Close Combat Series :: View topic - Close Combat 5 Re-Release Debate

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat The Longest Day

#141: Author: Kojusoki,

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:43 am
—
well... we have Close Combat marines with new features... Do you like it? I dont, so I prefer to have an old, but WORKING kind of game, to an another brillant concept:)

CoI was not a success, becouse it was a rerelease of a *really* old game, with *really* old graphic and, what is important in CCV, without a "strategic level".
I think those two are reasons, rerelease of CoI wasnt a good idea.
Same with CCM - there is no strategic level and that is why people are not so happy with this (although there are some iother things, this one is the most important)

#142: Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:07 pm
—
----

Last edited by Troger on Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:56 am; edited 1 time in total

#143: Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:14 pm
—

CSO_Linebacker wrote:

Troger, you really have no clue. Two companies, that are not Simtek, make the decisions on these things.

I am not part of the re-releases, so I couldn't tell you anything but the politics. To say that my hard work, and that of another well respected graphics guy, is 'importing mods'...is just another statement from someone who is not involved, that reaffirms my opening statement.

CoI changed nothing but graphics and data changes that were already in mods for CC3, fact!

Simtek knows CC. They know they are wasting our time with the re-releases.

Last edited by Troger on Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:14 am; edited 1 time in total

#144: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:11 am
—
It was a re-release...not a give away for free release.

You should say "thank you" that enhancements and added value were included in the re-release package all at no extra cost.

I worked for simtek on the CoI release.... my bill and hence the cost to you was $0.00.

This is the case for most, not all, involved in the CoI release.

And let's not forget, you are not obliged to purchase anything... it's your choice, so why winge.

If on the other hand you want to by CC it's now available and supported.

What is better value .. a re-release of old code with no enhancement or a release with enhancements and XP compatibility fix at no extra cost?

If you can't do the math then common sense will get you no where.

#145: Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:27 am
—

schrecken wrote:

It was a re-release...not a give away for free release.

You should say "thank you" that enhancements and added value were included in the re-release package all at no extra cost.

I worked for simtek on the CoI release.... my bill and hence the cost to you was $0.00.

This is the case for most, not all, involved in the CoI release.

And let's not forget, you are not obliged to purchase anything... it's your choice, so why winge.

If on the other hand you want to by CC it's now available and supported.

What is better value .. a re-release of old code with no enhancement or a release with enhancements and XP compatibility fix at no extra cost?

If you can't do the math then common sense will get you no where.

No one wanted a re-released CC3. There was nothing you couldn't already get in the original with mods!

Last edited by Troger on Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:58 am; edited 1 time in total

#146: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:39 am
—
LOL

take a pill

#147: ^$%^& Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:46 am
—
holy shit batman!

i got pernamently banned from CCS for 10% of that rant!

troger, that was some outburst. please remember this forum is read by children, and obviously written also. grow up bloke. shrecky just said simple facts.

try the 'edit' button.

#148: Re: ^$%^& Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:51 am
—

ANZAC_Tack wrote:

holy shit batman!

i got pernamently banned from CCS for 10% of that rant!

troger, that was some outburst. please remember this forum is read by children, and obviously written also. grow up bloke. shrecky just said simple facts.

try the 'edit' button.

Yeah Tack, your one of them who bought it cause you blindly supported them.

Last edited by Troger on Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:59 am; edited 1 time in total

#149: well Author: ANZAC_Tack, Location: Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:31 am
—
i respect your opinion.

and thankyou for using less graphic language.

CoI didnt bring thousands back to the game, yes i agree to some extent it was to 'old' to re distribute, but as a 5 year fan of that version, i appreciated the XP fix, better tank pathing, new GC, recoded maps(vastly improved vehicle movements),the almost elimanated tank 'dance of death',and a few new units, and basically making it RR0822(my favourite for 3+ years).NO mod ever has or will fix such problems.

i appreciated the rework,thus luke warm liked CoI,but i respect some didnt. changes where made, lots of time and effort,testing was done, this you neglected to mention or appreciate. If u choose not to play, thats A OK by me,thats your Right. but to defame all by association...its gone to far.

if we ever see ccv rework same will apply,problems NO MOD maker can EVER fix will be. many features will be added.again u can choose to purchase OR not.

I can take critism from something i have done, but i dont work for cso/simtek/strategy3tactics/matrix. that would require onging pay. i just occationally have my say,and tested.

i have assisted dima and panzerjagen, testing for free also, and i really enjoyed there work, and said so here! ditto anything else! all for FREE! if u make a new mod, want extensive testing, im available! unbiased and detailed critique.

i dont get into flaming, never have, im just sticking up for an aussie who got shat on for association.

i wont begrudge troger,or anybody else. never have or will, its all bad karma to me.

#150: Re: well Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:13 pm
—

ANZAC_Tack wrote:

i respect your opinion.

and thankyou for using less graphic language.

CoI didnt bring thousands back to the game, yes i agree to some extent it was to 'old' to re distribute, but as a 5 year fan of that version, i appreciated the XP fix, better tank pathing, new GC, recoded maps(vastly improved vehicle movements),the almost elimanated tank 'dance of death',and a few new units, and basically making it RR0822(my favourite for 3+ years).NO mod ever has or will fix such problems.

i appreciated the rework,thus luke warm liked CoI,but i respect some didnt. changes where made, lots of time and effort,testing was done, this you neglected to mention or appreciate. If u choose not to play, thats A OK by me,thats your Right. but to defame all by association...its gone to far.

if we ever see ccv rework same will apply,problems NO MOD maker can EVER fix will be. many features will be added.again u can choose to purchase OR not.

I can take critism from something i have done, but i dont work for cso/simtek/strategy3tactics/matrix. that would require onging pay. i just occationally have my say,and tested.

i have assisted dima and panzerjagen, testing for free also, and i really enjoyed there work, and said so here! ditto anything else! all for FREE! if u make a new mod, want extensive testing, im available! unbiased and detailed critique.

i dont get into flaming, never have, im just sticking up for an aussie who got shat on for association.

i wont begrudge troger,or anybody else. never have or will, its all bad karma to me.

I'll agree that CoI made CC available again, and that’s all I’ll agree on. CC3 worked for me on XP, no problems. And I played CC3 for hundreds of hours on XP. CC3 had almost all of the data changes CoI had in the form of mods. I didn't feel the vehicle movements were even slightly better, in my experience. Simtek didn't really came to make improvements on tank pathfinding anyhow. I felt that in some instances it was actually worse then stock CC3, for reasons I won't brother with getting into.

Let’s face it, the CoI forum is riddled with people who were livid at how CoI offered nothing new, nothing that CC3 didn’t already have. And, let me point out, I was right there calling them utter fools for buying it. CSO made it perfectly and crystal clear what they did to CoI, anyone who knew anything about CC3 would know that it was CC3+mods, plain and simple.

For CSO’ers to be so pretentious to think they did those in the CC community some huge service, well get real! You did very little work on CoI, and then on top of that charged full game price!

Last edited by Troger on Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:46 am; edited 1 time in total

#151: Author: Senior_Drill, Location: 22134

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:32 pm
—
Troger, one thing is that you are kinda aiming at the wrong target. The original intent of Simtek, through a license from the source code owner, Destineer Studios, was to fix the Direct X problems and make the games available again from somewhere other than bargain bins and EBay. Period.

That's Developer work. The only publisher and distributor that was interested in the Marketing work was Matrix Games. Matrix, as publishers oft times do in the gaming industry, set some conditions of there own, the first and fore most one was the adding of the mods.

It was not a Simtek idea (and there were only four or five of us at that time), and in fact, when I first heard about it, as the one who would have to actually do the files, it was already a fiat acompli - the rights had already been negotiated with Ron Gretz and a new name chosen. It was "Go and Do, or We Get Someone Who Will." The publisher also set the price, against all suggestions from what they viewed as "just hired hands".

In the CoI forums, I tried to be as open about it as I could about what the re-release had become and got into trouble for it. Matrix Games was calling the shots, held all the cards and signed the oft delayed and shorted paychecks. I still haven't been paid for work I did well over a year ago and probably never will be, so I should be the one with the attitude instead of you.

A lot of the antagonism and anger was directed at CSO and the CSO website, when the objections should have been raised on the Matrix forums, not that it would have done any good there, either. A lot of people got their hackles raised and barked a lot at each other, but it was like protesting a road repaving to the dump truck driver instead of at the department that ordered it.

#152: Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:43 pm
—

Senior_Drill wrote:

Troger, one thing is that you are kinda aiming at the wrong target. The original intent of Simtek, through a license from the source code owner, Destineer Studios, was to fix the Direct X problems and make the games available again from somewhere other than bargain bins and EBay. Period.

Yes, indeed, I agreed on that. It made CC3 available, it made certain there were no problems with Direct X and would work with future versions of Windows. But ... it already worked for the vast majority of people with XP and Direct X, and if it didn't there were workarounds people could do to get it to work.

Senior_Drill wrote:

That's Developer work. The only publisher and distributor that was interested in the Marketing work was Matrix Games. Matrix, as publishers oft times do in the gaming industry, set some conditions of there own, the first and fore most one was the adding of the mods.

It was not a Simtek idea (and there were only four or five of us at that time), and in fact, when I first heard about it, as the one who would have to actually do the files, it was already a fiat acompli - the rights had already been negotiated with Ron Gretz and a new name chosen. It was "Go and Do, or We Get Someone Who Will." The publisher also set the price, against all suggestions from what they viewed as "just hired hands".

In the CoI forums, I tried to be as open about it as I could about what the re-release had become and got into trouble for it. Matrix Games was calling the shots, held all the cards and signed the oft delayed and shorted paychecks. I still haven't been paid for work I did well over a year ago and probably never will be, so I should be the one with the attitude instead of you.

A lot of the antagonism and anger was directed at CSO and the CSO website, when the objections should have been raised on the Matrix forums, not that it would have done any good there, either. A lot of people got their hackles raised and barked a lot at each other, but it was like protesting a road repaving to the dump truck driver instead of at the department that ordered it.

Matrix Games has employees who know CC3 and know that CoI is not worth the money if you already own CC3!

Thanks for clearing some things up on some threads, some openness is great. The way Simtekers and the like deflected accusations was created speculations like mine. Being forthright like you have just done is much preferred.

Last edited by Troger on Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:49 am; edited 1 time in total

#153: Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:22 am
—
A true re-release would have been good, as it would have been compatible with CC3. But the product released was not a true re-release nor did it offer enough benefits to get everyone on board to move to it.

Unfortunately for the community that was probably the worst case scenario...

#154: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:20 am
—
lmao off troger saying simtek is suss

ohh wiping away the tears

#155: Re: mmm Author: kweniston, Location: Netherlands

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:31 am
—

ANZAC_Lord4war wrote:

lmao off troger saying simtek is suss

ohh wiping away the tears

He said Matrix is suss.

Imho all rereleases are worth next to nothing if they don't offer anything substantial new features, instead of a few bug fixes or user created material. What they offer is dividing established communities, like we're witnessing right here. A brand new 21st century game is what we need, and what we will pay $50 or more for. Graphics, not so important in this particular genre, gameplay/multiplayer/realism/AI/stability all the more so.

#156: Author: Pzt_Decoy,

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:12 pm
—
What i would like to see is CC5 as it was meant to be, fix the supply and disband issues ! Where disbanded units would lose much of there equipment.

These 2 things alone would make a world of difference.

#157: Re: ^$%^& Author: ZAPPI4, Location: Belgium Liege

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:53 am
—

ANZAC_Tack wrote:

MMMH Tack, u never been banned by us my friend

#158: Author: ZAPPI4, Location: Belgium Liege

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:56 am
—
I guess the major problem with all those re release of any CC opus is their uncompability with the original...
Sort of splitting the CC community.
Seems that's all who worked with the re release wanted to get new
community Wink

#159: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:31 pm
—
Bug fixes would be welcome...as long as the original can also be patched with the same fix.
As for compatibility problems...I've said this a few times before...a simple Official Game Launcher Utility would do the job.
Something like the CC Starter Utility...so people who has problems running the game in new systems and new OS can just use the Launcher. The new re-release should be compatible with the original release...but comes with an official launcher utility.
Why not go this route?

#160: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:19 pm
—
Yes bug fixes, thanx!

If they who decide thought about this, they should have realised a "patch" or update for say, 10 dollars to us who already have CC5 CD? That would be less bad and cause less split in community, IMO.
This will give some kudos to distributor/re releaser, and do they need that… All we seen up to date is “greed” and yes I understand they must be able to price there product so they can make a living of it, but not by taxing the old fans. A re release should aim at the new consumers (if it’s not about taxes), yet hold onto the old fans, by making them happy.
But re-relies the same game with a new price tag, 50 $?? So we are to buy the same game again to get the fix we never got. brrrrr.... Will I pay 50 bux for that?? Hm, na, I sort of got a really faul taste in my mouth after CCMT...

And I’m also a bit worried, lets say the CC5 re-relies have a “command centre” or what it called as COI has now, and as one shall get a mod it link me to "CSO" download!!!, isn’t that a bit, "bad" for competition...
Should it not link to a neutral page, that has multiple links to "all" the CC resource sites in community? And this page would be easy to updated, so as old actors disperse and new comes will be added / removed.
Any monopoly will be bad for consumers, and the vulnerability of one actor is not a grate idea. Anything bad for consumer will punish the corporation in the end… (that’s a fact)
The consumer is always right in the end, and if matrix/Strategy 3 practices “favouritism” and just link to CSO, I believe one may expect a consumer reaction? But said that, Sulla have say in public that CSO shall not be “CC-corporate” anymore, just a fan site. So if that is REALLY so, I guess/expect he will see to it that the CC5 re realise will link to all resource sites in community..

Well see…

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat The Longest Day

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next :| |: Page 8 of 10