How Many CS Players Plan to Purchase Modern Wars?

[Glint]

Maybe other games I've purchased had bugs that I was not aware of but, they didn't seem to have any?
As to the efforts of those involved, I appreciate that, but Matrix supposedly decided as a business to evolve MW whilst numerous issues were still to be fixed with JTCS.
As for comparing the game against Microsoft OS patches, that's a bit silly, at least they update extremely regularly and have the staff to deal with it. Not a very good comparison.
I can understand having to wait for new oob structures, graphics, etc, but not patches to known errors?
As a consumer, it's like buying a tent with a 3' hole in it and waiting a year to have it put right and, as a consumer, I won't be buying MW, even to try and find all the bugs.

[Kool Kat]

As for comparing the game against Microsoft OS patches, that's a bit silly, at least they update extremely regularly and have the staff to deal with it. Not a very good comparison.

Ok. Then let me try another example... maybe not as silly? Take a look at a game like "Birth of America 2" by AGEOD. I purchased it in August 2009... and it has gone through 5 patches... in just under a year time period. So... is that an example of a game manufacturer being responsive to correcting known bugs... or of a company that does not have a clue what is wrong with their product? In any case... I've given up on ever playing it again... because I've lost confidence in AGEOD's ability to "get it right." Frequent patches are NOT always a good thing in game software? :chin:

In regards to CS... I went directly to Jason... and asked him the ETA for Patch 1.05. His response was "Sometime between Christmas 2010 and Spring 2011." ... and that "Modern Wars Volume I has priority." over Patch 1.05. So... there you have it.

As players... we can either accept the current Matrix business mandate... and continue to play the current version of CS... waiting for the pending patch... or continue to complain about it?

Frankly... while I would like Patch 1.05 sooner then later... there ain't nothing that myself or any other player can do about it to accelerate the patch release... is there?

I am also not letting a pending patch stop me from enjoying CS!

Game on! :smoke:

[Glint]

As for comparing the game against Microsoft OS patches, that's a bit silly, at least they update extremely regularly and have the staff to deal with it. Not a very good comparison.

Ok. Then let me try another example... maybe not as silly? Take a look at a game like "Birth of America 2" by AGEOD. I purchased it in August 2009... and it has gone through 5 patches... in just under a year time period. So... is that an example of a game manufacturer being responsive to correcting known bugs... or of a company that does not have a clue what is wrong with their product? In any case... I've given up on ever playing it again... because I've lost confidence in AGEOD's ability to "get it right." Frequent patches are NOT always a good thing in game software? :chin:

In regards to CS... I went directly to Jason... and asked him the ETA for Patch 1.05. His response was "Sometime between Christmas 2010 and Spring 2011." ... and that "Modern Wars Volume I has priority." over Patch 1.05. So... there you have it.

As players... we can either accept the current Matrix business mandate... and continue to play the current version of CS... waiting for the pending patch... or continue to complain about it?

Frankly... while I would like Patch 1.05 sooner then later... there ain't nothing that myself or any other player can do about it to accelerate the patch release... is there?

I am also not letting a pending patch stop me from enjoying CS!

Game on! :smoke:

Well, I'd say that the 'BoA2' was an effort to keep the game upto scratch, quite efficiently. Dunno the game but sounds like a good response to bugs.
So, MW has priority over JTCS v.1.05 ? Brilliant ! When a new project comes up in the future, will that take priority over MW updates that are required?
I think you are negating your own argument here?
I also get enjoyment from JTCS, lets get the next patch version out first before diving into another game so I can enjoy all the more the game I paid for?

[Kool Kat]

Well, I'd say that the 'BoA2' was an effort to keep the game upto scratch, quite efficiently. Dunno the game but sounds like a good response to bugs.
So, MW has priority over JTCS v.1.05 ? Brilliant ! When a new project comes up in the future, will that take priority over MW updates that are required?
I think you are negating your own argument here?
I also get enjoyment from JTCS, lets get the next patch version out first before diving into another game so I can enjoy all the more the game I paid for?

Peter.. I don't have any additional response... except maybe you can take it up with Jason and Matrix? I'm simply stating what was communicated to me. It is what it is? :chin:

[Huib Versloot]

Well, I'd say that the 'BoA2' was an effort to keep the game upto scratch, quite efficiently. Dunno the game but sounds like a good response to bugs.
So, MW has priority over JTCS v.1.05 ? Brilliant ! When a new project comes up in the future, will that take priority over MW updates that are required?
I think you are negating your own argument here?
I also get enjoyment from JTCS, lets get the next patch version out first before diving into another game so I can enjoy all the more the game I paid for?

1.05 has no priority since 1.04 has no major bugs that stop the play or design of any scenario. (1.01-1.04 did get priority over everything else)
Moreover since the developement / support team are all unpaid volunteers, they can have their own say about what has priority and what has not?
Once they lose interest and motivation, there will be no patches and no new CS games.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Maybe they need a freshness to the development/support team before it would get to that point? :chin:



HSL

[Glint]

Well, I'd say that the 'BoA2' was an effort to keep the game upto scratch, quite efficiently. Dunno the game but sounds like a good response to bugs.
So, MW has priority over JTCS v.1.05 ? Brilliant ! When a new project comes up in the future, will that take priority over MW updates that are required?
I think you are negating your own argument here?
I also get enjoyment from JTCS, lets get the next patch version out first before diving into another game so I can enjoy all the more the game I paid for?

1.05 has no priority since 1.04 has no major bugs that stop the play or design of any scenario. (1.01-1.04 did get priority over everything else)
Moreover since the developement / support team are all unpaid volunteers, they can have their own say about what has priority and what has not?
Once they lose interest and motivation, there will be no patches and no new CS games.

I'm sorry Huib, but as I mentioned earlier, to build am Army size game only to find the Army HQ has no supply/command range, I think is a major bug that stops play and design?
I'm sure that the development/support team's lack of motivation and interest will be a calamity but, once again, as a consumer I would like to think Matrix would support their games that I paid for in a more efficient way.

KK, I appreciate your comments but, what I've said from the start, in answer to your initial enquiry, I won't bother with MW due to the 'shrugging off' of previous games.
I think Matrix have shown enough disregard to the customer, not to be bothered with them again.
Maybe that's why nearly a third of the poll won't be buying MW?

[Scud]

I see valid points on all sides. We as a community know the history of CS/Talonsoft, and as such gladly put up with it's shortcomings merely because we love the game, but an outsider who buys the game from Matrix would expect a larger creative/programming staff than just three guys. Mind you I have a TON of respect for those three guys and hope they never get burnt out. Would be nice for everyone, though, if Matrix could give them more support.

Anyway, it's all good. Buy the new game or don't, to each his own. I may get it at some point, but for the moment I just don't have enough time for games. Kinda stinks.

Dave

[Jason Petho]

..., to build am Army size game only to find the Army HQ has no supply/command range, I think is a major bug that stops play and design?

As far as I am aware, Army level never has had a limit to supply, as far back as Talonsoft days according to my EF2 manual.

Jason Petho

[Glint]

..., to build am Army size game only to find the Army HQ has no supply/command range, I think is a major bug that stops play and design?

As far as I am aware, Army level never has had a limit to supply, as far back as Talonsoft days according to my EF2 manual.

Jason Petho

From memory Jason, in WF, when the Army HQ command range is highlighted, it shows only 2or3 hexes range.
I thought Huib was gonna sort it with you sometime ago when I mentioned it to him and it was posted on Matrix forum also?

Ah!- Just found the post - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2432147

Didn't appear to be dealt with Jason?