It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
Combat Mission SeriesWhy only this game in the series?(16 posts)(16 posts)
(16 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted December 19, 2009
I have all of the games in this series already, including the latest Modern Tactics one, except CMAK. I want CMAK too so hope it shows up here very soon.
Posted December 21, 2009
avatar
badpuppy: I have all of the games in this series already, including the latest Modern Tactics one, except CMAK. I want CMAK too so hope it shows up here very soon.

Try here: http://www.gog.com/en/wanted/
Posted January 03, 2010
Battlefronts (Creators of CM series) reply on GOG sales from their forum:

"SFI had the license to the game for a while now. It was sold from their website and I think even via Steam for some time. Our cooperation with SFI however has been terminated, and I guess they're exercising their sell-off period right now. No problem about getting it there but don't come to us for support."
... so no much hope of other parts arriving any time soon, CMBO will probably not stay for long either.
Of course a deal could be struck, but I'm not holding my breath..
Post edited January 03, 2010 by Jarmo
Posted January 03, 2010
Considering they are still selling those games (CMBB & CMAK), AND selling the patch to make them render properly on Vista systems with a DX10 card (yes indeed, the patch to make your game work properly will cost you $5), I strongly doubt the other two CMx1 games will ever show up here.
Posted April 25, 2010
avatar
Crassmaster: Considering they are still selling those games (CMBB & CMAK), AND selling the patch to make them render properly on Vista systems with a DX10 card (yes indeed, the patch to make your game work properly will cost you $5), I strongly doubt the other two CMx1 games will ever show up here.

I have to say, it's interesting that when an outside company asks for $5 for a patch or very tiny DLC or something, there is no flaming on this site. And yet when, on this site, I point out that I am upset that I have an original version and cannot get the latest patch unless I buy the GOG version for $5.99 or $9.99, I get flamed crazily.
It's the only bad thing I don;t like about GOG, that they don't force publishers to release any patch in the GOG version to the public so original owners of the game can get/use it.
Posted April 25, 2010
avatar
Crassmaster: Considering they are still selling those games (CMBB & CMAK), AND selling the patch to make them render properly on Vista systems with a DX10 card (yes indeed, the patch to make your game work properly will cost you $5), I strongly doubt the other two CMx1 games will ever show up here.
avatar
UK_John: I have to say, it's interesting that when an outside company asks for $5 for a patch or very tiny DLC or something, there is no flaming on this site. And yet when, on this site, I point out that I am upset that I have an original version and cannot get the latest patch unless I buy the GOG version for $5.99 or $9.99, I get flamed crazily.
It's the only bad thing I don;t like about GOG, that they don't force publishers to release any patch in the GOG version to the public so original owners of the game can get/use it.

How exactly is GOG supposed to 'force' anyone to release a patch to the general public? That's not how distribution works, dude. The publisher they're negotiating with still holds all the cards, because they have the product that GOG wants to offer.
It is the job of the original publisher to put that patch out for existing owners. It is not the job of GOG to do it. Unless you can explain why that magically isn't the case, and that it isn't the fault of the original publisher that they have chosen not to offer the newest patch to existing owners.
Posted April 26, 2010
@Crassmaster:
When a company like GOG has, as it's major marketing, that it is on the side of gamers, cares about gamers, cares about games and is 'different' from those nasty companies that don't care, I think they do need to stand up and ask why they go into deals when they know only their version has the latest patch in it.
Yes, the publisher is as fault TOO, but I think GOG is part of that as well. As long as it wants to say 'we're more caring about gamers than the rest' it needs to stand up and say it doesn't agree with this and not do deals unless the publisher makes the patch available to the original purchasers too. To the extent it knowingly does these deals, it makes GOG slightly hypercritical about it 'caring attitude'.
Posted April 26, 2010
And as soon as they started acting like that, publishers are going to tell them to piss off, and that's that. Again, you have to realize that all of the leverage is on the side of the developers and publishers...they have a commodity GOG wants. Sure, they stand to make a little money from it, but they've already seen most of their major revenue from these games. And most of the other digital retailers are starting to grab more retro games for their catalogs now, too.
And I still don't see why GOG needs to concern themselves with a non-GOG game version. They have no control over a version of the game sold elsewhere. How are they going to have any say in a version of the game that they have no interaction at all with? That's not how things work. If I'm running a Ford dealership in one town, I have no influence at all over a Ford dealership in another state. If I have a company with a supply contract in place with the nearest branch of a parts company, that doesn't mean I also have a contract with another branch of that supply company overseas.
And beyond that, I see no instance where GOG are selling themselves as 'above' any other retailer. Their marketing has focused on classic games, no DRM, cool add-ons, one global price for games and XP/Vista/7 compatibility.
Post edited April 26, 2010 by Crassmaster
Posted April 27, 2010
avatar
Crassmaster: And as soon as they started acting like that, publishers are going to tell them to piss off, and that's that. Again, you have to realize that all of the leverage is on the side of the developers and publishers...they have a commodity GOG wants. Sure, they stand to make a little money from it, but they've already seen most of their major revenue from these games. And most of the other digital retailers are starting to grab more retro games for their catalogs now, too.
And I still don't see why GOG needs to concern themselves with a non-GOG game version. They have no control over a version of the game sold elsewhere. How are they going to have any say in a version of the game that they have no interaction at all with? That's not how things work. If I'm running a Ford dealership in one town, I have no influence at all over a Ford dealership in another state. If I have a company with a supply contract in place with the nearest branch of a parts company, that doesn't mean I also have a contract with another branch of that supply company overseas.
And beyond that, I see no instance where GOG are selling themselves as 'above' any other retailer. Their marketing has focused on classic games, no DRM, cool add-ons, one global price for games and XP/Vista/7 compatibility.

It would not be difficult for GOG to just ask - as you are giving us a new patch for the GOG game will it be released to the public - and if the answer is no, then GOG could say, can we reverse engineer it then and make it available, and if the answer is no, then GOG could say, we will be an extra 5c per sale to fund you making this available if you let us use that info in our goodwill marketing.
In other words there are many things GOG could co. It takes tow to make a deal, the publisher to sell the rights then GOG to sell the game, so both are involved in making money off the back off original owners.
Posted April 27, 2010
First off, why do you assume automatically that they DIDN'T do any of those things? And if they were rebuffed at every turn...what then? They have no leverage to force a publisher to offer something if a publisher doesn't want to.
Secondly, no they aren't making money off of original owners. They're making money off of new sales of older games...if original owners choose to purchase the game, that's by their choice.
And finally, it ISN'T the responsibility of a retailer to do what you're asking. GOG's responsibility ends at making sure that the version they're selling is working...period. Owners of older versions of the game are not the responsibility of a retailer from whom they didn't purchase the game. Dealing with them is the responsibility of the store they purchased the game from, or the publisher of said game.
Buying an item from one retailer does not mean that any other retailer offering that product is under any obligation to help you with that product.
Posted October 28, 2010
I have an XP PC I can use for this series so don't need the patch anyway. So e years back I saw CMAK boxed retail version being sold dirt cheap at Futureshop and now kick myself for not buying it then and there. I did go back to buy it but it was gone by then.
Posted January 30, 2012
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90383
read this thread
Battlefront.com still keep copyright.StrategyFirst are"distributing this under sub-license" with CM:BO and Strategic Command,and have no license with other BF products.I don't know how long this contract is effective.
Basically,BattleFront is grognard(ultra hardcore wargamer) developer and publisher.They
don't think their products published many decades ago are worthless.They have been selling
products for their fun community,yes they're grognards,too.Moreover,BattleFront regard
themselves as successful company by their DRM.
Luckily,they think old products appear on GOG is not bad,because of introduce newcomer to
their store.I don't think they sell more products on GOG on their initiative,but petition may
change their mind.
Post edited January 07, 2013 by sajin
Posted December 28, 2012
In their forum they talk about making so little money from Gog most people would not "bend over to pick it up". If that is the case it is amazing GOG has over 400 games now for just pennies :p
Posted February 04, 2013
I used to be a regular at BattleFront when their first three games were released. After they released Shock/force they did not really want to support the older series to people to move to the newer games. They used to say it would cost too much to make a patch. Anyway I think they changed their atitiude a bit and I have since left their forums.

The older series of game still have very strong followers since their ability to generate random maps and ease of scenario making give near infinite replayability.

I also have a heavily modded version and it looks far better than the vanilla version, and it is still my favourite out of the first three.

For wargamers this is a must get.

Cheers MarkL
Posted May 15, 2013
I hope that combat mission 2 and 3 one day could be released here on gog.com, after all the site is made for old games and not modern ones as it is today.
This first combat mission is amazing but the second one is in my opinion the best one, hold my fingers crossed to see it here one day.

IF it is not possible: Is there any way to make the CD games work on my windows vista? The games can be runned on a XP computer but on vista the graphics get blurry :/
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
Combat Mission SeriesWhy only this game in the series?(16 posts)(16 posts)
(16 posts)