I was about to comment again on Steve's reply but chose not to. It doesn't matter if it's programming or data work, project management is project management. Increasing the number of projects you need to maintain makes the chore harder by default.@Ithikial I couldn't agree more with you on the point you made here in the response to the 4.0 patch update from Steve, http://community.battlefront.com/topic/126860-update-on-engine-4-patches/
It always seemed like a bizarre strategy on BF's part to create so many stand alone games, even though the engines are updated to try to keep them in line with one another, rather than make fewer and release DLC which is the industry standard.
Don't get me wrong, I'm one of the few that don't mind the upgrade system if it means the older releases are kept up to the standard of newer titles and everything acts the same across all titles - this is something that isn't regularly spoken about but is critical for a good historical wargame IMO. They know there customer base and sales history. They know what proportion buys modules and what proportion only buys base games. I'd hazzard a guess with the exception of those just sticking their toe in the water, it's a pretty high number that buys everything if they like the CM formula and the theatre that's being represented in that family. Why they can't go a little bit more towards a DCS World type of model and relying more on modules rather than brand new families is beyond me. Most of us here are full timers with incomes, a module doesn't have to be $35. Make a module the size and price of a base of game and market it as such to your clients. There will always be the odd protestor on the side, but it will keep our own hard drives a little less cluttered.