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

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

Steve"

Here's the link:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/b...2;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"