That was my entire point all along. And it's pertinent to the release date. I have no idea what the other off-topic whining about showers, personal attacks, etc. are in aid of. Software companies release games to make money. It's that simple. And there is a large difference between a company run as a hobby business, where the owner can laugh off his investment if he is being supported by another income, or a - as you put it - make or break game in the works. In a thread devoted to the topic of the timing of the release of that "make or break" game, all these things are considerations of some importance.That's a good point. We don't know, really, how well CMSF did and is doing. We might be completely misreading the lack of internet buzz, as Elvis points out, and/or Steve could be a self-made millionaire on the side. No way to know any of that. Odds are that neither of those things are true and that CMN really is a "make or break" for them, but that of course is just sheer speculation. Which can be fun.
-dale
Maybe I was a bit harsh on you and Michael but this whole arguement is stuck in a loop and someone needs to break it.British Tommy, while I complely understand why you have singled me out please remember that I am not the only one who is addressing Michael. Zonso, KenRicg,Phillip,NUTEERNAME and even Geordie toname a few of the ones making pubic comments. That being said, because my comments have been so simple and obvious and picked up on by anyone with an interest I don't feel the need to comment further.
Then lock it up.
Battlefront is a private corporation. No one has stock in it. Why would SG need to let a bunch of nits-on-the-net know his personal finances? Its preposterous. Again, if Dorosh is so obsessed by the things he wants to know about others, maybe he needs to reveal all the information about himself first?
I own a private business as well as hold down a full time job. But owning that business does not stop me from meeting my job's expectations. Many people do that AND have a working spouse. Its called being successful.
Unless the ones speculating are named Elvis or Phillip or anyone else who speculates, assumes or believes with a narrative different than yours.As you point out, almost all of the factors are matters of sheer speculation on anyone else's part.
Which can, I agree, be fun.
I don't recall you catching flak for speculations on the game and its design. Your style (or perceived style, perhaps) of personal pokes and deliberate or unconscious steering of crtiques and crtiticisms of BFC or CMx2 off-topic, that you catch (and I've given plenty of) flak for. But your insight into the game itself is valued, IMO, whether you believe that or not. Or care.Unless the ones speculating are named Elvis or Phillip or anyone else who speculates, assumes or believes with a narrative different than yours.
Since this is openly admitted by BFC just who & why is anyone STILL playing the game? And if it has little replay value why would there be any interest in forums or tourneys for it? Those could last longer than their planned 6 month obsolescence decree. If it works just like BFC wants then most of those casual players have dumped it already & have moved on away from BFC (leaving behind just those unwanted grognards). BFC assumes that those masses of flighty players will magically reappear to waste another $30+ for another *worthless* game. * worthless by their own statement that they won't look back at a game after 6 months or the players still playing it because - it was designed to be thrown away after a few months anyway. Now that’s a quality self-fulfilling company statement you can believe in!!*CMx2 is consciously designed to have far less replay value than CMx1 did...
that admittedly has little if any replay value.... BFC's ideal customer... today plays the campaign delivered with the title
Nope, those kids have moved on to the next NEW flasher game & will not look back once at this quasi RT/tac/slow/patched up game.... then patiently sits around waiting for the next one to come out.
Correct. However, it IS just those players that make scenarios, play the QB's, posts on forums and discuss' the tech data that even still remember BFC's name or know that BFC is still in business after years of "advertising" silence and MAY buy that next game or modular.BFC's ideal customer... 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...
Odds are that neither of those things are true and that CMN really is a "make or break" for them, but that of course is just sheer speculation. Which can be fun.
-dale
As you point out, almost all of the factors are matters of sheer speculation on anyone else's part.
Which can, I agree, be fun.
Do you and Michael have some kind of corner on the market for speaking about BFC outside of the actual game itself?I don't recall you catching flak for speculations on the game and its design. Your style (or perceived style, perhaps) of personal pokes and deliberate or unconscious steering of crtiques and crtiticisms of BFC or CMx2 off-topic, that you catch (and I've given plenty of) flak for.
I appreciate that and will bear that in mind. Thank you.But your insight into the game itself is valued, IMO, whether you believe that or not. Or care.
-dale
I think we do, yes. Maybe we should incorporate. I can provide the bourbon, MD the Tim Hortons. But the love comes from both of us.Do you and Michael have some kind of corner on the market for speaking about BFC outside of the actual game itself?
To be fair, what some of us want is for the only company to successfully provide us with what we think is the "perfect game" to do it again +1. That's not unreasonable to hope for or pine for - after all, they did it once before. They're doing something else instead, and we're talking about it. That's all.Your motives sound like you want a security blanket type game that will satisfy your gaming needs for the rest of your life.
Zonso--you're way off the mark with regard to wargames and the computer war gaming market. Virtually every very successful war game since at least the late DOS era had great depth and usually included an excellent editor, if not a construction kit. Panzer General, the Campaign Series, Steel Panthers, Close Combat, TOAW, CM x 1... While wargamers are hungry for the next great wargame, that is largely because we have been in wargame winter for about 3 years. The road flairs, as Dale describes them, may sell in other genres, but not as a wargame.
No of course not, though it does have a Don Quixote motif.To be fair, what some of us want is for the only company to successfully provide us with what we think is the "perfect game" to do it again +1. That's not unreasonable to hope for or pine for - after all, they did it once before. They're doing something else instead, and we're talking about it. That's all.
-dale
Yes!!Wargaming Winter eh?
I really don't care what the whole market is doing since they didn't bother to make a CM type game for me, I'm only interested in what the company that makes the game I'm playing is doing.The whole gaming market has been reduced to the 'next best thing' today....
Then by BFC's own mission statement they screwed up making CM:SF: they DO NOT want players spending countless hours/months or heaven forbid years playing CM:SF like we are doing with CMx1. They want players to buy it then get done with it BEFORE their next "great" release whenever that will be so they will buy that.CMSF..., it has literally hundreds of hours of gameplay and loads of replayability...
Not true, CMx1 is still being played and enjoyed after how many years now like as mentioned above TOAW etc.?You arguments otherwise equally apply to CMx1 or any other game for that matter..
And that would be just horribile in what way? You mean to say that you DON"T want a game to be designed (by BFC) that is so good that you can play it for years on end? :crosseye: You'd rather buy games purposely designed by a company so limited in scope that they can be forgotten in 4-6 months over & over? Not me I'd much rather have a SINGLE game that can be added onto and expanded for years to come instead of designed to be incompatable with itself in 6 months. We just want an updated & improved CMx1.Your motives sound like you want a security blanket type game that will satisfy your gaming needs for the rest of your life.