The "Uber" Command: Modern Air/Naval Ops Thread

[bayonetbrant]

 C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-)
MOD HAT ON
C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-)

As an outside - and disinterested - observer on this one


1.  Both sides are digging in their heels

2.  Both sides are convinced of their holy righteousness to do so

3.  Neither of you are going to convince the other of any correctness related to the decision-making

4.  You guys have all gone over 150 posts in the past 36 hours and no one has changed their minds at all (hell, every time I try to post something, I'm told there's a new post in the thread)



Maybe, just maybe, everyone take a pause from this to get some fresh air and think about the other side's perspective, and then come back to the thread in 12 hours or so.

No one is being banned, and nothing is being locked.

But the trajectory of this thread, at this moment, is not encouraging, so I'm trying to head off the storm before it starts raging


thank you

C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-)
MOD HAT OFF
C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-)

[bostonmyk]

- Question-
Is that decision of retroactive deleting features customers had paid for coordinated with Slitherine Marketing Department and its CEO?
Yes or No

Yes. The team has also sat through 2 meetings where they've told us we give too much away. I'd love to drop one of you guys in our spot for one of these meetings btw. You'd immediately have a new perspective on what its like to be a developer etc.

- rant -
Why? you may ask. Because it would be a dam break if that is the new official policy of Slitherine
What's next to happen with all their beer and pretzel games that set a precedent?

"Slitherine Games, You can never be sure an existing feature will get removed from your game you had paid for later with a service patch"  

...i guess that's not the slogan Slitherine want to be seen in the market with its whole franchise in the future and as headline discussed in the gaming mags.

Why? because all Slitherine's developing studios are small too and also want to "re-sell" an existing feature to the same customer if that is made possible somehow
So let's all start downgrading an existing released product with a "service patch" and resell that feature combined in a new DLC or such.

Not at all. We pulled the recorder because its a better fit for the pro version and nobody on the civ side seemed to be using it. There was nothing discussed with us beyond that.

What's next?.... playing latest Sanctus Reach, and with the next patch the Land Raider is gone (well, because it was so seldom used in the MP matches we monitored anyway, and item never showed up in the bug reports) and has to be re-bought in an upcoming DLC inside of -let's say- Imperial Army DLCs or with a to be launched Gold edition?
you get the idea.

I don't know anything about Sanctus Reach etc. Sorry.

Thanks

Mike

[bostonmyk]

The quoted statement makes sense, but it doesn't tell me that both have versions have equal priority. We're not talking about deciding which new feature matches which version. If a Pro client demands exclusivity for a feature currently in the retail product, you're inclined to acquiesce.

I see your point but I don't really see many more features they could actually do that.

Thanks

Mike

[bostonmyk]

C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-)
MOD HAT ON
C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-)

As an outside - and disinterested - observer on this one


1.  Both sides are digging in their heels

2.  Both sides are convinced of their holy righteousness to do so

3.  Neither of you are going to convince the other of any correctness related to the decision-making

4.  You guys have all gone over 150 posts in the past 36 hours and no one has changed their minds at all (hell, every time I try to post something, I'm told there's a new post in the thread)



Maybe, just maybe, everyone take a pause from this to get some fresh air and think about the other side's perspective, and then come back to the thread in 12 hours or so.

No one is being banned, and nothing is being locked.

But the trajectory of this thread, at this moment, is not encouraging, so I'm trying to head off the storm before it starts raging


thank you

C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-)
MOD HAT OFF
C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-) C:-)

Ok no problem.

Thanks!

Mike

[MikeGER]

bostonmyk, THX, for answering my question  :)

i am off to actually game now

[mirth]

- Question-
Is that decision of retroactive deleting features customers had paid for coordinated with Slitherine Marketing Department and its CEO?
Yes or No

Yes. The team has also sat through 2 meetings where they've told us we give too much away. I'd love to drop one of you guys in our spot for one of these meetings btw. You'd immediately have a new perspective on what its like to be a developer etc.

If you guys decided to dial back what you provide in free updates or start charging for new versions of the game, I'd get it. Would I be happy about it? Not really, but I'd get it from a business standpoint and understand from a consumer standpoint.

Removing features that existed at time of purchase, in order to satisfy the demands of another client set,  is a troubling precedent from a consumer standpoint.

[mirth]

The quoted statement makes sense, but it doesn't tell me that both have versions have equal priority. We're not talking about deciding which new feature matches which version. If a Pro client demands exclusivity for a feature currently in the retail product, you're inclined to acquiesce.

I see your point but I don't really see many more features they could actually do that.

Thanks

Mike

Fair enough. You've attempted to answer the question. I appreciate that.

[Zulu1966]

What I did say, and I ask you to go back and read it, is that a number of features were candidates on the chopping block and the recorder was the one we ended up with.

FWIW, our initial pick was something else. One of our pro customers flat out told us "you HAVE to reserve this for Pro". If we had listened to him you would have a legitimate complaint because it's a " core" sim mechanic. But we opted for something that has low commercial impact but is in great demand with the pro crowd. In our position you would likely have done the same.

Will you continue to remove existing game features as necessary to satisfy the demands of your Pro Edition clients? What other features are potentially on the chopping block?

Of course they will - if their posts show anything - its that what is demanded by their "Pro" crowd is what matters - not the people who bought the game and allowed them to get it where it is for them to sell to the military. Frankly their attitude stinks - and is already enough to convince me they arent deserving of any more money from me.

If you wanted to "add" something to the pro version - you should have added something to the pro version - not simply subtracted it from the retail version.

[mirth]

I'm going to give it a rest for now. Mike's made an honest effort to answer questions. I may not like all the answers, but I appreciate him showing up to post.

[Dimitris]

Perspective.

[Jarhead0331]

I'm going to give it a rest for now. Mike's made an honest effort to answer questions. I may not like all the answers, but I appreciate him showing up to post.

+1

I think this morning's round of discussion was much more productive after everyone had a chance to cool off and reflect.

Dmitris, nobody is claiming that the product has not been supported and improved upon. To the contrary, most are saying that they would have paid for some of the free patches and upgrades. But raising it as a point repeatedly in the context of this discussion is a red herring. It is defensive and it has nothing to do with the issue that has disturbed the core of your commercial support base. Do you understand that?

[Grim.Reaper]

Perspective.

It was never a discussion about what you added and many people would have gladly paid if contained within expansions and dlc.  It's about the removal of paid features and doesn't matter the amount of free content you choose to give out.

Like others, I am done for now in posting.....said what I needed and have chosen not to support the developers anymore.  I know it won't impact their revenue, but can't support the decision.

[tanqtonic]

Yes. The team has also sat through 2 meetings where they've told us we give too much away. I'd love to drop one of you guys in our spot for one of these meetings btw. You'd immediately have a new perspective on what its like to be a developer etc.

Ive actually been in those meetings negotiating typically for the developer.  And granted your package is amazingly rich --- rich enough that you could have/should have done an 'expanded' engine much like Battlefront does with their CM series.  Kudos to you for that.

But the point is that now you have a third party *dictating* to you what your other commerical moves should be.  And to be blunt, you rolled over on the pre-existing issue -- to the detriment of your commercial product and commercial fan base. At the same time making that base at the very least unsure about you as a provider, and at worst mad.  And with that you have blown away all those positives stated above.

No offense, but I cant tell you how many times some outside buyer wants something extra.   It happens with *every* package I've ever dealt with that 'forked' from another codebase or another product.  And yes, its tough as a developer to make that sell with those extras that demand that extra income.

But when you have the third party tell you to go 'hobble' (a strong word, perhaps too strong) a pre-existing product in order to give *him* some exclusive, that is troubling.  It is even more troubling when a client of mine actually thinks about doing it -- there are both potential legal aspects to it, and a general feeling when the pre-existing consumer finds out (and they always find out at some point);  that goodwill is very hard to make back up.  Each of those has different bad effects.

I am sorry you made the choice that you did.  And I am sorry, do not tell us that we are 'equal' to those third parties that you buckled to, we are not.   Your actions themselves tell us that.   So please dont attempt to sugar coat that decision in those terms, it is somewhat disingenuous.

I supported your all's efforts way back in the Blue Pill days.   To say Im disappointed with you is a vast understatement.

Btw folks, dont expect our umbrage to help the situation.  To the end that they have disclosed their negotiations and what transpired when they caved to the "excusivity" 'request', they are probably under a contractual obligation to pull this feature out.  To that end the best thing they can do now is just try and weather this and point to the 'evil' third parties that 'forced' them to do this. 

But, to be blunt, Jarhead's previous points are highly accurate as well.

And again Command people -- shame on you.

Going back to lurker mode now.....

[Dimitris]

Dmitris, nobody is claiming that the product has not been supported and improved upon. To the contrary, most are saying that they would have paid for some of the free patches and upgrades. But raising it as a point repeatedly in the context of this discussion is a red herring. It is defensive and it has nothing to do with the issue that has disturbed the core of your commercial support base. Do you understand that?

I did not originally intend to post this, but I noticed that the argument "They are taking away a feature THAT I ALREADY PAID FOR!!!" still holds significant traction with some of the contributors to the discussion. In light of this, I think it is important to put this feature removal in perspective.

"They are taking away a feature THAT I ALREADY PAID FOR after first giving me a truckload of very expensive features THAT I DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY A DIME FOR" has a rather different ring to it, would you agree?

Thanks.

[mirth]

Dimitris, seriously, why post that now? The thread is just settling down and you pour gas on the flames. You are your own worst enemy, dude.