obvious. The one we have mentioned in the past is the re-introduction of the "Kill List" concept which documents what casualties a particular unit has caused. Over time there will be more elements like this.

Emphasizing unit level achievements, we think, is a good compromise between overemphasizing individual importance and under leveraging gamers' desire to have units be more personalized. I don't think we'll ever go so far as to have people think of CM as a "roll playing game", though I am sure people will feel future versions to be much closer to that than previous CMx1/x2 versions.

Steve

[Mord]

Yes, the kill list alone, will add a deeper level of connection to a unit in my opinion. Keeping track as you play is kinda hard seeing that we aren't always sure what happens on the receiving end of say a barrage or area fire...especially in Ironman or Elite...There's no real after battle "pay off" for the player outside of the generic casualty list at the end. It's gonna be great to see it return...but man, I am gonna feel it's absence in CMSF when it does.

Now, I think all I'll need are buildings and ground catching fire and the detailed armor hits and I'll have everything I personally missed from CMx1. Normandy, by it's nature will cover various weather, so anything after that will be a bonus for me.

Mord.

[DavidFields]

Rankorian,

Emphasizing unit level achievements, we think, is a good compromise between overemphasizing individual importance and under leveraging gamers' desire to have units be more personalized. I don't think we'll ever go so far as to have people think of CM as a "roll playing game", though I am sure people will feel future versions to be much closer to that than previous CMx1/x2 versions.

Steve

Again, I am sure this is an issue your team has thought a lot about.

(Although....if you are thinking about roll-playing, when the rest of the world is thinking about role-playing......... I would have to wonder what your team is actually doing in your office.)

I was actually quite convinced in your CM documentation that individual units, after some point, don't increase in abilities after continual action, but have their abilities degraded and need to be pulled out and rested or refited.

But how about thinking of the "individual" to be concentrated on as the "owner of the game". As silly as it may sound, I would guess (and others can correct me if they believe me mistaken), that people can become unreasonable pleased with themselves at getting a "medal" for "Playing a scenario in each of the first 7 days after D-day", or something like that. Make the owner of the game the hero, or at least honored, for some nominal achievement, with a lasting, even if digitally fleeting, record--which would not damage the realism of the underlying simulations.

It would require the "signing in", and tracking of individual acheivements, that one sees ins some console games.

I realize CM2:N may be too far along for this....but something to keep in mind for the future, perhaps.

[Pvt. Ryan]

(Although....if you are thinking about roll-playing, when the rest of the world is thinking about role-playing......... I would have to wonder what your team is actually doing in your office.)

Roll playing is a game that involves the use of dice.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I don't think we'll ever go so far as to have people think of CM as a "roll playing game", though I am sure people will feel future versions to be much closer to that than previous CMx1/x2 versions.

Just so you know, you are one lottery win away from making X-COMbat Mission.

[Michael Emrys]

...I would have to wonder what your team is actually doing in your office.

You really don't want to know. Trust me on this.

(Just remember what Bismarck said about sausage and law.)

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Rankorian,

But how about thinking of the "individual" to be concentrated on as the "owner of the game". As silly as it may sound, I would guess (and others can correct me if they believe me mistaken), that people can become unreasonable pleased with themselves at getting a "medal" for "Playing a scenario in each of the first 7 days after D-day", or something like that. Make the owner of the game the hero, or at least honored, for some nominal achievement, with a lasting, even if digitally fleeting, record--which would not damage the realism of the underlying simulations.

When we eventually are able to do CoPlay (co-operative multiplayer) we will definitely have some sort of personalized ranking system. Having those rankings be integrated into the game, in some limited but meaningful way, would be the next step to take it. However, until the player is "wearing one hat" on the battlefield I'm not sure it's worth spending much time on a commander level reward system.

Elmar,

Just so you know, you are one lottery win away from making X-COMbat Mission.

You have no idea how fast we'd make one if we won the lottery

Steve

[John Kettler]

Rankorian,

I've been playing formal wargames since age 12, starting with AH's Tactics II and going from there. Later on, I also got into wargaming with miniatures, first Roco Mini-Tanks, then GHQ Micro-Armour, with repeated bouts of 1:2400 naval using the Fletcher Pratt rules. From there it went into all sorts of eras and periods, ashore, in the air and afloat. This was my cozy wargaming (yes, got sucked into D&D) world until the family got an Amiga 1500 and a well-intentioned friend gave me a copy of SSI's Red Lightning. It looked very cool, but turned into an utter disaster, for display technology simply wasn't equal to the game's scope, so I could only see one small sector at a time and totally lost overall situational awareness, resulting in a terrible thrashing. That totally turned me off computer wargames for a long time, until a game buddy had his life implode and came to live with us for a time, which is how I got exposed to MOO and Star Trek Battle Fleet, neither of which I actually played, but did assist in the weapon development and force buy issues. What changed everything, though, was when my friend got Panzer Elite for his PC, and we both got hooked, him not so much; me big time, so much so I quickly joined the Panzer Elite Development Group and set about helping tweak the game to accurately reflect the weapons depicted. And one fateful day while thus engrossed with PEDG stuff, I came across that arresting banner for the CMBO Beta Demo, downloaded the demo to our new family iMac, and started playing it. When my friend moved out, so too went PE, but CM stayed, and I'm still at it all these years later. Changed both my primary wargaming mode and my life! Somewhere in there I also learned to play Up Front, which may be the original wargame based on cards.

These days, when I do wargame, it's on the computer, not with miniatures or using a boardgame. That's not to say I don't enjoy the other two, but it takes special circumstances to pull off battles with miniatures, such as a reunion with brothers and old gaming buddies last May, where it was WW I dogfights, an epic 25mm Battle of Hoth and even hedgerow skirmishing at 1:18 scale. Here's the real plot twist, though, I play Halo and a number of other games on the X-Box 360, and I'm definitely no teenager. Halo and similar have the supreme virtue of requiring very little setup time and are excellent stress relievers, at least for my friend and myself. Because we play co-op on just his machine, it affords the social interaction that other forms of face-to-face gaming also provide, but without most of the attendant hassles. Given the mode we use, it doesn't matter whether the Internet's on the fritz, either. Besides, my friend spends almost the entire day slaving away on his computer, so he really doesn't want to game on one, too. Trust me, I've tried!

I tell you this because I want to expand your thinking about who would buy CM:N. The categories are nowhere nearly as discrete and well defined as you might think, the customers more flexible in their choices, and the choices are considerable. It really comes down to what the customer seeks in the way of a wargaming experience and his/her perceptions of what will best meet that perceived need. I have no doubt that some "twitch" gamers will flatly refuse to even look at CM:N, just as I'm sure there are wargamers who will absolutely refuse to play console games, but I think you'll find surprising numbers of people who do both and enjoy both. If BFC can get the word out about CM:N, in the right fora, I think significant numbers among the "twitch" crowd can be shown another path to gaming bliss and will simply add it to their present activities. Hardcore console gamers can play RT, while PBEM is perfect for the time pressed.

Regards,

John Kettler

[noxnoctum]

^^^For real.

I play a ton of Left 4 Dead which is about a twitchy as it gets (don't really understand why that has to be a bad thing... it is with wargames but not necessarily for games in general) but have been playing wargames of some type since I was 14 or so (21 now)... though admittedly I'm not as advanced as some on here mostly because I never had the money to go all out into the hobby.

Don't assume that all people who play shooters and RTS games (of which COH is one of the best for its style) are too brain-dead for Combat Mission.

Just look at the reviews Gamespot and IGN for example gave CMBB back in the day, 9.1 and 9.0 respectively, from mainstream gaming sites.

[ChrisND]

I'm a hardcore wargamer. I started playing Squad Leader when I was in Kindergarten and ASL when I was in grade school. I also play Call of Duty and other "twitchy" (I hate that term) games. The two are NOT exclusive for many people.

[John Kettler]

Normal Dude,

Am not entirely sure you aren't pulling our legs regarding when you started playing SL and ASL, considering I was at "See spot run," rather than "1.0.2.3 the phasing player using artillery may, contingent on the phase of the moon and the version number thereof, conduct one or more artillery attacks on...provided the targeting criteria defined in...meet the requirements of Subsection 1.02.1f and in no way contradict the exceptions, save as outlined below." OTOH, you may've been a child prodigy!

Regards,

John Kettler