D
din djinn
Guest
Okay, so there are reasons not to buy from Steam, but anyone have a reason not to buy CMSF2 off of Steam? It is on sale now. for $10 less, I believe than what Battlefront.com offers.
Interesting. Up to now Steam discounts have been mirrored on BF's storefront. This is the first time I've not seen it. Though it could be that BF is a little slower to update their store (since Matrix handles the Steam side)
D
din djinn
Guest
BF has a sale, just not as good. What Steam sells for $81 is $115 on BF's website. (Base game + 3 dlc)
Well, I was impulsive and that's a $34 difference. I went with Steam. Just hope I don't have issues, but felt better when I noticed BF's sale included the Steam version too.
Well, I was impulsive and that's a $34 difference. I went with Steam. Just hope I don't have issues, but felt better when I noticed BF's sale included the Steam version too.
D
din djinn
Guest
Follow up: The Steam version installed easier than my games from Battlefront, and seems to play great. All dlcs were installed too.
D
din djinn
Guest
Not sure if people are interested in a deeper discussion of the pros/cons. Did a little bit of research, and just want to toss out there that while some titles sell massively, and Valve will then take less from each sale, cutting the 30% cut Steam takes to 25% or even 20%, on average the sales rate of games purchased on Steam is about 32,000 units.
Is Valve greedy? Is Apple? Is Sony? Both take 30% on sales from apps/games in their stores, but whereas Valve takes less per unit when titles sell big, Apple will negotiate a lesser rate with smaller publishers. In any case, that 30% has been an industry standard. Epic takes only 12% (but as an aside, I personally have only bought one game from the Epic store, the other half dozen or so I have were all given away to me, so no sale to game publisher.)
Is Valve greedy? Is Apple? Is Sony? Both take 30% on sales from apps/games in their stores, but whereas Valve takes less per unit when titles sell big, Apple will negotiate a lesser rate with smaller publishers. In any case, that 30% has been an industry standard. Epic takes only 12% (but as an aside, I personally have only bought one game from the Epic store, the other half dozen or so I have were all given away to me, so no sale to game publisher.)
D
din djinn
Guest
So, I've been reading up a bit about Steam on the Battlefront.com forums. One thing I noticed is that Steam should be able patch your BF game automatically. BF updates Slitherine/Matrix which then gets it Steam ready. I am reading about a recent update to Black Sea, and how it is not on Steam yet, but Battlefront indicates it will be, that they sent the files, but that it not an automated process, it takes a bit of time. So, now I'm wondering to myself, as a new Combat Mission player, if I'd ever even be aware of game patches, and how I would do them without Steam's automation. (I'm not asking here, just thinking it.) My point is, for all one might have loyalty to BF, for many of us, Steam is actually an easier option. In terms of instillation alone: The DL was faster off Steam's servers; I didn't have to decompress anything then run an instillation program; And there was no key activation.
This might be heresy here, but why does BF want to charge me $34 more to give me a game that requires me to do more to install and maintain it?
And since I'm already wading into what my be dangerous waters on these forums, why is each "module" of Combat Mission a separate game to begin with? Is it really that different from Mius Front (for one, or others I own: Wars Across The Worlds, The Sims, Cities: Skylines...) which lets one buy a base game engine and then download different modules which can keep things cheaper for the consumer (and likely easier for the developer).
This might be heresy here, but why does BF want to charge me $34 more to give me a game that requires me to do more to install and maintain it?
And since I'm already wading into what my be dangerous waters on these forums, why is each "module" of Combat Mission a separate game to begin with? Is it really that different from Mius Front (for one, or others I own: Wars Across The Worlds, The Sims, Cities: Skylines...) which lets one buy a base game engine and then download different modules which can keep things cheaper for the consumer (and likely easier for the developer).
Steam has its issues, no doubt. But I quit playing CM because (for other reasons as well) it was an almost incomprehensibly complicated processes for having to update every CM game I had
(which was all of them) every time BF did some sort of patch. Steam? As we know, does all that for you. That is a serious convenience only found on Steam, IIRC.
If they get all the other CM games in their inventory it might even be enough to bring me back.
Maybe.
Are CM mods available via the Steam Workshop? Now that would be something if they would install with one <click>..
(which was all of them) every time BF did some sort of patch. Steam? As we know, does all that for you. That is a serious convenience only found on Steam, IIRC.
If they get all the other CM games in their inventory it might even be enough to bring me back.
Maybe.
Are CM mods available via the Steam Workshop? Now that would be something if they would install with one <click>..
You should be able to tell by the Version number on the lower right corner of the Splash Screen after the game loads and starts. H2H players would need to check that they match.
With the two decades worth of mods existent, I see that as an impossibly hopeless task. However, one could noodle around the Steam folders to find where the Battlefront game directories and sub-directories are located. Then one might copy "normal" mod files into the appropriate Steam Directory folders corresponding to its Program Files/Battlefront directory and copy scenario files into the Steam Directory folders corresponding to Documents/Battlefront/Combat Mission. Leveraging Legacy application data is always painful in an application change process.
D
din djinn
Guest
I hadn't considered mods as I have yet to even try any, but that is a good point. While Steam itself doesn't have a library of mods, can they even be used on the Steam version? But the installation is very much like the installation from BF's installer, so if you've modded before, as @Badger73 suggests, it should be pretty straight-forward.
Yes, already asked and answered --> CMx2 Steam question
Another aspect here is that there currently is no Mac version on Steam.
Even if you don't have a Mac now, maybe you'll get a Macbook later? With BFC you can install your one license on both your Windows desktop and your Macbook.
Even if you don't have a Mac now, maybe you'll get a Macbook later? With BFC you can install your one license on both your Windows desktop and your Macbook.
. . . . and with BFC you will also get a Slitherine key for the PC game on Steam.
No worries, this is an independent forum and we are free to discuss both good and bad about various games and their publishers.
I honestly don't know for certain, but as I understand it, it's a basically a business decision - because they can then sell the same basic game over and over at full price, whereas the consumer would expect expansion packs for a base game to be cheaper.
Please note that this is not a "complaint" against their business practice. At the end of the day, they sell a product at a price point, and we as consumers decide to buy it or not. I personally bought two of their games, and I don't feel cheated. But those two are enough for me until they fundamentally improve the core game.
D
din djinn
Guest
@Bulletpoint - Battlefront can do what they want. I guess my question was a bit rhetorical. I agree with you, that it seems like a deliberate decision by them to make more money. I don't fault them for that. But I also wonder what the better choice for them would be. They've chosen one path, which seems to ensure the games remain a niche product, rather than follow the other path which might(?) attract a bigger consumer base. Yet, in any case, they, Battlefront, have also made the decision to sell on Steam (presumably to find more customers), and apart from some good points mentioned herein (like no Mac version), the consumer remains free to buy on Steam for less. I see no indication on Battlefront's forums that BF isn't going to continue to support Steam sales, nor in any way do they try to dissuade one from purchasing the game on Steam (while they themselves don't drop the sales point to match Steam's sale.)
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,138
- Reaction score
- 1,616
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
I know Steve has commented in the past but I cannot find it at the moment...
From what I remember they considered making a single base with modules but once they got into the second game they realized the to&e database was to hard to handle over a large number of modules.
The experience with fortress Italy really showed that.
If they had gone with one base they would have changed thier module pricing so business decisions were not really part of that decision it was technical.
From what I remember they considered making a single base with modules but once they got into the second game they realized the to&e database was to hard to handle over a large number of modules.
The experience with fortress Italy really showed that.
If they had gone with one base they would have changed thier module pricing so business decisions were not really part of that decision it was technical.
D
din djinn
Guest
Decisions were made by the developer, and no doubt they were rational. I cannot control what others do. Still, I do wonder. There are expansions modules, essentially, to many of the games as is. Battlefield Normandy has them, Fortress Italy, Red Thunder. And what are these expansions apart from new maps, scenarios & campaigns? New to&e. So, on one hand they are claiming they can't do it for technical reasons, but on the other hand they are doing it, if only on a smaller scale. Just seems workable. Well, I will accept it is what it is, and no one is forcing me to buy these games, that's my choice. Yet, if others make the choice not to buy because they think the price is too high, then I still claim, ultimately, it is a business decision.
In defense of Battlefront, I do not object to paying again for a new graphics engine (or AI engine). As I read other forums, it does seem a frequent complaint is having to pay to upgrade each game separately. I didn't start playing Combat Mission game until after they were all upgraded, but I'm sure many on these forums went through the conversion process, paying for each and every game they own. That is one of the side effects to making each game a separate entity rather than an expansion off a base module of graphics/UI/AI. Still, I look at all the re-releases of older games to HD, more commonly in console video games. No one there is claiming that for those that bought the initial release, that they should not now pay again for the updated graphics release.
In defense of Battlefront, I do not object to paying again for a new graphics engine (or AI engine). As I read other forums, it does seem a frequent complaint is having to pay to upgrade each game separately. I didn't start playing Combat Mission game until after they were all upgraded, but I'm sure many on these forums went through the conversion process, paying for each and every game they own. That is one of the side effects to making each game a separate entity rather than an expansion off a base module of graphics/UI/AI. Still, I look at all the re-releases of older games to HD, more commonly in console video games. No one there is claiming that for those that bought the initial release, that they should not now pay again for the updated graphics release.
Plenty of remastered games charge again for the new game. Some offer discounts.
The semantics of game/module/dlc/whatever aside, in the end it boils down to work. If any company does work on a product, it needs to be payed from somewhere.
For a certain game / developer, it might be possible to reward existing customers and give the new version for free. There might be various reasons for it, for example the company expects that giving it away for free will help with marketing. Or maybe they felt like they have enough money already ;-)
For another game / developer, that might not be a feasible strategy to pursue. In the end it's always a business decision, or rather it should be a business decision as it is a decision that needs to be made in the business ;-). It's not a technical decision.
I would also like all games/ families to be in one platform. That doesn't necessarily make it cheaper to develop, so in the end they would still need the same revenue and adjust pricing.
I bought CMSF in 2007 and happily paid for the upgrade to CMSF2. I don't expect them to work on the game for free, especially after 10+ years. Also, they did actually give a discount to existing CMSF customers.
Also I was happy to pay for the engine upgrades, which bring new functionality to older games. Also here goes that it does cost them work, so I find it normal to pay for it (it isn't much).
B
burning_phoneix
Guest
There is no real downside to buying from Steam, other than the games drop earlier on Battlefront's website and more money goes to the Dev's pocket rather than Valve and Slitherine, if you want to support the devs. For me, I get the games cheaper on Steam because of regional pricing (I live in the Middle East so developers charge less money here) and the ability to pay in my own currency.
From what I understand, the reason they're seperate games rather than modules is to pay for engine upgrades with each game and the aforementioned TO&E overload issue, which is really I believe a limitation of the aging CMx2 engine. I would love a sorty of DCS World-like Combat Mission title where you buy packs to add to a big base game. There's no technical reason as to why it couldn't be done.
There's also no reason why Steam workshop couldn't be enabled for Combat Mission titles.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,138
- Reaction score
- 1,616
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
Not really. Steve has said that if they had made the other choice - single engine running all the modules they would have just had to charge more for the modules and more the updates to the engine. He has said he figured they would come out even if they had gone down that path.
That's true if you take away the colour (aging engine has nothing to do with it). BFC made a choice on how to handle the TO&E and location that was a great improvement over the CM1 engine. It did not take too long into development to realize that it would not really work well for a single engine and multiple downlodable content. So, they didn't go that way. In other words it's not that the CM2 engine is aging its that their design choices early did not really lend itself to that design and so they chose the path they are on now.
Many people would like that. Wouldn't it be cool to have some cross over battles or just WW2 never ended just the player's changed type what if battles. That would be cool.
Well other than it would require a ton of development work. It would not be free or short.
Other than time. I have no idea where this kind of thing sits on their priority list but again not free we will have to wait to see if they feel it's worth doing. By worth doing I don't mean worth it to us to have - clearly it would be nice - I mean if it would be worth it in terms of what other things they would then not be able to do.
B
burning_phoneix
Guest
Can you elaborate what you mean here? Do you mean because they sold the game originally as physical copies and through their website? What do you mean by colour?
1947 scenario where you have to take on T-54s in the Battle of Berlin
I don't think it's very difficult to implement. It's already on steam and enabling the workshop is less demanding then say, implementing Slitherine's PBEM system. Come to think of it, Slitherine I think is in charge of the Steam storefront for these games as publisher so it wouldn't fall on BF alone.