Elvis
Member
A few people might still be playing CM:SF but nobody cares about it. It's a dud.
-dale
Not true at all. Not even close to true. But that is what I meant by it depends on who is doing the defining and how.
A few people might still be playing CM:SF but nobody cares about it. It's a dud.
-dale
I'll take a piece of that action for June 10th.Nah, we should just keep this one. It keeps the whole CMx2 flair of the thing
I'm placing my bet for 3rd quarter of 2010. Specifically between the dates of August 25th and September 5th.
Not sure what numbers we could pull. I'll you the best number that none of us have access to. It isn't total sales but total downloads for the last patch. Percentage of copies sold vs patch updates 2 1/2 years later would tell a lot.So we come back to the question of what does interest in it mean? The evidence relative to the CM1 (all flavors) points to there being little interest. Other than vague BFC statements about better than expected, nothing points to CMSF really drawing anywhere near the crowd CM1 did. Is that even arguable or do we have to pull then numbers out again.
Are obviously false without even having to know anything "behind the scenes".Of course people want them. People have been buying the game and continue to buy the game and modules.not producing games people want
False. And coming from him it is even more surprising. This is a guy who for over 2 years has been posting about a game he has not played saying there is no interest in it. Seriously? When have any of us devoted that much time and effort into something that doesn't interest us? Any frequent poster on this forum has an interest in the game, let alone the people posting on the BFC forums.failed to ignite any real spark of interest
I interact with plenty of people everyday that care and are still making scenarios and some are carping that NATO work has been slowed down for CM:N. And that is setting aside speaking in absolutes like "nobody", "any" and "not producing games people want" (these are the things that usually draw my attention though).A few people might still be playing CM:SF but nobody cares about it.
Arguably a poor yardstick for the success of a game that was meant to be geared towards people playing the content delivered with the game and then move on. CMx2 is consciously designed to have far less replay value than CMx1 did.And you cannot really counter the fact that online forum and group interest for CMx2 has been and remains low-to-nonexistant.
thewood, I hope this does not come off as disrespectful because it is not intended to be. Did you read what I wrote and what I had responded to? In neither dalems initial posts and in my responses to them did either of us mention CMx1 or compare CMSF to it. I have expressed no opinion about CMx1 success or popularity in relation to CMSF. It has nothing to do with the posts I made or the points I was making. This is now my 5th response and my "message" has been consistent the entire time so this is not spin. People seem to be making assumptions and putting words or thoughts in my name that I never expressed.Elvis you yourself were involved in the discussions where we brought up (several times) the lack of CMSF dedicated sites, numbers of scenarios, sales figures from Amazon, etc. These are the only numbers we have and they all point to lack of CMSF really catching on relative to CM1. Last time I looked, CMBB outsold CMSF on Amamzon. Even the posting environment at BFC is dismal compared to CM1. Peng and Normandy threads have been the only consistent threads over the last year. IIRC, the CMBB thread was actually at least as active as CMSF up to a year after CMSF's release.
I would be more than satisfied if you could produce anything beyond the fact that you talk to a lot of CMSF players. Thats like someone sitting in Fenway park and marveling that everyone in the world must be Red Sox fan because they are all around him. CMSF had that initial spark of interest based on its name and that petered out after poeple got to the 5th or 6th patch and realized it was a long way from being fixed. And the disappointment in NATO being delayed has me carping too. I would rather see BFC finish what it starts and the longer they delay it, the more likely it won't come out.
Yes, imho there was definitely a longer, better life for CMBB and CMAK in terms of visible fan discussion.Elvis you yourself were involved in the discussions where we brought up (several times) the lack of CMSF dedicated sites, numbers of scenarios, sales figures from Amazon, etc. These are the only numbers we have and they all point to lack of CMSF really catching on relative to CM1. Last time I looked, CMBB outsold CMSF on Amamzon. Even the posting environment at BFC is dismal compared to CM1. Peng and Normandy threads have been the only consistent threads over the last year. IIRC, the CMBB thread was actually at least as active as CMSF up to a year after CMSF's release.
I would be more than satisfied if you could produce anything beyond the fact that you talk to a lot of CMSF players. Thats like someone sitting in Fenway park and marveling that everyone in the world must be Red Sox fan because they are all around him. CMSF had that initial spark of interest based on its name and that petered out after poeple got to the 5th or 6th patch and realized it was a long way from being fixed. And the disappointment in NATO being delayed has me carping too. I would rather see BFC finish what it starts and the longer they delay it, the more likely it won't come out.
They could set the sales target to "me, my wife, and Uncle Blinky" to begin with, since they never told anyone what it was. It's adspeak.Yes, imho there was definitely a longer, better life for CMBB and CMAK in terms of visible fan discussion.
Did BFC ever release figures for any games in the CMX1 series? iibc, Steve would not give hard numbers for CMSF sales, but he was always gushing about the sales of CMSF couched in the phrase sumfink like, "sales of CMSF are doing great and exceeded our target." Of course, they could move the 'sales target' to justify that response.
CMBO was an engrossing, well-built, open-ended wargame that also happened to be the first to be so in 3D. I'd go so far as to say it was a revolution in wargaming. The inclusion of any wargames on that list is a surprise, frankly, but CMBO is the logical choice, isn't it? Are there any old Avalon Hill games on that list? Sid Meier's Gettysburg? SEAL Team, one of the best simulations of long-term low-intensity warfare ever produced?Sort of related to definition of successful:
http://www.pcgamertop100.com/editorial/60-41/
CMBO beat out a lot of good games. I am a little taken aback that IL2 scored that much lower. I don't see CMSF on the llist.
When and where? I asked in my last post to find where I have made any claims for or against the success of CMSF. You haven't and I would be shocked if you ever will from any forum because, as I also said in my last post,, that conversation is a fools errand. You are assuming I am taking a position that I have never taken and then challenging me to defend it....even though I never expressed it.Elvis, you have talked about how successful CMSF is .......
I agree.Arguably a poor yardstick for the success of a game that was meant to be geared towards people playing the content delivered with the game and then move on. CMx2 is consciously designed to have far less replay value than CMx1 did.
It seems to me that BFC's ideal customer today plays the campaign delivered with the title and then patiently sits around waiting for the next one to come out. BFC don't give a crap if he joins the forum, tries to make scenarios or has a go at playing a QB against human opposition, never mind starting up a bloody website. None of that earns them any money.
So the question is more : how many of these guys did they manage to reach ?
An argument you COULD make, but it would still be conjecture, is that they might not have turned around and reconstructed a lot of the features that they tore out for CMx2 back into the game if they felt they had reached enough of a new audience.