Battlefront Admits CMSF Released Before It Was Ready

[KG_Jag]

From the Battlefront forum:

"ham_v2.0,


quote: Why was it put out now, what happened to "it's done when it's done" ? I've answered this before, directly, but it is not surprising that you didn't see it. There are a lot of posts to go through http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/biggrin.gif

We tried our first ever simultaneous release with retail. We signed the deal almost a year before we actually released. Despite working 7 days a week, 12-18 hours a day over the last year (yup... fun way to live) we hit our first release deadline and the game wasn't ready. We managed to delay it a month and it still wasn't ready. At this point we delayed it another month, but that was all our contract allowed. So the game was pressed onto CDs an we kept working as if it hadn't been. Another month went by and we released v1.01 to conincide with the release of Paradox's retail version (which was prematurely, and in some cases illegally, sold to customers). And even v1.01 wasn't as strong as we wanted it to be, so we didn't slacken up the pace and two weeks later released v1.02. Now we are working on v1.03 without letting up and taking a break.

Do we blame Paradox for the release being the way it was? Not at all. We take full responsibility. We wanted too many things in the game and didn't allow enough time for it. Contrary to some of the accusations floating around here, we once again put too much into CM. We should have scaled the design WAY back and released after 2 years of 7 day a week development instead of 3 years. Of course, I can only imagine the reaction that would have received http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/biggrin.gif

Steve"

Here's the link:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002498;p=6

[KG_AGCent]

Its unfortunate that this has happened. I am, however, heartened to see BFC still acting in the best faith they can under the given circumstances. I DO trust that they will correct the things that need to be corrected in the very near future and that subsequent releases will be flawless from a technical standpoint leaving only penetration ratings and ammo load-out to bitch about.

[Palantir]

What I posted at GS-

think the story here is: that honesty would have been the best policy.

Just come out & tell your potential customers that:
1. We want so much "cool stuff" in this game that it will take longer than we ever anticipated.
2. We are honestly working our butts off 18 hrs a day trying to get this completed for you.
3. Sorry but we've legally run out of development time & have to send it out the door as is.
4. We will be hurrying out multipile patches to correct any bugs ASAP, please bear with us.

Why do they think that wargame customers are unable to understand simple facts & logic?

But still the question on everyones mind is America vs Syria? Why not West vs East at least?

[KG_Jag]

Some of the things about the CM x 2 engine (not just CMSF) that cause me concern:

1. WEGO is the way I want to play at least the lion's share of my games. Is this core feature of CM x 1 just a second rate feature of CM x 2? Will PBEM be reasonably possible given this issue and what are reported to be 14 mb files?

2. Will the Tac AI and pathfinding be fixed at least to the level accomplished in CM x 1, which by itself leaves something to be desired?

3. What is this problem about unseen terrain features affecting gameplay? This almost has to be fixed to make this game something other than frustrating.

4. Has Battlefront's very premature release hurt it so much that it will not exist long enough to issue the promised WW II game using CM x 2? I fear that poor or even merely mediocre sales of CMSF my cause them significant financial problems, escpecially if no military contrats are landed. It is my read that they bet the farm on CMSF and CM x 2. Further if CM x 2 turns out to be only a so-so engine for modeling your favorite periods of combat, will BF survive?

5. E-licensing--I don't like it and especially don't like it in light of "4" above.

I sure hope that at least most of these things will amount to next to nothing. But only time--and many more patches to CMSF for a start--will tell.

[KG_AGCent]

And when all those little pet peeves of yours are worked out, will you pry open that leaf-spring loaded wallet of yours and buy a copy to support the company responsible for the past 7 years enjoyment you have recieved?

[KG_Jag]

If they are all resolved, including and least likely to happen--the elimination of the e-licensing and the replacement of it with something like the serial number system used by Matrix, I will buy a copy.

Given my lack of love for the subject matter, that's a big step--even with all the "ifs".

BTW I won't feel too guilty if I don't buy CMSF, as I have bought an average of at least three copies of each of the CM x 1 games. I assert that is enough buy-just-to-support BF to last for a very long time.

[KG_Soldier]

I've tried both demos and can honestly say I won't spend a dime on CM:SF or any modules that come out. My opinion is that it's a company level game at best and will not be a good engine for WWII modules.

[KG_AGCent]

Bill... that has got to be one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

[KG_Soldier]

On the other hand, on a squad-sized scale, I think the engine may have some promise. But I'm sorry, I'll give up one-to-one modeling for more realistic maps any day. The maps, at least the one in the demo, looks like a joke compared to CMBB or CMAK maps. Maybe the city maps in the game are ok. I don't know. F#$@ CM:SF

Maybe CM:Band of Heroes?

[KG_SSpoom]

I think Mark that if we got the game to play smoothly you would enjoy multiplayer.
There are a few things that need fixing, some are big most are rare and small.
This game and the modules and theatres that follow it are going to be some of the best
Small scale wargames we may ever see. No we arent going to be able to play real time battles the size of CMBB/AK but you should eventually be able to do them pbem.
And Im not too sure I understand what Bill is talking about "E-Licencing"

[Palantir]

... will you pry open that leaf-spring loaded wallet of yours and buy a copy to support the company responsible for the past 7 years enjoyment you have recieved?
That reply just makes NO sense at all.

By that logic if BFC put out a "My little Pony" game you'd be telling everyone to buy a copy just to thank the company for putting out an awesome game series years ago!

BFC knew that a huge number of their "loyal" customers didn't want a "modern" USA vs Syria game, or a nearly RTS system. So why would they buy it after telling BFC they wouldn't buy it before hand?

I bought all 3 of their CMx1 games and that is all I should have to buy of the games they make that I LIKE. If any company puts out a bad game I won't buy it no matter how great their past games were.

I loved the EA-NCAA Football games but haven't bought a new one since '04. Each new relesed version had junk in them I didn't like and the A.I. defense still hasn't been improved & couldn't win a game without "cheating." (can you say turning over the ball 7 straight times on offense!) Heck I've seen my 13 year old play 5 minute quarters in the 07 version and rack up nearly 100 pts on offense (used copy btw). The game has "oooo so cool stuff" in it but the game play sucks- why would I shell out $60 for it just because I liked a game 4 yrs ago?

They make big "customer" design mistakes- they pay the price, not me.

[KG_Swampfox]

And when all those little pet peeves of yours are worked out, will you pry open that leaf-spring loaded wallet of yours and buy a copy to support the company responsible for the past 7 years enjoyment you have recieved?

I for one bought CMBB and CMAK rather than use stolen versions TO SUPPORT THE COMPANY RESPONSIBLE for there creation. I will not support said company when they have left the loyal customer base that bought and enjoyed those games which were ground breaking when released, CMBB/CMAK.

[KG_SSpoom]

I dont think it should be about "Supporting BFC"
If you think this game is for you or may be for you then
get the demo and try it. Then decide.If you are on the fence or Interested in future
versions of CM you should also try the demo. Dont waste your time if
your pc isnt up to snuff because you will be let down. Dont think the A.I. is going to give
you a good fight because they still dont,If you want a challenge find a human.
If you dont feel this game is for you dont should feel "Let down" by BFC.
They were pretty open about where and how they were taking "Their"
CM franchise. I would love to see CMBO brought up to AK specs but beyond
that (well there could be some add ons to AK/BB/BO) to address special theatres.
But it seems that the game is changing.
For the better maybe.....I think it may well be.
For the worse Sure....if you want the game/gameplay we CURRENTLY have.
For quite a while I have heard people say of CM "We need 1 to1 soldiers"
CMSF has it, plus other things like "relative spotting".WEGO still exists,troops being able to re-supply was another thing I remember and PBEM must stay was another...CMSF still has it albeit we would need to
work around the large file size somehow.
I have bought a couple of titles through BFC that werent up to par.
I didnt rip on them I just let anyone who was Interested in them that I had them and what I thought of them.
If this game isnt our niche I dont see how anyone can be blamed but ourselves for putting
unrealistic expectations on a game, even though we were warned otherwise.

[KG_Kharkov]

I agree with Palantir. This the USA, the home of survival of the fittest capitalism, not the USSR and home of state supported industry.

If BFC puts out garbage, I'm not going to buy it. They aren't a charity. Why reward them for producing crap or something that doesn't meet your demand. I pay for quality.

Like Palantir, I've had the exact same experience with other game developers and EA is a perfect example. I think NCAA 'O4 was the last college game I bought although I love college football. You dont' get my money simply because you published something in a genre that interests me and may or may not publish something good in the future.

Companies should pay a price for negotiating bad distribution arrangements and releasing incomplete products on the market.

These guys heard about the demand for a product -- WW2 -- and rejected it and went a different route. I'll hardly support that attitude.

Reminds me of the wife who gets beaten up and then forgives all when the husband provides flowers and promises not to do it again.

[KG_AGCent]

I said nothing about buying simply to support the company. To do that is silliness. I asked Jag that if the kinks causing his concern were worked out, would he buy. Nothing more. Nothing less. Get it right.

[KG_Kharkov]

I'm sorry. I think most of us couldn't get past the jab at Jag's thriftiness and the following: "And when all those little pet peeves of yours are worked out, will you pry open that leaf-spring loaded wallet of yours and buy a copy to support the company responsible for the past 7 years enjoyment you have recieved?"

Maybe we got distracted by the "pet peeves" and the "springloaded wallet" comments before we read "support the company responsible for the past 7 years enjoyment you have received."

But I don't Hablo Ingles very well . . . .

[KG_Swampfox]

I said nothing about buying simply to support the company. To do that is silliness. I asked Jag that if the kinks causing his concern were worked out, would he buy. Nothing more. Nothing less. Get it right.

Well, Actually you did. Your grouping issues with the bugs and pet peeves in the new game engine with 7 years of past enjoyment with a quality product..........