If a person never speaks up, they don't get heard

[justanotherwargamer1]

Not sure how Moon will greet this, but it is just one long time wargamer voicing an opinion he thinks has merit, nothing beyond that.

NOT going to initiate a long diatribe on DRM. But I WILL say, eLicense is killing sales. And not just here at Battefront. But it IS impacting my own interest in purchasing.

It is not just me voicing this opinion either. If you visit other private forums, other company forums, you CAN see that some of us wargamers are withholding support of games all because we won't budge on this issue.

Hubert has been by my usual haunt over at Armchair General, and he is happy (logically of course) to have received the positive review of the Global release of SC. I have to confess, I can't see how Steve reached the 95% conclusion. But his article never explains it either. he went on and on about it like he was reading the manual, didn't really express much of an opinion of what he liked about actually PLAYING the game.

Anyway, long story short, I am stating quite firmly, the eLicense isn't cutting it with me.

It's intrusive. Not to mention, I was reading a thread at Matrix Games about what happens when you suddenly become sans internet at the worst time possible (after your computer situation alters). This wouldn't occur with a Matrix Games installer+serial method.

Glad to hear the game's upcoming update is addressing some aspects of the game I thought were a bit troublesome judging from observations.

[Moon]

I have no clue what you have read over at other forums, but eLicense is not a DRM in the sense like most others, and you do not require an internet connection at all for anything other than the initial activation. If you want to know what eLicense really does, I suggest that you rely on the only source for this kind of information which will give you the true facts, and that would be the Knowledgebase at www.battlefront.com/helpdesk.

In short: eLicense gives you a key which you use to activate your game with on your PC. Once activated, you can play without any restrictions on that PC. You can even activate on a second PC with the same key. Your PC doesn't even need any internet connection to activate. If you want to move your game to a different PC, you unlicense it (one click), then activate on another PC. There are no limits or restrictions whatsoever on how often you can do this. You could, in theory, even sell your game and key on the second game market, no problem at all.

eLicense is the least intrusive and most transparent "DRM" we know of in the market. No online connection, no backdoors, no calling home or other intrusive schemes that most other providers use.

Anyway, I can't really say what the real point of your post is - it seems to be a bit of anti-DRM, anti-review, anti-something?? - but while anyone is entitled to their opinion, those that aren't based on facts but assumptions or hearsay usually are worth much less than those that are.

Martin

[AZGungHo]

I've had only one problem with the elicense, and it was cleared up right away. I don't think it's a problem at all, perhaps people should give it a try and see how it works? In my experience it's not really a problem at all.

[Rocko1]

I will let you know how the elicense works out as I had a computer die a year ago and about getting ready to do installs on my 3rd but actual 2nd computer. I will let you know how they resolve any license issues I have. This is the one thing I worry about and also if either Battlefront or the licensing company go under in the future.

[Big Al]

I have never had a problem. I have had PCs die on me where I couldnt recover the OS. I just simply contacted the company and told them what happened and thats it.

If a company sees you buy their games over and over then suddenly you need a 3rd license key because of a PC crash they wont question it. Especially if the key comes from the same IP address.

If they didnt have it every single game would be on some torrent site. It happened in the 80's with PC games. Some games are the same if not cheaper price than they were back then. I remember one game ran for $70 in the 80's because copying was everywhere. People use to have PC parties to copy software.

[SeaMonkey]

Once again people will fabricate and push something into a category way out of proportion to the consequence. It's a fricken game and I wonder about these people that "make their voice heard" just how adamant they are about standing up for the real important things in life, the hypocrisy permeates their threads as I roll my eyes and think how big a deal it would be to lose 40 dollars, 50 dollars, a hundred.

Excuse me if I present an air of triviality when I'm constantly fleeced for hundreds of thousands of dollars by righteous seeking governments.....but they'll let that pass...heck they're probably a recipient of government entitlements..but a DRM...whoa baby, I'm going to make some noise!:eek:

Make up whatever excuse you want, obviously if BF continues with their policies, "they ain't hurtin" because of the loss of your business, take your violins somewhere else and we'll enjoy the fruits of Hubert's endeavors for mere tiddly winks.

It's your loss, not ours. You're free to choose! Look how long I've been a patron here...does that tell you anything, I've never had a problem one with getting what I pay for and I've got all these SC editions, more than once, and I give them away, yeah .... DRMs are real important.

[justanotherwargamer1]

Well like I said, if one doesn't speak up, they don't get heard.

Now I'm not so proud I can't change my opinion on something if the case is made well enough.

As for heresay:) one man's heresay, is another man's review

Unlimited reuses of a license is a good feature. I've witnessed games that had finite sums. Finite sums is definitely an inferior approach. 2 PCs allowing a lanned game at home is a nice gesture.

I guess the key phrase is 'key'. If once possessed, this key can be moved from one machine to another offline, that is nice, if able to be done offline. One does wonder though, how does the game know it was unlicensed? Because there logically needs to be a way. Well one would assume it might be required. Otherwise a person can just dump the key onto a room full of machines. Even though the agreement states only 2.

I guess "Your PC doesn't even need any internet connection to activate." is the vital detail isn't it. I have not had any beef going online and registering my games over at Matrix Games, essentially an internet requirement, although it has nothing to do with installation. But it does impact access to updates. The updates know a bogus serial when they see it.

The elicense is a barrier which may or may not remain.

The game design is an issue of opinion though. Some like it a lot, some not a lot.

I think a lot of SC1, but it wasn't great on day one, it was great after 1.07

Seamonkey, some beefs are doable some not

I vote not to win in elections, but to be able to say I at least tried

I've spent a bit of time complaining on communications forums on the Net Neutrality issue, But a lot of us think we are doomed from the masses being to apathetic.

Too many people just blindly follow the herd.

Some times you get heard, some times not.

Right now, my own personal crusade, is to get wargame makers to stop saying wargames can't be made for the console market.

They currently just don't want to and that's that.

Price? that's lame. Look how many guys willingly pay 100 bucks to play War in the Pacific.

Then there's the ASL mob.

Sure the average console game costs the average mainstream gamer something like 60 bucks. I'd pay twice that in a heart beat for one of my popular cardboard pushing looking wargames, and wouldn't care a hoot what some teenagers thought of the price as being insane.

I'd kill to play SC on my PS3. Even with the f**king tiles.

I bought Commander Europe at War for my Nintendo DS. I paid 40 bucks for it. I'd have given them 100 for it without blinking. Sure a teen would just rant all day over the price being stupid. Teens are unlikely to play it for free.

Wargamers might moan about prices, but the truth is, were all grown men. We're not kids trying to squeeze money out of a allowance. Ya we all have bills to pay. Cry me a river. I see guys all the time buying the things they want. They find a way.

I'm not afraid to buy something though, on the basis of the company might not be there tomorrow. I have watched more games go stale from just being old tech and no longer exciting, than have gone out of viable use because the company rolled over and died. Yeah it happens. Just not enough. Not enough for me at least.

No I mainly just don't like some choices.

All my recent times wargames purchases have been digital downloads bought through Matrix Games via their service that handles the transaction Digital River. No complaints so far.

Has to be working, as Matrix Games seems to be quite the juggernaut of new titles.

I'm not interested in a colourful box or a silk screened hard copy disc. I have not yet seem any manuals that were worth the paper. I've seen some nice looking pdf files in game manuals though.

I feel I have truly gone modern in my game purchasing.

It's just frustrating when you see some of the methods some companies use. Especially when you point out, the ONLY people not suffering, are the ones playing the downloads. It's always the guy who paid getting booted around treated like he can't be trusted.

If eLicense is saving you funds, I can't expect you to change.

Kinda hard to measure all the unknown non sales that remain unknown because not everyone is as vocal as me

But hey, if I wasn't interested at all, I can assure you I wouldn't have posted.

[Hubert Cater]

I have to confess, I can't see how Steve reached the 95% conclusion.

I find it interesting how someone can have such a strong opinion of a game that he has never actually played, but then again I guess it's not really much of a surprise because Les seems to pop in like clockwork to say his piece every time we release a new SC game.

[justanotherwargamer1]

Hubert I HAVE played the game.

Well I'm assuming the demo IS the game, otherwise it is a peculiar way to demonstrate it

Haven't appeared with every release. Missed most of the SC2 expansions.

But while I don't visit BF often, I do recognize, if I don't, I can't expect anyone that isn't interesting in leaving BF to encounter anything outside of BF either.

[Nupremal]

There is zero problem with the elicence dude - no idea why you would have a beef with it

[SeaMonkey]

Les, this is a nonissue, don't make a mountain out of a mole hill. There's already too many humans doing that now, use you energy in a more productive goal, the freedom of information issue is one case worthy of the effort.....but games??....sorry...i just can't get serious about games.

[Bluestew]

Excuse me if I present an air of triviality when I'm constantly fleeced for hundreds of thousands of dollars by righteous seeking governments.....but they'll let that pass...heck they're probably a recipient of government entitlements..but a DRM...whoa baby, I'm going to make some noise!:eek:

SeaMonkey, excellent comment. I could read that again and again. Next time I'm in Texas, I'd be most happy to purchase you the beverage of your choice.

[SeaMonkey]

That'll be my pleasure Bluestew, but I've travelled far and wide for the best margarita on the planet, and other than the island, I finally had to make my own as there just never was one quite right.

I even grow my own limes, key limes that is! So when you come to South Texas, I'll make sure I pay my electric bill cause we'll need to crank up the ole smoothy machine and share the best, that's right...."the best" :)margarita on the planet, right here in little ole Corpus Christi. And of course our setting will have to be Gulf beachside.:cool:

Cheers!...........and make mine Summertime.

[Happycat]

I find it interesting that the very elegant system of licensing used by Battlefront is compared unfavourably to Digital River. My experience with Digital River the last time I bought a Matrix product (Time of Wrath) was absolutely awful. The problems with the licensing were only outdone by the crappy customer service from DR. Between the problems with Digital River, and the uniimpressive game itself, I am not feeling inclined to shop at Matrix again anytime soon.

Battlefront has a great licensing system---so, with apologies to Billy Joel, "don't go changing..."

[justanotherwargamer1]

Not sure I would apply the term 'elegant' to any form of software protection actually.

elicense is what it is, nothing more nothing less. I am not saying eLicense is the extent of my apprehension though either. There ARE people that think Steve's 95% score is not representative is realistic. Maybe the recent patch will help there.

Will the patch improve the demo file? Because the demo was more or less a stake in the heart to my interest. Just letting you know. Once upon a time the demo for SC was the sole reason I was interested in the game.

I won't claim to have NOT seen any difficuties with Digital River, as I have seen comments to that effect. I do reserve the right though to suggest your difficulties Happy Cat have no more merit/worth than my concerns with your 'elegant eLicense'

And when I consider that most people buying Matrix Games titles consider their method of sales to be the defining reason why they are buying predominantly Matrix games titles, well we have something of a fan boy impasse I suspect.

Myself, I have had zero troubles buying digital downloads from Matrix Games for several titles. Digital River has so far to myself and my own experiences been nothing more interesting than the name that shows up as an email saying the transaction went through and a name on a credit card statement. I've yet to have had reason to need to actually contact them at all ever.

I would like to correct a matter of specific detail though. Matrix Games does not operate with 'licenses' in the manner in which you phrased it. "The problems with the licensing were only outdone by the crappy customer service from DR." There is no license in the process.

You receive an email along with your purchase, it contains a serial number. The number is inserted during installation. There is zero ever requirement to go online during any of the process, be it install, or first time running the game. The serial is required during instalation of any update patch, again no need to ever go online.

I have registered all of my games. A simple process. It allows me member access, which I must confess seems pointless, as Matrix Games doesn't really hide all of it's updates/patches for reasons I have been unable to discern. Makes the whole 'member access' routine seem sort of pointless. That's not my concern.

I will confirm that not all have liked Time of Wrath by the way. That's just us wargamers being opinionated as always. It's not hearsay as Martin was want to refer to it. Every last pro and con comment is merely opinion, and when written out fancy like is termed 'reviews'.

Heck I could be writing reviews myself. And while some will scoff at that idea, that's no biggie to me, I also know some actually give a damn about them (my opinions). I've done beta test work by invite numerous times. I've only ASKED to beta test half the games I have beta tested.

Anyway, I think the thread has served my need. I have expressed a dislike for eLicense. I have had private off site comments that might get me to reconsider, maybe. I am still waiting on the game to age a bit too. The recent patch likely will not be the last, as we wargamers are an incredibly fussy lot.

I'm even wondering some days if I am inherently losing love for PC wargaming as a whole.

I was and still am, more a board gamer wargamer than a electronic medium fan of the hobby.

I've been holding off on purchasing a few titles I technically don't have any real beef at all.

Chances are I might have enough curiosity with the eventual Combat Mission Normandy title that I need to accept dealing with eLicense whether I enjoy it or not.

[bowenw]

Trying to stay out of this disscussion about the E crap which I never had a problem with on Battlefront, I will let SeaMonkey talk for me as he seems to know what hes talking about more than some people who post here, but I have to say something about your comments Gamer about how wonderful Matrix is, this is one screwed up company from their crappy TOW to their horrible performance with MWIF which to me has turned into an industry joke, to their stupidity about no demos so you have to buy one of their turkeys sight unseen, talk down about Battlefront all you want thats your perogative with a free forum but please do not bring up Matrix again, Please!

Bo

[Gorgin]

Amen, Bowenw.

Matrix probably has their own forum for those interested in their products.

[Hubert Cater]

Hubert I HAVE played the game.

Well I'm assuming the demo IS the game, otherwise it is a peculiar way to demonstrate it

Admittedly I still find this fascinating in the sense that you could have such a strong reaction to a review without having played the game. Much like a trailer for a movie or the back cover of a book, I doubt many would put themselves out there to then say they disagreed with the review of a film or a review of a novel after only exposing themselves to what essentially amounts to a primer to see if it will peak your interest.

Again, I'm not saying there are those without criticisms for the review (I'm still not going to argue the score ), but I would at least suspect it would be from within the context of having actually played the game, i.e. from start to finish in order to fully understand what the game offers in terms of overall game play, strategy, decisions and so on, rather than a 2 turn Demo.

In that vein I guess it is a good thing that we don't send out Demos, i.e. rather than the full game, to reviewers but to each their own I guess.

Hubert

[justanotherwargamer1]

Trying to stay out of this disscussion about the E crap which I never had a problem with on Battlefront, I will let SeaMonkey talk for me as he seems to know what hes talking about more than some people who post here, but I have to say something about your comments Gamer about how wonderful Matrix is, this is one screwed up company from their crappy TOW to their horrible performance with MWIF which to me has turned into an industry joke, to their stupidity about no demos so you have to buy one of their turkeys sight unseen, talk down about Battlefront all you want thats your perogative with a free forum but please do not bring up Matrix again, Please!

Bo

We all have our turkeys

Matrix Games has had duds. They do have demos, not 100% do, but they DO have demos. I know, I've got them.

A less than likely remembered title to those new to BF might be GI Gombat (talk about a turkey), which became EYSA at Matrix Games (which was turkey part 2), and then moved on never to be heard from again for the most part.

I won't blame BF for the offal that GI Combat was any more than I would blame Matrix Games for the round 2 offal that EYSA was. Eric Young I guess wasn't able to make that game any good regardless of who was selling it for him.

You say Time of Wrath is junk, I say Theatre of War is garbage. I've played both.

In some ways we might be both correct. Just opinions though. Everyone is entitled to one. Everyone is free to say the opinion is worthless too

War in the Pacific is without equal. I still think it's a massively tedious dull game. I don't know why I bought it.

Combat Mission is without equal. Just wish it worked on a modern computer. But I'm willing to let them retired into the past if Normandy makes it so I don't need to care.

Steel Panthers is a shining moment in gaming history, and Matrix Games provided it for several years for free as a download at their expense. Say what you want about an individual title that didn't quite pan out, but you can't take away the accolades they have earned.

Their titles WW2 General Commander and Operation Barbaossa are best described as under cooked. I've played them.

Their Battles in series and Airborne Assault series from those two companies need no support from me. They are self evident great games.

But as publisher, Matrix Games just sells them, they don't make them.

Your beef with Time of Wrath is with the company that MADE the game.

I like how Matrix Games 'sells' their games.

I will concur about MWIF. It's only beaten in the 'are we there yet' category, by the will it ever appear Combat Leader which they took way too long to finally give up on.

I personally would prefer they release it sans AI and just ignore the whiners wanting one in favour of all of us that couldn't care less if it doesn't.

Some demos just don't accomplish anything. Some do. Maybe if Hubert had NOT done the SC Global demo, I wouldn't have been turned off by it. it is actually detracting more so than the eLicense.

Hubert, stop saying I haven't played the game. I have. I played the demo. It's the game. Otherwise what's the point of the demo? To mislead?

I am also basing my own conclusions on the thoughts of others than have most assuredly played the whole game. The review by Steve is not the only one out there. Every wargamer that has played it is a reviewer. Some are happy some are not.

If people are unhappy to hear direct mention of rival products on the site here, can't help you with that. Matrix Games is not overly bothered by it.

But I generally discuss my own views on wargames on neutral grounds. It cuts down on heavy handed bias shouting me down.

[xwormwood]

I still think the the original War in the Pacific (the Dos-Matrix version) is one of the all time best games about the Pacific War.

And i love Steel Panther (Matrix General Edition).

The first one is WORK to play, but if you dare to go this way, than it offers you quite a lot (i loved -as an example- that generals could die if the city they were stationed when this city became the target of a strategic bombing run),

Steel Panthers is a timeless classic i will surely still play in 20 years (if there are still computers out there which can run the game).

And the same goes for all Strategic Command games (maybe without the first part, which can't compete anymore with anything of the later releases).

I am glad that Hubert was able to hold out this long, as after the pittyful death of SSI there were no more decent WW2 games on the market. For nearly a decade!

And i had the strange feeling that this wouldn't change for ever.

But than came SC1 (hurrah!).

I would be so pleased if Hubert (instead of an too early release of SC3) would re-invent some of the greatest SSI games.

Like Sword of Aragon. Sigh.

[Hubert Cater]

Maybe if Hubert had NOT done the SC Global demo, I wouldn't have been turned off by it. it is actually detracting more so than the eLicense.

Since we always try and improve our products based on player feedback, can you tell me exactly what turned you off, i.e. what you felt was detracting, in the game as played from the Demo so that we can not only improve the game but perhaps even offer an improved Demo in the future?

Hubert

[justanotherwargamer1]

Thanks for asking Hubert.

First off it is NOT the two turn duration (which might matter to some, just pointing out it was not a factor to me).

I suppose it was mainly the feel of the setting.

1942 the year the Axis had their butts handed to them. But in the demo, if you play the Allies, it's the year the Allies lose the war till further notice.

I was concerned about a historicity issue.

I am not among the camp that wishes to play as Germany invading the US. That was never an option, and does nothing to make the game seem credible.

I do think the Axis had numerous chances where they might have done better. But some choices are just credibility killers.

Some is the map itself. I still think the tiles render a poor representation. And I know I am not alone in this. A hex allows movement in 6 only directions, not 8, but those two extra directions come with the cost of movement sleeze that has no business being in a proper game wishing to be treated seriously. In the wargaming world 'sleaze' is a term similar to cheesy or gamey for those not following me. Sleaze is a familiar turn for anyone that has played ASL.

Some of my thoughts go back as far as SC1

Some times a portion of the map is simply not required to be rendered.

[bowenw]

Amen, Bowenw.

Matrix probably has their own forum for those interested in their products.

Amen to you Gorgin, you are right they do have their own forums at Matrix but if you are interested read the thread WHEN on the MWIF forum at Matrix and then have someone who we will not name :confused:tell us that is not as chaotic as any thread anywhere and is a company that does not have a clue, also I have never seen a demo there and when I questioned Steve over there about it, the answer was all demos are misleading thats why we do not do demos, DO NOT DO DEMO'S:)

Bo

[Hubert Cater]

First off it is NOT the two turn duration (which might matter to some, just pointing out it was not a factor to me).

I suppose it was mainly the feel of the setting.

1942 the year the Axis had their butts handed to them. But in the demo, if you play the Allies, it's the year the Allies lose the war till further notice.

I was concerned about a historicity issue.

I am not among the camp that wishes to play as Germany invading the US. That was never an option, and does nothing to make the game seem credible.

I do think the Axis had numerous chances where they might have done better. But some choices are just credibility killers.

Care to be more specific? I only ask as I am surprised you have come to this conclusion from a 2 turn Demo, i.e. where a year's worth of turns is 12 to 13.

Some is the map itself. I still think the tiles render a poor representation. And I know I am not alone in this. A hex allows movement in 6 only directions, not 8, but those two extra directions come with the cost of movement sleeze that has no business being in a proper game wishing to be treated seriously. In the wargaming world 'sleaze' is a term similar to cheesy or gamey for those not following me. Sleaze is a familiar turn for anyone that has played ASL.

Some of my thoughts go back as far as SC1

Some times a portion of the map is simply not required to be rendered.

Other than mentioning you dislike tiles, this is unfortunately extremely vague and considering your strong opposition to the game, the demo and the review it is quite surprising. In all honesty there is nothing here that I can identify for improvements unlike some of the other criticisms from players that have provided feedback.

However, in some ways I am not surprised as I still think this is directly related to the fact you have yet to play the full game... but since you disagree with that sentiment I am prepared to move on as it is quite hard to accommodate vague opinions of our full product based on two turns of a demo.

Perhaps when you do play the game and have more detailed criticisms to offer I'll be happy to take it under advisement. As other players like xwormwood can attest to we usually do what we can to correct any glaring oversights.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

[SeaMonkey]

Come on Hubert ...move on....obviously these glaringly naive comments reflect an uncompromising opinion akin to "sour grapes" directed by tunnel vision. A narrow mind that is trying to breakout but just can't because of the conditioned behaviour based upon boardgaming prejudice and a predication of historical symmetry.:confused:

Shape relationship and applications are obviously not this mind's forte' either, its simply, "not worth it", but you tried!:cool: