Good Will, Good Games or Both?

[Thomm]

... why do you all carry the title on the BFC boards.

I do not carry the Beta Tester tag, e.g.

If being a beta tester is such a chore, why do it, ...

I can only answer for myself: because I like to analyze stuff. I also like to create, and I am working very seriously on a document that should assist very heavily in using the scenario editor. Of course it feels good to play what others will see only in a few months, but believe me: it is much more work than leisure.

Best regards,
Thomm

 

[Elvis]

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.

I absolutely did no such thing. As a matter of fact I have always said that CMBO benefited from having a beta demo out for 8 months before release. The comparison I think you are referring to was me, correctly, saying that CMBO had many patches and it's been so long I forget the exact number but both series' have almost the exact same number of patches (I think 12 for CMx1 and 13 for CMSF). But I have always said the CMSF was not released in as playable of a condition as CMBO.

 

[Patrocles]

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

good for you!

I guess I am on the opposite end of the spectrum. These are only games to me. I do not have a need or desire to own any game, or support a game company, that I would put with bulls**t from the developer/publisher.

Good Hunting.

 

[Elvis]

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.

First highlighted bit:

This is one of my ealriest posts on Domsomefink from April '08. It less than a year after release.

I never said "CMSF's launch was well done" however you did say " poorly implemented game". There is a very large area between "well done" and "poorly implemented". This is not, in my opinion, a black or white issue as in "if it isn't perfect on release than it is a disaster". I understand you didn't say that either but are tending to speak in extremes.

To my last post it also contains this:

CMBO if you recall had a very different release than every other CM title yet still holds up to my point. CMBB is the shitstorm everyone whos been around for a while remembers. CMBO was different for a couple of reason. The beta demo was released in October or November and the final game was the following June. When the beta demo was released there were loads and loads of people who hated it because it wasn't RT like the CC series or top down or thought that the 3D model took away from the strategy. People from other forums attacked the CM forum with bile and people from the CM forum attacked the CC forum etc...I am talking about the beta demo release now (although those wars went on for years).

Sound familiar?


And as Thomm points out. Many testers do not have that under their username. It was automatically applied after one forum update and since I never cared one way or the other, so I never asked to have mine changed.

 

[Quellist]

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

I'm mostly with Patrocles on this one, I don't buy games with crappy/intrusive DRM and to buy a game from a company that put a **** in a box and told me I didn't get it would require god like excellence on their part. Before that fiasco I would have bought CMSF to thank them for their over-deliverance with the first games and to make sure that they had time to make CM:N the best it could be. Now there are some other issues with 1-1 and realtime that would have made me think twice about buying all the modules as I think they are going in the wrong direction, but I would have bought CMSF on good will for sure.

 

[Elvis]

so I think Elvis' theory about "bad relationships" or whatever it is he's talking about is false.

Do you think someone who posted this:

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!

...would look at any new release more or less objectively than me? Who do you think is more likely to give it a chance and look for the good and bad?

 

[thewood]

As I have said, thats not objectivity, thats experience talking. You can still be objective and not like something. What is not objective is when a majority of people say one thing, and yet someone with a formal relationship with the other party refuses to acknowledge issues with that party. When you first came on the DSF boards, you were very aggressive and pushy and very much implied that we were all wrong about the issues with CMSF. It was one of those discussions and the stupid sharing of IP addresses that made me come here. You are much less aggressive here, but the end result is the same, lack of objectivity.

And CMBB was completely playable and did pretty much what it was designed to do. Do we need to go through that comparison again. You have asked me for it before so I think you can just look for it yourself since lately you seem to have discovered the search button. I have gone through the comparisons of CMBB and CMBO to CMSF on release a couple times here and on the BFC boards.

Some people didn't agree with the infantry model in CMBB, no different than CMSF. Its that kind of comparison that destroys any semblence of objective credibility.

 

[Elvis]

As I have said, thats not objectivity, thats experience talking. You can still be objective and not like something. What is not objective is when a majority of people say one thing, and yet someone with a formal relationship with the other party refuses to acknowledge issues with that party. When you first came on the DSF boards, you were very aggressive and pushy and very much implied that we were all wrong about the issues with CMSF. It was one of those discussions and the stupid sharing of IP addresses that made me come here. You are much less aggressive here, but the end result is the same, lack of objectivity.

And CMBB was completely playable and did pretty much what it was designed to do. Do we need to go through that comparison again. You have asked me for it before so I think you can just look for it yourself since lately you seem to have discovered the search button. I have gone through the comparisons of CMBB and CMBO to CMSF on release a couple times here and on the BFC boards.

Some people didn't agree with the infantry model in CMBB, no different than CMSF. Its that kind of comparison that destroys any semblence of objective credibility.

100% agree with that. To slag something without trying it because you don't like the producers is not objective. And to like something and happen to like the producers does not mean you can't be objective. I'd be interested to hear what are the things I have mentioned as strenghts of the game that the a majority of people say is one thing and I say is another? I can't think of one offhand but you may have a couple at your fingertips. And to be candid I have always considered you to be one of the more objective people in these parts. You test the hell out of things and speak from firsthand experience. About as objective as a person can be.

CMBB was completely playable on release and I have never said otherwise. But there were problems and people were vocal about them. Some got the bum CD that wouldn't load the game (I was one of them and Dorosh now has that disc), some didn't like the way MG modeling was changed, some hated the change in camera controls..etc.. Me? I didn't have a major issue with any of those things. But the forum lit up with them. CMSF was not a perfect release. And as each patch was released, and new features were added and bugs fixed it became more glaring at how weak it was on release.

 

[dalem]

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.

I may be misremembering, but I think some of us used to squeak about not knowing who to take seriously or not on the forum and the beta titles appeared after that. For me I squared off a bit with Rune I think and he got pretty titchy because no one was paying attention to his answer to a question. I pointed out he was just a mook like the rest of us and he countered with No, I'm a beta tester. Etc.

-extremist dale

 

[Elvis]

I may be misremembering, but I think some of us used to squeak about not knowing who to take seriously or not on the forum and the beta titles appeared after that. For me I squared off a bit with Rune I think and he got pretty titchy because no one was paying attention to his answer to a question. I pointed out he was just a mook like the rest of us and he countered with No, I'm a beta tester. Etc.

-extremist dale

There is a area of the forum that is only for testing forums. Back when Dorosh was still around it was a part of the forum called Skunkworks or something like that. During a a forum software upgrade we stopped using that and starting using this completely different area. That is when the title, I think for everyone testers and non-testers, appeared first. As a time reference it is also when "member numbers" went away and "Join dates" appeared. That I did have changed. My user name had to be reset during a monkey refresh event so if you looked in my profile it always said join date May 2000 and my member number was 152. Then when the forum changed and memeber numbers went away it had my join date as December 2007. It now properly reflects my oin date.

 

[dalem]

There is a area of the forum that is only for testing forums. Back when Dorosh was still around it was a part of the forum called Skunkworks or something like that.

Yep. Back when I was testing DIF I had access to that section of the forum. That only lasted a month or so for me - the group testing schedule was Aussie-TZ-based and I couldn't hack it. I wasn't really contributing anything so I dropped out.

I like the actual card game just fine anyway.

-dale

 

[KG_Jag]

The comparison I think you are referring to was me, correctly, saying that CMBO had many patches and it's been so long I forget the exact number but both series' have almost the exact same number of patches (I think 12 for CMx1 and 13 for CMSF). But I have always said the CMSF was not released in as playable of a condition as CMBO.

In fact [and as we have discussed on these boards before] the final patch number for CMBO is 1.12, BUT the number of patches is fewer than that patch number--just as it is also true of CMSF. For CMBB and CMAK--the final patch numbers are 1.03. In each of these two games three patches were released--if you count the screwed up and quickly replaced CMAK v1.02.

Back on the main subject of this thread--good will & customer relations and how they affect sales and the buying decision.

The level of good/bad will a business has will affect my decisions (in ascending order):

1. Whether or not I will even consider buying any product from them--ever;

2. Whether the product has to be of high quality, the type/design of product I really, really want and will use, and mature--before I will consider buying it;

3. Whether I wait for the demo and watch for reviews, both formal and by regular customers, in deciding whether or not to buy;

4. Whether I wait for just a good word or an early trend of mostly positive word about a product before I buy;

5. Whether I buy it as soon as it is released;

6. Whether I buy it as a pre-order;

7. Whether I buy more copies than I really need and make an effort to promote/sing the praises the company and their products.

During the CMBO days Big Time/BF was a "7" for me. Now they are either a "3" or a "2". In fact in terms of wargaming companies, only SES is currently below BF in my book.

Why the big fall?

a. Customer relations--indeed total detain and attacks on customers on a regular basis, plus dishonesty with customers about the product;

b. Significant fall in product quality--especially upon release, as well as for an extended period beyond release;

c. Product design changes--especially when coupled with deception and even dishonesty about these issues (e.g. upon release of CMSF, RT and WeGo were "equal partners");

d. Intrusive and/or restrictive DRM--especially [and in order of level of concern] chain server tied and/or need permission to play or install.

 

[Elvis]

In fact [and as we have discussed on these boards before] the final patch number for CMBO is 1.12, BUT the number of patches is fewer than that patch number--just as it is also true of CMSF. For CMBB and CMAK--the final patch numbers are 1.03. In each of these two games three patches were released--if you count the screwed up and quickly replaced CMAK v1.02.

That actually isn't true. CMBO was patched 8 times. Plus 3 and 3 for CMBB and CMAK for a total of 14.

I really should do #3 more than I do. I tend to buy very few games and the ones I do are usually impulse. Civilization V was probably a #5. I did get it the day it was released and didn't even know there would be a demo. Dragon Age was #4. They may have been the only ones I purchased in the last year. The DRM should bother me but it hasn't affected a purchase yet. I didn't even check Civ Vs before buying and I think I need to be signed on to Steam at all times to play it.

 

[KG_Jag]

That actually isn't true. CMBO was patched 8 times. Plus 3 and 3 for CMBB and CMAK for a total of 14.

Of course it's true. What I posted is essentially identical to the above, except I said that the number of patches for CMBO was a number below 12.

So what we agree on is: the total number of patches for all three CM x 1 theater-in-a-box games is almost exactly equal to that of the CMSF to date.

 

[Elvis]

Of course it's true. What I posted is essentially identical to the above, except I said that the number of patches for CMBO was a number below 12.

So what we agree on is: the total number of patches for all three CM x 1 theater-in-a-box games is almost exactly equal to that of the CMSF to date.

I'm sorry. I had misread one of your sentences to say each of the 3 games had 3 patches. My bad. Sorry.

And yes, as we have both said. The number of patches is almost the same.

 

[Sgt_Kelly]

There is also the question of what is being patched.

I believe there is a general consensus now that there was a kind of watershed patch for CMSF (1.08 ?), generally accepted to be the one that lifted the game to the level where it should have been upon release.

I don't think any such key moment exists for CMBO. The general feeling about CMBO out of the box wasn't that the game wasn't up to the standard where you could charge $50 for it and look your customer straight in the eye.

As to the topic at hand. I would say that BFC used to be a company that I had a lot of sympathy for and in whose ability to come up with the goods I believed. I probably wouldn't fit Elvis' definition of impartial given the fact that I had occasion to witness some of BFC's more questionable business practices first hand and this does come into how I think about them these days. It would be hard to simply pretend that I don't know what I do know.

I bought Theatre Of War to support BFC and because I trusted them not to attach their name to a crappy product. I won't be doing that again.

 

[Elvis]

There is also the question of what is being patched.

I believe there is a general consensus now that there was a kind of watershed patch for CMSF (1.08 ?), generally accepted to be the one that lifted the game to the level where it should have been upon release.

I don't think any such key moment exists for CMBO. The general feeling about CMBO out of the box wasn't that the game wasn't up to the standard where you could charge $50 for it and look your customer straight in the eye.

As to the topic at hand. I would say that BFC used to be a company that I had a lot of sympathy for and in whose ability to come up with the goods I believed. I probably wouldn't fit Elvis' definition of impartial given the fact that I had occasion to witness some of BFC's more questionable business practices first hand and this does come into how I think about them these days. It would be hard to simply pretend that I don't know what I do know.

I bought Theatre Of War to support BFC and because I trusted them not to attach their name to a crappy product. I won't be doing that again.

For me that moment may be when TCP became available. Like QBs are for Dale, TCP is for me. Peng and I used to suffer through modern Steel Panther because WW2 SP didn't have it. It is also my biggest gripe with CMx2. I would really like the option of WeGo for TCP.

Having just looked through the list of 1.01 patch for CMBO is is nothing huge or a game breaker. It is a very long list but, again, nothing Earth shattering.

And for me, yes, 1.08 was the game changer. That is when it went from "I really am having fun with this" to "wow, I love this game. That is what it should have been when it came out.'" Even though it still had more things that got fixed.

 

[thewood]

What's funny is I think 1.05 was the watershed moment. That was when a lot of old guard realized this thing wasn't getting fixed any time soon. There was a lot of hype from

1.08 was when thngs that were supposed to work in a CM game started to work. 1.10 is when I started to see some semblence of a CM game. That was when the TacAI started to function beyond just blazing away at any enemy.

And about TCP, it was never even advertised as a feature for release so saying it was missing is a stretch. You and no one else even knew what it was. QBsin CMSF, on the other hand, should have worked out of the box. They advertised and to this day, Steve runs away from that conversation as fast as he can. CMSF will be relegated to the scrap heap without them truly working.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I may be misremembering, but I think some of us used to squeak about not knowing who to take seriously or not on the forum and the beta titles appeared after that. For me I squared off a bit with Rune I think and he got pretty titchy because no one was paying attention to his answer to a question. I pointed out he was just a mook like the rest of us and he countered with No, I'm a beta tester. Etc.

-extremist dale

Even if you are misremembering, there is some logic to identifying the testers, for the reason you identify. However, we have discussed in the past the practice of the testers answering questions in the absence of the developer directly.

 

[thewood]

I have always thought testers should not be ID'ed. At BFC they stomped into threads about things they were guessing at answers but coming off as being in kind of official capacity. If they are in some kind of official capacity, they are more like volunteer QA people. If anyone thinks that what beta testers are, they don't know what real beta testing should be.