CMBN pre-order, tentative release date

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Well, the really stupid part is that BFC is now trying to get back to their core audience.
I would say that's a wise business decision on their part, myself. Are you suggesting they should remain with their scattergun approach? I don't see it yielding dividends.

I think if CMSF had come out in a much better state (say around 1.08) and had a working quick battle system, most people would have looked at it as a nice try but not what they wanted. I really think BFC's attitude, the maelstrom around the reviewers, the actions the beta testers, and the lack of scenarios really made people on the fence not bother with it.
I don't see CM:BN's release looking anything like that - and in fact, I don't see anyone even comparing the two. I would be willing to bet the mainstream reviewers don't mention it. I think the new game should be judged on its own merits, not the emotional baggage that the (disaffected?) community might be carrying around with it. That's only fair. I think most mainstream reviewers will feel that way too.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
The reason the reviewers won't mention it is that BFC shot their bolt with the reviewers on CMSF.

And it may be good to get back to your core, but come out and bloody say it. Instead, Steve continues to mock and dismiss WW2 buffs. That sure doesn't sound like winning over talk to me.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
The reason the reviewers won't mention it is that BFC shot their bolt with the reviewers on CMSF.
That's an interesting statement; I'd have to see some evidence of that. Can you suggest a mainstream interviewer who will be reviewing CMBN differently because of his reaction to CMSF? I can't believe anyone would surrender their credibility so cavalierly. I realize we are all a product of our experiences, but I would have thought that an appearance of impartiality was something that good reviewers fostered. Were you thinking of someone in particular?

And it may be good to get back to your core, but come out and bloody say it. Instead, Steve continues to mock and dismiss WW2 buffs. That sure doesn't sound like winning over talk to me.
At the end of the day, the product itself will speak the loudest.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
Show me any mainstream reviewers who will be reviewing it at all...there were several that did previews and reviews. Have you seen an mainstream previews. I can think of only one preview and that was only really an interview.

Unless you count the video of the box.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Show me any mainstream reviewers who will be reviewing it at all...there were several that did previews and reviews. Have you seen an mainstream previews. I can think of only one preview and that was only really an interview.

Unless you count the video of the box.
If that is true - I'm not saying I believe it is - I honestly don't know - it could be that the reviewers are turned off by a lack of free copies from BFC. Isn't it common practice for publishers to provide gratis copies in advance (not necessarily hard-copies with all the goodies, but even just access to beta downloads)?

I think - correct me if I'm wrong - BFC are sort of like the movie producers who don't preview their pictures for film critics before opening day. At least, that seemed to me to be a criticism with the modules. I may be remembering that wrong.

But having said that, a lot of 'buzz' on the Internet, be it movies or games, is that most people would rather read the opinions of other fans, not critics.

Personally, I enjoy reading a well-written review, but usually just because I like analysis and reading in general, not because I want to inform my own opinion. As I mentioned earlier, I'd rather make up my own mind. But I do enjoy at least reading a good review, positive or negative.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
Well, the really stupid part is that BFC is now trying to get back to their core audience. I think if CMSF had come out in a much better state (say around 1.08) and had a working quick battle system, most people would have looked at it as a nice try but not what they wanted. I really think BFC's attitude, the maelstrom around the reviewers, the actions the beta testers, and the lack of scenarios really made people on the fence not bother with it.
Every "me" they lost was a "me" that didn't buy the game AND who didn't convince any of his friends to buy it. I'm convinced (surprise!) that their active pushing away of their customers is a much larger factor than they understand.

-dale
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
I think - correct me if I'm wrong - BFC are sort of like the movie producers who don't preview their pictures for film critics before opening day. At least, that seemed to me to be a criticism with the modules. I may be remembering that wrong.
And those "hidden" movies are generally expected to be very bad.

-dale
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
Well that philosophy went out the door on CMSF. They sent out quite a few review copies. There were a number of reviews and previews.

MD, I think you are not reading what I am writing. I am not saying reviews are important. I am saying BFC actively pursued them on CMSF. There were a bunch of previews that came out.

Are you going to make me go back and find those? We have discussed several of them here multiple times.
 
Last edited:

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I havent read anything at BFC that says they are looking for the old wargamers to flood back. They have constantly stated that they make most from single player types. So they may be encompassing more multiplayer but its not their bread and butter.

I even found out yesterday that there will be 250 QB maps that all have multiple AI plans built into them, if hats not aimed at the solo player, then why go to the trouble.

I think CMN will be as good as, if not a little better than CMSF or CMA but Im not expecting anything radical. And I dont think BF are struggling to lure back 15 disaffected customers, who never got over the CMSF release debacle.......
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
I think the QB is issue is aimed striaght at the old base. It may not be aimed at us, but look at the number of people popping back up on the boards with some serious concerns. The beta testers have managed to shout down a bunch of them, but go back to those first two weeks of the new board. There were a number of people already complaining about stuff not being in.

btw, I don't consider the old base the MP guys. I consider it guys like me who still play CM1 a lot and will judge CMBN straight up against CM1 in SP.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Well that philosophy went out the door on CMSF. They sent out quite a few review copies. There were a number of reviews and previews.

MD, I think you are not reading what I am writing. I am not saying reviews are important. I am saying BFC actively pursued them on CMSF.
So they pursued them because they were unimportant? :)

There were a bunch of previews that came out.

Are you going to make me go back and find those? We have discussed several of them here multiple times.
I just think you may want to be careful with your predictions. Of course, neither one of us has really defined what we mean by "mainstream reviewer". Are we talking about Gamespot? PC Gamer? CNN's tech page? I wouldn't expect to see CMBN ever mentioned on the game page of Sun Media (the local newspaper syndicate here in Canada with dailies in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton, Ottawa) because they review maybe 3 or 4 games total a month or so. I would be surprised to find that Gamespot didn't review it, however.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I even found out yesterday that there will be 250 QB maps that all have multiple AI plans built into them, if hats not aimed at the solo player, then why go to the trouble.
You're quite the detective, figuring out that AI plans are written for a computer opponent. :laugh:

I think CMN will be as good as, if not a little better than CMSF or CMA but Im not expecting anything radical. And I dont think BF are struggling to lure back 15 disaffected customers, who never got over the CMSF release debacle.......
Can you name all 15? There's a prize if you do.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
BFC said they were unimportant, after the panning started. But they still sent out the review copies.

And exactly why do I need to be careful in my predictions?
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
MD, are you joking? Does anybody on any of these boards really worry about credibility. I mean you have been banned from multiple boards related to CM and you are worried that one prediction or hypothesis will destroy credibility.

Why are you suddenly so concerned. You have been hammering on BFC and CMSF for literally years after being one of the initial cheerleaders and you are talking credibility?

You seem to go through these mood swings every few months from extreme angst about CM to extreme ambivilance. It's almost like someone has hijacked your account here.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
:upset:
You're quite the detective, figuring out that AI plans are written for a computer opponent.
The thing I love about guys like you Mr Dorosh is that they love to feel big when using the Internet.

Of course Im aware that AI plans are written for scenarios. But, I readily admit that I didnt know they are being written for solo QB play. I can imagine that it must be difficult to assign AI behaviour to a random QB map force. Therefore I cant imagine that the AI would be very good at it.

As for those 15 disaffected customers, well according to BFC, you may be at least 8 of them :upset:
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
MD, are you joking? Does anybody on any of these boards really worry about credibility. I mean you have been banned from multiple boards related to CM and you are worried that one prediction or hypothesis will destroy credibility.

Why are you suddenly so concerned. You have been hammering on BFC and CMSF for literally years after being one of the initial cheerleaders and you are talking credibility?

You seem to go through these mood swings every few months from extreme angst about CM to extreme ambivilance. It's almost like someone has hijacked your account here.
Good post and excellent summation. Mr D has gone on about how bad CMx2 is for what, 4 years, then all of a sudden pre-orders CMBN, without trying the demo?

Im expecting his account to be re-instated at BFC any day now!
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
MD, are you joking? Does anybody on any of these boards really worry about credibility. I mean you have been banned from multiple boards related to CM and you are worried that one prediction or hypothesis will destroy credibility.

Why are you suddenly so concerned. You have been hammering on BFC and CMSF for literally years after being one of the initial cheerleaders and you are talking credibility?

You seem to go through these mood swings every few months from extreme angst about CM to extreme ambivilance. It's almost like someone has hijacked your account here.
I don't understand what the astonishment is about. I've always considered myself credible when it comes to my opinions on BFC and their software, and I stand by my statements on this forum. I also don't think my statements have been inconsistent.

I offered some friendly advice; you can take or leave it as you wish. If, however, you want to go on record as stating that CM:BN will never be reviewed by a mainstream reviewer, go ahead. Your statements will only look foolish should it come to pass.

That's all I've been trying to say.
 
Top