BF, You Blew It

[C'Rogers]

The only way to my knowledge how this could be possible is if CM would send that information to a battlefront server everytime someone initiated a multiplayer session. If this is the case, then yes, they have good data.

Likely they've done market research of which this forum may have been a (small) part. They certainly know how many copies have been sold. Even if the online groups that are known are a small percentage, it can even give them a rough idea.

They've also been in the war gaming business for a long time and likely interacted with a lot of war gamers. They could also just see what has happened with other war gaming companies and how people have, in general, played war games.

Most importantly though: Why would they lie?

[LemoN]

Steve told many times that he knows that this is so.

The question is... why?

For CMx1 many people didn't have PC's and internet capable of handling TCP/IP WEGO very well, especially not in CM:BO. CM:AK was released in 2003, a time when people (especially in the wargaming commuity) still often had very limited internet and PC capabilities. And looking at the age of the games and the dwindling playerbase by 2007 it's no big surprise that the only real way for many people to have many different opponents was to stick to look in the entire world, and I agree that when doing this PBEM is the only real possibility.

In 2007 CM:SF was released without TCP/IP WEGO, making any kind of statistics beyond this point completely inaccurate and worthless.

The point is that we are in the year 2011 now, with CM:Bulge probably releasing some time in 2012. Technology and playerbase has changed a LOT. Everyone I know, except of a few who prefer RT over WEGO, would never even consider playing PBEM, unless they want to battle someone on the other side of the world, which is something I wouldn't.

[Tactical Wargamer]

Put up an official poll - ask how important TCP/IP WEGO is for your user base compared to things like moveable waypoints, flamethrowers, etc. I think there is more interest in multiplayer than you may think.

I agree I think Steve might be surprised by the result. I mean look at this thread. I have not seen anything like this before? This many passionate posts in such a short time. Obviously the community has an issue with MP options.

[TBlaster]

And you are an expert on marketing knowledge?

No I'm not. I do know about Network Engineering.

When I bought the game no one asked me if I was going to play Multiplayer, and what modes I would use. I have not heard of anyone else post that they were received any kind of survey asking them about that either. Hence the only possible way of Battlefront knowing how many players use multiplayer is by means of IT. And that will be easy enough to test with a packet sniffer.

[C'Rogers]

Seriously, why do people have to piss on other people's opinions on this forum all the time?

While people do tend to go over the line, a lot of the time what people think is an opinion is a factual assertion. For example, whether or not there is a large group of people who would buy this game if it had TCIP WeGo. BFC has said there isn't. Either they are wrong, or they are intentionally sabotaging their product. They probably though took time to weigh the cost/benefits.

Saying you want the game to have TCIP WeGo is fine. Saying that you won't play it without is fine as well. BFC said when SF came out they realized they made decisions that would make some people not like the game. That happens and they were/are okay with it.

I have not seen anything like this before?

I don't about everyone else, but I was hoping for a release today so I kept the page open which led to a lot more comment then normal.

[Sgt Joch]

I have to admit that all the other fanboys and zealots are a hoot to read. Seriously, why do people have to piss on other people's opinions on this forum all the time? :') I wonder where this trend came from, cause it's friggin annoying and deconstructive if anything. Replies like the above add absolutely *nothing*.

Neither is being unpleasant. You guys want tcp i/p wego in the game. We get it. It's just that many of us don't care if tcp i/p wego is in the game or not.

Join the long list of players who also want their improvements in the game. Bfc is a small company and they have to prioritize where they put their efforts.

Creating a tcp i/p wego thread once every 4 years, demanding action and antagonising other posters will give you squat.

You want tcp i/p WEGO in game? follow the example of the "cherry picking" QB lobby who kept the issue alive every week for the past 4 years to the point where Bfc agreed to totally revamp the QB system. That monopolised a good chunk of resources which could have been applied elsewhere.

However, you should know there are many other groups that have been pushing for their pet improvements for a lot longer than the tcp i/p wego lobby.

[Sgt Joch]

Obviously the community has an issue with MP options.

15 posters repeating the same thing over and over again is not the "community", it is a "fringe group".

[LemoN]

Creating a tcp i/p wego thread once every 4 years, demanding action and antagonising other posters will give you squat.

You want tcp i/p WEGO in game? follow the example of the "cherry picking" QB lobby who kept the issue alive every week for the past 4 years to the point where Bfc agreed to totally revamp the QB system.

First you say that "people should stop complaining" and that "people should stop posting about it" and now you tell us to keep posting about it?

Contradict much.

BFC seems to have combined some of the most ignorant people in their beta testing team.

[Frankster65]

First you say that "people should stop complaining" and that "people should stop posting about it" and now you tell us to keep posting about it?

Contradict much.

BFC seems to have combined some of the most ignorant people in their beta testing team.

Now, now LemoN, don't be so sour.

[LemoN]

Now, now LemoN, don't be so sour.

I'm sorry but I'm getting slight "squeezy" when people are being hypocrites.

[dan/california]

I disagree with the initial posters tone strongly, BFC has done an amazing job overall. I also think the basic game mechanics have reached the stage where either a whole bunch of AI programming options, or better multi-player has to be the next big focus. The basic simulation works now, it can always be improved, but it works.

AI and better multi-player now the single largest holes in the game experience. I really think they need to be pushed towards the very front of the admittedly endless list of desired improvements.

[Sgt Joch]

BFC seems to have combined some of the most ignorant people in their beta testing team.

good, good, stoop to personal insults, that will get you far.

so much for wanting to help you guys.

[Battlefront.com]

I'm sorry but I'm getting slight "squeezy" when people are being hypocrites.

And I'm getting more than slightly "squeezy" by the spoiled brat attitude I continually see when the MP options are discussed. Here it is in a nutshell:

"We are the most important thing since God created the Earth. How DARE you tell us we're anything other than that. You don't know what you're talking about. Trying to have a reasonable discussion with us about limited resources, the bigger picture of player wants/desires, just pisses us off because we should have what we want NOW!! Do you hear me? NOW!! There's no excuse for not getting into the code and producing this thing tomorrow. Now stop trying to explain to us why this is all wrong and give us what we want. NOW!!!"

We've had dozens of threads like this over the past few years and they ALWAYS go the same way. There is no issue I know of where the customer behavior is so consistently selfish, abusive, childish, and down right offensive. It started out that way with the thread title and has continued right to this page. It's just about enough to make us want to rip out the MP options we already have and tell people to go find some other game to play.

Since we're over 300 posts anyway, and this discussion was pointless from the start (because it's the same old, same old), I'm locking it up now.

Steve