View Full Version : CM Shock Force Release Delayed to July
According to the Wargamer, which cites Paradox Interactive, the release date for CMSF has been pushed back to July 27, 2007. Here is what the Wargamer reports:
"Combat Mission: Shock Force is Battlefront's biggest release to date and they have set high standards for the release", said Fredrik Wester, Executive Vice President for Paradox Interactive. "The team wanted to implement a few additional features to the game to create an even greater experience for the player and we are very excited about the direction the product is taking".
The main addition is a brand new second tutorial campaign, which will take the player through some base camp training for his Stryker Brigade Combat Team. Accurate details and maps from the Yakima Training Center at Fort Lewis in central Washington have been used for its creation."
Here's the link:
The Wargamer - For All Your Strategy Gaming on the Net (http://www.wargamer.com/news/news.asp?nid=4143)
Confirmation and expansion on the delay from the Battlefront blog:
"The release date for Combat Mission: Shock Force is now finally official: July 27th, 2007. See this thread for the press release:
Battlefront.com Discussion Forums: CMSF Release date announced! (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=001451)
With more than 2 months to go, of course this doesn't mean that the game is finished. The announcement signals just the beginning of the late Beta stage, when most major game features are in, and the focus is switching to polishing up existing features and visuals, bug testing, gameplay and balance testing, mission and campaign design and so forth.
Talking about campaigns, the game will feature one big Syrian campaign and one smaller training campaign taking the player through base camp at the Yakima Training Center at Fort Lewis. As focus is now switching to more visual things, finishing "real" maps, textures and models, expect more screens and videos from us in the weeks leading up to the release, including of course a demo around release day.
Moon"
Source:
Battlefront.com News > Blogfront - Release news news release (http://www.battlefront-newsletter.com/Blogfront/tabid/55/EntryID/80/Default.aspx)
At least they are working to make it worthy of the CM name. :)
Syrian conflict- :bored:
Still will not buy it. :nada:
But good gaming to those who do. :clap:
I hear you Kerry--remember that old thread on the subject when the developers came out of the walls?
What it means most to me is that the CM x 2 engine will be activated. From that point I hope it will not be long until we see games using it that will cover WW II, the US Civil War, 1950's through 1980's NATO vs. Warsaw Pack, and many others for which I have an actual interest.
I agree, looking forward to a NATO Vs Soviet style game, set in the 70's or 80's this could be awesome. They have always said if they can do modern they can do anything, I may not buy the Shock Force one, but that doesnt mean I'm not looking forward to the new system.
RedDevil (FGM)
23 May 07, 20:06
I'll be buying CM-SF because I think its right to support the company that's bought me years of pleasant gaming and new friends.
Even if it's not a war I care about, it's still got the QBs and both sides can play the same units for an ultimate balanced battle.
If the sales of this don't exceed BF's expectations, what makes you think they'll spend money on another WW2 version or MOD?
They are in business to make money. I'm sure they want to tap into another group of gamers and expand their revenue base. In the end if CM-SF doesn't sell and they think there is still a market for improved WWII games, we will see more of them. My two cents.;)
Nemesis Lead
24 May 07, 14:24
I am hoping the CMX2 engine (which I think SF is on) will be able to support any type of wargame.
Why not make an engine that you could fight Napoleonic Wars on as well as wars in 2050?
Makes both good profit and good gaming sense.
I am still excited about Shock Force, but I bet it won't even be ready in July....
Sorry but I'm not going to buy something from BF if I dont like it, just because they make make something I do like in future.
I wouldnt buy a crappy car just to support Ford in the hope that they brought out a better one I liked in the future.
If I followed that buy it to support them line, why not buy 10 copies to show just how much you support them!
Nope, it will stand and fall on its own merit for me, though I am in doubt about its longevity, but if I enjoy the demo I will get it.
I am hoping the CMX2 engine (which I think SF is on) will be able to support any type of wargame.
Why not make an engine that you could fight Napoleonic Wars on as well as wars in 2050?
Makes both good profit and good gaming sense.
I am still excited about Shock Force, but I bet it won't even be ready in July....
It has already been announced that future CM games will have narrower, not wider timespan.
That means as opposed to CMx1 games where you got whole theaters (ETO, Eastern Front, Mediterranean) you will now get single operations (e.g. Bulge, Normandy, Kursk).
What's the deal with "delayed" in the title of this thread? The only previous announcement was "when it's ready".
Sorry but I'm not going to buy something from BF if I don't like it, just because they make make something I do like in future.
I wouldn't buy a crappy car just to support Ford in the hope that they brought out a better one I liked in the future.
If I followed that buy it to support them line, why not buy 10 copies to show just how much you support them!
Nope, it will stand and fall on its own merit for me, though I am in doubt about its longevity, but if I enjoy the demo I will get it.
I concur.
I am also concerned about the eLicense copy protection that will almost certainly come with CMSF. We have discussed it at KG and our guys have run the gambit with regard their views on the subject. One member said that he would never buy another game from Battlefront because of the new copy protection system. On the other hand, one of our other guys views it as a non-issue. It is interesting that war game reviewers are beginning to include discussion of copy protection systems in their game reviews. See:
The Wargamer - For All Your Strategy Gaming on the Net (http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/theater_of_war/)
I see this change in direction by at least some reviewers as a breakthrough for the gaming community. I want to know if something like Starforce is hidden in any game that I am considering for purchase. I also want to know about anything that will restrict or potentially restrict my use of the game now and as time passes.
I didn't realise that games could only be installed on 2 PCs. I play CM right now from 4 separate PC's. This would mean choosing just 2 then. Unless I bought 2 copies. Blaaarghh!
I concur.
I am also concerned about the eLicense copy protection that will almost certainly come with CMSF. We have discussed it at KG and our guys have run the gambit with regard their views on the subject. One member said that he would never buy another game from Battlefront because of the new copy protection system. On the other hand, one of our other guys views it as a non-issue. It is interesting that war game reviewers are beginning to include discussion of copy protection systems in their game reviews. See:
The Wargamer - For All Your Strategy Gaming on the Net (http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/theater_of_war/)
I see this change in direction by at least some reviewers as a breakthrough for the gaming community. I want to know if something like Starforce is hidden in any game that I am considering for purchase. I also want to know about anything that will restrict or potentially restrict my use of the game now and as time passes.
Makes me wonder if they have data supporting large piracy losses. I would hope they would make arrangements to maintain license support regardless of their existence for some predetermined length of time. I would think that 10 years from now such a game will easily be replaced by another company if not themselves. If I like CMSF or a WWII game using that engine, I would buy it as is and take the risk.
RedDevil (FGM)
01 Jun 07, 09:26
I didn't realise that games could only be installed on 2 PCs. I play CM right now from 4 separate PC's. This would mean choosing just 2 then. Unless I bought 2 copies. Blaaarghh!
That's software piracy isn't it, installing a game on 4 PCs.. but I guess that's contributing to the community.. or is it?
One should be grateful that BF is actually ALLOWING gamers to install their game on 2 PCs without violating piracy laws.
If you don't think piracy is being cracked down on, just try VISTA from MS.. Companies are securing their rights more and more every day to protect their investments. I can't see BF being any different.
Contribution from me will be the same whether I put it on 1 or 4 PCs as I wont buy 2 copies, so BF wont get anymore out of me by excluding 2 PCs.
I dont do pirated software, I even paid for winzip, office etc....... heck I still have to shove my Disks in to play and dont even have a no CD hack which others use here and other sites provide links to all the time............
I have no qualms about paying for quality products, I do have an issue about where and when I am allowed to use them on my own equipment though.
Ive never bought a Book or DVD yet that I could only use in 2 rooms of my house.
RedDevil (FGM)
01 Jun 07, 14:40
Contribution from me will be the same whether I put it on 1 or 4 PCs as I wont buy 2 copies, so BF wont get anymore out of me by excluding 2 PCs.
I dont do pirated software, I even paid for winzip, office etc....... heck I still have to shove my Disks in to play and dont even have a no CD hack which others use here and other sites provide links to all the time............
I have no qualms about paying for quality products, I do have an issue about where and when I am allowed to use them on my own equipment though.
Ive never bought a Book or DVD yet that I could only use in 2 rooms of my house.
A little contradiction in your statements.. as the 3rd sentence in the BF software license agreement for the CM games you agreed to, states 1 copy per computer. LOL But, I'm sure you're not using those multiple copies improperly tho as your integrity isn't being questioned. ;)
The point being that BF is allowing for multiple installations is not a new industry standard, but a copy of MS Student type license agreements where they allow multiple installs of their teacher /student versions of Office and other products. Quite nice of them to allow that, makes for your pals to get a taste of some action as per your courtesy and gives them a play before they pay option legally.
I don't think books and DVDs are subject to software laws other than copyright protection against duplicating for public use, which isn't related to personal multiple installs is it, so why bring that up?
Those No Cd cracks are for licensed users of the product to use to prevent damage to their original CD/DVDs. I believe that's stated on the distributor's home page. Enforcement is not their concern, and I'd safely guess 90% of the users own a copy of the game anyways. :halo:
Ok mate, i'm a software Pirate with no integrity:rolleyes:
I'm just off to hand myself in a Battlefront.......
The type of anti-pirating scheme, number of computers on which you can install a game and whether or not you have to install crap like Starforce on your machine are all controlled by the “contract” between the game publisher and the (potential) customer. Unfortunately, the game publisher determines all these issues and presents the product to the customer on a take-it-or-leave it basis.
It appears that a number of game publishers are unaware that most mature gamers use about three computers for their personal use of a game (e.g. home, work, laptop). Perhaps some don't care or just want to make the same customer buy the same game more than once. At least one (SES) charges about $60 for a game and will allow you to install it on only one computer. Battlefront allows two. Both require that after you buy a game you get permission to actually play it. I find all of this disconcerting. If a company is making teen oriented click fest games, I can understand their concerns about significant pirating from those who grew up with a Napster mentality. I submit that the equation is quite different for “old foggy” war games. My reading of several forums tells me that these companies who employ these restrictive approaches suffer a net loss in sales because of them. For example Distant Guns would have probably sold a lot more copies, if it did not come with such restrictions for its use and activation. Just because some kid pirates a game for free does not mean that he would buy it, if the no cost option was unavailable. Largely because of those things, I did not buy that game, although I have every prior Norm Koger title.
Turning to Battlefront and CM, it probably would not have been that big a deal to be required to pick up an extra copy of CMBB or CMAK because you play them on more than two computers. CMBB covers the entire Eastern Front from 1941 through 1945. CMAK offers a similar survey of a large chunk of the War in Europe and two fronts in Africa. However, the games to be released using the CM x 2 engine will cover very small slivers of the action. For example the first WW2 title to released is supposed to cover (something like) the fighting between the US and Germans in June through August 1944. The next snap on module to that core game might be the CW forces in the Caen area. Thus the issue will be multiplied as modules and/or related (or unrelated—if for example you are also interested in the Civil War CM x 2 line) games are added.
RedDevil (FGM)
01 Jun 07, 20:26
JAg, This module type system is typical of wargaming type companies today, notably like HPS Sims and it's IMHO based on the success of the Campaign series by Talonsoft years ago. Talonsoft made a great game (with a few quirks of course) that came with a scenario & map creator. The original games sold thousands of copies, but Talonsoft lost money on the series because the gamers began to create better than they offered and they got no revenues from these after market creations which to this day still enhance and drive a game that came out in 1999.
Combat mission is the same theoretically.
HPS makes the panzer campaigns series as separate battles/theatres and each one is limited by a non- editable map feature. While OOBs can be changed, the maps cannot. If you want to do a different battle, you have to buy that Module. I believe they're up to # 13 or 14 now.. and Each one cost 30-50 bucks each.
I'd bet money on BF adopting this strategy as well because war gamers are a specialized marketing group to cater to. Milk us for our bucks 1 battle at a time rather than make us a system that we can do more on our own with, and lose money a year later to the MOD makers and designers.
This is also a stop pirating ploy, someone will have to be buying all those games, and after a bit they tire of supplying all their friends with freebies that cost them 30-50 bucks each. It also affects the Crackers and hackers as they spend more time working on on each new addition,plus patches, as compared to a 1 hit wonder with a few patch updates.
As for hidden system files and network alerters etc.. internal security schemes are a thing of the future, MS is bringing that to light with VISTA. Mind you the future only gets more controlled by big money and government until the people revolt.
It 's a catch 22 world if we pay for it we want freedom to do what we want with it, but if it was free, we'd still want to do what we want with it. :rolleyes:
Yes, on one side there is the HPS/John Tiller model. I think Tiller is great, but give me a break. They still want full price for games that are built on a system that played on my P II.
On the other side of the coin you have TOAW COW and TOAW 3. With them you can play almost any land based military situation for centuries and an editor is included with the game.
One anti-pirating system I do not mind is Matrix's serial number system. The stuff that SES and Battlefront have come out with (in the wake of Steam?), will stop me from buying their games, or at least as many of their games. If MS is the model of the future in this area, I may not be playing many new games. I have a great backlog of Matrix and other company's titles, such as War in the Pacific that I have had little time for to date. In addition, I still enjoy CMBB & CMAK.
With regard to Battlefront's adoption of an HPS/Tiller like approach, I don't know if it will work for them. It is clear that I will be getting less value for my dollar than I did with CMBO, CMBB and CMAK. I also fear that this approach will fragment the CM community. Even sticking to WW2, you may have to buy three games (if they are not stand alone) to play a certain situation in the war. Many people aren't going to go that deep. This is in contrast to having a single game if you want to play anywhere on the Eastern Front. If I was making the decisions with regard to size, I would be looking for a middle ground with regard to size. For example one game would be the entire 1939 campaign in Poland involving the Poles, Germans & Russians. Another would be the German 1940 campaign in the West against France, Holland and Belgium. A third would be June through November 1944 in France. A fourth would be the first six months (all of 1941) on the Eastern Front. A fifth would be Sealion. These are big enough to capture the interest of most folks interested in CM or historical wargaming, but not so big that you could not put out a great many games on WW2 alone. Speaking of which, even the CM x 1 games did not cover large aspects of WWII in Europe and there was no Pacific Theater game.
Back to the core of the topic. I am not afraid to say "no" and not purchase a product, if it contains too many restrictions/complications concerning my use of it; if it does not address a subject in which I am interested (probably the case for CMSF), and/or does not provide enough value for my money (e.g. too small a slice of a part of military history). Sometimes the only way to get a company's attention is to tell them "no" in mass for what they are offering in exchange for our money. I hope it won't come to that, as I look forward to at great many of the possible games using the CM x 2 engine. But I won't buy it just because Battlefront makes it. They appear to be changing their business model. I don't have follow them like a liming, if I don't like those changes.
I don't have a problem with a two install limit, personally. Home and laptop will suffice. Letting someone install it on a work computer goes a bit far for me. You want to play it 'at lunch' bring your laptop and have at it.
Does this mean you must be internet connected for each of your two installs? Or do you just connect to install and validate, then are free of the internet?
I agree it will keep some from buying the games though. What it will really boil down to, can they provide newer better games to capture our interest, 'just gotta have it', regardless of reduced install/run freedom. The WWII crowd will always be looking for the next generation game. Which company will provide it????
My earlier question about piracy was not about a single person installing it in multiple places. I wondered if there was a large distribution of copied games (single folks selling/giving 10's of copies or more?). Does BF fear the unknown or do they have knowledge of a serious enemy?
RedDevil (FGM)
02 Jun 07, 09:12
There's a possibility of distributors making copies and selling them as legit version to make a buck, especially the ones with CD manuals instead of paper ones.
I saw something about a manual activation for products bought via E-license on the BF site FAQs.
The hardest thing about pleasing/attracting the WW2 crowd is perfection, everyone else has done this or that, why can't the next guy get it right etc..
We're a tough crowd to please indeed. :)
So what happens if you change mother boards or cpu's more than twice? Do you have to buy a new game from BFC?
From what I recall reading on various forums, you would have to petition the company (assuming they were still around) and ask for a new license. It would be up to the company whether or not they issued another license to you.
That said, each company's protection systems/policies may have its own nuances.
An underlying issue for me on this entire issue is that these companies seem to start from the position that the customer is or is likely to be a pirate. Call me old fashioned, but I find such an approach insulting and showing little regard for the customer.
Well, I kinda feel the same way Jag.
And the good news is http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/3354621/Combat-Mission-Shock-Force/Product.html
Well at least if you live in the UK. At this price, if it is truly good, I may just buy 2 copies and support that community.
For USA customers:
Amazon.com: Combat Mission: Shock Force: Video Games (http://www.amazon.com/Valuesoft-Combat-Mission-Shock-Force/dp/B000PWUZ2Q)
Colonel Talvela
06 Jun 07, 14:48
So what happens if you change mother boards or cpu's more than twice? Do you have to buy a new game from BFC?
No. At any time you can deactivate from one computer and activate to another. So really you could have the game installed on 10 different computers, but you can only have two active at once.
To activate/deactivate you do have to have access to an internet connection.
Personally I dont see it as a big deal - unless you are trying to play over a LAN with more than two computers.
Well, that would work for me. Thanks Tal.
mangus2000
15 Jun 07, 14:47
And the good news is http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/3354621/Combat-Mission-Shock-Force/Product.html
Well at least if you live in the UK. At this price, if it is truly good, I may just buy 2 copies and support that community.
£17.99!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow that is cheap. So glad it ain't coming out on a console, it would be over £50 otherwise.
At that price it's worth even the doubters (i.e. me) taking a look.. It'll be waiting for me when I get back from holiday. ;)
I purchased my copy from Amazon for $40 including free shipping! Now, just waiting on Battlefront...............:devious:
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.