Battlefront & CMSF in It's First 5 Months

[KG_Jag]

Here is a post and thread that captures the first 4 months of the release of CMSF and Battlefront's actions/inactions with regard to thier first release with the CM x 2 engine:

"Posted by Adam1 (Member # 4205) on November 11, 2007 05:51 PM:

I can only imagine that our old friends have withdrawn from supporting their products because they have lost any idea of how to do it productively. The way their attempts work out is rarely successful. So they decided it was better to post nothing at all, rather than continue the arguments. They saw nothing being resolved and resigned the effort. Perhaps they missed the possibility that they were not writing too much but too little - of any substance.

Mike Dorosh already started a thread when the game was first released, foreseeing the need for design notes. He was really polite and was promptly ignored. However, every time I start a thread with a somewhat nasty tone, it goes for pages. It's obvious what gets responses.

Perhaps the good folks at Battlefront are unaware of the position they are in. I don't mean financially or regarding the success or failure of their product. I am refering to plain manners.

The people on this board mostly associate out of friendship. It's an internet friendship but writing is substance and shared thought is about common interests is friendship. BFC has/had this great individuality where the money/marketing was really not the root of the business. That is what fueled both the forum over the years and the preorders, imo. Friends often order extra copies or support Battlefront. I will not call it customer loyalty.

Battlefront, you do realize you launched a product in worse condition than just about any other commercial software package in years, right?

But a screw up with Paradox Interactive did not require nuking your friendships to salvage the title. Nor did it require dishonesty.

But instead, if the release had been accompanied by honesty up front (how about telling us ahead of time about QBs being missing, or TCP/IP?) there would be disappointment but nothing so sickly as a massive lie.

Then, when quite naturally and justifiably, those who suddenly realized their fellows had tricked them (for very obvious reasons) voiced their concern, where was the honesty? Again and again those who pointed out the most obvious glaring problems were given no quarter. The game had to be spun into gold, and so it was attempted to prove that QBs are actually not that enjoyable anyway, that TCP/IP is not really used, that WEGO was never really important, that the 1:1 terrain/soldier meshing was fine... and when that became obviously and utterly hopeless an endeavour, we got into subjectivism. Gosh, grog debates.

So what should have happened? What is the correct way to treat friends?

First, your mistake with the release being far too early (and at a point when it was and is still undertermined whether you have a working game or not - even) was not a big deal among friends. You needed to be more honest about that before you started taking our money. Stating that the game is unfinished - not merely in beta, but missing code - and selling on that is less likely to make you money, granted, but it also is less likely to make you a dishonest man.

Second, you needed to acknowledge without insult that there were many problems with the game. It wasn't your intention to release it in that state so why pretend it is what you intended? Why not join along side those who have been disilusioned with your progress and explain what you are trying to do? The villainization of those who were most perceptive of the problems was pretty gross. They just wanted what you claimed to sell them.

Thirdly, stop with the spin and start with the facts. Tell us how things work already. Yes we have general ideas about LOS/LOF grids and such but most of us are completely in the dark as to what we have on our hard drives. I spend a lot of time testing the game to figure out exactly what is going on. Sometimes I find things that I would have expected positive comment on - the small arms model is good, eg. Yet we have nothing.

So first you take your friends in a pretty obscure hobby and lie to them about the product to try and salvage sales. It's for their own good, after all. Then you spend all your writing efforts making war on those who point out the product's actual state. You wrote to obscure the thing rather than clarify it. Then a steady stream of "patches" which do not accomplish the things you spin them out to be, where again, those who point out non-existing functionality are characterized as obsessive fools. And it is obvious from the demo push-backs that you aren't reallay thrilled with the direction things are going either. Then you disappear.

Well, let me be clear if it is not obvious already. There are many companies that do not support their customers, but few friends who will not speak with their fellows. There are fewer friends, or solvent companies, that make a successful practice of selling incomplete products and being pigheaded about the issue.

There certainly is nothing reasonable about being hostile or ignoring those who take issue with this series of events. It is a big deal because you based you based your company on some good ideals. If Ubisoft released a game that didn't function and then went on a tirade they would annoy but would not surprise or shock anyone. But weren't you different?

For God's sake stop the pouting and the spinning and explain the product. Objectively. Acknowledge the problems that exist without making fanfare of them. Explain what causes the LOS/LOF problems when you see them come up. Suggets work-arounds. Tell us how the model works, for heaven's sake, maybe we will be impressed with the idea if not the outcome, and will support you anyway, because we love the product enough to tolerate you. It is not because the whiners have no hope that they are still here. So, there is perhaps, still time to pull your head out of your beta forum and restore a friendship.

My 2 cents worth. Probably just another rant to float to the bottom...."


The link to the thread is here:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/b...;f=52;t=003318

[KG_Panzerschreck]

Im sure that will be well recieved by the forum membership and maybe even a BFC employee or two, but in the end it will accomplish nothing im sure.

[KG_Soldier]

I think we should let CMx2 die and put an end to its slow painful death. If they ever do a WWII module, which I now kinda doubt, we can start talking about it again. Obviously, "Shock Force" is a giant bust.

So quit posting about CMx2 and set up your damn German scum for Thor's campaign!

[KG_Cloghaun]

We're working on it, Mark. Honestly.

It shouldn't be much longer. I'm having alot of issues with my laptop that have delayed out setup. It's my fault. Just wanted your team to know we are not putting it on the back-burner.

Thank you for your patience.

[KG_Jag]

Battlefront has locked the thread referenced in my first post. The one that was started yesterday and is only on its second page.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

Typical.

I dont understand how they have survived treating their customers like that.