Moon Says that CM x 2 Normandy Coming in 2009

[Redwolf]

All true, CMBO skipped from 1.05 to 1.12 IIRC, or maybe 1.10 and then 2 more.

Interesting to note, however, that Steve G. was talking about how CMBO needed 12 patches just recently

 

[Michael Dorosh]

All true, CMBO skipped from 1.05 to 1.12 IIRC, or maybe 1.10 and then 2 more.

Interesting to note, however, that Steve G. was talking about how CMBO needed 12 patches just recently

Are there not internal and external designations for patches?

Just because the consumer never sees Preparation A through I, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

 

[Rule_303]

Isn't Preparation "I" also called "Moroccan Spicy Lube?"

 

[thewood]

Are internal patches like trees. If no one hears the patch fall in the forest, does it make a sound?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Isn't Preparation "I" also called "Moroccan Spicy Lube?"

You can still get it in one or two locations.

 

[Rule_303]

You can still get it in one or two locations.

Yes, and it works really well on your forehead too... Kind of a poor man's Botox. :joy:

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Yes, and it works really well on your forehead too... Kind of a poor man's Botox. :joy:

Allow me to rephrase. You can still "buy" it in one or two locations. :laugh:

I can understand why you would confuse Zellers with a bunghole however.

 

[Elvis]

Are there not internal and external designations for patches?

No. The numbers go along with the module. 1.0x were for the base game, 1.1x were Marines, and 1.2x are the Brits.

 

[Elvis]

Although they are all applied back to the base game.

 

[dalem]

But that is complete speculation and even more so when you use terms like "not at all" or "nobody". It only takes one person doing one thing to make them false. And since you do not play the game, have claimed for a while to not go to the BFC forums and did not develop and CMSF "internet friendships" I am not sure how you even get the information you are claiming to have. There are people actively creating mods, scenarios and having PBEM/TCP games. There is a long thread that people are following an AAR of a CMSF.To name a few. Are these activities that people who don't care engage in? To say "nobody" or "not at all" is untrue.

Well, as others have already said for me, using hyperbole is okay when you're not talking about math. By any known measure no one can claim that player, or market, or consumer, or community interest in CMSF is anywhere close to what did exist, has existed, and still exists for its immediate predecessor game series CMx1. What that may or may not mean is highly subjective, but it is true.

And how do I get information (what information?)? Are you kidding? I can read. I can talk. I can listen.

-dale

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I heard T-Shirt and 'mugs' sales are down.

 

[Elvis]

Well, as others have already said for me, using hyperbole is okay when you're not talking about math. By any known measure no one can claim that player, or market, or consumer, or community interest in CMSF is anywhere close to what did exist, has existed, and still exists for its immediate predecessor game series CMx1. What that may or may not mean is highly subjective, but it is true.

And how do I get information (what information?)? Are you kidding? I can read. I can talk. I can listen.

-dale

By that measuring stick nobody plays or has played CMx1 either. Ask any Call of Duty player.

 

[Patrocles]

Well, since there may be as many ways to define successful as there are people talking about it I will throw a few examples out there. (thewood don't surprised if at some point I say "I told you so").

I would think that at the very base of a discussion, in the context of what has been thrown around here, there would be 2 main categories. Has the game successful at making money for the producers, being something fun to play, well executed etc...And the other being has it been successful compared to other games.

From there each of those can be broken down further. Has the game been successful compared to all games, all games in it's genre and, in this case, to its predecessor. The standalone can be broken down further in by who is doing the defining. The producer, the end user, the fan base etc...

So there are are many ways a game can be a failure or success depending on the exact question being asked. So where do we start?

I can think of a few places to start the "is CMSF a failure or success" Unfortunately, I do not think that answers can be found by anyone other than BFC.
1. Units CMSF sold to date?
1a. units CMSF Marines sold to date?
1b. units Brit module for CMSF sold to date?
2. Units CMBO sold to date?
3. units CMBB sold to date?
4. units CMAK sold to date?
5. Profits generated for BFC from sales of CMSF+modules (this can be broken down to separate components, too)?

 

[thewood]

But that is a one way look at success...from BFC's perspective.

I think CM1 was a success for a large number of people who were customers. It created a relatively large community of players, modders, and designers. CMSF, while it created a community, I think we can safe hypthesize it was smaller than CM1. Frankly, if BFC can't churn out good games any more, I don't care about their success. I want them to be successful as long as they are committed to turning out games that my firends and I like to play. I have stuck with CMSF even though they are moving on without really making the good game I was hoping. I did that in the hopes that CMN will recapture BFC's glory days.

One thing that will never change back, BFC has lost a lot of us as believers in BFC being the independent maverick of the publishing business. CMSF's release showed the "done when its done" mantra only lasted as long as the money lasted. I doubt many people would put that on the plus side of the success ledger.

 

[PhillipCulliton]

One thing that will never change back, BFC has lost a lot of us as believers in BFC being the independent maverick of the publishing business. CMSF's release showed the "done when its done" mantra only lasted as long as the money lasted. I doubt many people would put that on the plus side of the success ledger.

Almost no software project that has a goal of "it's done when it's done" succeeds in completing it. There are always corners to cut, there's always some deadline that comes up. The fact that BFC partnered with Paradox for retail (which turned out to be a poor choice of partners for reasons beyond BFC's control) was a significant driving force in killing the "when it's done" goal, something I think anyone remotely familiar with the situation is aware of.

I am fairly certain that none of the BFC crew are independently wealthy, or hold down lucrative second jobs. I think we can also assume, PC Gamer lists regardless, that wargames were, are, and will continue to be a niche product. Even if sales of CMx1 were amazing and through the roof it's unlikely that they continue to be so, and it is even more likely that "through the roof" for wargames does not denote a sum that leads to sitting on the beach and drinking from umbrella'd coconuts. Yet, BFC is not only alive but expanding, and has been expanding its line for a couple years. The probabilities:

a) That CMx1 sales are not enough to support an expansion,
b) that secondary developer products have not had many significant releases in the past four years (Strategic Command 2 being the notable exception I can think of) and therefore are not enough to support an expansion,
c) that there have been multiple, certainly not as timely as hoped, but significant content releases for CMSF,

All point to the good possibility that CMSF has done fairly well commercially.

 

[Quellist]

CMSF's release showed the "done when its done" mantra only lasted as long as the money lasted. I doubt many people would put that on the plus side of the success ledger.

If we assume that you are correct in that they were running out of money, what would you suggest they do? It seems incredible naive to believe anything else than a rushed release in that scenario. They are full time developers that do this for a living, working for free isn't an option. Iirc it was hinted that there were some contractual obligations to paradox in play too, if that was the case then that might imo be a more understandable tarnish on their image given the state at release.

 

[thewood]

There is nothing naive about it. They built CM1 with only two people working part time over I think about four years. During the development, Steve said it was not their full time job. They chose to spend five years building CMSF. They had a decision to make. They could either stick with the indy development thing and make a decent living either part time or full time. Or they could go for broke and try to go more mainstream and build a publishing house. They chose, yes chose, to go mainstream. They chose to go to Paradox. Those choices are haunting them now. And has brought about the possibility that CMN is a make it or break it release for BFC. All they had to do was scale back CM2 to be either an upgrade of CM1 or a more enhanced version of it. It can be debated why CMBB and CMAK sold less than CMBO. Part of it has to be layed at the feet of BFC.

Any one who has ever been a customer of Paradox can tell you in a second that partnering with them will not end well. btw, it wasn't hinted at. Steve came right our and said it was Paradox that forced the release.

In the end, CMSF came out in the state it did from choices BFC made. Those two choices were a complete rebuild of the engine into a very detailed 1:1 simulation and the decision to go with Paradox as a partner. The Paradox coice hurt their PR and brand. The 1:1 and engine choice has hurt their cash flow because its taking a lot longer and more people than expected to extend the CM2 franchise. These are the types of choices that small software companies make all the time. Do they stay small and provide a decent living or do they go for the home run. Some companies are humble enough to stick with non-radical paths and some try to leverage the success they have into a home run. Something BFC has been lacking lately is the humble trait. They had a captive audience that would have bought (and many did) anything they developed. They squandered that to the point that they have to bet the bank on CMN.

I also think there are very few options open to them right now. They really failed to capture the mainstream market, as well as alienated a portion of their original market. Trying to use CMN to get back as much of their original market as they can seems to be their only option. That is also why I am very skeptical we will see the CMSF NATO module. I would think it would be all hands on deck for CMN.

 

[dalem]

By that measuring stick nobody plays or has played CMx1 either. Ask any Call of Duty player.

Yes of course. That is clearly what I was implying, no doubt about it.

-dale

 

[Elvis]

I can think of a few places to start the "is CMSF a failure or success" Unfortunately, I do not think that answers can be found by anyone other than BFC.
1. Units CMSF sold to date?
1a. units CMSF Marines sold to date?
1b. units Brit module for CMSF sold to date?
2. Units CMBO sold to date?
3. units CMBB sold to date?
4. units CMAK sold to date?
5. Profits generated for BFC from sales of CMSF+modules (this can be broken down to separate components, too)?

Yeah. My gut tells me that that type of success/failure is fairly easy to surmise. By all accounts the Paradox deal ended with the release of CMSF (none of the modules were released through Paradox so it is fairly safe to assume that). So the bulk of what has sustained BFC since let's say the fall of 2007 (that is when we saw Paradox copies appearing in bargain bins, correct?) has been their own sales and the sales of the modules. At about $25 per copy how many copies would have to be sold to sustain a business and pay it's empolyees? Even a staff of 5 or 6 or whatever it is that they currently have? A thousand copies of each module is $50,000. That doesn't seem like enough to sustain a company for 2 1/2 years. 10,000 copies for $500,000 doesn't even sound like enough. That is a total of $200,000 per year. 20,000 copies gives you a million buck and $400,000 per year. Even that sound barely sustainable but add in extra income from other titles and some additional CMx1 and you could probably stay afloat with that. Nobody is buying any new pimp mobiles or drapping themslves with bling but you can probably cover the bill and feed the family...maybe even squeeze in a Disney vacation. Personally I would bet the dog and ranch it is many more than that but since we will never know and I am speculating guessing on the conserative side is fine. The alternative with be they didn't sell that many and have to take out a small business loan. To get that they would need to open the books and show the bank that they can reasonably be expected to be paid back.

 

[Elvis]

Yes of course. That is clearly what I was implying, no doubt about it.

-dale

Well, as others have already said for me, using hyperbole is okay when you're not talking about math