Good Will, Good Games or Both?

Mad Russian

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
188
Location
texas
Country
llUnited States
I see lots of references to BFC PR on here. Lot's and lot's of references to their lost good will.

For me that was never an issue. I don't buy games to support companies. I buy games I like.

From that position good will doesn't mean a lot to me. Not as much as to others I've seen post I think.

Would I refuse to buy a BFC game because of the CMSF PR fiasco? No. If the game was good I'd probably still buy it. I never was going to buy it sight unseen after the CMSF GAME fiasco. But not because of a loss of good will. I always wait. I'm always late to the party but once I'm in I come all the way in.

Good Hunting.

MR
 
Last edited:

British Tommy

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
737
Reaction score
9
Location
mission control, UK
Country
ll
Before big Steve started telling the great unwashed that we just don't get it, I would have gone out of my way to support BFC. But these days I'm in the same boat as Mad Russian. If the game is good and it is in a period that interests me (WW2) then I will buy it but not before reading reviews and players comments on the new game (plus try the demo). Even then I would wait awhile until the game has settled down (no major patches released).
 

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 bought CM:BB sight unseen, ditto CM:AK, based on the strength of the previous games.

I bought CC:3 and 4 based on the strength of my experience with CC:2, again, sight unseen, based on my experience with the earlier games.

I bought Medal of Honor Spearhead and Breakthrough based on my experience with Allied Assault, again, sight unseen, based on my experience with the earlier games. I did try the demo for Airborne before buying it.

I bought Steel Panthers 2 and 3 sight unseen, based on my experience with Steel Panthers, based on my experience with the original game.

I bought NHL 2000 based on my experience with NHL 98, again, sight unseen.

I bought Panzer Command: Kharkov sight unseen (each time I say that, I mean without trying a demo or needing to be persuaded by reviews) based on my experience with PzC: Operation Winter Storm.

I bought the modules for LOTRo sight unseen based on my experience with Shadows of Angmar.

I bought the entire series of "gold box" D&D games, including FRUA, based on my experience with the first in the series.

Does good will and name recognition mean anything to me? You bet it does.
 

jwb3

Just this guy, you know?
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
4,393
Reaction score
260
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Country
llUnited States
Michael basically said it, but to put it another way:

No amount of good will would cause me to buy the first game from a company. They can talk and PR all they want and I'll not believe it till I see it.

It's the second and following games, especially if they're in the same series, that really benefit from good will.

BFC had a chance to have me buy CMN, and possibly even CMSF, sight unseen and without reading a single review, based purely on the good will I had toward them from CMx1. Having lost that good will, they're basically back to being treated as if I'm buying the first game from that company.


John
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I used to buy all computer wargames that were not overly bordgame oriented, overly abstracted or overly milked (Panzer Campaigns and even there I had two). I have a lot of unopened wargame packages floating around plus many where `ls -ltr` == `ls -ltru`. I wanted to support the developers and the business so that they continue to give regular releases based on their working base code.

Didn't work.
 

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
Michael basically said it, but to put it another way:

No amount of good will would cause me to buy the first game from a company. They can talk and PR all they want and I'll not believe it till I see it.

It's the second and following games, especially if they're in the same series, that really benefit from good will.

BFC had a chance to have me buy CMN, and possibly even CMSF, sight unseen and without reading a single review, based purely on the good will I had toward them from CMx1. Having lost that good will, they're basically back to being treated as if I'm buying the first game from that company.


John
Good distinction to make. You have to sell me the first one; if it is really good, you've generally made multiple sales (of the sequels) until you screw something up.
 

Caractacus

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
135
Reaction score
10
Location
Malverni
Country
ll
BFC had so much smoke blown up their collective asses in the first few years that they believed their own hype and treated their customer base with contempt. They reasoned that they could release any old twaddle to the great unworthy and it would be lapped up while they looked for a military contract.

As part of their customer base, I object to the 'contempt' part, and quite frankly wouldn't buy another BFC game even if each box included 46 all-you-can-imagine vouchers to Big Sally's Massage Parlour.

There's simply more deserving people, companies, things, whatever, to spend my limited time and money on. Frankly, I'm mainly here to point and laugh. Hope you guys can put up with it!
 
Last edited:

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
Good one. You guys in the western provinces are quicker than I thought.
 

Mad Russian

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
188
Location
texas
Country
llUnited States
I bought CM:BB sight unseen, ditto CM:AK, based on the strength of the previous games.
This may surprise some of you considering how many CMAK scenarios I made, I never did buy CMAK.

I didn't like the Med theater so I wasn't going to buy it. It was sent to me by one of the members of HSG. His reasoning was, if I had it I'd look at it; if I looked it I might make scenarios. Then he would get to play scenarios I made for the West. Considering how many I ended up making I guess his logic was pretty accurate.

I would have eventually bought CMAK but not at first. It wasn't a theater I was interested in.

Good Hunting.

MR
 

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
Aside from BFC I have never felt any connection or cared about who produced a game. I bought all the Steel Panther series because for me it felt like ASL for computer. I have bought a few games since. Close Combat 2 didn't do it for me like it did for most other people but I may have gotten another verision of that. I bought the entire Battlefield series as a fairly inexpensive box set and never played a single battle. I think I may be like others where I am chasing that ASL on computer high. Always looking to see how close I can get to that. SP and then CMx1 did that for me. And, without trying to sound like a commercial, CM:N is going the next level for me in the same way CMx1 went forward from SP. As always YMMV.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
So why is BFC so dear to you?

If you had asked me four years ago, I would have listed them in this order:

1) Great games
2) Good quality releases
3) Focused on things I like
4) Fast and efficient service
5) Great community
6) Little guy that knows its audience
7) Doen't operate like the big guys

Since CMSF, most of those have gone away. I cut BFC a lot lot of slack the first month after CMSF because of the list above. They managed to work their way through most of that list in a month. Here is my new list:

1) Good game
2) Potential to get back on track

That translates from buying anything sight unseen, to only buying it after I have real feedback on it. They get cut no more slack than any other company I do business with.

Also, because of that first line in your repsonse, you can see why we don't take most of what you say about BFC very seriously. Beta testers have proven themselves over the last few years to have little to no objectivity in a debate.
 
Last edited:

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
So why is BFC so dear to you?

If you had asked me four years ago, I would have listed them in this order:

1) Great games
2) Good quality releases
3) Focused on things I like
4) Fast and efficient service
5) Great community
6) Little guy that knows its audience
7) Doen't operate like the big guys

Since CMSF, most of those have gone away. I cut BFC a lot lot of slack the first month after CMSF because of the list above. They managed to work their way through most of that list in a month. Here is my new list:

1) Good game
2) Potential to get back on track

That translates from buying anything sight unseen, to only buying it after I have real feedback on it. They get cut no more slack than any other company I do business with.

Also, because of that first line in your repsonse, you can see why we don't take most of what you say about BFC very seriously. Beta testers have proven themselves over the last few years to have little to no objectivity in a debate.
Or maybe not everyone lost as much off that first list of yours as others. Perhaps that is why some people don't take seriously what some folks here say. I've never had the negative vibes some of you have had so it never tainted the game or the scene for me or my objectivity. I'm not so sure the same can be said for some folks in these parts. You would have to agree that there are guys posting here who have no objectivity toward the game because of bad experiences they have had with BFC, wouldn't you? And the feeling I have is not limited to beta testers only...just as yours are not limited to just you.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
Objectivity starts with whether someone has a relationship with one party or another. The bad feelings you sense here aren't related to that relationship. They were built through experience. Its very objective. Do you think Dale and I have some ulterior motive other than making sure people have some place to go and hear the unofficial version of the story.

Versus a beta tester that has not only vested energy and credibility into making BFC look good, but got rewarded for it. Which side do you think has more objectivity. Obejtivity is also tainted by the forum you are on. Here, you can discuss CMSF/BFC good and bad. Can we do that on BFC's forums? I think just in my own case I show you can't. And I wasn't one of the screechers. I asked simple questions and pointed out fairly obvious unfairness in a pretty measured manner. And now I have to turn to gamesquad to voice an opinion.

So it would appear that you think no matter how an opinion is formed, you are no longer objective as soon as you form it. But forming an opinion on a company you work for or are closely associated with always has to be prefaced with the fact you do work for them, even if its "volunteer".

I always come back to that guy from Out of Eight who had glowing previews of CMSF. Then it turned out he contributed scenarios to CMSF. Don't you think a normal person would change their opinion of the review if they new that while reading it. btw, he later semi-admitted to being overly enthusiastic in that review after it was pointed out how poorly CMSF was released.
 

Thomm

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
154
Reaction score
3
Location
Vienna
Country
llAustria
..., but got rewarded for it.
How do you think beta testers get rewarded?

From an economical point of view, beta testers give two orders of magnitude more than they get.

Best regards,
Thomm
 

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
Objectivity starts with whether someone has a relationship with one party or another. The bad feelings you sense here aren't related to that relationship. They were built through experience. Its very objective. Do you think Dale and I have some ulterior motive other than making sure people have some place to go and hear the unofficial version of the story.
I would have more reason than anyone to have 'bad blood' given my ejection from the community, but I think I've outlined very clearly my objections to CM:SF as a "bad game" and my comments have been consistent about what I like or don't like about the game. I think I also give Steve and BFC credit where it is due as much as, or more, than anyone on this forum, so I think Elvis' theory about "bad relationships" or whatever it is he's talking about is false.

This is a Combat Mission board, and, shockingly, fans of the series are here talking about Combat Mission. Discussions about the company are peripheral to that, but relevant as far as the future direction of the series.

I can understand Elvis' confusion; I know some of Leto's threads have pushed the envelope - i.e. "is Steve the Derek Smart of the CM world" etc. and I and others have not pulled punches with discussions about the PR, marketing, forum and other aspects of the - let's call it "culture" - but I don't ascribe this to a lack of objectivity. On the contrary, being outside the community provides a different lens than those working on the inside; I've had the opportunity to experience both perspectives.

So it would appear that you think no matter how an opinion is formed, you are no longer objective as soon as you form it. But forming an opinion on a company you work for or are closely associated with always has to be prefaced with the fact you do work for them, even if its "volunteer".
And from experience, I would have to agree with this as well.
 

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
How do you think beta testers get rewarded?
You're joking - again - right?

Free copies of the game, tangibly. But also free reign of the forum to say and do what they want. Don't forget - I was one.

From an economical point of view, beta testers give two orders of magnitude more than they get.

Best regards,
Thomm
You make less and less sense with each passing day.
 

Thomm

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
154
Reaction score
3
Location
Vienna
Country
llAustria
You're joking - again - right?
I am joking, yes?

So, please answer this question:

Did you feel compensated for the time that you put into making scenarios for CM:SF by getting a free copy of the game, or not?

Or did you feel that you gave much more than you got, even if you did it voluntarily.


I do not know about you, but an hour of my working time sells for 85 Euros (120 Canadian dollars.) If I had the discipline to work at night instead of fooling around with CM, I could buy me a car from all the time I put into testing.

Best regards,
Thomm
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
SOunds like someone maybe shouldn't be doing what he's doing.

btw, the evidence is pretty clear. Even on the Dosomething boards Elvis argued that CMSF was no worse than CMBO on release. I think that is pretty strong data right there about objectivity.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
btw, compensation isn't just a physical reward. Some people feel more fulfulled contributing to something they feel is important. That probably drives a significant number of beta testers in most games.

What I find unusual is how BFC let those same people have complete run of the boards.

What really hurt beta credibility beyond how they acted on the BFC boards was the inability in that first year to admit that CMSF basically sucked on release. It wasn't until quite a while after that that certain beta testers started going out to the various boards and hinting that CMSF was piss poor on release. And that seemed to be only after Steve started dropping hints about it.

A lot of those testers seem to think everyone has collective amnesia about that first year. To me, its a text book example of lack of objectivity.

I have said this from the beginning, if being a beta tester doesn't fill you with some sort of ego trip, why do you all carry the title on the BFC boards. You might think its a badge of honor, but outside the BFC boards, it immediately makes a lot of people put what you say through a sifter. If being a beta tester is such a chore, why do it, and especially why carry the badge publically.
 
Top