You've lost a lot of sales due to the high price.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

EA have compilations of 3 to 5 games that cost that much. Need For Speed collection, Harry Potter, Lords of the rings etc... yes you heard it, 4 or 5 games for 40 $.

All of which needed no further development work at all, and any profit on the re-release or budget additions is just a nice additional extra. Matrix isn't EA and Close Combat isn't Need for Speed; the nature of the market is totally different. Sure, we can debate price on occasion and sometime Matrix might get it wrong, but overall that's something wargamers have to live with. Personally, I've never had any problem with Matrix pricing and value for money with one exception - the second Matrix Starshatter release; I still regret not choosing the W@W upgrade instead (it was one or the other at the time). But, such things happen not due to malice or greed but just simple misjudgement.

Advanced copy protection is a future or many companies will just shut the doors due to piracy.

Again, depends on the market. I really do wonder how many actual sales of Distant Guns would have been lost if they had used the Matrix system; my guess is single figures. No doubt several thousand would download via Torrent and such, the same people who download most new games they can find that way but how many of them would have actually bought it? The Matrix system requires a valid serial to patch a game, and any in pirate circulation get picked up. Even dishonest wargamers are fussy buggers and the handful who may have pirated in the first place would probably buy the game concerned just so they can patch it.

That's not true in the same way for mainstream RTS or FPS stuff, obviously, but in the long term I think those markets on PC will become pretty much extinct anyway, and not (primarily) as a result of piracy. You also need to take into consideration that some disk-based and download activation systems have caused a great many problems for a great many people. That loses sales.

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Shaun Wallace

Muzrub, being a mod does not preculde being human.

I have posted reasonably, sensibly and pointed out exactly what CC CoI was and meant to be and what CC6 will be. There is a point at which you know viscerally that reason is not working, but you feel the need to explain further. MB had some valid points and these have been awnswerd, not just by me but many others. Oleg when stating that "does not deserve to break even" and the endless posting of the same things is being sensible I take it? he is being an impartial reviewer?

Sulla

You must know one thing about Oleg, he is a graphic whore [:D]

We are all sometimes a graphic whores but I put the game in context of the times that I played it.

I cannot play C-64 games on emulator. But if I buy C-64 and load Archon I am sure that same emotion will be in me - that of seeing a real masterpiece! A note - new Archon is in the making by Free Fall, people rejoice lol

Thank you for telling me that some of my points were valid, you are gentlemen.

I don't think that you deserve to fail or not break even, but just will fight for my principles as price is for me a very vital segment of finished product.


Mario

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

CC3 91% (3 pgs.); CC4 82%; CC5 90% (2 pgs.), EYSA 64%, CoI 65%

Whoa! A pattern emerges again.... [:D]

Only one of inconsistency. How can any reviewer that would score CC3 26% higher than a game that everybody (except, seemingly you) acknowledges is superior to the original release expect to have any credibility at all? Even the 'age' argument doesn't cut it - the only thing that is relevant there is graphics and they couldn't have changed those significantly further (i.e to a modern 3D engine or such) without it no longer being Close Combat.

[Shaun Wallace]

Ok,

I give up O. Your comments are inconsistent and whether you believe me about CC6 is simply up to you. You like everyone else have an opinion and I will let that be the judge of what we are doing with CC6. I KNOW its going to be a huge move forward for CC. Come back to me when its released and "then" critique it! Many in the community seem to know where CC:CoI was coming from and where we are going with CC6. Its not hard to track.

You ridicule attempts to make a 3D version of CC, but bemoan the fact that its sprite based as is? Snr Drill has give some very good areas that are already done in CC6 and these are way apart from traditional CC. Many of these are actually completed and already in use by the USMC.

Oh and just in case you are still unsure, CC: CoI is a re-release [X(]

Sulla

[Monkeys Brain]

All of which needed no further development work at all, and any profit on the re-release or budget additions is just a nice additional extra. Matrix isn't EA and Close Combat isn't Need for Speed; the nature of the market is totally different. Sure, we can debate price on occasion and sometime Matrix might get it wrong, but overall that's something wargamers have to live with. Personally, I've never had any problem with Matrix pricing and value for money with one exception - the second Matrix Starshatter release; I still regret not choosing the W@W upgrade instead (it was one or the other at the time). But, such things happen not due to malice or greed but just simple misjudgement.

OK, all very valid points. But some wargamers will be pissed off in year or two when they will pay 40$ for every remake Matrix release on the market.
And people love to see the sweat of developers. As CoI graphics is
same like 1997. game there is no sweat to be seen there. So some will not so easily part with their money. They need extra motive and that is lower price. Or they will end up buying other game.
Truth is sometimes hard to accept. And you cannot just impose your will to everyone just like that. Hitler tried...

Again, depends on the market. I really do wonder how many actual sales of Distant Guns would have been lost if they had used the Matrix system; my guess is single figures. No doubt several thousand would download via Torrent and such, the same people who download most new games they can find that way but how many of them would have actually bought it? The Matrix system requires a valid serial to patch a game, and any in pirate circulation get picked up. Even dishonest wargamers are fussy buggers and the handful who may have pirated in the first place would probably buy the game concerned just so they can patch it.

That's not true in the same way for mainstream RTS or FPS stuff, obviously, but in the long term I think those markets on PC will become pretty much extinct anyway, and not (primarily) as a result of piracy. You also need to take into consideration that some disk-based and download activation systems have caused a great many problems for a great many people. That loses sales.

Also all very valid points.

I don't have anything against Matrix copy protection, Shrapnel also uses the same.

But, you forget one thing. Distant Guns maybe have pain in the ass copy protection but playing it 2-3 years I will get many hours of enjoyment. Look at the flow of release of good games, we gamers have the money more or less but don't have the time to play it!

So those bozos at Usenet think that they will live forever so need to own the damn game. Sure after you end up dead you will need that game be free of any copy protection. Damn.

In 2-3 years there would be 20 games you want to play and you will not have time to play anymore Distant Guns. There would be IVAN (real TOAW 3) or Distant Guns: Jutland or something else.


Mario

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

OK, all very valid points. But some wargamers will be pissed off in year or two when they will pay 40$ for every remake Matrix release on the market.

But, as keeps being said, there is no obligation to buy. I've bought the TOAW and CC releases as I judged they offered enough to justify doing so, but I won't be buying the Talonsoft re-releases (except BoB/BtR, which I've never played) as the reverse is true. I would still happily recommend the Campaign Series to those who haven't played them. Those who think the re-releases are over-priced can just ignore the fact they exist.

In 2-3 years there would be 20 games you want to play and you will not have time to play anymore Distant Guns. There would be IVAN (real TOAW 3) or Distant Guns: Jutland or something else.

Fair point, but perhaps less justified in the case of wargames than other genres. Those you really like stay on your hard drive for years... large numbers of current players will still be playing WitP five years from now and some folks have been regular, if not actually obsessive TOAW or CC players for a decade.

[Monkeys Brain]

But, as keeps being said, there is no obligation to buy. I've bought the TOAW and CC releases as I judged they offered enough to justify doing so, but I won't be buying the Talonsoft re-releases (except BoB/BtR, which I've never played) as the reverse is true. I would still happily recommend the Campaign Series to those who haven't played them. Those who think the re-releases are over-priced can just ignore the fact they exist.

Again fair point but human psychology is strange thing lol If they have priced it at 30 $ they would end up with more cash than with this model. I am sure of that. With this model only hardcore fans and few non seeing players will buy it. So less money in the end.

In 2-3 years there would be 20 games you want to play and you will not have time to play anymore Distant Guns. There would be IVAN (real TOAW 3) or Distant Guns: Jutland or something else.

Fair point, but perhaps less justified in the case of wargames than other genres. Those you really like stay on your hard drive for years... large numbers of current players will still be playing WitP five years from now and some folks have been regular, if not actually obsessive TOAW or CC players for a decade.
[/quote]


And I don't think that Jim Rose and Norm Koger are not man of honour as some think. The man made best wargame ever for christ sake so I should not trust him when he said that you will get patch that removes a copy protection if they went boom? Even your grandchildren will have the chance to play it.

Only most malicious and evil men can wish harm to Norm Koger!
They are not wargamers but bozos without brain. And did they make TOAW to put a crap like that out of their mouth?
So in the end Distant Guns is just a little bit annoying that's all. But still will not make mess like Starforce for example to some.

I am obsessive player of TOAW COW myself hehe. Of course will buy TOAW 3 but not before for example McBride put some really great scenario for TOAW 3. I am fan of his work. Or new FiTE for TOAW 3 would be a bait. For now, I don't have the reason to switch.
I play The Great War 2.0 on COW and even have write superb AAR on Gamesquads forum hehe. Read it, it is fun...

more when I comeback in a 3-4 hours must do something



Mario

[VicKevlar]

I swear................I never thought it possible that people would be complaining about CC coming back. Never would have believed it had somebody even broached the subject. It had reached the point where any new release of a game that even vaguely resembled CC on any level was resoundly hacked and torn apart for not measuring up to the one and only CC. People pined for the original(s) or new CC to come out....................No we have it and I see utterly dipshit statements like this:

My main problem with CC is that certain group of people got hold of code for this cult game(s) and many months after they got the code they still haven't done anything visible with what they got. We are still waiting for something substantial to happen, and there is nothing on the horizon (except some empty promises). Apparently, we will have to wait many months perhaps even years before we really see something NEW going on here, and I find that very disappointing.

As noted earlier, CSOSimtek has worked on NUMEROUS versions of CC that you have obviously never seen such as CCM2, CCM3, CCM4, CC-BritAB, etc; and if ya even made an attempt to look around you would have seen the CC stuff with civvies, etc; But nope....I guess it's a helluva lot easier to make unsupported carte blanche statements instead of doing any any bit of research. Talk about an assclown. [8|]

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Hertston
Only one of inconsistency. How can any reviewer that would score CC3 26% higher than a game that everybody (except, seemingly you) acknowledges is superior to the original release expect to have any credibility at all? Even the 'age' argument doesn't cut it - the only thing that is relevant there is graphics and they couldn't have changed those significantly further (i.e to a modern 3D engine or such) without it no longer being Close Combat.

Age is a factor of course. The world to which CC CoI is released is *vastly* different to a world of CC3 back in 1998. In the meantime we've seen solid, or even revolutionary games such as.... well, no need to list half a dozen obvious names here (many of them were released by Matrix).

In my mind 100% is a score reserved for some imaginary "best possible game in a given genre with today's technology, knowledge and art". "Best possible wet dream game" of 2007. is, presumably, vastly superior to "best possible wet dream game" of 1998. In other words CC3 was FAR closer to "dream game" of '98 than CoI is to "dream game" of 2007.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: VicKevlar
As noted earlier, CSOSimtek has worked on NUMEROUS versions of CC that you have obviously never seen such as CCM2, CCM3, CCM4, CC-BritAB, etc;

Not released to public => thus completely irrelevant. We're discussing commercially available wargames here.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

From Post #78 in this thread:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

As I don't like discussion that are moving into circles and especially when strong arguments are just jumped over or ignored I say cheers and move on.

So, cheers.


Mario

You've posted six or seven times since your farewell to the topic. Which end of the circle can you not negotiate?

PoE

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

As a moderator should you be making smart arse remarks?

As moderator, what he ought to do is close the thread.

PoE

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Not released to public => thus completely irrelevant. We're discussing commercially available wargames here.

You are changing your argument halfway through. Your point was that no development had been done on the code, not whether it was released to the public or not. It is the fact that it hasn't been that is irrelevant in that context. The work that has been done will presumably be available for incorporation in future civvie versions as appropriate.

Age is a factor of course. The world to which CC CoI is released is *vastly* different to a world of CC3 back in 1998. In the meantime we've seen solid, or even revolutionary games such as.... well, no need to list half a dozen obvious names here (many of them were released by Matrix).

But the whole point is that people didn't want a revolutionary game, they wanted Close Combat. You can hardly score it down because they gave the public what it wanted not what you think they should have wanted. Aside from which, I don't see professional reviewers knocking 25% of every new, good RTS, FPS or MMORPG release just because we've seen most of what they have to offer before.

In my mind 100% is a score reserved for some imaginary "best possible game in a given genre with today's technology, knowledge and art". "Best possible wet dream game" of 2007. is, presumably, vastly superior to "best possible wet dream game" of 1998. In other words CC3 was FAR closer to "dream game" of '98 than CoI is to "dream game" of 2007.

In that case, if you were consistent, games like Battlefront and the Decisive Battles of WW2 and Airborne Assault series could never score over 70% either. They approach 2007's best technoogy, knowledge and art no more than CC:CoI does (except, possibly, a little AI development).

[old man of the sea]

ORIGINAL: schrecken

I'm a LOSER.

Is your daughter still with you after you tossed out the TV?

Yep, still have the internet.

e

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Hertston
You are changing your argument halfway through. Your point was that no development had been done on the code, not whether it was released to the public or not.

Hair-splitting. No development that public at large can see, buy and judge. Anything else is irrelevant because we can't see, nor we should be interested at all, in CSO work for military customers (I for one am not even interested, why should I be?).

You can hardly score it down because they gave the public what it wanted not what you think they should have wanted. Aside from which, I don't see professional reviewers knocking 25% of every new, good RTS, FPS or MMORPG release just because we've seen most of what they have to offer before.

Reviewers routinely knock 5-20% off blatant copies, copypaste sequels and totally un-inventive titles. Go one step further and try doing 1:1 re-release of 8 year old game and you'll see up to 30% knocked off of it, or being completely ignored, on the grounds that there is nothing new to review at all.

In that case, if you were consistent, games like Battlefront and the Decisive Battles of WW2 and Airborne Assault series could never score over 70% either. They approach 2007's best technoogy, knowledge and art no more than CC:CoI does (except, possibly, a little AI development).

Oh I think they do, at least some of them do. I have never been a huge fan of Decisive Battles series so I kinda agree there.

In general I agree with what you say. COTA scored less than HTTR did in my book, even though there were some significant developments to the main engine in between the two, and unless some significant imrpovements are forthcoming the next game will score even less (but still pretty high, because the main engine is not that old or in need of updating, and is still on the bleeding edge of today's wargaming "technology"). Take UI for example. COTA UI is almost perfect wargaming UI for today's standards, while CoI UI is simply atrocious for today's standards and completely ignores any UI developments we have been witnessing past 8 years or so (zooming anyone?).

I wouldn't change one single thing on COTA UI *NOW*, but perhaps in 2015. I will consider COTA UI ancient and very bad. I hope I will, and I hope COTA successors will be up to par by then.

Also, game series that apply the same engine on new battles and campaigns each time may, and will, be blamed for "cookie cutter" approach, but that's different sort of blame from what we discuss here. I think it's fair to say ALL wargame developers and all game developers in general use "cookie cutter" approach to a degree. Cookie cutter-ing new campaigns from the old engine is not the same as re-releasing 8 year old code, 8 year old UI, and saying "oh we did some real work, trust us, it's just not for you guys".

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

From Post #78 in this thread:

ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain

As I don't like discussion that are moving into circles and especially when strong arguments are just jumped over or ignored I say cheers and move on.

So, cheers.


Mario

You've posted six or seven times since your farewell to the topic. Which end of the circle can you not negotiate?

PoE

We must reach an end of discussion. So that sheep are on the numbers and that wolf has eaten. lol

In the distance I see a happy end to this thread so hang on a little while [;)]


Mario

[Monkeys Brain]

[/quote]
As moderator, what he ought to do is close the thread.

PoE
[/quote]


Why? We are having a great fun lol

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Hair-splitting. No development that public at large can see, buy and judge. Anything else is irrelevant because we can't see, nor we should be interested at all, in CSO work for military customers (I for one am not even interested, why should I be?).

Glib, but untrue; it's far from 'hair-splitting'. Your whole point was that development work was not being done. It has been. As with several other such games/simulations that work gets reflected in the civvy versions when they appear. If you simply don't believe anything has been done, or what the Simtek guys say, that's your prerogative of course, but I'm not quite sure what you actually expect. I see no more reason to disbelieve them than anybody else - there are signs in this industry when something has gone into effective limbo and Simtek is showing none of them. CC6 will arrive, or it won't, same as any other game under development.

Reviewers routinely knock 5-20% off blatant copies, copypaste sequels and totally un-inventive titles. Go one step further and try doing 1:1 re-release of 8 year old game and you'll see up to 30% knocked off of it, or being completely ignored, on the grounds that there is nothing new to review at all.

'Ignored' I can understand, but please point me in the direction of where I can see a re-released 8 year old game reviewed on that basis?

CoI UI is simply atrocious for today's standards and completely ignores any UI developments we have been witnessing past 8 years or so (zooming anyone?).

In what way is it 'atrocious'? It lets you do exactly what you need to do quickly and easily, as it always did. Please point me to the hordes of forum posts demanding that this 'atrocious' UI be improved? You can learn to play the game in five minutes. So you can't zoom? Whoopie-doo; it's not as if you want/need to unless you insist on running it in one of the higher resolutions that CC3 didn't support anyway.

I have never been a huge fan of Decisive Battles series so I kinda agree there.

So basically it just comes down to whether you are a 'fan' or not whether you lob off 30% or not?

[David Heath]

Hi Guys

Look I do not mind these debates but I want the tone to be a little nicer. 

Hi Mario / Monkey Brain (Love your handle) You simple post the same issues over and over and over and over and over... get the point.  You  done this on other forums and I do not want that to start here.  Post it once give it out of your system and drop it. 

Hi Oleg - I Don't alway agree with you but you normally conduct yourself in a good manner.  I understand you do not like how we are re-releasing some of our games but that is the way we are doing it. 

So everyone please take a step back and lets not turn this into a bigger issue then it needs to be.

[vonB]

As I recall in just about every (if not every?) Bulletin that was put out about CoI, both before and during release, it was declared that CoI is a re-release of CC3.  For some this seems to be a difficult concept to grasp judging by some of the posts.  I suppose it could be criticised for not being a true re-release, as it is not 100% compatible with CC3 (you can't multiplayer CoI and CC3 together, and it wouldn't be worth the effort to try IMO).
 
As to value added, I would say that you get a load more bang for your buck with CoI than you get with CC3.  Perhaps CC3 Gold or CC3 Plus would work well as descriptions, and I would say that the title "Cross of iron" could be a bit misleading, as it has such strong associations with the book and the film, and there is no particular consideration in CoI to the themes or content of the book/film.  But it's catchy, and I am even thinking about changing my Commander name since CC2 ("vonB") to "Steiner" in homage ... but then maybe not...   Steiner epitomises the anti-hero who is exactly the sort of guy I would want on my side in scrape...
 
As to value for money, everything is relative.  I thought I would tot up the ppm (pleasure per minute) that CC gives me against other common activities.  CC comes in about £0.001/minute with 99% pleasure, still playing nearly 10 years on and no intention of stopping.
 
Then I compare it with a night on the town.  That can make £50~100 dissappear (mostly down the toilet - talk about pissing money away...) and we won't talk about what can come out of the other orifices! 50% pleasure and 50% pain at best, and being able to lose control and make a fool of yourself is a bonus?  ppm around £0.1/minute.  About 100 times less satisfying, and getting worse the more I play CC.
 
Or a ticket to a sports match, cinema, meal out, a few video rentals...
 
If you want to get your game for the same price as a days groceries, then I can't see how moaning about it in these Forums can help you achieve anything?
 
Now, there have been many good posts declaring the inadequacies of CoI, and the producers would be wise to keep these issues on the agenda for subsequent releases. As to whether they are an issue in a 're-release'?  I would say that CC3 still stand up on it's own unchanged (though the tech compatibility upgrade I would say was essential).  You don't need CoI to get the classic CC game.  They are there in both.  You pays your money and you takes your choice.