Here's BFC's real problem...

[The Coil]

This thought keeps occurring to me as I read all these threads...maybe someone's mentioned it before.

I was looking at the design credits for Far Cry 2 (it's a long story), there's 62 skillion people who worked on that sucker (really, I counted them). BFC is working with one programmer.

It seems to me that, given the ever increasing expectations for graphics/features/what have you, that just puts some severe limitations on what you can do. At some point, no matter how good or innovative or whatever you are, one guy just can't keep up with a 100-man design team. In the time BFC can crank out one game, expectations based on what other games have done just outpaces them.

Every time I see someone from BFC say something is "just not possible", I wonder, does that mean "it is impossible" or "it's not possible for us given time constraints imposed by having only one programmer" or "Charles can't/doesn't know how to do that" or whatever (presumably Charles is a brilliant programmer, which I have no ability to judge one way or another. But I would guess there is some limit to his knowledge/skill/abilities).

Not saying the "one man programming team" is a good or a bad thing. Just observing that it imposes some limitations on what they can do.

 

[jwb3]

This thought keeps occurring to me as I read all these threads...maybe someone's mentioned it before.

I was looking at the design credits for Far Cry 2 (it's a long story), there's 62 skillion people who worked on that sucker (really, I counted them). BFC is working with one programmer.

It seems to me that, given the ever increasing expectations for graphics/features/what have you, that just puts some severe limitations on what you can do. At some point, no matter how good or innovative or whatever you are, one guy just can't keep up with a 100-man design team. In the time BFC can crank out one game, expectations based on what other games have done just outpaces them.

Every time I see someone from BFC say something is "just not possible", I wonder, does that mean "it is impossible" or "it's not possible for us given time constraints imposed by having only one programmer" or "Charles can't/doesn't know how to do that" or whatever (presumably Charles is a brilliant programmer, which I have no ability to judge one way or another. But I would guess there is some limit to his knowledge/skill/abilities).

Not saying the "one man programming team" is a good or a bad thing. Just observing that it imposes some limitations on what they can do.

Absolutely. And I think that's the main reason why trying to make CMx2 a 1-1 representation game with realistic ballistics, and all that, was probably the wrong move for them; because there are others out there who can and will throw a lot more programmers and money at the same goals, and their results are always going to be better.


John

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Good post. You're right, but there are ways around the limitation. Steve posted just today that there is a ten-year backlog of "nice to haves" gathered up from the community of feature-creep. Um. Okay, sure. I think the real problem is that there are a lot of people with greater understanding of fundamental military history than Steve who would have a better approach to designing the game and prioritizing features, but the cabal of two sit behind closed doors and decide on their own with apparently no input whatsoever what they will do and how.

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't just that they are shorthanded as far as coding hands go; it's ideas, too. They have a huge community to draw on, yet they squander good will and ideas daily. They give the appearance of discussing stuff on the forum, but Charles doesn't get involved in the discussions, and Steve's participation is there for all to see - if people post things that agree with his own ideas, they are tolerated, and if you reinforce what he thinks are good features, he bats them around for awhile with you. But the forums serve very little useful purpose as far as developing the game or features. We've seen it in the patch threads - even pointing out things as small as typos or mismatched bmps get ignored publicly. I've seen it and participated in that kind of public discourse on that forum. It's a waste of time.

Steve's insular thinking has been the topic of conversation and public display for years now.

No idea if things would be better in a larger game company - never worked for one. IIRC Steve and Charles fled from that environment, so its not a guarantee of brilliance and I imagine it can be quite restrictive if conditions are not quite right. But like you say, I think one can make some general observations.

 

[Geordie]

I can understand and agree with Coils post. However, the flip side is that these huge companies dont make games like CM, theres just no return. How many copies does a game like Far Cry sell compared to CM.

So if BF suddenly went out of business I dont think we would be seeing any more CM, unless Matrix were sold the code.

I dont want BF to go out of business, but surely by now, they could have afforded to bring on another coder?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I can understand and agree with Coils post. However, the flip side is that these huge companies dont make games like CM, theres just no return. How many copies does a game like Far Cry sell compared to CM.

So if BF suddenly went out of business I dont think we would be seeing any more CM, unless Matrix were sold the code.

I dont want BF to go out of business, but surely by now, they could have afforded to bring on another coder?

To do what?

I can see the reluctance to do so from several standpoints beyond mere ego and economics. I couldn't imagine hiring another author to help me write books, as much as it would be a boon to production. Just getting someone up to speed on the way of doing things - we've heard about the "hacked up" code that was CMX1, for example.

Besides which, given the personality conflicts that are routine for BFC - not just talking about the forums, but look at the number of companies that no longer do business with them (Panther Games pulled out of their partnership for one), would you really want to let someone in on your flagship line's code not knowing if you would be able to maintain a business relationship into the future with them?

Lots of reasons not to do it - maybe even more reasons not to than to do it.

 

[Geordie]

Then essentialy, when Charles goes, so too does their company.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Then essentialy, when Charles goes, so too does their company.

If they're living off their wives' income anyway, it makes no difference to them.

Is there anything to suggest BFC isn't a garage company? We've never seen any sales figures. We've seen the figures from other companies though - 3,000 sales per game for war titles? I don't doubt CM has sold considerably more than that, by factors of 10. But how many people do BFC employ and how many units of CM have sold over how many years?

Come on. Fancy packaging can get done in Mexico or China for cheap and is indicative or nothing. You can run a software company as a hobby or even a sideline these days. I don't doubt BFC is a full-time operation but I still don't know what Steve would do 40 hours a week if he isn't coding, isn't writing the manuals, isn't doing 3D models, isn't skinning, and isn't designing the scenarios - and apparently isn't playing the game either (or any of the competion games). Besides reading this forum and pestering the fans on his own, what does he do? Oh yeah - he wrote a design document on trenches.

The majority of their "staff" is unpaid volunteers - I mean the guys who put together each game; the testers and scenario designers.

 

[Sirocco]

I think that's the main reason why trying to make CMx2 a 1-1 representation game with realistic ballistics, and all that, was probably the wrong move for them; because there are others out there who can and will throw a lot more programmers and money at the same goals, and their results are always going to be better.

I would agree with that. Resources went into 1:1 and real time, both of which I think are essential for the series, but taking them both on at the same time was being too ambitious.

To me the basic goal should have been combat fidelity. Taking what was in CMx1 and building on those accomplishments. Then make a choice between 1:1 and RT. I personally think 1:1 would have meshed well with the core aims of the series, RT is less important.

Instead they tried to do it all, and while we have 1:1 and RT, combat fidelity is coming a distant third.

 

[[hirr]Leto]

This furthers my opinion that BFC is the proverbial "house of cards" with dreams of Icarus.

Edith Penrose conceptualized this so well in the resource based view of the firm: if the resources you possess do not allow for you to implement your strategic vision, then you are bound to fail.

I sure hope that outstripped means do not sully the ends for them.

Cheers!

Leto

 

[Sirocco]

Good post. You're right, but there are ways around the limitation. Steve posted just today that there is a ten-year backlog of "nice to haves" gathered up from the community of feature-creep. Um. Okay, sure. I think the real problem is that there are a lot of people with greater understanding of fundamental military history than Steve who would have a better approach to designing the game and prioritizing features, but the cabal of two sit behind closed doors and decide on their own with apparently no input whatsoever what they will do and how.

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't just that they are shorthanded as far as coding hands go; it's ideas, too. They have a huge community to draw on, yet they squander good will and ideas daily.

I would suggest 99% of actual design ideas suggested on the forum are, at best, sparking points for real solutions. And I think you have to seperate out people who know their history with people who understand the mechanics of game design. I do think they have a role in shaping out flow; for example, campaigns. I'd really like to see a proper, completely open debate on how to bring campaigns alive, involving the history and design perspectives. But Steve is too concerned with keeping his cards close to his chest. And I'd agree; he really misses out when he does that.

Competition picking up on the ideas? Maybe. But with that kind of interaction you have customers for life, in a community that will keep coming back.

 

[thewood]

But they started from scratch with CM2 and took 4 years. Lets say another programmer is hired. They could take a year off that at least and start generating income from CM2 in three years instead of four. Modules and follow ons would come out in half the time. It compresses the entire cash flow cycle and allows getting more income in a shorter timeframe. That is called an opportunity, investment, and return. If BFC wants to be a real company, not just a hobby, that's what they need. They don't need more overhead like Moon. They need people generating code and reducing the risk of a one man shop.

Now compare that to how its going now. It has taken just as long to get CMSF out as CMBO, and they were only doing CMBO part time. It took just as long for the second module as it did for CMBB. It will take longer to get the next real game out. Other than using a real 3D engine, from a business standpoint, it really hasn't worked unless they were able to generate significantly more revenue from CM2 than CM1.

 

[Sirocco]

I think for them to pick up an additional programmer it would take special circumstances. There's definitely a strong labour of love element in there. In my view you'd need to find someone with that same drive and same interests. Otherwise it could backfire and you end up losing time.

I do think there's room there for someone within the team to pick up on smaller additional programming tasks. The controls options on the main screen, for example. If someone within the team has the basic programming know how it would free up time for the really complex tasks.

I just think in general they have to maximise what they have at present.

 

[thewood]

That's what I mean. Its either a labor of love or a business. It has to transition if Steve wants BFC to get closer to the mainstream market. It is also what I mean about an additional programmer. Someone to handle stuff where a lot of knowledge of combat is needed. Its a heck of a lot easier to find 3D modellers than programmers. But just because its easier doesn't mean thats where you invest your money.

 

[Sirocco]

I don't think they know quite where they want to position themselves, and that's the crux of their problems. You can't do top end pretty without resources, and to do mid range pretty - with 1:1 and RT - they've had to sacrifice on basics. BFC are in real danger when CMN is released of being neither one thing nor another. With CMx1 they chose a track and went down it well. With CMx2 they're trying to go down two and not doing either very well.

 

[dalem]

If someone asked me to look at the whole last 10 years of BFC as a single project as opposed to a whole business entity, I would list "inadequate resources" as the first negative item. The drive for success is there, the skill is there, the commitment is there, even the project plan is there.

But the resources are not.

I know that's not a 100% useful parallel, but it's not 100% un-useful either.

-dale

 

[Sirocco]

I don't think it's so much about resources, as about how they've used them, and how much they've tried to do. Steve et al often throw out the resources bone as an excuse. It's a given they have limited resources, as such you cut your cloth accordingly.

 

[dalem]

I don't think it's so much about resources, as about how they've used them, and how much they've tried to do. Steve et al often throw out the resources bone as an excuse. It's a given they have limited resources, as such you cut your cloth accordingly.

Given their deliverable list and dates, resources is the bottleneck.

-dale

 

[Sirocco]

Given their deliverable list and dates, resources is the bottleneck.

It has become so, but that's through choices made.

 

[dalem]

It has become so, but that's through choices made.

...forced on them by limited resources.

We dance the mamushka!

-dale

 

[Sirocco]

...forced on them by limited resources.

We dance the mamushka!

No, I can't agree; resources have been eaten up with 1:1 and real time. Drop real time and you free up resources. Take on both at once and you just ate through said resources. It's like wanting to extend your house and build a garage when having the finances to do only one, but going ahead and building them both, anyway. End result? You get the extension and the garage, but the value of your home just went down due to the shoddy workmanship.