4.6.272 feedback.

[budd]

And I think that we should cater better for content development, maybe by creating an open - but structured - system of incentives and rewards that allows us to "outsource" most of the content development to the community. This might cause content and engine to go slightly out of sync - as is perhaps the case with the Eastern Front scenarios made by Chris (CaptHillrat) who has indeed overtaken the engine in term of features.

I think once CO1 is signed off on outsourcing content development to those willing to spend time making quality content is something i would be interesting in purchasing. While CO2 is being worked on there are many places CO1 could still go with outsourced material. I'd be fine with CO1 & CO2 being separate entities entirely with new content for both engines. hopefully that would go a long ways to keep the franchise viable.It seems a shame after all the work just to let CO1 wither with no new content at all.

[Arjuna]

Part of the problem here budd is peoples time and commitment. We all lead busy lives and have different amounts of free time. Many might be able to dabble and pit out one or two scenarios but few would have the time and willingness to put say 15 scenarios required for a data pack. One option we have discussed to this end would be for us to host a site where individuals from the community could offer their scenarios for sale and they could be sold individually for a few bucks each. That may encourage others in the community to put in the effort without having to make the big commitment for a full blown data pack.

[Phoenix100]

Whether or not Dave gets a decent salary out of it is a question only he can answer, Miguel. I'm guessing, just from looking at the quantity and composition of activity in this forum (as compared to others, on the Matrix site and elsewhere)that at some level you could easily judge that this project has 'failed economically' (again, compared to how others do). I struggle to understand why something like WITE appears to be more economically successful, or why CO can't have a community at least as vibrant, numerous and ready to shell-out as, say, CMANO. It totally baffles me. But I don't think - and it's a hunch - that any amount of pimping-up the presentation etc is what's at issue. There are enough users and enough word-of-mouth-style publicity to have got this thing going in a bigger way if it was going to happen, I think. The wider wargaming community is small enough for anyone interested in finding this kind of game to find CO very quickly with only a little searching. I don't even think that turning over, in some way, content generation to the community will make much difference, even if they're paid for it. Because how much people are paid depends on the volume and I can't see (again, judging from numbers of downloads of scenarios in this forum)that any scenario is going to make any designer enough money to help them make the decision as to whether to put the effort into it in the first place. I'm convinced that most people do scenarios for love, not money, and I'm pretty convinced that that's what drives Panther too (though ultimately, without money there's no love, no nothing - at least, not for long). My feeling is a gloomy one - that the product doesn't appeal to the tastes of the core of computer users, that it appeals to older people. The whole history of software game development, I think, (and it's all taken place in my lifetime, over the last thirty years, so I've seen and lived and played it all)is a sad story of dumbing down content in favour of cheap thrills. There remain exceptions, like Command Ops, but they are remorselessly withering on the vine. A couple of simulation grade flight sims that have financial success only appear to kick this trend, because a flight sim is inherently graphics-rich and even the most complicated true-to-life iterations deliver nothing but cheap thrills at the end of the day (you fly and shoot....they're complex FPS games, basically). I think if the game can ever only be continued because it delivers a certain number of people a decent salary then it's doomed. I hope Dave has other sources of income. He's an artist. He's devised and produced a work of art, something quite unique. But like the vast majority of artists, he's always going to struggle to make money out of it.

[wodin]

Also remember Phoenix no new theatre for four years nearly..and three releases of Market garden and two releases of the COTA scenarios wont bring in new customers. CMANO is a sandbox so caters for a big audience and is still relatively new and Monster East front games have always been popular with wargamers. However GGWITE may have alot of forum activity but it is mainly just a select few who are posting..same with WITPAE. I do feel the problem is lack of new content. I reckon the East front game will really liven the series and forum up.

Looking at the big picture I don't think the game has been a economic failure.. otherwise Slitherine would have dropped it. As for making a living making wargames..only the very lucky can do that. The great developers make the money through military contracts and do this as a hobby more than anything.

Hopefully once BFTB is finally put to bed and CO2 hits the shelves we will see lot more content more regularly..as I think Panther have a few teams working on different projects.

I'm not as pessimistic as you are mate. CO still has a very high post count compared to most games here.

[Phoenix100]

Maybe you're right, Jason. But if more content is continually needed - an addictive kind of thing? - then that would be a way that Dave would have to adjust to match market demands (by prioritising content over engine perfection, say) and that in itself might make it not worth the candle for him, because it's only because he has done what he wanted to do in the first place (focussed on the engine rather than iterating content fixes for the content-hungry over the last four years) that we have been given a game like no other - the only game out there with a proper attempt at a functioning AI, and to do that (still) requires, as we see, continual tinkering and adjustment, naturally at the expense of taking it further in the content department. For myself, I still have masses of content to get through in what's available now (and I've had each game and pack since day 1, more or less) - because they're all so replayable that there are still scenarios I haven't even touched! But I do look forward, like you, to the East Front game now. And I hope you're right that it will generate more interest and buyers.

But even so I would think that if Dave wanted to make a game that earned him a 'decent' salary then he should be thinking about putting his talents into a senseless, stupid FPS that was just like all the other idiotic FPS games out there.

Yeah...I'm pessimistic....lol...

Peter

[Werewolf13]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Part of the problem here budd is peoples time and commitment. We all lead busy lives and have different amounts of free time. Many might be able to dabble and pit out one or two scenarios but few would have the time and willingness to put say 15 scenarios required for a data pack. One option we have discussed to this end would be for us to host a site where individuals from the community could offer their scenarios for sale and they could be sold individually for a few bucks each. That may encourage others in the community to put in the effort without having to make the big commitment for a full blown data pack.

Has that bisiness model been tried before? If not its definitely worth a try. I for one would contribute and as a long time scenario designer for many games that offer that capability just for my own edification and pleasure would welcome the feedback via folks voting with their pocketbooks. Charge a buck or two. You keep 20% designer gets 80. I would imagine that those that are really really good at it - and they are out there - might possibly be able to earn a living doing it.

[Jafele]

The game is great, the AI is exceptional, realism is amazing. That´s ok. But what about graphics? Nowdays with the latest technology in computers, new wargamers (specially younger ones) claim for better graphics in games. A serious improvement in maps (ie 3D)would be essential to attract more people to Command Ops. Those used to read the map find it easy, but what about newbies? Yes, it must be expensive but in a long-term will be a wise decision, at least in my opinion.

[BletchleyGeek]

Guys, just keep the comments going.

Just a few answers to the comments made here:

[*] Command Ops is a Sandbox as well. The only thing is that we need to account for certain processes better (like getting minefields done once and for all, supporting more movement modes, and what we call 'mounted ops' and should bring about tank riders or allow to model stuff like amphibious or helicopter-borne operations). The Eastern Front scenarios Chris has been releasing, the Pacific Ops effort by Tim and Jim are proof of the flexibility of the engine. Besides the things we still don't model, we need to improve further the usability of our design tools, which I reckon are already far more stable and useable than anything out there.

[*] I do agree that the volume of sales of such scenarios isn't going to be spectacular, and indeed, at the end of the day it's something that will be done mostly out of love. The thing is that by increasing the diversity of scenarios we can only expect to increase the sales of the engine. I see many comments of the sort - oh it's a Market Garden game, oh it's a Bulge game - which are missing the point about what Command Ops is and can do. What we want to achieve here is to open up things, and let people work in what they're interested in, rather than slavishly subjected to a particular goal. And get some payment, if it's just symbolical.

[*] We do want to make deep changes in how the game is perceived and played. This involves overhauling the User Interface (which includes the graphics) of the game, integrating as much feedback as possible from the community. This also means we're going to try and have WEGO PBEM supported sooner than later.

[*] Regarding content: at the moment we have several maps covering diverse parts of the Eastern Ukraine, the Don Bend and the Don-Volga land bridge, at diverse stages of completion. We're like 30% done with the mapping of the AO of the Korsun operation (these maps cover more than 20,000 sqr. kms. kudos to Rick). And these are the projects that I am involved in most directly. But as Dave says, we can't do it all, guys.

[budd]

As i understand it the plan is to finish off CO1...done no more engine work. Get the addon packs upgraded to work with the latest CO1 and move on to CO2. There was talk about paying to upgrade once CO2 was out so the older products would work with the new CO2. I think Wodin is right there needs to be more content. Thats why i thought to just keep CO1 and CO2 serparate entities. As was discussed before about trying to keep older products current with each new engine doesn't seem like a good use of time[as much as i would appreciate it] even if you charged for it. I have no knowledge of this but its got to be quicker getting new content out on a set engine under going no changes than a constantly evolving one...right? Hey I don't no sh*t from shinola of your business and the only thing i have to offer is money to buy your products. I say sign off on CO1 and maybe, just maybe there is somebody somewhere that wants to make some content for it. when CO2 comes out i wouldn't spend the time redoing HTTR and Conquest of Aegean to work with the new engine...move on.
CO2 east front....CO3 the pacific.....CO4 Africa, maybe put out a pack or two for each engine the front covers and hopefully maybe there would be some user content system arrangement by then. I know..pie in the sky idea's ....there is that time factor[;)] and its all easier said then done.

I was stuck[in a good way] playing the original HTTR because i had an old computer for a long time. I couldn't believe the amount of changes that had taken place between that and BFTB...awesome. since that time there's just been BFTB and the upgrades of older products..need more. The complaints i read the most are the map graphics and that the game plays it self, i have no problem with either but then you already are going to get my money. With as much complaining as there is about AI in games it stumps me how people aren't drawn to this game. Yes the presentation could be better i'd like to see something like that annex G in the other thread, click on a numbered bubble and be taken to a screen with a little history screen with appropriate pictures and music and click from there to the briefing or something along those lines, but there is that time thing. I play games for fun and to mentally get away , when i can't get away and i've have great fun with your games....Thank You to all those envolved.

[wodin]

Blectchley..yes it's a sandbox but requires alot of time consuming work from the players to make use of it. Where as CMANO has a massive data base to create scenarios with. With CO you have to create a whole OOB and TOE from scratch.

As for graphics Battle Command does it right and is a perfect look for CO.

The demo vid is well worth watching

LINK

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Blectchley..yes it's a sandbox but requires alot of time consuming work from the players to make use of it. Where as CMANO has a massive data base to create scenarios with. With CO you have to create a whole OOB and TOE from scratch.

Jason, that's unfair, because the published estabs are quite extensive and provide quite good coverage of the German, British and American Army. That's just half the war. We just need to put out an 'official' Red Army estab, so people can fork it and use it as a guide to move it back and forth in time from the date we choose to model.

And we can't compare the complexity of a naval game OOB with that of a land war game (especially when in our case we're doing historical scenarios of which accurate OOB data can take some work to find and compile, and in the former most of the scenarios come from their designer's imagination). And in any case, nobody prevents you from creating totally fictional scenarios with Command Ops: like a GrossDeutschland vs. Hell on Wheels matchup, or Perturabo steampunk WW1-on-steroids stuff.

[wodin]

Not sure why it's unfair..as I don't think I said anything bad. All I'm saying is it is prob much easier for the player to make something in CMANO than CO2 and it covers a period for just after WW2 to the present day so that alone attracts lots of wargamers as your attracting people who have different historical and theatre\War interests. I know loads of work has gone into CO, your being to sensitive I think and totally taking my post the wrong way.

Anyway I will retreat out of here.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Not sure why it's unfair..as I don't think I said anything bad. All I'm saying is it is prob much easier for the player to make something in CMANO than CO2 and it covers a period for just after WW2 to the present day so that alone attracts lots of wargamers as your attracting people who have different historical and theatre\War interests. I know loads of work has gone into CO, your being to sensitive I think and totally taking my post the wrong way.

Anyway I will retreat out of here.

You didn't say anything "bad", I just find you were making an unfair comparison. That's all [:)]

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: **budd**
As i understand it the plan is to finish off CO1...done no more engine work. Get the addon packs upgraded to work with the latest CO1 and move on to CO2. There was talk about paying to upgrade once CO2 was out so the older products would work with the new CO2. I think Wodin is right there needs to be more content. Thats why i thought to just keep CO1 and CO2 serparate entities. As was discussed before about trying to keep older products current with each new engine doesn't seem like a good use of time[as much as i would appreciate it] even if you charged for it. I have no knowledge of this but its got to be quicker getting new content out on a set engine under going no changes than a constantly evolving one...right? Hey I don't no sh*t from shinola of your business and the only thing i have to offer is money to buy your products. I say sign off on CO1 and maybe, just maybe there is somebody somewhere that wants to make some content for it. when CO2 comes out i wouldn't spend the time redoing HTTR and Conquest of Aegean to work with the new engine...move on.
CO2 east front....CO3 the pacific.....CO4 Africa, maybe put out a pack or two for each engine the front covers and hopefully maybe there would be some user content system arrangement by then. I know..pie in the sky idea's ....there is that time factor[;)] and its all easier said then done.

By speaking out your mind, you're contributing something very valuable as well Budd.

The model you mention has indeed worked out quite well for others and it is like this:

1) Fix outstanding bugs
2) Add a little new feature to the UI (say, zooming with the middle button)
3) Prepare the "data" - OOB, maps, scenarios
4) Release a build of the engine, hamstrung so it can only work with this data
5) Change the splash screen, game icon is optional, increase numeral after name (or alternatively, figure out a new subtitle)
6) Put it for sale at price X (always the same price, no discounts)
7) Go back to 1)

Maybe there's no alternative to that [:(]

[budd]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: **budd**
As i understand it the plan is to finish off CO1...done no more engine work. Get the addon packs upgraded to work with the latest CO1 and move on to CO2. There was talk about paying to upgrade once CO2 was out so the older products would work with the new CO2. I think Wodin is right there needs to be more content. Thats why i thought to just keep CO1 and CO2 serparate entities. As was discussed before about trying to keep older products current with each new engine doesn't seem like a good use of time[as much as i would appreciate it] even if you charged for it. I have no knowledge of this but its got to be quicker getting new content out on a set engine under going no changes than a constantly evolving one...right? Hey I don't no sh*t from shinola of your business and the only thing i have to offer is money to buy your products. I say sign off on CO1 and maybe, just maybe there is somebody somewhere that wants to make some content for it. when CO2 comes out i wouldn't spend the time redoing HTTR and Conquest of Aegean to work with the new engine...move on.
CO2 east front....CO3 the pacific.....CO4 Africa, maybe put out a pack or two for each engine the front covers and hopefully maybe there would be some user content system arrangement by then. I know..pie in the sky idea's ....there is that time factor[;)] and its all easier said then done.

By speaking out your mind, you're contributing something very valuable as well Budd.

The model you mention has indeed worked out quite well for others and it is like this:

1) Fix outstanding bugs
2) Add a little new feature to the UI (say, zooming with the middle button)
3) Prepare the "data" - OOB, maps, scenarios
4) Release a build of the engine, hamstrung so it can only work with this data
5) Change the splash screen, game icon is optional, increase numeral after name (or alternatively, figure out a new subtitle)
6) Put it for sale at price X (always the same price, no discounts)
7) Go back to 1)

Maybe there's no alternative to that [:(]

Kinda sorta what i'm talking about but not quite.

1. SOP

2.No....i'm referring to a feature locked engine. which CO1 will soon be.

3. Yes sorta, I'm talking about the theater wide data and OOB's as much as you can cram in.Make Only the maps that are releasing with the engine. Get feedback from modders about what would make it easier to make maps.Maybe work out some incentive based thing so modders could turn out content.The more theater wide data and OOB information available at the start[meaning the engine has reached a feature locked stage]the quicker new content could be generated by incentive based modders.

4.I guess it could be considered hamstrung, but by the theater. CO1 is being left behind to move to the east front [a new theater]. Couldn't new content be generated[by incentive based modders] for CO1 with the data and OOB available or new OOB's added with a quicker turn around time now that the engine is feature locked.

5. the presentation would have to be improved, and the map graphics.[for CO2, unless this is not overly time consuming to do for CO1]

6. The entry price point is another often heard complaint that i read. Since the original HTTR & COTA are discontinued i'd offer anyone that buys BFTB a choice of a free download of one of those games. I know i got the old HTTR when i purchased the HTTR add-on,but i'll never play it, why would I.Hell since there discontinued maybe offer both, but they have to gift one or the other. Since there not being sold anyway it would spread the word about the game and create some goodwill at the cost of some bandwidth. I'd do that when CO1 is signed off on and HTTR, Greece,and Med packs are ready to go.

Some modders are turning out some good stuff. i know most of them do it because they love doing it but a few bucks to validate their work would probably feel good. As far a QA is concerned anything you guys are willing to put your name on is probably good enough for me to spend my money on.

I'm starting to think that selling the engine and the data separately for CO2 is not a good idea for growing the fan base. I just don't think you can sell something without content included. It's fine for me but i'm already a fan.

If you reply to me maybe quote this and continue this in the other thread about the future of command ops.

Anyway thanks for reading my ramblings. I wish you well.