CM:N on Steam?

[Erwin]

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of CMSF and frequently promote it on BoB etc.

As you may recall, I used to be a major detractor from CMSF v1 and became a convert as it has became patched into a superb game. Possibly some of the original vitriol towards CMSF by many was also caused by CM1 fans assuming was going to be CM1 on steroids (due to the similar name), rather than a rather different game experience. But, I appreciate the marketing reasons for exploiting the name.

However, I think that many others play CM1 for different reasons than CMSF. You can play an almost an operational-strategic level game with CM1 due to the larger maps and the fact that it's easier to control larger numbers of units. Also, CM1 is just plain easier/more accessible (for the casual player) when you want to have a fun game, rather than a grueling simulation experience, which is what CMSF offers.

Both experiences are great fun, but I find CMSF to be much harder work re checking LOS, trying to figure out what terrain my guys are in etc., and errors are punished much more severely than in CM1. I still prefer to play CMSF vs the AI as after 2 years I am still constantly stopping and restarting saved games to figure out what I did wrong and how to do things better. It can start to feel like hard work.

That is why I believe CM1 will be popular for some time to come, regardless of the success of the CM2 series.

[Battlefront.com]

SlapHappy,

Will CMSF:2 incorporate a new or heavily modified engine? By referring to it as "2", it kind of implies that it will.

Or I guess it could just mean that the "modern" Combat Mission has moved on to another theater of war.

Correct... different theater.

The CMx2 engine will be evolutionary from here on out because it's flexible enough that we won't have to ditch it to do something new. That was the whole point in chucking the CMx1 code since the opposite was the case. Adding even tiny new features to CMx1 was painful. Adding major new features to CMx2 is not.

CMx2's progression will be akin to something like computer technology. Compare this year's model of latest laptop (for instance) against last year's and there will be more common than different. But compare this year's top model laptop with the one from 4 or 5 years ago... major differences that mean a fundamentally different user experience. Still, the fundamentals will likely not be all that different in that both have the same rough size, a flip up screen, batteries, keyboard, integrated track pad, etc.

I believe that this is almost entire because of setting, not CMx2 in and of itself. I can tell you that having played both extensively, I can not go back to CMx1 games. I tried just the other week. I cant do it anymore. Yes there are still some things being worked out in CMx2 games, but the pros over CMx1 far, far outweigh the cons - in my opinion atleast.

I loved CMx1 in their time. Once Normandy hits, I dont think I will ever touch a CMx1 game again - no reason too.

A sentiment we've heard quite a bit over the years. As we release more WW2 titles with the CMx2 engine the relatively small number of CMx1 players will become tiny.

But us East Front lovers sure won't let go of CMBB until we get the CMx2 family. So I consider the launch of CMN the partial death of CMx1.

I agree. Since setting is the single most important factor in determining what people want to play, Eastern Front fanatics still playing CMBB will likely continue to do so until a CMx2 Eastern Front game comes out.

I think that that just goes to show what Steve has been talking about: I am all about the Western Front, but the Eastern Front and Africa/Mediterrian do nothing for me. I still bought and played CM:BB and CM:AK, but it was just for giggles. I lived and breathed CM:BO though. Everyone has their taste.

Exactly

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of CMSF and frequently promote it on BoB etc.

As you may recall, I used to be a major detractor from CMSF v1 and became a convert as it has became patched into a superb game. Possibly some of the original vitriol towards CMSF by many was also caused by CM1 fans assuming was going to be CM1 on steroids (due to the similar name), rather than a rather different game experience. But, I appreciate the marketing reasons for exploiting the name.

Oh, I definitely agree that a fair percentage of players expected (wrongly) that CMx2 was going to be the same game but with prettier graphics. And that somehow 1:1 representation, higher terrain fidelity, asymmetric victory conditions, etc. were going to have no impact on game play experience. It boggles our minds how anybody could think we were spending 3 years working on a slightly warmed over rehash, but I do think many people did.

But CMx2 is absolutely CMx1 in more than just marketing. Just ask yourself... what game out there, in all genres, that is most similar to CM:SF? If CMx1 doesn't come to mind I'd be shocked! In fact, I can't think of any other game out there that is more comparable to CM:SF than CMx1, nor any other game out there that is more comparable to CMx1 than CM:SF. Sure, they aren't identical... but why on God's green earth would anybody want them to be identical? That's the logic that would have kept CMx1 in 2D with CRTs resolving combat results.

However, I think that many others play CM1 for different reasons than CMSF. You can play an almost an operational-strategic level game with CM1 due to the larger maps and the fact that it's easier to control larger numbers of units. Also, CM1 is just plain easier/more accessible (for the casual player) when you want to have a fun game, rather than a grueling simulation experience, which is what CMSF offers.

It does come down to personal preferences, of course. The majority of gamers out there don't like any of the CM games because they aren't fun or easy to play. Fortunately, we only care about our target audiences being happy with our products.

Both experiences are great fun, but I find CMSF to be much harder work re checking LOS, trying to figure out what terrain my guys are in etc., and errors are punished much more severely than in CM1.

That has a lot to do with the setting. If we made a modern version of CMx1 I'm sure the same would be said for that as well.

That is why I believe CM1 will be popular for some time to come, regardless of the success of the CM2 series.

Oh, I don't doubt that. There were still plenty of people sticking with Steel Panthers for years after CMBO came out. In fact, I'm sure you can still find people that consider Steel Panthers "more popular" than CMx1. Each to his own People just need to be very cautious about taking their own personal experiences and trying to extrapolate that to the market as a whole. A CMBB fanatic might still consider it the "most popular" of all CMx1 games, but it never got close to selling as much as CMBO and last month it accounted for just 2% of Battlefront's gross sales.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Chad Harrison]

A CMBB fanatic might still consider it the "most popular" of all CMx1 games, but it never got close to selling as much as CMBO and last month it accounted for just 2% of Battlefront's gross sales.

Steve

What was the other 98%?

I obviously dont expect a serious answer to this, but I am curious: are you still seeing CMx1 sell? Obviously CM:BB is selling something, but in general, are people still buying CMx1 games from BFC?

[Chad Harrison]

Hey, everyone can't have good taste.

I treid. I really did. I played all sorts of CM:AK scenarios in the desert and just could not get into it - not to mention the other assortment of Africa games over the years.

Normandy. Hedgerows. Small quiet villages. Summer. Oh, I could play that for the rest of my life!

[ChrisND]

What was the other 98%?

TacOps and Down in Flames.

[Battlefront.com]

What was the other 98%?

I obviously dont expect a serious answer to this, but I am curious: are you still seeing CMx1 sell? Obviously CM:BB is selling something, but in general, are people still buying CMx1 games from BFC?

Yes, there is still a steady, though small, amount of CMx1 sales. Cumulatively the CMx1 individual and bundled games sell enough to keep some lights on, though each year the wattage of the bulbs it can keep lit goes down. Considering the age of the games we're not complaining However, if we had to rely upon CMx1 sales to keep us going we would have been out of business in 2004. Fortunately we have a very nice group of products that sell consistently well over time. Shock Force, not surprisingly, has been our primary source of revenue since its release.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

TacOps and Down in Flames.

I know you think you're joking, but compared to CMx1 games you're not that far off And TacOps is by far the oldest product in our lineup.

Steve

[LJFHutch]

I'm personally glad that CM is independent. No single group should have so much power over the industry as Steam will eventually have - just look at the way they're monopolizing it now. Other than that I don't have anything against it beside the fact that it has continually not worked for me (I will admit though that I have about 40+ games on Steam XD) I hope there will always been independent distribution methods.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request