Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Removing Features in latest service release for pro edition ?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Removing Features in latest service release for pro edition ? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Removing Features in latest service release for pro edi... - 2/11/2017 10:12:07 PM   
DBeves

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline
Mmmmm....

Starts last post on this page ... not sure I like this ..

http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=4065.1920


< Message edited by DBeves -- 2/12/2017 1:24:35 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Latest SR - 2/11/2017 10:27:32 PM   
JPL19


Posts: 13
Joined: 11/10/2013
Status: offline
Have to agree . . .

No good excuse or reasoning for removing feature or content.

Joe L.

(in reply to DBeves)
Post #: 2
RE: Latest SR - 2/11/2017 11:20:33 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Yeah sorry guys. I see Dimitris already responded to this.

I hope you recognize though that we've given new features with every update. I think the next one after this you'll definitely be pretty happy.

Thanks

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to JPL19)
Post #: 3
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 12:52:24 AM   
DBeves

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline
So you are giving the same frankly unbelievable answer over here as you are over there ?

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 4
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 12:55:49 AM   
Stardog765


Posts: 160
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline
I love this game but I have to agree here, that is just a smack in the face to everyone who has supported this game since release.
I understand your reasoning but that doesn't make it right. To pull a feature no matter how much used or not JUST so you have bullet point to show your "professional" customers see look it is worth what we are charging you.

Very uncool and as much as I love the game and will always play it going forward I will have to think twice about buying the new LIVE scenario and any further content you deem worthy to sell us lowly "commercial" customers.

Sorry if that sounds negative but that is just the taste it leaves in my mouth and for the price I paid for this game I figure I am entitled to voice that opinion.


(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 5
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 1:58:11 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1897
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
While out of unit editing option and other Pro features aren't welcoming to modders, especially for someone who love playing alternative history, Sci-Fi or even fantasy based scenarios, I agree it's exactly what CMANO designed for.

I wouldn't like to see this game becoming that fallacy because of the ability to mod the game out of the dimension of military simulation. And besides, adding real-life based units and features require frequent searches, which is way more challenging than just adding aliens or dragons in whatever abilities they could just imagine.

As for the replay, well, I don't use it much either, I'd prefer video streaming and save multiple parts of the game to tell them I am actually playing it, not some meaningless time-lapse or showcase demonstrations.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 2/12/2017 2:41:49 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Stardog765)
Post #: 6
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 3:03:49 AM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1444
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

...that is just a smack in the face to everyone who has supported this game since release.

What colossal arrogance and phoney entitlement, you certainly don't speak for me and my face has not been smacked by the developers in the least. The faux outrage here and over at Grogheads is face-palming pathetic and the whiners should just go back to Harpoon.

-C

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 7
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 5:38:55 AM   
HalfLifeExpert


Posts: 816
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline
Yeah, I totally agree Randomizer. Of all of CMANO's features, I found the recording the least useful. There was nothing I could learn from recording that I couldn't learn from close attentiveness and the message log. And the fact that the record files took up so much HDD space put me off from using it as well.

And no Stardog, you do not speak for me ether, I supported the Devs by buying each DLC since I got the game, and even though I haven't played the new content that much, I am very happy to have supported them. You are entitled to your opinion, but do not claim that you speak for the majority, because you do not.

The recording feature wasn't that useful, and Dimitris is right that you rarely, if ever hear it talked about, professionals who can probably afford plenty of HDD space might find more use for it.

Recording you gameplay to be played back in the program was hardly the biggest selling point of CMANO. People bought it for the highly realistic military simulation and the vast databases, and all off that is still there.

< Message edited by HalfLifeExpert -- 2/12/2017 5:54:40 AM >

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 8
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 8:50:38 AM   
temkc5

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 10/11/2015
Status: offline
I have love this serious game from the start 2013 and always will

Keep up the great work Dev team



_____________________________

Non mihi, Non tibi, Sed nobis


(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)
Post #: 9
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 9:24:16 AM   
TheCabal


Posts: 111
Joined: 1/2/2013
Status: offline
It's not like that there are more alternatives.. it's should I stay or should I go then for the guys over at Grogheads.

< Message edited by TheCabal -- 2/12/2017 10:10:09 AM >

(in reply to temkc5)
Post #: 10
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 9:55:51 AM   
gregor40

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 10/6/2014
Status: offline
Just a tip. Do not let your business modell loose you the customer base. Unless your PE is your target business. Players can accept that some functionalities are specific to PE, but do not take away the bone from the dog.

EDIT: I don't care about the recording functionality. But I fear for other functionalities.

< Message edited by gregor40 -- 2/12/2017 9:56:31 AM >

(in reply to TheCabal)
Post #: 11
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 10:02:24 AM   
cdcool


Posts: 659
Joined: 1/25/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gregor40

Just a tip. Do not let your business modell loose you the customer base. Unless your PE is your target business. Players can accept that some functionalities are specific to PE, but do not take away the bone from the dog.

EDIT: I don't care about the recording functionality. But I fear for other functionalities.


well said!

(in reply to gregor40)
Post #: 12
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 1:04:09 PM   
Zaslon

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 6/14/2015
Status: offline
quote:

I don't care about the recording functionality. But I fear for other functionalities.

I agree. I don't use the recorder but...
...there is a problem because in the product page, the recorder is listed as a feature.

Keep up the outstanding work guys. A little mistake (controversial decision) is very timy with all the updates you bring us since 2013!

P.S.
Interesting comment in Grogheads by Staggerwing.
quote:

All I can think is that the some country's 'professional' military such as the People's Liberation Army-Navy Store has started buying up the commercial/hobby game to train it's personnel instead of springing for the military-grade sim version costing thousands more and this is the response.

So, maybe all decisions have reasons....



< Message edited by Zaslon -- 2/12/2017 4:44:27 PM >


_____________________________


Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China

(in reply to cdcool)
Post #: 13
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 2:39:44 PM   
Dysta


Posts: 1897
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zaslon

P.S.
Interesting comment in Grogheads
[quote="Staggerwing"]All I can think is that the some country's 'professional' military such as the People's Liberation Army-Navy Store has started buying up the commercial/hobby game to train it's personnel instead of springing for the military-grade sim version costing thousands more and this is the response.


You are correct. Many amateurs in China are actually very fond on CMANO, and they made one of a scenario in attempt to sink Liaoning Carrier by US recently. Sparked hundreds of redirects and thousand replies all over military fan communities.

I think the sudden sold-spike from China did worry both Steam and DoD.

EDIT: Here's one of the topic from Chinese military forum, they felt very stressful just by managing Liaoning CSG in game, the other said Nimitz could be worse.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 2/12/2017 3:05:51 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Zaslon)
Post #: 14
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 3:56:28 PM   
Stardog765


Posts: 160
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline
Well first of all you guys might want to read more carefully, I never said that I speak for you what I said was " that is just a smack in the face to everyone who has supported this game since release"
I did not say I was speaking for anyone or that anyone else endorsed my feelings on the subject but that is what I think. So calm down, no one is trying to speak for you. I am speaking strictly for myself but from my point of view that IS how it seems. You don't have to agree with me, I really couldn't care less but as being a long time full on supporter of everything these guys have done and put out I felt I had a right to at least voice my opinion on the matter. Or is it just that opinions only matter here if the collective mind agrees with you?

I didn't make that post to just bash the devs, like I said I have loved this game since it came out and still do but this sudden change of how they are going to do business, putting the commercial customers against the pro customers I have seen before with ESims and it causes a lot of problems and this is just the beginning if this is the road they are going down by pulling features out no matter little used. That wasn't the point.


(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 15
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 4:36:06 PM   
kevinkins


Posts: 2206
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

People's Liberation Army-Navy Store has started buying up the commercial/hobby game to train it's personnel instead of springing for the military-grade sim version costing thousands more and this is the response.


Oy vey. Knowing a few thousand dollars per copy deters a nation the size of China should make us all sleep sounder tonight.

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 16
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 6:33:55 PM   
cdcool


Posts: 659
Joined: 1/25/2005
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Stardog765

Well first of all you guys might want to read more carefully, I never said that I speak for you what I said was " that is just a smack in the face to everyone who has supported this game since release"
I did not say I was speaking for anyone or that anyone else endorsed my feelings on the subject but that is what I think. So calm down, no one is trying to speak for you. I am speaking strictly for myself but from my point of view that IS how it seems. You don't have to agree with me, I really couldn't care less but as being a long time full on supporter of everything these guys have done and put out I felt I had a right to at least voice my opinion on the matter. Or is it just that opinions only matter here if the collective mind agrees with you?

I didn't make that post to just bash the devs, like I said I have loved this game since it came out and still do but this sudden change of how they are going to do business, putting the commercial customers against the pro customers I have seen before with ESims and it causes a lot of problems and this is just the beginning if this is the road they are going down by pulling features out no matter little used. That wasn't the point.




Everyone is entitled to their own opinion

< Message edited by cdcool -- 2/12/2017 6:34:22 PM >

(in reply to Stardog765)
Post #: 17
RE: Latest SR - 2/12/2017 8:16:50 PM   
Stardog765


Posts: 160
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline
I appreciate that. Thats all I was stating.

(in reply to cdcool)
Post #: 18
RE: Latest SR - 2/13/2017 8:09:42 PM   
Demetrious

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 4/22/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert
And the fact that the record files took up so much HDD space put me off from using it as well.


This is the key point. Translation: the feature isn't complete, and requires more development. More development means more man-hours means more money. And commercial customers didn't much use it, while professional customers quite liked/needed it.

There's also a slew of reasons not to leave in the implementation as-is; ongoing changes to the code elsewhere would quickly "break" the feature, since it's not being actively maintained/updated for the commercial branch, it's bad form to leave a half-complete and officially abandoned feature in your program, etc. As Dimitris mentioned on that other forum that was linked, "several features were lined up for this fate," i.e. not enough developmentbux to keep truckin' on all features, so they had to pick one for "pro-only," i.e. where compensation would at least match the effort invested. Naturally they picked a feature that only the pros seem to want, which is definitely the right call.

What I'm driving at is, the devteam's not stealing away already-finished features to incentivize the pro version - they're moving a half-finished feature to the branch it should've been in from the start, basically. From everything I've seen it's consistent with Warfare Sims behavior as a company, too. They are in it to make a living, (as they must,) but I don't know if it's fair to say they're in it for the money. If you're in it for the money you go make Battlefield 7 - Revengence, not SON OF HARPOON - THE WARSIMS STRIKE BACK. Wargaming sims, well, uh... there's just not that much disposable income to chase, there. More than a few milsim games started life as a government targeted program that was later repackaged as a commercial game; CMANO is rather rare for making the leap in the opposite direction, and for good reason - only the government or major defense contractors reliably shell out for this kind of thing. This devteam really has a personal investment in making a good sim. On three separate occasions I found bugs that I suspected might be quirks related to abstractions - where rigorous simulation of this or that was papered over a bit. These are perfectly acceptable; tabletop wargames use them freely to keep the workload down, and yet they still accurately simulate real-world results enough that some pen-and-paper wargames are still used by the military for quick think-tanking. Computer game devs utilize them when it will similarly not impact actual results, and the man-hours to code "proper" simulation of it are unjustified by the meager enhancements they might bring.

All three times, the devs took one look at it, said "oh dear, that should be fully-functioning simulation, it's a bug, lemme get on that." They don't really embrace "abstractions." (I still can't believe someone took the time to code in the THAAD missile's Energy Management Steering Maneuver.) The most abstract-y thing is ground vehicles, which mainly exist as targets because they're the furthest away from the program's focus - and even that seems to be slated for a future re-work. Someone was asking about counter-battery radar a few days ago and the answer was "that's not modeled yet, but if you need it now there's always bespoke development." That sums up their approach to development; won't takes a distant backseat to can't, and their pro services are almost by definition as much service as packaged product. That's the nature of that kind of thing; when a big company (like BAE) wants to use the software as an analysis tool, they're going to have a laundry list of specific features needed to test their specific concepts, and they'll also have a slew of classified/proprietary data to be used in refining the model. That latter point is a problem unto itself; things like comms jamming are currently absent because all the data needed to simulate it is classified as all hell. With data in hand from a "pro" customer that's no problem, but implementing it in the commercial branch isn't easy if you care about accuracy (and they do.) Then, and only then, do the devs turn to acceptable abstractions. The implementation of the "generational" system for adjusting effectiveness of jammers versus radars based on comparative tech age is a perfect example; it's the kind of thing most wargames use all over the place, but the devs only used because 90% of the details needed to properly simulate it are simply classified and unavailable. So features designed for the "pro" branch are only unavailable to us because someone has to make a design decision about how best to abstract it so it's simple, robust, yet produces broadly accurate results, and that kind of thing is very hard. Hell, Mr. Bridge even says as much at the end of this interview, relating to the comms thing. Or just look at the effort spent on runway repair - they could've slapped together a simple equation centered on "average runway repair time as offered in repair kit brochures," weighed it by the damage amount, added a penalty if the munition was specifically anti-runway and then randomized it a bit. Would've taken ten minutes. And as an abstraction, it would've been fine. But instead they told us "this is rather complicated, we're working on it" and went digging for a while. The final result probably took the same amount of time to code, but it was the background research and design decisions that ensured the results were accurate.

So tl;dr, I really, really wouldn't sweat things like this, because the evidence overwhelmingly points to the dev team being on our side. They are wargame nerds - they are us, and they care about this thing they're putting their names on, and it really does show. The "pro" version is going to make these guys bank, and that bank will keep the commercial branch in development bux (again, as Mr. Bridge points out in that interview.) The only thing holding them back seems to be the lack of a twenty-fifth hour in the day and cash to pay for it.

So yeah, don't you worry. I once had my (public) doubts about them - and apologized to Sunburn personally when the next update fixed literally everything I'd bitched about and then some. And I never played it before WRA and Lua were a thing. So if anyone has doubts, just sit tight - they're not gonna outlive the next big update.

_____________________________


(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)
Post #: 19
RE: Latest SR - 2/14/2017 12:29:16 AM   
HalfLifeExpert


Posts: 816
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline
Very well said Demetrious.

(in reply to Demetrious)
Post #: 20
RE: Latest SR - 2/14/2017 2:33:18 AM   
DrRansom

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/14/2013
Status: offline
Yeah, I don't like this at all. Actually, I was tossing around the idea about buying some "Live Scenarios" as a show of support, but no more.

I can understand CMANO Dev. abandoning the record feature on the regular model. That makes sense from a cost/benefit perspective. What I cannot accept is that the development team removed the feature at the request of a Pro client. (see the thread on Grogheads for the dev quote, around page 138.)

Removing functionality from the commercial game for a Pro client is the fist step in down a very bad path. The problem isn't this particular item, it is the item in the future that is on the chopping block. If the DoD demands simplifying the radar model for the commercial game and waves a big contract in the devs face, we should expect the radar model to be simplified. The dev team has established a precedent by which game functionality may be removed, in an underhanded fashion, at any time.

In light of that, why put any more money into the game? If functionality is at risk for removal, then there is no incentive to buy more from the company as anything purchased may be removed at any date.

You can point to all the free updates and they are amazing. But free updates was a decision you made. You could have justifiably rolled some of that into paid DLC. I tend to think that a Strike Planner is worth a paid DLC of itself. (I assume that's the next update, based on your 'look to the future' comments.) But, removing functions already sold is barely justifiable, and you're not bothering to defend it on the only worthwhile grounds.



PS: If you do remove the functionality, remember to delete that line from all promotional material. At least be honest with future private customers about the present state of the game. Maybe toss in this disclaimer too "Any functionality in the game may be removed at a future date, if our pro clients demand it." Then you'd get real points for honesty.

PPS. The THAAD Energy Management Maneuver, IIRC, was only implemented to keep the missile within the White Sands testing range. See this story: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2014/misdefanniversary.html



(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)
Post #: 21
RE: Latest SR - 2/14/2017 5:00:40 AM   
HalfLifeExpert


Posts: 816
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline
There isn't any evidence of pressure from the pros to remove recording from the commercial game, so really don't think that is a concern.

Plus, if you look on the Warfaresims site's professional edition page, it lists the avalible extensions for the pros, all of whuch gives them enough power to not need to demand any changes to the commercial game. Here they are:

Currently available extensions:

Full database editing
Ability to use on-demand commercial imagery – MS Bing Maps
Monte-Carlo analysis
Import external data in XML format
Export event notifications to files/databases or external data consumers
Ability to override Command’s internal mechanics (use your own custom models)
Ability to export to Tacview for 3D visualization
Source code licensing

Planned extensions:
Integrated WEGO multiplayer mode with optional Umpire mode
Extended costing
DIS/HLA integration
Ability to use on-demand commercial imagery – Other providers such as Google

(in reply to DrRansom)
Post #: 22
RE: Latest SR - 2/14/2017 5:08:05 AM   
cdcool


Posts: 659
Joined: 1/25/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demetrious

quote:

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert
And the fact that the record files took up so much HDD space put me off from using it as well.


This is the key point. Translation: the feature isn't complete, and requires more development. More development means more man-hours means more money. And commercial customers didn't much use it, while professional customers quite liked/needed it.

There's also a slew of reasons not to leave in the implementation as-is; ongoing changes to the code elsewhere would quickly "break" the feature, since it's not being actively maintained/updated for the commercial branch, it's bad form to leave a half-complete and officially abandoned feature in your program, etc. As Dimitris mentioned on that other forum that was linked, "several features were lined up for this fate," i.e. not enough developmentbux to keep truckin' on all features, so they had to pick one for "pro-only," i.e. where compensation would at least match the effort invested. Naturally they picked a feature that only the pros seem to want, which is definitely the right call.

What I'm driving at is, the devteam's not stealing away already-finished features to incentivize the pro version - they're moving a half-finished feature to the branch it should've been in from the start, basically. From everything I've seen it's consistent with Warfare Sims behavior as a company, too. They are in it to make a living, (as they must,) but I don't know if it's fair to say they're in it for the money. If you're in it for the money you go make Battlefield 7 - Revengence, not SON OF HARPOON - THE WARSIMS STRIKE BACK. Wargaming sims, well, uh... there's just not that much disposable income to chase, there. More than a few milsim games started life as a government targeted program that was later repackaged as a commercial game; CMANO is rather rare for making the leap in the opposite direction, and for good reason - only the government or major defense contractors reliably shell out for this kind of thing. This devteam really has a personal investment in making a good sim. On three separate occasions I found bugs that I suspected might be quirks related to abstractions - where rigorous simulation of this or that was papered over a bit. These are perfectly acceptable; tabletop wargames use them freely to keep the workload down, and yet they still accurately simulate real-world results enough that some pen-and-paper wargames are still used by the military for quick think-tanking. Computer game devs utilize them when it will similarly not impact actual results, and the man-hours to code "proper" simulation of it are unjustified by the meager enhancements they might bring.

All three times, the devs took one look at it, said "oh dear, that should be fully-functioning simulation, it's a bug, lemme get on that." They don't really embrace "abstractions." (I still can't believe someone took the time to code in the THAAD missile's Energy Management Steering Maneuver.) The most abstract-y thing is ground vehicles, which mainly exist as targets because they're the furthest away from the program's focus - and even that seems to be slated for a future re-work. Someone was asking about counter-battery radar a few days ago and the answer was "that's not modeled yet, but if you need it now there's always bespoke development." That sums up their approach to development; won't takes a distant backseat to can't, and their pro services are almost by definition as much service as packaged product. That's the nature of that kind of thing; when a big company (like BAE) wants to use the software as an analysis tool, they're going to have a laundry list of specific features needed to test their specific concepts, and they'll also have a slew of classified/proprietary data to be used in refining the model. That latter point is a problem unto itself; things like comms jamming are currently absent because all the data needed to simulate it is classified as all hell. With data in hand from a "pro" customer that's no problem, but implementing it in the commercial branch isn't easy if you care about accuracy (and they do.) Then, and only then, do the devs turn to acceptable abstractions. The implementation of the "generational" system for adjusting effectiveness of jammers versus radars based on comparative tech age is a perfect example; it's the kind of thing most wargames use all over the place, but the devs only used because 90% of the details needed to properly simulate it are simply classified and unavailable. So features designed for the "pro" branch are only unavailable to us because someone has to make a design decision about how best to abstract it so it's simple, robust, yet produces broadly accurate results, and that kind of thing is very hard. Hell, Mr. Bridge even says as much at the end of this interview, relating to the comms thing. Or just look at the effort spent on runway repair - they could've slapped together a simple equation centered on "average runway repair time as offered in repair kit brochures," weighed it by the damage amount, added a penalty if the munition was specifically anti-runway and then randomized it a bit. Would've taken ten minutes. And as an abstraction, it would've been fine. But instead they told us "this is rather complicated, we're working on it" and went digging for a while. The final result probably took the same amount of time to code, but it was the background research and design decisions that ensured the results were accurate.

So tl;dr, I really, really wouldn't sweat things like this, because the evidence overwhelmingly points to the dev team being on our side. They are wargame nerds - they are us, and they care about this thing they're putting their names on, and it really does show. The "pro" version is going to make these guys bank, and that bank will keep the commercial branch in development bux (again, as Mr. Bridge points out in that interview.) The only thing holding them back seems to be the lack of a twenty-fifth hour in the day and cash to pay for it.

So yeah, don't you worry. I once had my (public) doubts about them - and apologized to Sunburn personally when the next update fixed literally everything I'd bitched about and then some. And I never played it before WRA and Lua were a thing. So if anyone has doubts, just sit tight - they're not gonna outlive the next big update.


Hi there,
I'm curious, you state that you had your doubts once before, so I assume you are like the rest of us and not a developer or something related to that, how do you know all this stuff?

Thanks

(in reply to Demetrious)
Post #: 23
RE: Latest SR - 2/14/2017 5:09:10 AM   
cdcool


Posts: 659
Joined: 1/25/2005
From: United States
Status: offline
This is useful

(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)
Post #: 24
RE: Latest SR - 2/14/2017 5:10:17 AM   
cdcool


Posts: 659
Joined: 1/25/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert

There isn't any evidence of pressure from the pros to remove recording from the commercial game, so really don't think that is a concern.

Plus, if you look on the Warfaresims site's professional edition page, it lists the avalible extensions for the pros, all of whuch gives them enough power to not need to demand any changes to the commercial game. Here they are:

Currently available extensions:

Full database editing
Ability to use on-demand commercial imagery – MS Bing Maps
Monte-Carlo analysis
Import external data in XML format
Export event notifications to files/databases or external data consumers
Ability to override Command’s internal mechanics (use your own custom models)
Ability to export to Tacview for 3D visualization
Source code licensing

Planned extensions:
Integrated WEGO multiplayer mode with optional Umpire mode
Extended costing
DIS/HLA integration
Ability to use on-demand commercial imagery – Other providers such as Google


This is useful

(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)
Post #: 25
RE: Latest SR - 2/14/2017 6:03:04 AM   
Raptorx7_slith

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/27/2013
Status: offline
Wow, tac-view integration. That must look pretty darn cool.

< Message edited by raptorx7 -- 2/14/2017 6:04:12 AM >

(in reply to cdcool)
Post #: 26
RE: Latest SR - 2/14/2017 6:44:24 AM   
bradinggs


Posts: 358
Joined: 7/17/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: raptorx7

Wow, tac-view integration. That must look pretty darn cool.


Missed that, was hoping that feature would've made it to commercial...

(in reply to Raptorx7_slith)
Post #: 27
RE: Latest SR - 2/14/2017 7:12:52 AM   
jun5896

 

Posts: 216
Joined: 1/17/2015
Status: offline
It's time to release Deluxe Version(semi-pro version for consumer). Maybe..

(in reply to bradinggs)
Post #: 28
RE: Latest SR - 2/14/2017 7:18:36 AM   
Dysta


Posts: 1897
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline
Why not some monthly-subscription plans for some extensions instead? Pay to use, unpay when no longer needed.

I know this will complicate things, but at least the game can list all the features as long as players can pay for them. That also comes with consistent funding by subscription, and to disable instead of delete the non-paid functions.

< Message edited by Dysta -- 2/14/2017 7:41:23 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to jun5896)
Post #: 29
RE: Latest SR - 2/14/2017 9:20:14 AM   
poaw

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 12/17/2001
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline
I'm indifferent to the removal and understand that the devs have to, you know, eat while delivering regular updates to Command. Although I might feel differently if I hadn't found out about this feature while reading this thread.

I also don't think Dimitrius meant that a Pro customer told them to remove record and playback. It sounded like the pro-customer was telling them to remove something much more important to increase the appeal of the Professional Edition and they decided instead to remove something that Pro important to Pro customers and trivial to commercial users.

In a perfect world, the devs would make enough money upfront on CMANO or have a big enough trickle of sales to continue development comfortably forever and no one would need to pay a dime beyond the sticker price. In reality, they need to find customers to give them the money needed to develop features we are asking for, which they generally provide for free to us. We got things like refined sensor models, the impact of aircraft stores on kinematic performance, and a more in-depth model of anti-ballistic missile effects (not to mention free database updates and a more or less open-door policy for requests for additions/modifications). Record/Playback functionality is probably the least used feature among the commercial community. It's value is almost entirely symbolic, whereas things like WEGO MP the advanced strike planner, and scenario editor would certainly make a more attractive Professional Edition if they exclusive to that product.

I think it's a bad hill to die on, especially if holding it means we lose something else down the line.

(in reply to Dysta)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Removing Features in latest service release for pro edition ? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.578