Gamerswithjobs pre-view, claims "beta" demo next week.

junk2drive

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
897
Reaction score
7
Location
Arizona West Coast
Over at the wargamer, every game has someone calling it a buggy piece of crap that I had to pay for to beta test. Maybe I exaggerate...
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I seem to recall CM:BO had an open beta, and a "gold beta" meaning I think an updated version of the original beta - for tester's eyes only? Didn't CMBB and CMAK also have "gold betas" or reference made to them? I thought a "beta test" was something that was done behind closed doors, a "gold beta" was a product nearing completion, and an "open beta" was a test product released for public input before finalization.

EDIT - as usual, wikipedia has an okay article on terminology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle

I take it I am remembering the "gold" terminology wrong - just "gold" rather than "gold beta" as in "we are going gold" to indicate the final release product is ready to wrap. That's consistent with the article:

Apple Inc. uses the term "golden master" for its release candidates, and the final golden master is used as the general availability release. Other Greek letters, such as gamma and delta, are sometimes used to indicate versions that are substantially complete, but still undergoing testing, with omega or zenith used to indicate final testing versions that are believed to be relatively bug-free, ready for production.
However, this thread mentions a "gold beta":

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=5694

Also, the later CMBO demo was called a "Gold Demo", which I take it indicates it was released after the game "went gold"?
 
Last edited:

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
thewood post there?
I would suggest a retraction of that comment unless you and I want to have a conversation with Geordie.

I am pretty sick of your passive-aggressive crap. I notice you only post over here again now that CMBN actually is close to release. During the whole "bet with Dale" thing, we didn't see hide nor hair of you.

This isn't BFC's forum where any sychophant beta tester can say whatever he wants.
 
Last edited:

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
Over at the wargamer, every game has someone calling it a buggy piece of crap that I had to pay for to beta test. Maybe I exaggerate...




I would suggest a retraction of that comment unless you and I want to have a conversation with Geordie.

I am pretty sick of your passive-aggressive crap. I notice you only post over here again now that CMBN actually is close to release. During the whole "bet with Dale" thing, we didn't see hide nor hair of you.

This isn't BFC's forum where any sychophant beta tester can say whatever he wants.
I see no reason at all to retract what I said in response to te J2D quote referenced. Is it true or not that for years now (and I mena years) you have referred to CMSF as beta test that people paid for? You've said it countless time, haven't you? Well, that is exactly the type of post that J2D is referring to being made over at wargamer. Is there a reason that you don't stand by your statements and feel that I have something to retract? What horrible thing did this sycophant beta tester try to say? That you have constantly referred to CMSF as a beta test and maybe expressed that somewhere else as well? The horror! How could Geordie let him get away with such a thing!

And you're wrong about the "bet with Dale". I was extremely active up and through the bet that ended last June. If you remember nothing else from that time try to recall my repeated requests that he select a type of beer so that I could honor my end of the bet. There have been a couple of times in the last year that I stopped posting. Most recently in the weeks after the official announcement of CMBN. That is when the depth of the dishonest discourse here showed itself and I just had enough. People who I had thought had an honest and sincere interest (and I'm not talking about you and dalem) turned out to be frauds. For months and months when asked why people keep *****ing about the same years old nonsense over and over I was told "well, BFC hasn't given us anything else to talk about". Yet when they did. Detailed feature lists, many new screen shots, TO&E lists, piles and piles of newly released information. What did people post about? You've got it. The same old nonsense. To his credit there was ONE other person beside myself who tried to have conversations about the new information. That was Michael Dorosh. That's when I thought that even the folks I had thought had a genuine interest were happier talking about how Steve said something mean to someone in 2008 or how bad of shape CMSF was on release almost 4 years ago. The entire thing struck me as dishonest and I said screw it. Why do I even bother. I barely poked my head in to see what was going. But in that last few weeks I noticed that has changed and once again participate more.

Is this really a conversation you're in the mood to continue having?
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
1) We post about the same nonsense because the game isn't even out. All we have is CMSF to go on.

2) All I remember is a third party had to get involved to get information about the bet from you. You went from posting almost every day to almost nothing.

3) Your post above was very close to a personal attack.

4) I am not the only one who thinks CMSF was a beta for CMBN. I am one who is consistent in pointing out the game still does not work. As long as BFC sells it, I will point it out.
 

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
1) We post about the same nonsense because the game isn't even out. All we have is CMSF to go on..

But there is no shortage of information about the new game.



2) All I remember is a third party had to get involved to get information about the bet from you. You went from posting almost every day to almost nothing.
That is completely untrue. Even when I took a break last summer I was constantly in contact with Dale about the bet. No third party had to chase me down to pay it off. It finally took the murder of a close friend of mine for Dale to finally decide what he wanted. Correct, Dale? Thank you.

3) Your post above was very close to a personal attack.
Really? Which part? Specificlly.

4) I am not the only one who thinks CMSF was a beta for CMBN. I am one who is consistent in pointing out the game still does not work. As long as BFC sells it, I will point it out
Then why is pointing that out something that needs to be retracted? Either "own" that opinion or don't.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
What I don't own is what an comment like what you made implies...that I go around complaining about how buggy every game is. I have two games I play in which the developers have been asshats and their fanboys fly around the net spouting nothing but flowers and honey...CMSF and Jutland. I frequent most wargame forums. If I see someone say somthing that I think hides the fact those games have issues, I say something. Other than is site, I probably average 1 post a month over a year.

To the point...I post fairly reasonable posts pointing out issues or untruths about a game as I see it. I play probaly a dozen other games like Steel Beasts, ArmA, PC, etc. I have maybe 6 posts total in 4 years on those. Those games all have issues, but the developers all work with customers in pretty reasonable manners so I take them for what they are.

I have spent 10 years in senior marketing postions at software companies and I can easily tell when a company is being less than completely honest. BFC and SES are companies doing so much spinning its unheard of in small companies. And they tend to have the knucklehead beta brigades running around trying shout down an naysayers to make it worse. SES and BFC have treated customer who have issues like idiots and that makes me post even more.

I think right now, you are caught up in the euphoria of the release and forgetting what it was like on CMSF's release. While mellowed a bit, I see the makings of similar issues with CMBN as new people encounter it and what what BFC has been working for 8 years.

I'll end this tirade with a simple question...Do you think QBs work propoerly, consistently in CMSF?
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I have to agree with Elvis, here. There is a ton of information about the new game out, and plenty to discuss. A few people here keep trying to start up discussions about it. I've noticed one or two people prefer to drag the topics down by instantly pouring cold water on the discussions with negative comments or refusing to let go of issues that came up years ago. I've stated before - I'm not prepared to judge the new game until it's in my hands. Far more interesting, to me, to talk about what's going on in the CM world right now than relive the 2007 debacle. Let the game be released, first, before hating it, if that's something anyone really feels the need to do. Personally, I'm excited.

I'll end this tirade with a simple question...Do you think QBs work propoerly, consistently in CMSF?
See....I'm just going to buy CMBN and assume everything works the way I want it to until I find out differently for myself, and not do what you're doing - assume there are 10 ways to hate it before I even buy it. Life is too short to make myself that miserable. If they have improved these things in CMBN, great - because I don't plan on touching CMSF ever again in any event.
 
Last edited:

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I would suggest a retraction of that comment unless you and I want to have a conversation with Geordie.
I am pretty sick of your passive-aggressive crap.
This isn't BFC's forum where any sychophant beta tester can say whatever he wants.
I don't want to hit this too hard, but I will point out you posted these three sentences in the same post. If you take a look at the juxtaposition of the sentences, in the cold light of day, I think you will see a certain irony to them, particularly the way the second sentence relates to the first.

junk2drive: Over at the wargamer, every game has someone calling it a buggy piece of crap that I had to pay for to beta test. Maybe I exaggerate...
Elvis: thewood post there?
thewood: I would suggest a retraction of that comment unless you and I want to have a conversation with Geordie
thewood: I am not the only one who thinks CMSF was a beta for CMBN. I am one who is consistent in pointing out the game still does not work. As long as BFC sells it, I will point it out
Elvis: Then why is pointing that out something that needs to be retracted? Either "own" that opinion or don't.

Again, I have to agree with Elvis here.

I'm having trouble understanding some of the posters here; now that the game is close to coming out and we can see for ourselves what it will be like, it seems like attacks on it are actually stepping up. Instead of just talking about the features we are starting to find out concrete information about - BilH was here to show off his AAR for example - there is just more of the same uninformed ranting. Maybe it's comfortable at this point to complain that CMSF didn't have the QBs you didn't like or a beta tester yelled at you on BFC's forum two years ago. But it seems to me there is so much more to be able to talk about - and more positive ways in which to do it.

I thought the addition of the Scout Team for example was a fascinating addition when I read about it in the manual. The number of bridges looked pretty cool, too.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
OK, before this turns into another 'car crash' thread can everyone please get a bit of perspective here. Heres what I see:

The Wood has some valid points.

Elvis has some valid points but seeing as we are close to game release has been getting a little uppity lately. Elvis, you dont work for BF, you test their games, feel free to defend them all you want, if you want, but you have portrayed yourself in a wee bit of a fanboy light recently. Something i didnt really see when others like Mr Dorosh claimed it.

And Mr Dorosh. Your having trouble understanding some of the gamers? Wow, after what 4 years of hating the CM2 engine your suddenly excited? Im having trouble understanding that fact. If anyone were to proceed to a new game with cautious optimism I would have thought it would be you. Up until you pre-ordered this game I would say that all of the things you are accusing Wood of doing pretty much summed up your anti-BF attitude.

The game is nearly here and so I look forward to some more decent conversations about the actual features and who hates the game and whats broken. I have my suspicions about who will be shouting with the loudest voice here.

I dont think weve entered the personal attack realm yet, be sure that when we do though I will be here.
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
I don't think Elvis was out of line or that his post was inflammatory. I can see if you put Elvis' whole posting career and your relationship with him into context, that your reaction is quite justifiable though... although highly subjective.

BTW, Elvis is actually Elvius Prime... a sentient BFC created "overmind" that has no real emotions or feelings: his one prime directive is to assert the philosophy of BFC as the primary wargaming paradigm in the market, destroying all who oppose him with cool logic. Thus any humour, wit or ad hominom bellicosity you may infer from his posts are simply contextually related or abberations in his programming: he has no emotion chip.

; )

Cheers!

Leto
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
And Mr Dorosh. Your having trouble understanding some of the gamers? Wow, after what 4 years of hating the CM2 engine your suddenly excited? Im having trouble understanding that fact. If anyone were to proceed to a new game with cautious optimism I would have thought it would be you.
That's okay, because had you read and understood but a handful of my posts in the last six months, you would probably have noticed that's exactly my stance. :laugh:

Up until you pre-ordered this game I would say that all of the things you are accusing Wood of doing pretty much summed up your anti-BF attitude.
Your bias against me is on record, so I feel no need to defend myself against this other than to say I'm keeping an open mind on the new product and recommend others do the same.

The game is nearly here and so I look forward to some more decent conversations about the actual features and who hates the game and whats broken. I have my suspicions about who will be shouting with the loudest voice here.
Anyone is a fool that thinks a forum is about shouting with the loudest voice. And if you have been paying attention at all - and I suspect you haven't - you will see that my objections are not to individual personalities or even the messages, but the lack of messages and indeed lack of substance itself in many of the postings. The forum ceases to have purpose when the messages are about the forum itself and not the topic at hand.

I dont think weve entered the personal attack realm yet.
Those are just as blind who simply refuse to see.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Actually, I'll clarify even further, and say I'm not optimistic about CM:BN, but nor am I pessimistic. I'm realistic enough to realize that the basic game engine from CM:SF has likely not changed in any basic ways, but I'm giving benefit of the doubt that a number of the desired features that we have discussed here or seen discussed elsewhere have been added in. I have no way of knowing what the sum effect of these changes - some minor, some major - will have. Until I've seen it for myself, I'm not going to speculate on whether the game is going to be great, bad, or indifferent. It doesn't invalidate anything I've said about CM:SF in the past.

I do think the time for those conversations about the earlier game is probably over; we've been talking for months going on years now about BFC putting CM:SF in the rear view window. It's true. That game will soon be history. Probably will be for us, too. I'm not sorry. I had little enough interest in CM:SF when I was actually working on it, and was waiting for the day that we'd return to a more interesting historical era. That day is now upon us.

Frankly, this concerns me:

The game is nearly here and so I look forward to some more decent conversations about the actual features and who hates the game and whats broken. I have my suspicions about who will be shouting with the loudest voice here.
Which is it? "Decent conversations" is how I would characterize much of what has transpired here for the last few years; if it wasn't, I would not participate. Language like "hates" and "broken" and "shouting" though, just runs counter to that idea, and frankly betrays any understanding of what the majority have, in my perception of what this place is about, been doing to pass the time. Unless Elvis is right and it has all been a fraud, but I have thoroughly enjoyed the analysis presented by fellows like Rule_303, Caractacus, dalem, Elvis, thewood, Redwolf and too many others to attempt to name for fear of neglecting someone. There is much collective wisdom here from a variety of perspectives, backgrounds and collective experiences in wargaming, computer programming, etc. The discussions of history, game theory, and related topics has been enjoyable. I'll look forward to more of the same, including first and foremost open, honest reactions to the new game.

But if, as Elvis mentions and alludes to, it will simply be a case of hunting through CMBN just to back up pet peeves about CM:SF and achieve some kind of goofy "vindication" - I'll have little interest in that. That era is over. We've been saying it for months. Time to let go. Where I am concerned, this is a clean slate as far as BFC goes. Life is too short for grudges.

But I still also stand by my earlier statement that there will be much riding on this release. It will definitely be interesting to see how the public reaction goes.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
And you're wrong about the "bet with Dale". I was extremely active up and through the bet that ended last June.
For accuracy's sake, that's not correct. Right around the April/May time period you clocked out for several weeks. I remember because several people made comments to the effect of "Dale's not going to get his beer" and I always answered that you were not that kind of person.

Just for the record.

-dale
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
[hirr]Leto;1387547 said:
BTW, Elvis is actually Elvius Prime... a sentient BFC created "overmind" that has no real emotions or feelings:
Oh yeah? Try getting into an argument with him. You'll find some emotions :)

-dale
 
Last edited:

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
Oh yeah? Try getting into an argument with him. You'll find some emotions :)

-dale
Much like CMSF and CMBN, they are simulated emotions. The jury is still out on whether you had a fun and wholly satisfactory debating experience.

Cheers!

Leto
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
[hirr]Leto;1387612 said:
Much like CMSF and CMBN, they are simulated emotions. The jury is still out on whether you had a fun and wholly satisfactory debating experience.

Cheers!

Leto
Ahhh, I hadn't looked at it that way before. As usual, you have shown me the way and the light.

-dale
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Okay, more to the topic of this thread, and the one thing that does seem a bit hinkey, though, is the reviewers that are getting these preview copies. I just got the battlefront newlsetter, which finally announces the preview in "gamerswithjobs".

Who are these "no name" indie previewers? Do they carry as much weight as previews done by Gamespot, say?

I can see an argument for the "indies" having more intimate knowledge of niche subject matter - the reference to Catigny Park and the 1st Infantry Division museum kind of suggests that, in this one. Hard to see a 'mainstream' reviewer getting that reference. I know the argument has been made in the past that larger reviewers were reluctant to look at CM material after CM:SF, but I presumed that was because the modules were simply add-ons and not full-blown releases.
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
Okay, more to the topic of this thread, and the one thing that does seem a bit hinkey, though, is the reviewers that are getting these preview copies. I just got the battlefront newlsetter, which finally announces the preview in "gamerswithjobs".

Who are these "no name" indie previewers? Do they carry as much weight as previews done by Gamespot, say?

I can see an argument for the "indies" having more intimate knowledge of niche subject matter - the reference to Catigny Park and the 1st Infantry Division museum kind of suggests that, in this one. Hard to see a 'mainstream' reviewer getting that reference. I know the argument has been made in the past that larger reviewers were reluctant to look at CM material after CM:SF, but I presumed that was because the modules were simply add-ons and not full-blown releases.

As someone with a PhD in business strategy, I would assess that you use of the 'safe snowball strategy': send it out to people who you know will give you a good review, or have little experience with the past history of the game/franchise/company in order to stay away from critical elements associated with the game's evolution and current target market. You control your message as best as you can this way, ignoring those that may be overly critical and putting together a group of reviewers that you can build a successful market strategy on.

I assure you that this will not be how things are communicated to the masses. As well, they did send it to RPS... a very reputable game review website, but not a wargaming niche reviewer, so once again, the game may be viewed from a perspective that is not associated with the turbulent past.

Never heard of gamers with jobs, but who knows, they could be the essence of legitimacy in the wargame review world for all that I know.

Cheers!

Leto
 
Top