COMBAT MISSION: SHOCK FORCE ... $4.99
Giftzwerg
Just saw five *unsold* copies at that price at the ol' University Mall.
Punchline: Nobody is buying this shitware at *five bucks*.
<laughs...laughs...laughs>
--
Giftzwerg
***
"The basic rule of press coverage [of Iraq] is that if there's fighting,
we must be losing."
- Glenn Reynolds
Vincenzo Beretta
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:MPG.228fb272a893682e989a30@localhost...
>
> Just saw five *unsold* copies at that price at the ol' University Mall.
>
> Punchline: Nobody is buying this shitware at *five bucks*.
>
> <laughs...laughs...laughs>
Wow! Every single other "Combat Mission" title on Play.com UK has an higher
price than SF. This is... interesting!
I wonder if it is worth my time going on the Battlefront forums to molest
that JasonC dude who quoted "low sales" as a proof that the HTTR/CotA system
"sucked"...
Bloodstar
>
> Punchline: Nobody is buying this shitware at *five bucks*.
>
> <laughs...laughs...laughs>
They are clearing the stocks.
BTW, Gifty you must know how retail business is done... Battlefront.com
obviously sell their games at some PRICE to various DISTRIBUTORS.
So possibly Battlefront.com have GOTTEN a more MONEY then YOU have SEEN at
UNIVERSITY MALL. :)
How much they got I don't know.
So maybe it's not Battlefront.com that is LOSING THE MONEY. But
distributors, or end tail - retail shops. They are just clearing the stocks.
However this may be bad for next Battlefront.com title because distributors
will ORDER much lower quentities unless reviews are stellar and demand is
high.
Blah. So much for your conspiracy theories. Ask those retailers in Vermont
if you don't believe me.
Mario
Giftzwerg
george.w...@microsoft.com says...
> > Just saw five *unsold* copies at that price at the ol' University Mall.
> >
> > Punchline: Nobody is buying this shitware at *five bucks*.
> >
> > <laughs...laughs...laughs>
>
> They are clearing the stocks.
>
> BTW, Gifty you must know how retail business is done... Battlefront.com
> obviously sell their games at some PRICE to various DISTRIBUTORS.
Yah. I know how retail business is done. When inventory sits on the
shelf unsold - despite being discounted by *90%* - it's time to shoot
some wranglers outta the saddle.
> So possibly Battlefront.com have GOTTEN a more MONEY then YOU have SEEN at
> UNIVERSITY MALL. :)
> How much they got I don't know.
<laughter>
Oh, I bet they're just *rolling* in dough, what with their flagship new
product going from $50 to $5 in a few months.
> So maybe it's not Battlefront.com that is LOSING THE MONEY. But
> distributors, or end tail - retail shops. They are just clearing the stocks.
POP QUIZ:
"If, as you assert, the end retailers are taking as / more disastrous a
bath on the laughable fiasco called 'CM:SF' as the developers, will this
make distributors more or less likely to give Battlefront a thin dime in
the future?"
Bloodstar
>
> "If, as you assert, the end retailers are taking as / more disastrous a
> bath on the laughable fiasco called 'CM:SF' as the developers, will this
> make distributors more or less likely to give Battlefront a thin dime in
> the future?"
Retail never relied on wargames for profit. Oh, sorry it have - in the times
of SSI and maybe TalonSoft :)
So maybe retailers are not being hit so much by Combat Mission: Shock Force
low sales. They make profit on GTA IV and such.
But we are talking here about wargames. They are simply not very interesting
for retail. And it is not that CM: SF is doing so disastrouly as for example
I have seen Quake 4 go down pretty fast. I have 5 copies of that garbage
Quake 4 and obviously I will had to sell it at a much lower price :) (and I
know how much I have paid that in English pounds uh oh).
BTW, I don't think that Battlefront.com is doing so bad. They have pretty
good business model.
They go in retail only after some time usually a year while game was selling
at their website. For CM: SF they have released it to retail simultaneously
with release on their web site. I don't know their profits but they have not
many people on full play and that's their flexibility, they keep their cost
down. So it would be ill that I predict their position but I think it is not
that bad.
On a sidenote even getting wargame to retail these days is success and you
see that Matrix Games doesn't have many titles on retail like full launch.
Because Matrix Games titles are mostly not interesting for retail except
some rare titles.
Combat Mission had some appeal for retail (not just due to graphics :).
So maybe wargaming companies are not doing so badly (I mean all involved),
their sales are lower but their cost of operations are also lower so they
stay afloat somehow. Bigger companies sink easier I think (Acclaim anyone?
:) THQ also posted losses in the 4thQ. etc.
Mario
Giftzwerg
george.w...@microsoft.com says...
> > "If, as you assert, the end retailers are taking as / more disastrous a
> > bath on the laughable fiasco called 'CM:SF' as the developers, will this
> > make distributors more or less likely to give Battlefront a thin dime in
> > the future?
>
> Retail never relied on wargames for profit. Oh, sorry it have - in the times
> of SSI and maybe TalonSoft :)
Yeah. Whew. It's all irrelevant. Nobody who ever poured boxed copies
of products onto store shelves needed to sell them else go out of
business.
> So maybe retailers are not being hit so much by Combat Mission: Shock Force
> low sales. They make profit on GTA IV and such.
<laughter>
But what about the guys who *make* the games? Lemme guess; the guys who
built GTA4 are much, much, much happier these days than the dimwits who
augured in with CM:SF.
> But we are talking here about wargames. They are simply not very interesting
> for retail.
So ... a company that tried to sell boxed wargames on the retail shelves
would be ...
... retards?
> BTW, I don't think that Battlefront.com is doing so bad. They have pretty
> good business model.
$4.99.
$4.99.
$4.99.
wbur...@aol.com
wrote:
> In article <g057an$ti...@sunce.iskon.hr>,
> george.washing...@microsoft.com says...
I'm wondering if it's just the paticular genre that CM.SF offers? I
don't see alot of sales activity for any military combat games unless
they're FPS at any of the local software places I browse on occasion.
Just curious did they had any other military type games there at the
University book store?
Wayne
Giftzwerg
754614...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, wbur...@aol.com says...
> I'm wondering if it's just the paticular genre that CM.SF offers? I
> don't see alot of sales activity for any military combat games unless
> they're FPS at any of the local software places I browse on occasion.
> Just curious did they had any other military type games there at the
> University book store?
Depends on what you define as a "military type game." BIG MUTHA
TRUCKERS II probably doesn't fit in this mold, but I'd argue that
roughly *half* of the PC games available were "military" in nature, at
least to the extent that they feature organized slaughtering of
<something> by <protagonist>.
And there was certainly no *shortage* of explicit war / historical games
on tap.
pproc...@yahoo.com
> price than SF. This is... interesting!
I could expect the quality argument if we were talking about online
sales, probably preceded by a demo testdrive. But a product in a
store that doesn't sell? If a game is having a tough time in retail,
it either got abismally bad reviews in many mainstream outlets,
including cable TV, or it just doesn't appeal to the market because of
its topic.
To me this has little to do with the quality of CM:SF and much more to
do with the phenomenon I have observed consistently since we started
selling games in 1998: It is hard to make it in the marketplace with a
modern wargaming title. For reasons that continue to confound me,
only WWII has broad market appeal.
PAT PROCTOR
President, ProSIM Company
http://www.prosimco.com/writing
Giftzwerg
@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, pproc...@yahoo.com says...
CALL OF DUTY 4?
wbur...@aol.com
wrote:
> In article <ced932c0-95d6-4fef-a642-
> 754614dd8...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, wburn1...@aol.com says...
I'm going to have to check out that Big Mutha Truckers 2. Especially
driving that Peterbuilt on Interstate 5 out of Portland hauling 30
tons of scrap wired on a handful of whites with a six pack of PBR by
my seat.. There's a urban combat scenario that models modern times.
Bloodstar
> <laughter>
>
> But what about the guys who *make* the games? Lemme guess; the guys who
> built GTA4 are much, much, much happier these days than the dimwits who
> augured in with CM:SF.
Battlefront.com for example sell 2000 Combat Mission: SF to Distributor X
for 12$. Or 10 $. Or whatever (15$? I don't know) but with a profit.
Distributor X initially sells CM: SF to smaller retail or whatever for 20$
or 25$. Retail orders some copies for their stores. So Merchant A takes 100
copies of Combat Mission at 20$ and sell it for 30$ or 35$ or whatever. Some
keep the goods for six month and if it is not selling they may have
arrangements to return goods and take new Tekken or Grand Turismo or
whatever sells better these days. If they don't have arrangements they will
of course lose some money on remaining copies that they will sell with a
cost. But we still don't know have they all lost heavily on this title :)
You and me don't have sales record on that.
As time goes by even distributor will sell CM: SF with discount to clear his
warehouses and fill it with GTA IV :o)))
So if Distributor X have 50 copies of CM:SF he will sell it for 3$ and lose
50x 12 $ = 600 $ but they already sold remaining copies at better price. In
most cases they sell 90% of stocks for a profit so they can kill remaining
for a loss.
Battlefront.com doesn't have a risk (I think!) because they have sold their
2000 copies at a profit. 2000 x 15$ = 30000$ (that's not a clear profit as
you must manufacture those boxes, market it, transport it etc...).
> So ... a company that tried to sell boxed wargames on the retail shelves
> would be ...
>
> ... retards?
I don't think so. Even Brad Wardell said that 75% of Stardock profits comes
FROM retail and only 25% of online sales.
The companies that exclude RETAIL are in fact limiting their market presence
by a wide margin ->>>>> Matrix Games. :o))))
And I've told you already, it is not that just CM:SF is selling badly these
days. Do you actually know how many games are released each week? Do you? I
am getting email from 5 distributors from UK & Europe almost DAILY - I know
at which prices they sell games and I know how many copies they have in
stock. It's not easy business but it can be lucrative.
>> BTW, I don't think that Battlefront.com is doing so bad. They have pretty
>> good business model.
>
> $4.99.
>
> $4.99.
>
> $4.99.
Again, if Battlefront.com have made a PROFIT out of Combat Mission: Shock
Force overall then this price that you have seen doesn't mean too much. And
they certanly made a much bigger profit on this title then what Matrix Games
makes of maybe ten of their titles put together. If Matrix Games doesn't put
it's games into retail it loses much money. I would not be suprised that CM:
SF has in fact made good money overall.
The Wargames are tough nut for a retail as they are slow but steady sellers.
Retail doesn't have a patience. And University Mall - does it just shows
that American youth would not want to play a game where US forces are
attacking Syrian forces? :o)))
Maybe in 2001. this game would do better? Who knows... This more shows that
US of A will not wage any war very soon as public will not support it.
See, you didn't proved anything.
Battlefront.com can have only smaller profit on this title but still pay
it's bills and have a steak every day at the table. You didn't proved
absolutely anything.
What if Battlefront.com made $1 million instead of $2 million? LOL
It's seven guys and average year pay in USA is how much these days, $60000,
$70000? $80000? $100000?
So, I would not be suprised that Battlefront.com have made a $1 million
while you here contemplate how they are doing badly and how they are almsot
ruined. Nice try.
Mario
Bloodstar
>
> Punchline: Nobody is buying this shitware at *five bucks*.
>
> <laughs...laughs...laughs>
Send it to us in Europe. We will buy all of them at that price LOL
At 5$ this is a steal. The latest patches makes this game GREAT no matter
how you putt this on USENET. I have read what some players say about this
game and it is not just mindless fanboy talk. This game is good esp. with
latest patches.
Read Battlefront.com forums, are those people crazy because they enjoy this
game?
They should read Usenet because this game is shitware as you say...
The store owner is a nut, and possibly you in Vermont doesn't have too much
money to buy games at $5, does US economy is doing good? Hell, even in
Russia they could sell game at 5$!!! In Eurostan we could sell it for at
least twice that. LOL
Mario
Brian McFadden
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2290039657c29cb7989a35@localhost...
> In article <9f49f0a0-b97c-48b7-aa68-426d79422038
> @l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, pproc...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> > Wow! Every single other "Combat Mission" title on Play.com UK has an
>> > higher
>> > price than SF. This is... interesting!
>>
>> I could expect the quality argument if we were talking about online
>> sales, probably preceded by a demo testdrive. But a product in a
>> store that doesn't sell? If a game is having a tough time in retail,
>> it either got abismally bad reviews in many mainstream outlets,
>> including cable TV, or it just doesn't appeal to the market because of
>> its topic.
>>
>> To me this has little to do with the quality of CM:SF and much more to
>> do with the phenomenon I have observed consistently since we started
>> selling games in 1998: It is hard to make it in the marketplace with a
>> modern wargaming title. For reasons that continue to confound me,
>> only WWII has broad market appeal.
>
> CALL OF DUTY 4?
Plus Battlefield 2.......
Gumby
news:MPG.228fb272a893682e989a30@localhost:
>
> Just saw five *unsold* copies at that price at the ol' University Mall.
>
> Punchline: Nobody is buying this shitware at *five bucks*.
>
> <laughs...laughs...laughs>
>
>
>
Come on, admit it. You bought a copy.
Giftzwerg
> > Just saw five *unsold* copies at that price at the ol' University Mall.
> >
> > Punchline: Nobody is buying this shitware at *five bucks*.
> >
> > <laughs...laughs...laughs>
> Come on, admit it. You bought a copy.
I'm waiting for the price to come down.
Newt
complete lack of regard for people who bought their previous games and the
continuing need to try and justify stupid descisions... and besides that, it
ain't the period it's supposed to represent - it's quite simply a dud!
"Brian McFadden" <Lse...@growler.com> wrote in message
news:bvAVj.185536$nr1.1...@newsfe13.phx...
p.ox...@ca.rr.com
an 80 on the 1-100 meter. Give them credit for diligence. The forum
remains a bit moribund, the lack of multiplayer buzz- no one's doing
it, it seems- may be dexerting a deadening effect the community.
Giftzwerg
@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, p.ox...@ca.rr.com says...
Because the irony is delicious; all that Nazi eLicensing and shitsucking
DRM ... and they practically can't *give* the crapware away. Gee, maybe
next time they outta lose the DRM and concentrate some effort on
building a game that people will want to pirate. At least a pirated
game generates some buzz; an unsold game covered in dust in an obscure
store is just pure comedy.
Giftzwerg
news:ac2caa41-40a0-4f1d...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> I'm going to have to check out that Big Mutha Truckers 2. Especially
> driving that Peterbuilt on Interstate 5 out of Portland hauling 30
> tons of scrap wired on a handful of whites with a six pack of PBR by
> my seat.. There's a urban combat scenario that models modern times.
I always thought somebody could make a mint building a driving simulator
into an arcade game, and incorporating an alco-sensor / breathalyzer and
distributing the console to bars and pubs.
You put in your quarters, and blow into the alco-sensor. The game then
starts, and you have to drive through a variety of interesting driving
challenges that get progressively more difficult as the game progresses.
The tie-in is that your score is *multiplied* by the blood-alcohol
content registered at the outset. Get through the whole first level
with a BAC of .05, and you get 50,000 points. But get through it with a
.20, and you score a whopping 1,000,000 points.
Police cars would be about in the game landscape, and you lose if you're
pulled over for any of the usual things that cops look for; weaving,
driving very sloooowly, not having your lights on, etc. There could be
a PC version as well, what with digital alco-sensors being available to
the general public for about $20 these days - a USB version!
They say that video games aren't educational. This would be a great
opportunity to teach real-world, useful skills to a whole generation of
young folks.
Giftzwerg
--
"[S]o far the Great Depression 2008 is shaping up to be a Great
Disappointment. Not so much The Grapes of Wrath as Raisins of
Mild Inconvenience."
- Gerard Baker
Vincenzo Beretta
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:Xns9A9CB8AA610E5gi...@216.196.97.131...
Frank E
<george.w...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Battlefront.com doesn't have a risk (I think!) because they have sold their
>2000 copies at a profit. 2000 x 15$ = 30000$ (that's not a clear profit as
>you must manufacture those boxes, market it, transport it etc...).
Well, lets see.... the math isn't all that complicated.
From what I gather, the rule-of-thumb is that the retailer gets about
50% of the retail price. Not even the big-name publishers get their
cash up front so it's a safe assumption that a relative nobody
Battlefront doesn't either. They aren't making any money off of the
boxes selling for $5.
>Again, if Battlefront.com have made a PROFIT out of Combat Mission: Shock
>Force overall then this price that you have seen doesn't mean too much.
That's a pretty big IF.
>Battlefront.com can have only smaller profit on this title but still pay
>it's bills and have a steak every day at the table. You didn't proved
>absolutely anything.
>What if Battlefront.com made $1 million instead of $2 million? LOL
>
>It's seven guys and average year pay in USA is how much these days, $60000,
>$70000? $80000? $100000?
For a programmer, at least $100,000 per person from the employer's
perspectice (once you add in the cost of health care, etc.). So, lets
say that it's conservatively $2,000,000 if you look at 7 people for 3
years.
>So, I would not be suprised that Battlefront.com have made a $1 million
>while you here contemplate how they are doing badly and how they are almsot
>ruined. Nice try.
>
To get that 2 million back in retail, they'd have to sell 80,000
copies (at $25 profit per copy). The question isn't whether they're
losing money, the only question is 'how much did they lose?'
Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >So, I would not be suprised that Battlefront.com have made a $1 million
> >while you here contemplate how they are doing badly and how they are almsot
> >ruined. Nice try.
> To get that 2 million back in retail, they'd have to sell 80,000
> copies (at $25 profit per copy). The question isn't whether they're
> losing money, the only question is 'how much did they lose?'
Or 800,000 copies at $4.99.
Briarroot
> In article <74d6a0d5-77e1-46e1-8bb1-4ddf21c75293
> @n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, p.ox...@ca.rr.com says...
>
>> Why all the schadenfreude? The BFC have patched the game to at least
>> an 80 on the 1-100 meter. Give them credit for diligence. The forum
>> remains a bit moribund, the lack of multiplayer buzz- no one's doing
>> it, it seems- may be dexerting a deadening effect the community.
>
> Because the irony is delicious; all that Nazi eLicensing and shitsucking
> DRM ... and they practically can't *give* the crapware away. Gee, maybe
> next time they outta lose the DRM and concentrate some effort on
> building a game that people will want to pirate. At least a pirated
> game generates some buzz; an unsold game covered in dust in an obscure
> store is just pure comedy.
>
And proving yet again that wonky DRM schemes aren't worth the time and
money they require. The *best* way to keep piracy at a minimum is to
make crappy games - just like CM:SF!
--
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or
the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to
their own interest." - Adam Smith
Bloodstar
>
> From what I gather, the rule-of-thumb is that the retailer gets about
> 50% of the retail price. Not even the big-name publishers get their
> cash up front so it's a safe assumption that a relative nobody
> Battlefront doesn't either. They aren't making any money off of the
> boxes selling for $5.
It happens sometimes that you are talking out of your ass, like this time
:o)))
But we already have getting used to that.
No.
Battlefront.com sells this game at 40$ or something like that. They would be
not foolish to sell something for few bucks which doesn't even cover the
cost of manufacture, transport etc...
So probably those are some left overs that retailer wants to get rid off.
Retailer doesn't have 50%, not even close. Where did you get that?
Well tell me then how Take 2 have got $500 milions and how many copies did
they sold?
Your math obviously suck :) What grades did you have in elementary and high
school? :)
I don't say that I know *precisely* how much money publisher get's. But
there is also many times middle distributor who take also their share.
>>Again, if Battlefront.com have made a PROFIT out of Combat Mission: Shock
>>Force overall then this price that you have seen doesn't mean too much.
>
> That's a pretty big IF.
By your account Battlefront.com was supposed to fill bancrupcy long time
ago. And it didn't happened. Why?
> For a programmer, at least $100,000 per person from the employer's
> perspectice (once you add in the cost of health care, etc.). So, lets
> say that it's conservatively $2,000,000 if you look at 7 people for 3
> years.
Yes, by your account all companies in game business would be all gone. I am
not saying that I know precisely, again, but you as well don't know
precisely.
With your math even Creative Assembly would be gone forever because look at
credits how many people worked on MTW 2 project alone. Obviously there is
some catch here.
> To get that 2 million back in retail, they'd have to sell 80,000
> copies (at $25 profit per copy). The question isn't whether they're
> losing money, the only question is 'how much did they lose?'
They didn't lose anything. And certanly they don't need 2 million $ to break
even as they are small hobby art shop. And there was Theatre of War which
also sold well no matter what you say as it was selling all over the world
in retail. So again -you are talking out of your ass as you don't know
Battlefront.com bilance at all.
The guys at Battlefront.com know that but obviously that is a business
secret, not for public :)
As we see all companies in wargaming business hide their sales records so we
can only make wild guesses in any case. And probably we don't know much.
Mario
Bloodstar
> they sold?
Ups, I was talking of course about GTA IV.
Bloodstar
web site for 40$. So obviously they would not want that retail devaluate
price of their product by selling it for few bucks.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> > Wow! Every single other "Combat Mission" title on Play.com UK has an higher
> > price than SF. This is... interesting!
>
> I could expect the quality argument if we were talking about online
> sales, probably preceded by a demo testdrive.
Chris Dean's NWS store :
Combat Mission - Barbarossa to Berlin : $35
http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/comiiibatobe.html
Combat Mission : Afrika Korps : $20
http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/comi3afko.html
Combat Mission : Shock Force : $13
http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/comishfo.html
> But a product in a
> store that doesn't sell? If a game is having a tough time in retail,
> it either got abismally bad reviews in many mainstream outlets,
> including cable TV, or it just doesn't appeal to the market because of
> its topic.
... or like in the case of CM:SF it was released 9 months or so ago -
how long do you expect a wargame to last at full price in retail ?
> To me this has little to do with the quality of CM:SF and much more to
> do with the phenomenon I have observed consistently since we started
> selling games in 1998: It is hard to make it in the marketplace with a
> modern wargaming title. For reasons that continue to confound me,
> only WWII has broad market appeal.
I recently posted some ideas as to the why in here - maybe you've seen
them.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Frank E
<george.w...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Well, lets see.... the math isn't all that complicated.
>>
>> From what I gather, the rule-of-thumb is that the retailer gets about
>> 50% of the retail price. Not even the big-name publishers get their
>> cash up front so it's a safe assumption that a relative nobody
>> Battlefront doesn't either. They aren't making any money off of the
>> boxes selling for $5.
>
>It happens sometimes that you are talking out of your ass, like this time
>
>Battlefront.com sells this game at 40$ or something like that. They would be
>not foolish to sell something for few bucks which doesn't even cover the
>cost of manufacture, transport etc...
Well, at least we now know who's talking out of their ass. What makes
you think that a nobody (relatively speaking) like Battlefront can
get better terms from retailers than than a big name publisher?
>So probably those are some left overs that retailer wants to get rid off.
>Retailer doesn't have 50%, not even close. Where did you get that?
From someone who's actually selling wargames retail. You'll have to
believe me (or not), it was a private conversation so I'm not going to
get into the details.
>Well tell me then how Take 2 have got $500 milions and how many copies did
>they sold?
$500 million what? Profit? Income? You might want to try at least a
minimal bit of googling instead of pulling numbers out of your ass.
... here's a link to get you started so you don't continue looking
like a complete idiot.
http://ir.take2games.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=298660
Now, take a look at the games they're publishing, the platforms and
explain to me why you even brought up take 2 in a discussion of PC
games.
>> That's a pretty big IF.
>
>By your account Battlefront.com was supposed to fill bancrupcy long time
>ago. And it didn't happened. Why?
Where did I say that? I have no clue how many copies battlefront sold
or how much money they made off of CM1. I also don't know how much
they're paying themselves. But a couple of things are known:
- They'll make about $45 on any game they sell online from their store
- They'll make about $25 on any game that's sold retail.
- If they really did have 7 people working for 3 years on CM2, their
total cost was somewhere between $1.5 and $2 million depending on how
much their paying and what type of benefits they offer.
Basic economics isn't very complicated. Even you could probably gain
a basic grasp of the subject if you tried. But until then, you might
want to stay out of this type of discussion, all you're doing is
showing everyone how much of a clueless, blustering buffoon you really
are when it comes to these things.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> If they really did have 7 people working for 3 years on CM2, their
> total cost was somewhere between $1.5 and $2 million depending on how
> much their paying and what type of benefits they offer.
Which happily coincides with the $2 million Battlefront said the game
has costed them in that interview. They're actually 5 people being
full-time employed, but the interview also mentioned them needing
outside help for specific portions of the game. And those consultant
guys aren't cheap.
> Basic economics isn't very complicated. Even you could probably gain
> a basic grasp of the subject if you tried.
LOL - good one - as if .. :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Bloodstar
You are fool so any continuation of this discussion with you is a complete
waste of time.
Goodbye Frank and have a nice day.
Mario
Bloodstar
> has costed them in that interview. They're actually 5 people being
> full-time employed, but the interview also mentioned them needing
> outside help for specific portions of the game. And those consultant
> guys aren't cheap.
>
>> Basic economics isn't very complicated. Even you could probably gain
>> a basic grasp of the subject if you tried.
>
> LOL - good one - as if .. :)
Another moron have showed up, this time from Belgium.
Here is Major H, ask him did 2 million $ was really COST of a game or just a
interview bluff to make this as a really costly game.
First the investment is also in engine and all future games will be
DEVELOPED in this engine. Foo as yourself doesn't take THAT in consideration
and offset of cost that will be thereupon on all future CMx2 engine games.
Fool!
Secondly - when Steve has spoken that game costed 2 million $ to make I am
100% convinced that HE WAS EXAGGERATING!
But you need to have something IN YOUR BRAIN to see this.
5 guys doing a game few years COST 2 million $???? LOL
OK, here is a question for you fool. How much money then cost to develop
Medieval 2: Total War...
Ok, Belgium fool, now start MTW2 and click on credits to roll, and then
count those people.
By your math then if 100 people worked on MTW 2 then this game costed around
let's see: 100 people x 50000 $ = 5 million $ x 2 = 10 million $.
Even that would be exaggerating.
So no way Combat Mission: SF could cost 2 million $ with 5-7 guys working on
it ! And it was not even 7 guys as there is only ONE PROGRAMMER!!! Idiots!
And few artist etc... ONE PROGRAMMER!
Morons.
Mario
Bloodstar
> Well, at least we now know who's talking out of their ass. What makes
> you think that a nobody (relatively speaking) like Battlefront can
> get better terms from retailers than than a big name publisher?
No. I will answer you this time but just to make you a fool because you
really want this.
I was saying that they didn't sell anything for 5$ into retail because they
would shoot theself in the foot.
LOL they might do that if they have made excessive number of CM: SF copies
so like Atari that was burning ET game for Atari console in the desert
wanted to get rid of stuff.
But they are selling the game for 45$ at their website and based on your
logic they sold to retail games for 5$ or less for no profit at all! Bravo!
Paradox was their distributor, what terms did they have with them is their
matter but I have told you that probably those left overs will be loss by
that particular retailer! I doubt that BFC was selling games at that price!
Prove that!
>>So probably those are some left overs that retailer wants to get rid off.
>>Retailer doesn't have 50%, not even close. Where did you get that?
>
> From someone who's actually selling wargames retail. You'll have to
> believe me (or not), it was a private conversation so I'm not going to
> get into the details.
LOL You are such a fool. There is no 50% margine in selling games as I was
selling games myself (now as well but I am not doing just that).
If NWS for example have 50% margins it may be true BUT only because he is
dealing DIRECTLY with Matrix Games for example! Fool!
In game business there are MAJOR DISTRIBUTOR and INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTORS.
For example I was working with independents from UK.
How do you expect that retail have 50% and there is Paradox involved and
Battlefront.com as well? If Battlefront used some extra distributors then
cut will be much smaller when split on additional parties.
Maybe you are right but only if all retail shops even those small ones where
getting games directly from Battlefront.com and then we can assume that they
ordered big quantiti (maybe few hudred or more) so when 5 copies where left
they can sell it for 5$ at a loss!!!
> $500 million what? Profit? Income? You might want to try at least a
> minimal bit of googling instead of pulling numbers out of your ass.
> ... here's a link to get you started so you don't continue looking
> like a complete idiot.
>
> http://ir.take2games.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=298660
>
> Now, take a look at the games they're publishing, the platforms and
> explain to me why you even brought up take 2 in a discussion of PC
> games.
I was talking about GTA IV. I wanted that you calculate to me how much
copies they sold if their profit was 500$ million in a weekend (or first
week).
Ok, Frank you are math genius, now do the calculus.
I wanted to say that even that sounds like exaggeration! Let's say that GTA
IV was sold 6 million units - how they then made 500 million $. Do the math
please!
I wanted to illustrate to you that your math sucks. Battlefront.com is not
selling only in retail so they don't need 80000 to sell in retail because
they are selling games on their website as well. How many and what is the
profit, I DON'T KNOW.
Nor do I know you fool how much they EARN PER COPY IN RETAIL!!!
But you shitheads knows everything!!! Even better probably then those guys
in Battlefront.com.
You even repeating that bullshit that this game have costed 2 million $ to
make when THAT is seen from a plane that was a clear exaggeration on Steve
Grammont in his interview but you fools fall on that.
Not a one wargame cost 2 million $ to make because then by that calculus MTW
2 would cost 50 million $ to make judging by sheer work force employed!!!
God, I love fools and it is fun to ridicule them!
> Where did I say that? I have no clue how many copies battlefront sold
> or how much money they made off of CM1. I also don't know how much
> they're paying themselves. But a couple of things are known:
>
> - They'll make about $45 on any game they sell online from their store
No, you forgot that those copies needs to be manufactured, marketed, etc and
there are other costs!!! So it is not $45!!!
> - They'll make about $25 on any game that's sold retail.
Puffffff.... LOL And Paradox was selling game for 20$ very soon after game
was published. And Game.co.uk was selling game for 18 GBP also very soon
when game was published. Your idiocy is that you are pulling this crap like
some magician is pulling a rabbbit and you don't know a thing!
Did Paradox worked for nothing to publish this game and market it,
distribute it in retail?
HAHAHAHA!!
Maybe some other distributor was also included, WE DON'T KNOW!
But I do know that my distributor WAS selling CM: SF in UK and that means
that he ALSO TAKES HIS SHARE!!!!!
> - If they really did have 7 people working for 3 years on CM2, their
> total cost was somewhere between $1.5 and $2 million depending on how
> much their paying and what type of benefits they offer.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
So Creative Assembly had let's say 70 people on MTW 2 that means by your
calculus that MTW 2 costed between 15 and 20 million $ to make???
LOL
Well, there was some numbers for MTW 2 and if it sold 800000 and if Creative
Assemby got 10$ for one copy. LOL Remember that SEGA is their publisher and
I don't know if any developer get's 10$ per copy but let's say that it is
10$.
So that is 8 million $ made on MTW 2 and game by your math costed between 15
and 20 million $ to made. So now genius explain to me how Creative Assembly
is alive and kickin!
Oh, I love fools!!!
Either your math sucks or you are imbecile. Or both!
> Basic economics isn't very complicated. Even you could probably gain
> a basic grasp of the subject if you tried. But until then, you might
> want to stay out of this type of discussion, all you're doing is
> showing everyone how much of a clueless, blustering buffoon you really
> are when it comes to these things.
Aha, I see that you are speaking about yourself. But I will help you sink in
this live sand when you are so enthusiastic about this.
LOL
Mario
eddys...@hotmail.com
> "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:MPG.228fb272a893682e989a30@localhost...
>
>
>
> > Just saw five *unsold* copies at that price at the ol' University Mall.
>
> > Punchline: Nobody is buying this shitware at *five bucks*.
>
> > <laughs...laughs...laughs>
>
> price than SF. This is... interesting!
>
> that JasonC dude who quoted "low sales" as a proof that the HTTR/CotA system
> "sucked"...
You probably know this already, but if you wonder what happened to
your pal Michael Dorosh : he got banned.
They're refusing to say why and his last post(s) were edited out so
there's no telling why, but I bet his review of CM:SF on Amazon had
something to do with it :
Posting it here in case it gets "lost" at other sites as well - the
review of a guy who went from uber-fanboy to public enemy #1
"What you get out of this game, like anything, will depend on what
your expectations are. Presuming that you are approaching this title
for the same reasons that people approached the first three CM titles,
and for the same reasons that the developers claim to have published
the game, this reviewer feels you will likely be disappointed. That
reason would be to find a playable, entertaining, perhaps even thought-
provoking squad-based, company level tactical 3D wargame.
The positives; CM:SF at its most basic level seems like its
predecessors. The player is presented with an open ended game with a
map editor, scenarios, a linked-scenarios game option, and a random
scenario generator. Play is still turn-based, with 1 minute "movies"
interspersed with orders phases in which both sides give orders. Play
is resolved simultaneously. Even board game designers knew that "Si-
Move" was more realistic that sequential turns back in the early
1970s. Additionally, those Zombie-critters in the first CM games have
been replaced with stunning 3D models, and adequate animations. All
the wheels on the tanks turn, men reload magazines, they even give
first aid to injured soldiers. And hey, you want to play in real time
and forget the goofy turn system, there is a real time option too. And
if you still want to stop and catch a breath, you can pause the real
time. They fixed the "borg spotting" and now each unit traces LOS
independently of others.
So what could possibly be wrong? It's the same old CM, just better,
and more features, right?
Unfortunately, no. Aside from the most obvious change - a modern day
fictional war in Syria that may or may not appeal - many of the old CM
features have been gutted. First of all, the game is so data-heavy,
with individual tracking of ammunition and small arms fire, that PBEM
files are bloated. There is also no way to play turn-based over the
internet. It's real time only. If you were a fan of the Quick Battles
- there are no random maps. The data was too much to do be able to do
them "on the fly". There are no more point purchase systems for the
QBs, either.
In game, there are a lot of handy features that didn't make the
transition - LOS tools or ambush or shoot-n-scoot or seek hull down.
Some have work arounds (the target command works as an LOS - unless
you have an unarmed unit).
The main objection is that the biggest complaint about the old CM -
the 3-man representations on the map of entire infantry squads - have
been replaced with 1:1 representation. But the individuals on the map
don't act like individuals. Just about everything is abstracted; there
are no interior walls in buildings - but there are exterior windows
and doors (you can tell because the men won't jump through the
windows, and the pathfinding is so poor that men will run circles
around entire buildings trying to find the doors even if it means
exposing themselves to fire to do it). LOS is supposedly drawn to each
man individually, but an underlying 8x8m grid of "Action Spots" also
controls such things as movement - though there are no visual clues on
the map as to what is determined by the action spots, or where they
are, exactly. You still control squads as if they were squads - not
individuals - which means if you want to replenish your squad's ammo
from its APC (another welcome new feature) - you send the entire squad
running off the firing line to do it where in real life you'd just
send one man back for an ammo can or an armful of bandoliers. There is
a serious "scale-mismatch" as one veteran wargamer described it at the
official forums. The developers lost sight of what made the original
game fun and tried to broaden their retail base to include real time
customers while abandoning commitment to crucial philosophies of game
design.
Worst, perhaps, the AI has largely been removed. Granted, it was silly
to watch platoon HQs and mortars leading counterattacks in the first
CM games, but the AI in CM:SF is entirely scripted. The scenario
designer now sets the agenda by having the enemy react to the clock,
not the tactical situation. There is still a TacAI, but the developers
are still working out the bugs, and it mostly determines defensive
actions. The AI won't counter-attack you if you take a victory
location - unless the script calls for it. There are multiple scripts
available for each scenario, but the AI still won't act dynamically to
what you are doing except by sheer coincidence.
The "campaign" released with the game replaces the popular Operations
model of the earlier CM games. You will never be able to fight over
the same terrain as in the early games. Instead, you have a simplistic
branch system of linked scenarios with which you have no control to
make decisions on which units you will employ - you're there for the
ride.
If you're mostly interested in pretty graphics, CM:SF won't
disappoint. The night-time effects are good; daytime effects are ok -
still some work to be done on shadows, and battlefront has said they
have no way to fix the fact that bunkers and trenches are impossible
to hide. That's right - you buy a bunker or a trench and the terrain
is deformed wherever you put it, and the enemy can see that wherever
you place it on the map. Not cool for head-to-head play. Between two
friends, not an issue, but perhaps its no small wonder there haven't
been any tournament ladders springing up with the same wild abandon
they did for the first CM games. As nice as the vehicles look on the
move, other animations are silly - inappropriate weapons reload
animations (those US troops don't know how to use the hold-open device
on a reloaded M4 apparently) and really silly building demolitions -
pull you out of the environment pretty quickly.
The official forums for the game will inform you far better than a
review here. The fact this game went to the clearance bin so quickly
should inform you also. Nine months after release and the game has
seen 8 patches (one was required on release day) with no official
announcement to when the patches will be complete. And yet the game is
already retailing for less than 8 dollars. Compare the price of this
game to that of its earlier predecessor Combat Mission: Barbarossa to
Berlin, still retailing around the 20 dollar mark on Amazon.
8 dollars is a fair price for this product and there are enough fans
to be found at the official website that you will find plenty of
company to enjoy the game with. The developer has promised at least
one add-on module to incorporate Marines into the game with additional
Syrian units. Best advice is to download the demo and try it out for
yourself. Bear in mind the latest patch features will likely not be
reflected in the latest demo, as this does not get updated with each
patch.
A word to the wise, however - an educated guess is that when this game
engine progresses to the Second World War, the modern setting will be
quickly forgotten. The developer has only one coder working on their
titles, and demand for the WW II version has been high. After a series
of mediocre releases (CM:SF, Theatre of War, T-72), BFC will be
looking to appeal to new audiences - there will likely be little
future in modules for this one after the promised Marines module comes
out, if demand for the WWII titles is as high as is anticipated and
sales of that popular genre manage to eclipse the modern games. "
-
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
No wonder he was banned: factual comments don't reside well with some
developers.
Frank E
<george.w...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, at least we now know who's talking out of their ass. What makes
>> you think that a nobody (relatively speaking) like Battlefront can
>> get better terms from retailers than than a big name publisher?
>
>No. I will answer you this time but just to make you a fool because you
>really want this.
>I was saying that they didn't sell anything for 5$ into retail because they
>would shoot theself in the foot.
Very good! I'm glad to see that you're at least capable of grasping
the obvious.
>LOL they might do that if they have made excessive number of CM: SF copies
>so like Atari that was burning ET game for Atari console in the desert
>wanted to get rid of stuff.
>But they are selling the game for 45$ at their website and based on your
>logic they sold to retail games for 5$ or less for no profit at all!
... but I see that 'cause and effect' is still too complicated for you
to grasp. Let me try one more time. I'll type slowly,
Battlefront doesn't have any say in the matter. When they negotiate a
retail deal with Walmart, Battlefront aren't the ones setting the
terms.
Are you honestly so simplistic as to think that Walmart would ever
negotiate a contract where they could take a loss of $20 on every copy
if a game bombs? No need to answer that, this thread is answer
enough.
Bloodstar
Vincenzo Beretta
he is saying rational things. Too little, too late, already said elsewhere,
but the phenomenom deserves recognition.
The relevant exchange is on this page
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=004235;p=4
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Well, I checked up that JasonC guy, and, now that he is criticizing CM:SF,
> he is saying rational things. Too little, too late, already said elsewhere,
> but the phenomenom deserves recognition.
Blind faith runs out at some point as reality has a way of
circumventing even the biggest blinders.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Bloodstar
Really? :o))))
Therron Thomas
Where's University Mall and what store so I can send them $20.
I would pay $20 for one copy let alone 4.
I enjoy this game, and oddly enough thats MY opinion. So some USENET
dweeb can have his own opinion too just like me.
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.228fb272a893682e989a30@localhost...
>
> Just saw five *unsold* copies at that price at the ol' University Mall.
>
> Punchline: Nobody is buying this shitware at *five bucks*.
>
> <laughs...laughs...laughs>
>
>
>
Epi
twtSPAMh...@bluemMAPSarble.net says...
Amazon has it for $7.67. It's from NothingButSoftware. I think they
might kind of be a third-party seller plus.
I've had good luck with the third-party sellers at Amazon.
--
DVD of the moment: Roxy Music - Live at the Apollo.
----
I really like these headphones:
http://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-PMX-60-PMX60-
Headphones/dp/B00009LI55/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=
1209063795&sr=8-1
[copy & paste]
They sound good.
They're not the ear sweatin' kind.
They're the behind-the-neck kind.
----
http://www.curlesneck.com
----
Epi