CMBN 2.0 - are you kidding me?

[mirth]

I pay for DLC when it includes actual new content, meaning new scenarios, missions, campaings, whatever. And only then if I feel it warrants the price.

Again, BF can charge for whatever they want, but the fact is that most other game companies give away what they are charging for in the latest 'upgrade'. That's why people think that UI improvements and fixes should be free, because the precedent has long been set by the rest of the industry that those sorts of things are free.

[undercovergeek]

I pay for DLC when it includes actual new content, meaning new scenarios, missions, campaings, whatever. And only then if I feel it warrants the price.

Again, BF can charge for whatever they want, but the fact is that most other game companies give away what they are charging for in the latest 'upgrade'. That's why people think that UI improvements and fixes should be free, because the precedent has long been set by the rest of the industry that those sorts of things are free.

what would you do if it was Mirth Enterprises.com?

[mirth]

I pay for DLC when it includes actual new content, meaning new scenarios, missions, campaings, whatever. And only then if I feel it warrants the price.

Again, BF can charge for whatever they want, but the fact is that most other game companies give away what they are charging for in the latest 'upgrade'. That's why people think that UI improvements and fixes should be free, because the precedent has long been set by the rest of the industry that those sorts of things are free.

what would you do if it was Mirth Enterprises.com?

Find an easier field than independent computer wargame developer.

[undercovergeek]

lol, fair enough  :P

[Bison]

Frankly I just want Battlefront to host their own damned patches and upgrades instead of the crappy hosting sites they're use now.  Those sites install all sorts of crap you don't want and include suspecious files in the download folder.  The $10 is a small quibble if it keeps them afloat.

[LongBlade]

I pay for DLC when it includes actual new content, meaning new scenarios, missions, campaings, whatever. And only then if I feel it warrants the price.

Again, BF can charge for whatever they want, but the fact is that most other game companies give away what they are charging for in the latest 'upgrade'. That's why people think that UI improvements and fixes should be free, because the precedent has long been set by the rest of the industry that those sorts of things are free.

what would you do if it was Mirth Enterprises.com?

Find an easier field than independent computer wargame developer.

LOL

Like running a gaming website?

[Zulu1966]

I pay for DLC when it includes actual new content, meaning new scenarios, missions, campaings, whatever. And only then if I feel it warrants the price.

Again, BF can charge for whatever they want, but the fact is that most other game companies give away what they are charging for in the latest 'upgrade'. That's why people think that UI improvements and fixes should be free, because the precedent has long been set by the rest of the industry that those sorts of things are free.

Well - I have to agree with geek. Its all very well getting on a high horse about it but the other choice is that they dont do it at all - because they cant afford it. Seems to me if thats the choice its not really one at all. In any case - these arent UI "fixes" they are changes to the game. Nothing was broken they just made it work better - and there are other changes also. If you are talking about precedents a lot of companies do that and bundle it as DLC. Ignoring the economics of a tiny company like battlefront with two developers and other companies with larger staff bases who can afford to put stuff like this out for free is like comparing apples with oranges.

The point is they are responding to what people wanted and keeping the old game updated. For a company like battlefront to be able to support that you have to pay for it. There is simply no economic choice about it - I suspect if they had the resources to do it for nothing they would have. So whilst I understand to some extent the gist of your post - you are ignoring the reality of what they can do and still keep in business.

[Ubercat]

Again, BF can charge for whatever they want, but the fact is that most other game companies give away what they are charging for in the latest 'upgrade'. That's why people think that UI improvements and fixes should be free, because the precedent has long been set by the rest of the industry that those sorts of things are free.

That's my response almost exactly.

[mirth]

I pay for DLC when it includes actual new content, meaning new scenarios, missions, campaings, whatever. And only then if I feel it warrants the price.

Again, BF can charge for whatever they want, but the fact is that most other game companies give away what they are charging for in the latest 'upgrade'. That's why people think that UI improvements and fixes should be free, because the precedent has long been set by the rest of the industry that those sorts of things are free.

Well - I have to agree with geek. Its all very well getting on a high horse about it but the other choice is that they dont do it at all - because they cant afford it. Seems to me if thats the choice its not really one at all. In any case - these arent UI "fixes" they are changes to the game. Nothing was broken they just made it work better - and there are other changes also. If you are talking about precedents a lot of companies do that and bundle it as DLC. Ignoring the economics of a tiny company like battlefront with two developers and other companies with larger staff bases who can afford to put stuff like this out for free is like comparing apples with oranges.

The point is they are responding to what people wanted and keeping the old game updated. For a company like battlefront to be able to support that you have to pay for it. There is simply no economic choice about it - I suspect if they had the resources to do it for nothing they would have.

Who's getting high horsed about it? As I've said repeatedly, they can charge for anything they want. And I agree they are charging for it because they are small and essentially have a single product that requires all of their resources. However, it isn't an unreasonable observation that they are charging for what most others give away, even other developers of computer wargames. None of these niche publishers are all that large compared to the mainstream game companies.

[undercovergeek]

thats that sorted then - all round to Mirths for tea and crumpets?

[mirth]

I pay for DLC when it includes actual new content, meaning new scenarios, missions, campaings, whatever. And only then if I feel it warrants the price.

Again, BF can charge for whatever they want, but the fact is that most other game companies give away what they are charging for in the latest 'upgrade'. That's why people think that UI improvements and fixes should be free, because the precedent has long been set by the rest of the industry that those sorts of things are free.

what would you do if it was Mirth Enterprises.com?

Find an easier field than independent computer wargame developer.

LOL

Like running a gaming website?

Exactly. We all know you sleep on a pile of hundred dollar bills, LB.

[mirth]

thats that sorted then - all round to Mirths for tea and crumpets?

Gin & Tonics and tofurky :)

[Bison]

[ tofurky :)

Keep your vegitarian propaganda to yourself!

[undercovergeek]

hmmm, ill G & T with anyone but like Meatloaf said - i wont do that!!

Ill bring my own turkey

[Zulu1966]

I pay for DLC when it includes actual new content, meaning new scenarios, missions, campaings, whatever. And only then if I feel it warrants the price.

Again, BF can charge for whatever they want, but the fact is that most other game companies give away what they are charging for in the latest 'upgrade'. That's why people think that UI improvements and fixes should be free, because the precedent has long been set by the rest of the industry that those sorts of things are free.

Well - I have to agree with geek. Its all very well getting on a high horse about it but the other choice is that they dont do it at all - because they cant afford it. Seems to me if thats the choice its not really one at all. In any case - these arent UI "fixes" they are changes to the game. Nothing was broken they just made it work better - and there are other changes also. If you are talking about precedents a lot of companies do that and bundle it as DLC. Ignoring the economics of a tiny company like battlefront with two developers and other companies with larger staff bases who can afford to put stuff like this out for free is like comparing apples with oranges.

The point is they are responding to what people wanted and keeping the old game updated. For a company like battlefront to be able to support that you have to pay for it. There is simply no economic choice about it - I suspect if they had the resources to do it for nothing they would have.

Who's getting high horsed about it? As I've said repeatedly, they can charge for anything they want. And I agree they are charging for it because they are small and essentially have a single product that requires all of their resources. However, it isn't an unreasonable observation that they are charging for what most others give away, even other developers of computer wargames. None of these niche publishers are all that large compared to the mainstream game companies.

Well personally, I think that if other developers are giving new stuff away for free (though I have yet to be convinced I have seen any product give away changes on the same scale as what battlefront have done with this upgrade) then that is a bad decision. Business wise. Personally if people are adding stuff to a game and not fixing things that are broken I have no issue at all paying for it.