COTA to be split into two data packs

[RayWolfe]

"Does anyone think it odd that it comes down to about $2US per scenario, about the same as HTTR? I mean, I have bought BFTB and the HTTR expansion, but $60US for 35 scenarios seems kind of steep. Is there anything else in these packs..."

YES phoenix, this Ray Wolfe character intended antagonism after this comment.
Does the senior executive and software product manager have any idea what it takes to produce a scenario?
Any idea at all?
I do!
If he's short of $2, we fans (excuse the derogatory language) will have a whip-round to buy him one.

[altipueri]

Well I would give away the game engine with the tutorial and one full scenario included - say Hofen Ho Down.

Then sell scenario packs at about 10 for 20 dollars/euros.

But then I run a small venture capital company, Equity Ventures www.equityventures.co.uk - so I tend to want to see companies like Panther and AGEOD stay in business by generating cash.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Fishbreath
Maybe I'm just being optimistic here, but I think that Command Ops has the potential to succeed in the more mainstream wargame market. It may be more complicated in terms of what goes on behind the scenes, but I wouldn't say it's harder to get into from a player's perspective than, say, Hearts of Iron 3. It's got a couple of things going for it that the standard 'niche' wargame doesn't:

1. A good UI. It's not perfect, but it's well-designed—there are clear delineations between sections of the UI concerning things you should know and things you can do, and barring a few minor things (like unit-centered LoS tools, and maybe a LoS tool that disregards daylight, terrain cover, and weather, and merely asks if there's a direct line of sight between two points, as might be determined with a raw contour map; also, seeing supply routes and knowing where supply columns came under fire might be nice), I don't have any real complaints about it.
2. Replayability and content. I own more Command Ops scenarios than I'm ever going to have time to play, I could play all of them on both sides, and they're not likely to play out the same two times in a row anyway.
3. Easy difficulty tweaking. Between orders delay, weather, reinforcement schedules, and supply, it's simple to make a scenario easier or harder.
4. Real-time. This one's a little stranger, but turn-based games bring out the optimizer in everyone, and in wargames of this kind of complexity, the penalty for forgetting a unit for a turn is much greater than the penalty for forgetting a unit for, say, half an hour or an hour.
5. A unique concept. There are lots of hexes-and-counters wargames out there. There are no other footprints-and-terrain-and-real-time-with-orders-delays-and-intel-failures-etc wargames out there worth mentioning.

Excellent post, Fishbreath, really.

I do personally think that one of the problems, besides "pricing" are points 4 and 5. There are quite a few tropes from board-based game design, which have become very deeply ingrained at a psychological level. I can see how an experienced TOAW/Panzer Campaigns wargamer can feel very disoriented when confronted with Command Ops, since the skills learnt to process information and "do things" in a traditional hex-and-counter design translated into a computer, are frankly, quite useless. I mean, back when I was first exposed to RDOA I had to go over that.

What we really need - I think - is someone doing a in-depth AAR of a Command Ops scenario and the same scenario as modeled in say TOAW 3. If you're up for the playing and discussing, I think I can find a map for the Arracourt 44 scenario in Classic TOAW, adapt the OOB there to the HttR estab and get it done for Command Ops. Or if anybody else volunteers for that - so I can devote my time to further help Dave with the development - please, come forward. I promise unflinching support [;)]

What do you reckon?

ORIGINAL: Fishbreath
With all that taken into account, I think Command Ops is more than capable of bigger things—not mainstream success, but definitely mainstream wargame success. I would submit it's priced appropriately for the market it's in now (games available only through Matrix), but I would also say that priced in the $40-$50 range for BftB and the HttR scenarios and marketed at a wider audience, it would be more successful than it is now.

I've run Command Ops AARs at a couple of semi-mainstream gaming forums, and the most frequent comment I get on the game is, "That's awesome, but I wish it wasn't so expensive." That's not coming from random people, either; it's coming from serious- or semi-serious wargamers, people who don't blink at Arsenal of Democracy or The Operational Art of War III. That's a market in which Command Ops is more than capable of succeeding, but it's not a market open to Command Ops given its current pricing and the current retailers through whom one can get it.

Obviously, that's just my opinion, and I don't have anything besides a gut feeling to back it up.

So you think that Dave's outlined plans make sense to breakthrough those barriers?

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
And I will reiterate that most SW ewec do not see inflation in NA and EMEA as a serious issue. 1.5 to 2.5 % is a very manageable rate. Its platform and technology changes that drive most HR costs in SW. If tech stayed the same, most companies could deal with it.

They don't see it as a serious issue because of one simple fact and fundamental difference. Here the company is the developers themselves who put their own assets in the line. There are no "execs"/"devs" separation, and of course, laying off peeps to outsource development to a cheaper place - thus negating the effect of inflation on labor, indeed - isn't possible.

So the products need to cover salaries and running expenses (i.e. hardware and updates to development tools). One can be frugal with "development" tools. For instance, you don't need to upgrade to VS 2012 if it isn't affecting your business in a way that leaves VS 2010 sad and crying in the dust, or upgrade to Windows 8, if most of your users haven't adopted that platform and Microsoft has done a quite good job to keep backwards compatibility. Being frugal with your own salary is something one can do, but I find it - coming from a exec-background individual - a bit rich to tell devs "be frugal", while one is used to fly on business class accumulating air miles and have six-figure salaries.

When it's worth to keep working in something like developing computer war games? Basically when you can cover your running expenses and have a salary that can support a family (a quite frugal salary in Australia would be about 50-60,000$ per annum). I think I don't need to argue how directly inflation, taxes or exchange rates, affects the "benefit", i.e. "the salary", of those involved in development.

Now that's 101 economics of the self-employed individuals which aren't in to sell their show to the highest bidder in five years, man. So come off from the Learjet, and get into the coach and smell the farts and take-away hamburgers.

ORIGINAL: thewood1
$30 for an engine and then another $30 for scenarios might be OK in the short term. The main issue is still that that is a pretty high barrier to people on the edge. Its better, but that engine is three years old. It should have paid for itself already. And that is how real product management works. The products have to be looked at as to how much of the ROI have you attained. After that, trying to milk a dying market is a losing proposition.

I've highlighted the bit where you're wrong. It's not the "same engine" as three years ago: in 2013 is more capable, stable and ready to be further expanded. Here the bet is on one single horse. Maybe one day in the future Dave will have the resources to devote himself to design a different game, while keeping this show going on, but that's not possible at the moment, I think (although maybe Dave feels like he's had enough of us guys).

In any case, I'm glad to see you here exposing your views, thewood [:)]

[Phoenix100]

Raywolfe wrote YES phoenix, this Ray Wolfe character intended antagonism after this comment.

Well, what's the point of that, Ray? We're all fans in here - thewood1 included - he's spent the money to buy the game and play it, same as you and I. No point in being antagonistic, unless you actually enjoy that.

[Ron]

ORIGINAL: Fishbreath

Maybe I'm just being optimistic here, but I think that Command Ops has the potential to succeed in the more mainstream wargame market. It may be more complicated in terms of what goes on behind the scenes, but I wouldn't say it's harder to get into from a player's perspective than, say, Hearts of Iron 3. It's got a couple of things going for it that the standard 'niche' wargame doesn't:

1. A good UI. It's not perfect, but it's well-designed—there are clear delineations between sections of the UI concerning things you should know and things you can do, and barring a few minor things (like unit-centered LoS tools, and maybe a LoS tool that disregards daylight, terrain cover, and weather, and merely asks if there's a direct line of sight between two points, as might be determined with a raw contour map; also, seeing supply routes and knowing where supply columns came under fire might be nice), I don't have any real complaints about it.
2. Replayability and content. I own more Command Ops scenarios than I'm ever going to have time to play, I could play all of them on both sides, and they're not likely to play out the same two times in a row anyway.
3. Easy difficulty tweaking. Between orders delay, weather, reinforcement schedules, and supply, it's simple to make a scenario easier or harder.
4. Real-time. This one's a little stranger, but turn-based games bring out the optimizer in everyone, and in wargames of this kind of complexity, the penalty for forgetting a unit for a turn is much greater than the penalty for forgetting a unit for, say, half an hour or an hour.
5. A unique concept. There are lots of hexes-and-counters wargames out there. There are no other footprints-and-terrain-and-real-time-with-orders-delays-and-intel-failures-etc wargames out there worth mentioning.

With all that taken into account, I think Command Ops is more than capable of bigger things—not mainstream success, but definitely mainstream wargame success. I would submit it's priced appropriately for the market it's in now (games available only through Matrix), but I would also say that priced in the $40-$50 range for BftB and the HttR scenarios and marketed at a wider audience, it would be more successful than it is now.

I've run Command Ops AARs at a couple of semi-mainstream gaming forums, and the most frequent comment I get on the game is, "That's awesome, but I wish it wasn't so expensive." That's not coming from random people, either; it's coming from serious- or semi-serious wargamers, people who don't blink at Arsenal of Democracy or The Operational Art of War III. That's a market in which Command Ops is more than capable of succeeding, but it's not a market open to Command Ops given its current pricing and the current retailers through whom one can get it.

Obviously, that's just my opinion, and I don't have anything besides a gut feeling to back it up.

Yes, the 'expensive' part mirrors my own feelings as well as from some others when Command Ops has been brought up. I am not a fan boy but I do like the engine since first released by Battlefront. The same 'problems' plagued the game back then though as I recall Dave insisted it was the releasing of a demo which hampered sales - I didn't agree then and don't now.

Say what you want, but I know when BftB was first released I choked at the price point and didn't buy. I only did recently after the latest sale which brought it within the realm of reasonable value for the dollar imo. I also bought the HttR reissue which I am definitely more meh about; I got the impression these scenarios were not playtested much through with the new engine and I actually enjoyed the original much more. I will likely feel the same about the reissue of the CotA scenarios if I bought them; however, at $60 for the 'data' packs that will never happen - I will have to be content with the original. I'm also very surprised dismounting of mounted troops still has not been incorporated into the engine - one of my main beef's with CotA and seems a major deficiency.

I disagree with some of your other points. I do think the pauseable real-time is a positive in today's market and has the potential to grab a larger audience. I think where the game needs some 'love' is in the presentation, something more than plain, flat counters on a plain, flat map. It needs to be jazzed up to be more appealing. How? I am not an artist or designer, but better animations, sounds, map graphics etc. would be a start. We are human and eye candy never hurts as long as there is real meat underneath which CommandOps has plenty.

This plan to move forward will definitely push me off to the side in some areas, in others I will definitely be 'waiting'. Obviously, there are those who will buy regardless and it will remain to be seen if this new entry point idea will make up for and exceed cases like me. Anyways good luck, just one man's opinion, take it for what it is worth - no need to bring out the pitchforks.

[Arjuna]

Ron,

Thanks for the feedback.

What price would you recommend for the engine and for the data packs.

[Ron]

I think that has already been answered by myself and others in this thread. You don't operate in a vacuum. There are many other wargame developers going through the same process. Halfing content, doubling down on the price only drives you closer and closer towards the elitist model, the label already garnered for some time now. What's also been said by others is CommandOps has the potential for a much wider audience, just needs to pretty up the presentation to make it more appealing. My opinion, from a consumer point of view, is this needs to be the focus.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: loyalcitizen

I did not get the digital download. I bought the hardcopy and had it shipped. My discs and code have been lost during one of my 3 moves since then.

I have only my 31 posts that I found using the search feature of the COTA forum on Matrix. Some of those have screenshots I took of my games in progress.
Hopefully that proves that I bought the game, but I'm still hoping that Panther has a record of my purchase and can help out a loyal customer since RDOA.

So long as you purchased the game through Matrix, here's what the Matrix "find my orders" page under the members' club says:

"The Find My Order page allows you look up and find orders you placed with us over the years and to be able to re-download it. To start the search you first need to know when about you purchased your games.

If you purchased your product prior to November 2010, and you have your order Number & password or your email address and the last 4 digits of your credit card, please use the following..."

If that doesn't work, I've written Matrix support in the past regarding an issue with a title Matrix began marketing a couple of years after I purchased it off the shelf from a software distributor local to me. They were responsive to my request since I had a title they marketed.

Hope this helps.

[HappyHedonist]

ORIGINAL: Ron

Yes, the 'expensive' part mirrors my own feelings as well as from some others when Command Ops has been brought up. I am not a fan boy but I do like the engine since first released by Battlefront. The same 'problems' plagued the game back then though as I recall Dave insisted it was the releasing of a demo which hampered sales - I didn't agree then and don't now.

Is this true? I'm a bit confused considering the fact the only reason I spent $80 on the game is because I couldn't quit playing the demo. I also know of 2 other individuals who did the same thing. It'd be a shame if future games did not include demos. That would be a huge mistake IMO.

Also, how could releasing a demo hamper sales? If the demo is good, people will buy the game. I guess I missed this argument.

[Arjuna]

Way back in RDOA days (2001) we released a demo but without tutorial movies to explain the game concept and how to play. We received a lot of feedback that people were confused. So that's why I made that remark back then. It's also why we invested a lot of time into developing the tutorial movies and released the BFTB demo. I am a firm believer that the BFTB demo has been a good move.

[Gizuria]

It's axiomatic that the more expensive something is, the less units you're going to sell. It's finding the right balance that's the tricky part and I've got no advice for you on that except to say that I would happily pay $80+ for a new title. But heck, I'm a big fan and I think this game is so good and will be well worth the price whatever it turns out to be.

Nowadays, you can go via the DLC route. Very unpopular with some but it makes a LOT of sense to me. I'd happily buy the titles with 8-10 scenarions and then pay $2.95 or $3.95 for each individual scenario as well. The customer gets to choose the missions he wants to play (I'm a collector so I'd buy them all regardless) and you keep the money coming in by releasing new content on a monthly/bi-monthly basis. Whatever you choose will be fine by me as long as you stay in business to make more from this exceptional game engine.

[Gizuria]

Oh, and confirm that it was the demo that sold the game to me as well. The best series of demos I've seen for a game ever. It's a complex beast as are most of the games I play nowadays and I prefer to climb the learning curve as quickly as possible so that I can enjoy playing the game. Demos like this really get you playing the game very quickly.

[wodin]

Payong for individual scenarios then stops the campaign feature..not what I wnat..rather have a pack of them...usually if it's part of the war I'm interested I wnat as many as possible anyway.

[midgard30]

Games at that price need a demo. There are expensive ones in the Matrix library that I decided not to buy because I couldn't try them. I discovered CO by searching a review for another game. By chance I read on Out of Eight that CO got the perfect score. Above all, it's the tutorial that tip the balance as I could see all the complexity and the potential of it.

Dave, I must admit that it took me a long time to decide if I would like CO or not. I bought this game 8 or 10 months ago, and many times I stop playing for weeks. A certain point, I thought it was maybe not my cup of tea after all. I believe it was because of its apparent passive nature. Many times I was watching the AI playing for me doing a better job, not knowing if and when I should take action. Still, CO stayed in my mind all along, so lately I decided to involve myself more in it. After reading threads and with the help of many people in this forum, I then realized how much more I had to be pro-active.

The verdict is without a doubt: a fine and great game.

I did Pattons' Favorite 3 times in row with a different approach and each time the AI response was completely different, always sending skirmishers trying to cut my supply lines. Among the other games I played, this one is where Fog of war and alternate days and nights has so much impact.

Many thanks, and I do hope you'll find the business development that will suit you and your customers.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: macob30

Games at that price need a demo. There are expensive ones in the Matrix library that I decided not to buy because I couldn't try them. I discovered CO by searching a review for another game. By chance I read on Out of Eight that CO got the perfect score. Above all, it's the tutorial that tip the balance as I could see all the complexity and the potential of it.

Dave, I must admit that it took me a long time to decide if I would like CO or not. I bought this game 8 or 10 months ago, and many times I stop playing for weeks. A certain point, I thought it was maybe not my cup of tea after all. I believe it was because of its apparent passive nature. Many times I was watching the AI playing for me doing a better job, not knowing if and when I should take action. Still, CO stayed in my mind all along, so lately I decided to involve myself more in it. After reading threads and with the help of many people in this forum, I then realized how much more I had to be pro-active.

The verdict is without a doubt: a fine and great game.

I did Pattons' Favorite 3 times in row with a different approach and each time the AI response was completely different, always sending skirmishers trying to cut my supply lines. Among the other games I played, this one is where Fog of war and alternate days and nights has so much impact.

Many thanks, and I do hope you'll find the business development that will suit you and your customers.

I agree about the video tutorial being of great advertising value to the game.
Watching that, then seeing the kind of support that was on the forum really swung the deal for me, and I confess that I did research what I was buying into because of the high price.

I think you should get the same guy to do another video for any new material you put out as well.
He has a great Aussie accent, and is very easy to listen to [;)]

[Floyd]

There is of course an alternative for the "pay for engine and pay for DLC" concept.
Eagle Dynamics, producer of flight sims (all standalone for long time), split their
product into two parts: an engine/core, called DCSworld, and so called modules, which add
more planes to the engine/core part:
http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/world/
modules:
http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/e ... ack_shark/

The core part can be downloaded for free, includes one plane for free, comes with full
documentation, acts as"the demo" and is even multiplayer compatibe/runnable. That is a very
big teaser and "lurks" many players to this flight sim. Updates to the engine are free,
bugfixes to modules are free, but added features to modules cost extra, depending on
volume and ownership (upgrade vs. new purchase).

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
I think you should get the same guy to do another video for any new material you put out as well.
He has a great Aussie accent, and is very easy to listen to [;)]

Well thanks. That was me. The trouble is that making those movies costs a lot of time. I spent well over two months on those movies.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Floyd

There is of course an alternative for the "pay for engine and pay for DLC" concept.
Eagle Dynamics, producer of flight sims (all standalone for long time), split their
product into two parts: an engine/core, called DCSworld, and so called modules, which add
more planes to the engine/core part:
http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/world/
modules:
http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/e ... ack_shark/

The core part can be downloaded for free, includes one plane for free, comes with full
documentation, acts as"the demo" and is even multiplayer compatibe/runnable. That is a very
big teaser and "lurks" many players to this flight sim. Updates to the engine are free,
bugfixes to modules are free, but added features to modules cost extra, depending on
volume and ownership (upgrade vs. new purchase).

Thanks for that info. [:)]

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
I think you should get the same guy to do another video for any new material you put out as well.
He has a great Aussie accent, and is very easy to listen to [;)]

Well thanks. That was me. The trouble is that making those movies costs a lot of time. I spent well over two months on those movies.

I was wondering [:D]

Well they are very professionally done, and have been a huge asset for the series in my opinion [:)]