Would you pay for more CMSF features?

[Sequoia]

Well CMSF is essentially done now and we won't see anything new added to it except for some bug fixes. There will not be a French Module and Battlefront wants to move on to Normandy, which we hear is nearing completion, and its modules and we won't return to modern warfare again until CMSF II in its temperate setting and we don't know if that will be before or after or concurrent with the Bulge/end of war family. I understand this. I also understand Battlefront does not owe us any new features for CMSF. But let me ask, would you be willing to PAY for new features? I don't think any one has ever asked. What would you pay for water for example, even if it's only to CM:Afghanistan standards? A large part of the coding must be done already. I don't know how much it would take to add of course but probably not as much as adding a new army in a module. Barbed wire is my pet desire. I assume we'll get it in Normandy, though I can't recall a confirmation of that in the initial release. Maybe it's more tricky then I think with all new AI and animations required but let me throw it on the table. I'd pay $10 for water and barbed wire.

Of course there's always a limited amount of programming resources for everything that's desired and another downside is further fragmentation of the community besides different module ownership but hey, at least let me ask. Is this something that would interest you?

[panzermartin]

I'd pay more than 10 $ for better multiplayer support, multi-multi and a lobby/ladder.

[MeatEtr]

In a word, no, unless they put in the QB update. But that's already been confirmed as never will happen. They've been working on CMSF now for over three years now, post-launch. Time to move on IMO. Besides, we got the Western Front family and then the Eastern Front family after that.

Bottom line, I think they/we have bigger fish to fry.

[Boche]

yes, if it was worth it (and I had the money)

[Dennis50]

I agree with MeatEtr ..

[Battlefront.com]

A long time ago when we first thought of how to go about the new game engine we had a fundamental decision to make. We had to choose between:

1. Discernable start and end to a particular game

or

2. A never ending upgradable product

Games almost always choose #1, most other computer programs usually go with #2 (with caveats). We weighed the pros and cons for both us and our customers. We felt, overall, that #1 was the better way to go about CMx2. It still seems that's the way to go and therefore each CMx2 "Family" of games will eventually reach an end state as did the CMx1 games. Unlike CMx1, however, we will come back around with a much improved game engine sooner rather than later. As soon as Normandy is out we'll officially start working on CM:SF 2.

Steve

[Dennis50]

So on what date do you think you will officially start working on CM:SF 2?

[dan/california]

I would love better multi-player, especially with a decent lobby, and drones, and....

I would pay too, but maybe it makes more sense to move on and let Charles and friend not be to tied their past umm "decisions".

But a lobby and better multi need to start moving towards the front of the line.

[Erwin]

Based on value for money (and savings in other games not purchased) I remember setting a (personal) bargain price of around $250 for the 3 CM1 games before CMSF existed. I would estimate about the same for CM2. So, based on the fact that all modules including CMA still don't amount to $250, I would happily pay more for another module, (say) the French plus some more of the most frustrating issues aired in these forums fixed.

The interesting question is what additional features will CM:SF 2 attempt to offer over the existing CM2 engine? Will it be worth a 2-3(?) year wait vs getting more CM:SF and/or Normandy modules every (say) 6 months or so. Gameplay is the main thing, so I would be disappointed if CM:SF 2 was primarily an enhancement of the graphics.

BFC has proven that they can bring out amazing product and most importantly that CM1 wasn't a fluke. The only issue is time and how long do we want to wait for... well, what?

[MeatEtr]

As soon as Normandy is out we'll officially start working on CM:SF 2.

Steve

Ok so where does the East Front family fit in then? Are those Russian dudes that did CMA working on it? If so then did they start it? Please tell me the East Front games are still coming. :eek:

[Michael Emrys]

Ok so where does the East Front family fit in then? Are those Russian dudes that did CMA working on it? If so then did they start it? Please tell me the East Front games are still coming. :eek:

I would not be surprised if the East Front group of games is worked on concurrently with SF2 with modules of each set appearing alternately every three to six months. Then again, something completely different might happen...

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

We are working concurrently on Western Front, Eastern Front, and Modern. Occasionally something else will be in there too. For most of the last two years we have been working concurrently with CM:SF, CM:Normandy, and CM:Afghanistan. As NATO's art requirements wrapped up we started on the Eastern Front art needs. Now that both CM:SF and CM:Afghanistan are out the door we can start shifting the time for those towards CM:SF 2 and the first Eastern Front Family.

As for features, each primary release of a Family gets all the features that previous Families had (if applicable) PLUS new stuff. For example, CM:Normandy has bridges and water terrain. CM:SF 2 will have these things as well. This is the point of having a game engine Since we have at least 10 years worth of stuff to put into the engine now, we are very confident that we'll never run out of things to add.

Steve

[Mord]

we started on the Eastern Front art needs.

Steve

What does that mean? Like Textures and icons?

Mord.

[Praetori]

Well CMSF is essentially done now and we won't see anything new added to it except for some bug fixes. There will not be a French Module and Battlefront wants to move on to Normandy, which we hear is nearing completion, and its modules and we won't return to modern warfare again until CMSF II in its temperate setting and we don't know if that will be before or after or concurrent with the Bulge/end of war family. I understand this. I also understand Battlefront does not owe us any new features for CMSF. But let me ask, would you be willing to PAY for new features? I don't think any one has ever asked. What would you pay for water for example, even if it's only to CM:Afghanistan standards? A large part of the coding must be done already. I don't know how much it would take to add of course but probably not as much as adding a new army in a module. Barbed wire is my pet desire. I assume we'll get it in Normandy, though I can't recall a confirmation of that in the initial release. Maybe it's more tricky then I think with all new AI and animations required but let me throw it on the table. I'd pay $10 for water and barbed wire.

Of course there's always a limited amount of programming resources for everything that's desired and another downside is further fragmentation of the community besides different module ownership but hey, at least let me ask. Is this something that would interest you?

I would pay up to 100$ for any CMx2 product with a decent Campaign engine and dynamic AI.

[Lanzfeld]

I would pay as well.

[Waaarg]

I'd buy anything the SF team put out. Do you guys have the opposing nation(s) selected yet, or is that TBD?

[Chad Harrison]

We are working concurrently on Western Front, Eastern Front, and Modern. Occasionally something else will be in there too. For most of the last two years we have been working concurrently with CM:SF, CM:Normandy, and CM:Afghanistan. As NATO's art requirements wrapped up we started on the Eastern Front art needs. Now that both CM:SF and CM:Afghanistan are out the door we can start shifting the time for those towards CM:SF 2 and the first Eastern Front Family.

As for features, each primary release of a Family gets all the features that previous Families had (if applicable) PLUS new stuff. For example, CM:Normandy has bridges and water terrain. CM:SF 2 will have these things as well. This is the point of having a game engine Since we have at least 10 years worth of stuff to put into the engine now, we are very confident that we'll never run out of things to add.

Steve

My previous understanding is that the general release of the next families would be:

1. Normandy (WWII West Front)

2. Bulge - End War (WWII West Front)

3. East Front - End War (WWII East Front)

4. CM:SF 2 Temperate against Russians?

Is this still *generally* what we are looking at? Will the main opponent in CM:SF be the Russians? Are there any plans to add additional Red opponents to CM:SF 2 family? Like a China or North Korea module?

Thanks in advance

Chad

[c3k]

Hmmm, I consider that I _have_ been paying for additional features. See, I got a cool game about 1944 West Front Combat. The graphics were pretty good, but the underlying engine was EXTREMELY good. Later, I paid for an expansion to the East Front. Next, I wanted a tweak to the coding and a few more goodies, so I paid BF.C to develop that. After a long wait, I paid for even MORE features: 1 to 1 modeling in modern warfare. Then, for more features, I paid more. Marines? Yep. Brits? Yep, paid there. NATO? Sure, take my money, please.

I consider that I have been paying for additional features (happily) for many years.

To answer the OP question: Yes, I would pay for additionaly features.

Ken

[akd]

I would pay for additional features, but I still expect some limited ongoing support for SF in the form of fixes/improvement for aspects of the product that don't function well but don't require a complete rebuild of some aspect of the product. Pretty sure I've invested over $100 in the SF series, so I don't think that unreasonable. SF may be "3 years old," but I'm pretty sure I sent BF some cash for it just a few weeks ago. And obviously many great games still receive some limited support after the final paid content has been released. If they were switching wholesale to a new engine, I might feel differently, but that is not the case.

I'm talking here about (relatively) simple things like improved off-map support functionality to address situations it flat out doesn't work in (random direction rocket attacks, ceaseless waits to adjust indirect fire), or features from CM:A like units routing off the map instead of bunching up in a corner for the player to find, not things like adding entirely new terrain (water) or complex features (new QB system). I'm hoping that 1.31 will bring much of this, but I still would expect a few small patches to keep the product viable and help out those of us who really enjoy SF and all its potential and aren't just waiting on the sidelines for WW2 titles.

Complete abandonment of the SF1 series would certainly negatively affect my future purchase of the WWII series. While I accept there won't be complete interoperability, I would be loathe to purchase a separate standalone Bulge game (a topic I have less interest in) if basic engine improvements and fixes in the game were not also extended to the previous Normandy family.

And all those slathering for the Normandy title right now and encouraging BFC to turn their backs on SF to get it out as quick as possible are going to really regret it when the day comes that simple fixes and improvements are added to SF2 and withheld from the still very actively played WWII games because those titles are "finished."

Might not be entirely realistic expectations, but then the situation Steve presented where it is either eternal support or a set-date abandonment of the product regardless of unfixed problems just because the company does not foresee any further payments for the product obviously need not be a binary choice. There is certainly an in between that honors customers while focusing the main effort on the future.

All that said, I'd probably buy a new SF module, but I think the addition of entire new nations and all that entails is probably not worth the time.

However, I could still great potential value in the form of a "mini-module" for the SF family as a whole that focused on tying up lose ends, refinement of existing features (e.g. air and artillery support), addition of a few formations and assets to existing nations (perhaps DA-capable SF unit for each of the Blue nations, like 75th Rangers for US or Royal Marines for Brits), addition of a handful of additional 3D assets like MRAPs and gated walls, and perhaps extension of the Syrian timeline into a post-invasion high-intensity counter-insurgency period (really nothing more than additional date options and perhaps non-visual weather options). I would think it could be dependent on the other modules and perhaps be rolled into a future "Gold" Edition of SF, which I would buy in a heart beat.

But that is really just a silly dream.

[MarkEzra]

Hmmm, I consider that I _have_ been paying for additional features. See, I got a cool game about 1944 West Front Combat. The graphics were pretty good, but the underlying engine was EXTREMELY good. Later, I paid for an expansion to the East Front. Next, I wanted a tweak to the coding and a few more goodies, so I paid BF.C to develop that. After a long wait, I paid for even MORE features: 1 to 1 modeling in modern warfare. Then, for more features, I paid more. Marines? Yep. Brits? Yep, paid there. NATO? Sure, take my money, please.

I consider that I have been paying for additional features (happily) for many years.

To answer the OP question: Yes, I would pay for additionaly features.

Ken

That is my view as well.

[dan/california]

My "silly dream" is for them to buy a nice eastern European game outfit, and have the man hours available to address a few my specific "silly dreams" as it were. They obviously have some level of relationship with a couple of them already. I understand that they are justifiably paranoid that if the source code gets out they are just reamed, but the thought of getting through that ten year list in 18 months is just overwhelming.

[vincere]

I would pay for additional features, but I still expect some limited ongoing support for SF in the form of fixes/improvement for aspects of the product that don't function well but don't require a complete rebuild of some aspect of the product. Pretty sure I've invested over $100 in the SF series, so I don't think that unreasonable. SF may be "3 years old," but I'm pretty sure I sent BF some cash for it just a few weeks ago.

However, I could still great potential value in the form of a "mini-module" for the SF family as a whole that focused on tying up lose ends, refinement of existing features (e.g. air and artillery support), addition of a few formations and assets to existing nations (perhaps DA-capable SF unit for each of the Blue nations, like 75th Rangers for US or Royal Marines for Brits), addition of a handful of additional 3D assets like MRAPs and gated walls, and perhaps extension of the Syrian timeline into a post-invasion high-intensity counter-insurgency period (really nothing more than additional date options and perhaps non-visual weather options). I would think it could be dependent on the other modules and perhaps be rolled into a future "Gold" Edition of SF, which I would buy in a heart beat.

I think the first bit has some merit especially the paid over $100, and some a few weeks ago. That said, they will have to draw the line somewhere; I guess we'll have different ideas where.

If we can consider dream land, then +1 for a loose ends module with Brit trucks for Pete's sake and a focus on high intensity counter insugency would round it off.

Waag- I think Steve dropped a big bone saying that CMSF 2 happens to involve China

I wonder if they will give consideration to Russia being Blue team on this.

[MeatEtr]

Waag- I think Steve dropped a big bone saying that CMSF 2 happens to involve China

I wonder if they will give consideration to Russia being Blue team on this.

Whoa, did I miss something somewhere, where did he mention this?

[Erwin]

AKD: Re "And all those slathering for the Normandy title right now and encouraging BFC to turn their backs on SF to get it out as quick as possible are going to really regret it when the day comes that simple fixes and improvements are added to SF2 and withheld from the still very actively played WWII games because those titles are "finished."

Of course this already happened to us CM1 fans who were chanting and immolating ourselves to get the CM Campaigns product that would have revitalized CM1 for years.

And there is still a very active CM1 community. (I will go out on a limb and say that CM: Normandy and mods will still not satisfy the CM1 fans if it continues to feature the relatively small tactical scope of CM2.) And I am sure CM2 will continue in the same way. So, it's all swings and roundabouts...

I think that whatever new toys BFC creates for us will be different from what people have expected and that will infuriate at least some. But, most will get used to the new concepts and systems, and will adapt and carry on.

(And when I see the level of passion that bugs can create on these forums, it's clear that BFC has no choice but to get their next release right b4 releasing it - even if that does take well into 2011.)

[Jonny(FGM)]

(I will go out on a limb and say that CM: Normandy and mods will still not satisfy the CM1 fans if it continues to feature the relatively small tactical scope of CM2.)

Well I'll still be playing CMx1 until the last eastern front module comes out ; )

I don't think the CMx2 engine is inherently smaller in scope than the Cmx1, apart from the fact you'd need a beast of a computer to play a battalion level assault mission