CMAK VISTA 1.04 Patch compatability with 1.03 version.

[nuzrak]

Hi Guys,

First let me say how grateful I am to finally see this patch for Vista. Excellent work.

The immediate issue I have discovered however is that, as cool as it is to be able to use the game on my Vista box, I can now no longer play against users via email who have the older 1.03 version of the game.

This is going to be a real issue for those of us involved in club play!

So the obvious question is, can this be fixed?

[Battlefront.com]

You know something... we never thought about the out-of-synch PBEM issue. We've never released a patch that wasn't universally adopted, so we didn't think about this nor (obviously) test for it.

I'm seeing what the options are. Back when I have some info!!

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Follow up... have you actually tried and had it fail to work? I double checked and Charles apparently did take this into consideration when he made the new version by not updating the internal version number which is used for checks. But the code is so ancient, he now wonders if he should have changed something somewhere. So the first thing to do is confirm that this is an actual problem already experienced vs. a (logically) perceived issue.

Steve

[nuzrak]

Yep, I tried it both ways, first setting up a PBEM game with the 1.04 client and then trying to open it up on a different PC with the 1.03 client and got the incompatible version splash screen.

Then to make sure it wasn't one way, I reversed the process, setting up a PBEM with the 1.03 client and got the same result!

Thanks BTW for responding so fast...

[Killroy]

Best thing to do is just give the new patch for free as it should have been to begin with and that solves all the problems. I can't believe people are actually paying for a patch that's the most rediculous thing I've ever seen in my near 30 years of computer gaming. You guys need to quit lying down for crap like this. The patch should be FREE!

[Battlefront.com]

I can't believe people are actually paying for a patch that's the most rediculous thing I've ever seen in my near 30 years of computer gaming.

I agree!!! A game company offering support for a 6 and 8 year old game products is absolutely ridiculous and unheard of in my 30 years of computing gaming experience. Thanks for pointing that out.

Oh wait... you were being abusive. Silly me. OK, so please enlighten me. What software companies you know provide free patches for 6-8 year old software? Or better still, which companies do you know provide patches of any kind for 6-8 year old software? If you can even name one, I'd be surprised. And if it is a game company I'll print out this thread and eat it.

We were under no obligation, of any sort imaginable, to produce a fix for Vista for pre-existing customers. Not to mention for product that was probably 10 times under priced for the experience it has given the average customer per hour of entertainment. Perhaps 1000 times under priced for the hardcore customer. Therefore, if you think you have something to complain about for a patch which costs less than an average lunch out, go right on ahead and complain.

Best thing to do is just give the new patch for free as it should have been to begin with and that solves all the problems.

So in another 10 years you expect the old Combat Missions to still work because we can anticipate what the hardware and OS vendors are going to break? If I could see into the future like that I'd be putting my money in the stock market, not wasting my time with this stupid game company stuff.

Steve

[Killroy]

I agree!!! A game company offering support for a 6 and 8 year old game products is absolutely ridiculous and unheard of in my 30 years of computing gaming experience. Thanks for pointing that out.


Glad you agree cause PARADOX does it for ALL their games! Better start printing out the page and eating it.

Or better still, which companies do you know provide patches of any kind for 6-8 year old software? If you can even name one, I'd be surprised. And if it is a game company I'll print out this thread and eat it.

Also Matrixgames has done it for an even older game "Steel Panthers", so that's two pieces of paper you can start eating.

HPS has recently started updating ALL their games to no longer require the CD in the drive to run. http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=52230&pid=299383&#pid299383

Let alone updating old games like "Strike Eagle"

Time for you to start eating 3 pages now.

[Battlefront.com]

All this fuss over a $5 patch. Your priorities are in order?

Glad you agree cause PARADOX does it for ALL their games! Better start printing out the page and eating it.

Really? They offer free patches to people who purchased their games 6-8 years ago? That's definitely news to me.

Also Matrixgames has done it for an even older game "Steel Panthers", so that's two pieces of paper you can start eating.

OK, so the Steel Panthers game I bought from SSI is still being supported by Matrix? Great! Where do I download the patch? All I see is a place to re-purchase the game, in its current form, for $65 or $75. I can't even find patches for the older versions they released.

HPS has recently started updating ALL their games to no longer require the CD in the drive to run.

Well, that is interesting, though HPS has a completely different strategy for their games than does just about any other game company. Especially us. And that is reusing the same code over and over and over and over again. In effect they never stop supporting the game because they never stop developing it. Which makes it fairly unique, though at a significnt cost in terms of innovation.

And if that's the best you can cite for your 30 years of gaming experience, given the tens of thousands of games released in that time, I don't think your position is very well supported in proportion to your claims.

Time for you to start eating 3 pages now.

Nope, but I am getting hungry for lunch now.

Steve

[Killroy]

Wow folks now he even lies. He said and I quote which companies do you know provide patches of any kind for 6-8 year old software? If you can even name one, I'd be surprised. And if it is a game company I'll print out this thread and eat it.


I provided him with three and only had to provide ONE and Steel Panthers and HPS were the easy ones to prove still get support after 6-8 years.

Notice how he gaffed over HPS and their SUPPORT and PATCHING for their over 6-8 year old games? Using the same engine wasn't the issue or part of your earlier statement. You said ANY game company supporting 6-8 year old games period.

Face it Steve you have lost this match. But, it's your games your decisions. I think this one will come up and bite you in the arse though. Especially after what you've just proven about yourself and what you think about your company.

[MarkEzra]

Re: Matrix/Steel Panthers

Matrix was required by contract with Gary Grigsby to NOT charge for the SPWAW game upgrade. All the work was done as a Fan based project. Later the SPWAW Campaign series done by Bill Wilder/Matrix did have a cost. If memory serves it was $25 USD. That, too, was done by agreement with Mr. Grigsby. And the SOLE reason for it was to help recoup the financial losses Matrix suffered just keeping the "community's" Forum and game/patches dl availability going. I know this as I either a front row spectator (the contract negotiations were obviously private) or active participant (beta Tester for all but one of the Campaigns). So BFC does not have to eat that particular piece of paper.

[nuzrak]

OK regarding the original issue...

Steve, just a thought.

Is it possible that the e-license process is re-writing the internal version number?

[Killroy]

The contract is not in question or relevant to this issue. It is the SUPPORT issue and the PATCHING of a game over 6-8 years old. So don't try to change the subject or push some legalities form into the issue. Steel Panthers a game well over 6-8 years old was/is supported regardless of contract, copyrights or other issues related to it.

[commercial link removed]

Released in 2000 and still active and being supported. 8.40 patch volume I believe. Which also supports Steel Panthers independently.

[nuzrak]

OK I've just discovered something else that will hopefully narrow the issue down.

The version conflict only occurs with the CMAK patch.

I've just tried setting up PBEM games with CMBB 1.04 client and can access them with the CMBB 1.03 client with no issues.

So this seems to be a CMAK only issue!

[Moon]

Killroy, alright, you win.

I did have to remove your commercial link however since there are links to purchase said game on that page :)

[Battlefront.com]

Killroy,

Wow folks now he even lies.

Actually, no I didn't. However, you did for misrepresenting the facts about the games you cited. Obviously you're not even remotely interested in being reasonable or rational. But I knew that from your first post.

I did, however, make the mistake of saying "patches of any kind". That was too strong a qualifier. Should I alert my lawyers that you will be filing a lawsuit over this egregious harm done to you and the wargaming community?

Face it Steve you have lost this match.

Oh, I knew I lost the match before we even posted the news of the patch. We knew someone like you would come around and there would be no rational argument you would accept to get that chip off your shoulder.

But, it's your games your decisions.

Exactly. And it's your choice to buy the $5 patch or not. Free markets are great, aren't they?

I think this one will come up and bite you in the arse though.

Once gain proving how out of touch with reality you are. Most game companies don't support their games after a few months of release, not to mention a year or more. And yet we have a huge, thriving games industry.

Especially after what you've just proven about yourself and what you think about your company.

I've just reinforced what everybody already knows about us... we don't care for customers who don't care about us. Or reality. We did not go through all that we've gone through to be treated like crap. The fact is I have a lot more reasons to be disappointed with your behavior than you do with mine.

Kindly never purchase anything from us again and put your money where your mouth is.

Steve

[Killroy]

Killroy, alright, you win.

I did have to remove your commercial link however since there are links to purchase said game on that page :)


Ok that's kewl can we please have a picture of Steve eating those pages though please? :o)

I've just reinforced what everybody already knows about us... we don't care for customers who don't care about us. Or reality. We did not go through all that we've gone through to be treated like crap. The fact is I have a lot more reasons to be disappointed with your behavior than you do with mine.



I'm afraid it is you who has no concept of reality. Do you have any idea how you are making yourself look here? You've come out and said "this stupid game company stuff". You called your own company STUPID! You called yourself STUPID! You're the company or do you not realize the reality of that? lol
Oh and if you don't want me to BUY your products anymore. That's fine by me. Doesn't mean I won't get to play them now does it. ;p If you think that $5 out of me is so important moreso that your company image and the image of yourself you just put out there I surely am not going to care. You obviously have proven you don't.
This is going to be heard around the globe about how you don't care about your company or yourself or your customers when they dont' agree with you. Why don't you just say "F**K You" to them eh?

[Battlefront.com]

Killroy,

The contract is not in question or relevant to this issue. It is the SUPPORT issue and the PATCHING of a game over 6-8 years old.

I just paid $300 for a "patch" to my copy of Filemaker because it won't work on my (current) OS. If you can convince Filemaker to give me my money back I'd be grateful.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Nuzrak,

Yeah, it's likely that the internal code checks weren't set properly. Charles is looking into this. He thinks he might have set it correctly for CMBB and not CMAK. More on this news as it develops!

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Killroy,

You don't like that we're charging a measly $5 for a long since not-supported game, which we have no legal or ethical obligation to support. I get that. We expected a few people like you would think the same way. If we thought the majority of our customers were so unreasonable we'd stop making games completely. But we know there is always at least one person who has to fly off the handle about something they shouldn't, and so we're fine with that.

But don't push our patience with your abusive behavior. You want to be a troll, fine. But being a troll does carry with it consequences.

Steve

[Ron]

I'm afraid it is you who has no concept of reality. Do you have any idea how you are making yourself look here? You've come out and said "this stupid game company stuff". You called your own company STUPID! You called yourself STUPID! You're the company or do you not realize the reality of that? lol


I believe the phrase you are so hung up on is called irony, a point completely misunderstood by you. As for the rest of your rant, well not much can be said except the cracks are showing.

[sfhand]

I guess I should start ragging on Subaru for a free hybrid engine as soon as they start offering them, after all I bought one of their cars and that should entitle me to all the latest technology as a free upgrade just because I bought one of their products... or maybe I should be able to turn in my progressive scan dvd player and demand a free blu-ray player as a free replacement. And then there is my computer itself, I'm sure Newegg should provide me with a new motherboard, cpu, memory, and graphics card (my drives are fine for now) because mine are a year and a half old now and I was/am one of their loyal customers.

When I purchased CMBB and CMAK they were advertised as being compatible with Windows XP and they were. I migrated to Vista and they no longer worked and while I found that regrettable I found no reason to blame BF for this, nor did I expect BF to make a Vista compatibility patch for titles that were designed before Vista was an uncompatible sparkle in Bill Gates' eye.

I will admit that I have said I would be willing to pay BF for the development of a Vista compatibility patch... I don't view this as being dumb or naive, in fact I think the opposite is true. What I'm realizing today is that I will buy the patches later tonight because I said I would pay for them but that I will probably never play those excellent CM titles again because I find CMx2 to be a far superior gaming experience.

The fact that BF is charging $5 - a song and a dance - for a compatibility patch - NOT a bug fix - for Microsoft's uncompatible OS is a good thing and I thank them for it (although I'm not sure I like adding the e-license "feature" to my hassle free copy). Which brings up a question, will the e-license information be stored on my customer page automatically or will I have to store it as yet another alternate address?

And BF, thanks for listening to customers like me who said they would pay for a compatibility patch. And thanks to Philip for his hard work too!

[Redwolf]

Stop whining about the $5. And if they overlooked the version check override in CMAK but not CMBB so what as long as it gets re-fixed? At least the will was obviously there.

Now tell me whether there is any other fix in there. Is the 1600x1200 limit gone? Does the video mode selection mechanism at startup behave any better now? What about more exotic widescreen resolutions supported without trickery?

[Pike]

This is actually all over globe now. A company that sells the game who doesn't support it for new OS? Strange. Well I've seen it bf.

Look from another page someone wrote: 'Your either a good company or a bad company- If your game is 'out of print' then it's a mut argument but if it's still in your catalogue then you are obligated.'

Battlefront a small question. You still sell the game? Do you have a plan how to sell it when all has Windows 7?

Hmmmm?

Pike (Isn't that a sharp edge on that pike?)

[Moon]

Now tell me whether there is any other fix in there. Is the 1600x1200 limit gone? Does the video mode selection mechanism at startup behave any better now? What about more exotic widescreen resolutions supported without trickery?

Demo?

Battlefront a small question. You still sell the game? Do you have a plan how to sell it when all has Windows 7?

Pike,

not sure what your point is but we're still selling the game. The full version is available from our store and includes the 1.04 upgrade for no extra charge.

I don't see a problem of selling a game that is not compatible with a particular OS or hardware. It happens all the time. As long as it's clearly spelled out to the customer what he is buying (which we do; we also provide free demos to try) there is no issue nor any obligation on our end.

Martin

[Moon]

PS. The upgrade we released has been tested on Windows 7 and works just fine. If this will be the case in the future I don't know. Microsoft (or one of the graphic cards manufacturers) might just decide to break something again...

[Guest]

deleted per user request

[sfhand]

This is actually all over globe now. A company that sells the game who doesn't support it for new OS? Strange. Well I've seen it bf.

Look from another page someone wrote: 'Your either a good company or a bad company- If your game is 'out of print' then it's a mut argument but if it's still in your catalogue then you are obligated.'

Battlefront a small question. You still sell the game? Do you have a plan how to sell it when all has Windows 7?

Hmmmm?

Pike (Isn't that a sharp edge on that pike?)

Hey Pike, I'm not sure how much of a gamer you are but if you have Steam I suggest you fire it up and look at all the titles that Valve is selling that are not advertised as Vista compatible. Windows XP is still a popular OS, especially for gamers, and I see nothing wrong with selling games that were designed for that OS.

But I think Steve hit the nail on the head when he said if you don't want to buy it then don't buy it.

[Moon]

Ok that's kewl can we please have a picture of Steve eating those pages though please? :o)



I'm afraid it is you who has no concept of reality. Do you have any idea how you are making yourself look here? You've come out and said "this stupid game company stuff". You called your own company STUPID! You called yourself STUPID! You're the company or do you not realize the reality of that? lol
Oh and if you don't want me to BUY your products anymore. That's fine by me. Doesn't mean I won't get to play them now does it. ;p If you think that $5 out of me is so important moreso that your company image and the image of yourself you just put out there I surely am not going to care. You obviously have proven you don't.
This is going to be heard around the globe about how you don't care about your company or yourself or your customers when they dont' agree with you. Why don't you just say "F**K You" to them eh?
Careful there, Killroy. Advertising in public that you are download pirated products can get you into a lot of troubles, including getting banned from here.

While you have been ranting on, dozens and dozens of customers have voted with their wallets by purchasing the upgrades in the same time. I'm thinking that the "message heard around the globe" is a completely different one than the one you're hearing, but then it's difficult to hear anything while shouting and having fingers in your ears at the same time.

[Jaws]

Steve, Moon,
Please ignore people who whine about 5$. It would be a waste of energy and we need your energy very hard to get our CM Normandy before the end of the year :). On behalf of the Junior++ members I realy want to thank you guys for the patch.

[Jose Carlos]

This patch isn´t necessary. At least, I´m playing both, CMBB and CMAK, in my computer with Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bits (with last updates) and nVidia GeForce GTX 260 (with last drivers installed), and everything is working fine!

Well, maybe it´s just only my case...

Anyway, I don´t like that a customer who paid already for the software, now has to pay for downloading a simple patch. It´s just ridiculous! And why 5 dollars?!... Come on!

"Combat Mission Campaigns"... Now this patch... ayayayaayyyy... Battlefront, Battlefront... What´s happening?... I don´t know, but if we bear in mind mundial economic situation... I can imagine... It´s very very sad to use this kind of Sales & Marketing strategies... :(

I´m very sorry. Regards,

JC

[Normal Dude]

Ok that's kewl can we please have a picture of Steve eating those pages though please? :o)

After the use of that word I think your opinion can be safely ignored on just about anything.

[Moon]

This patch isn´t necessary. At least, I´m playing both, CMBB and CMAK, in my computer with Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bits (with last updates) and nVidia GeForce GTX 260 (with last drivers installed), and everything is working fine!

Well, maybe it´s just only my case...

Anyway, I don´t like that a customer who paid already for the software, now has to pay for downloading a simple patch. It´s just ridiculous! And why 5 dollars?!... Come on!

"Combat Mission Campaigns"... Now this patch... ayayayaayyyy... Battlefront, Battlefront... What´s happening?... I don´t know, but if we bear in mind mundial economic situation... I can imagine... It´s very very sad to use this kind of Sales & Marketing strategies... :(

I´m very sorry. Regards,

JC
Obviously you have not read a single post from this thread, nor perhaps any other thread in this forum?

[Wengart]

You do realize this is the equivalent of BFC asking you to skip on a Big Mac next time you go to McDonalds, right?

[przy]

Thanks for the update guys. Now I can play these on my laptop. Keep up the great work.

[GenSplatton]

So will there be an announcement when the CMAK compatibility issue has been resolved? I definitely want the CMAK version but it doesn't do me much good until I can play my version 1.03 opponents. But man the demo sure rocked on my Vista machine!

Oh, edited to add, does $5 get all the upgrades (CMBO, CMBB and CMAK)? Or is it $5 per? Just wondering...

[Killroy]

Blizzard released a new patch for Starcraft (released in 1998) in January of this year!

Are you eating this thread yet Steve? ;o)

[Redwolf]

Another question: does this introduce a CD check for those versions that didn't have one before?

After you install this, is your game now elicense bound?

[Jaws]

Blizzard released a new patch for Starcraft (released in 1998) in January of this year!

Are you eating this thread yet Steve? ;o)

About time to get a 12 years and up rate for this forum.

[Moon]

So will there be an announcement when the CMAK compatibility issue has been resolved? I definitely want the CMAK version but it doesn't do me much good until I can play my version 1.03 opponents. But man the demo sure rocked on my Vista machine!

Yes, we'll make an announcement. You will simply be able to re-download from your customer account as we're going to update the file there. Already working on it in fact, but due to the number of files that need update (full versions, too, as well as bundle) it will take most of today I think.

Martin

[Moon]

Another question: does this introduce a CD check for those versions that didn't have one before?

After you install this, is your game now elicense bound?
If you purchase the upgrade, the executable is eLicense protected. There is no cd check.

[GenSplatton]

Yes, we'll make an announcement. You will simply be able to re-download from your customer account as we're going to update the file there. Already working on it in fact, but due to the number of files that need update (full versions, too, as well as bundle) it will take most of today I think.

Martin

Later TODAY? Awesome, I can live with that!

[Redwolf]

Can anybody with a high res monitor confirm or deny whether the limit of 1600 horizontally and 1200 vertically, respectively, is gone or not with this patch?

[Battlefront.com]

The irony is that just as we were about to post the patch we saw that some people, after several years, were FINALLY able to play CMBB/AK on Vista. But the results were, as they have always been, very uneven. Some people can, some people can't. If you are someone that can run under Vista, fantastic! Hopefully it will also work for you under Windows 7 if that is something you choose to do. If it currently doesn't work for you, or you know you're going to upgrade to Windows 7, then the patch will work for you. At least so far we haven't found anybody who it hasn't worked for.

Jose Carlos,

Anyway, I don´t like that a customer who paid already for the software, now has to pay for downloading a simple patch.

I just had to re-purchase FileMaker Pro because the export function of my version, which is a LOT newer than CMBB, doesn't work consistently as it should. I did not receive a discount for the fact that I've owned 4 versions of Filemaker going back all the way to about 1995. So I had to download a $300 patch for a product that was otherwise working just fine.

And why 5 dollars?!.

We could have charged $10 :)

Honestly, some of you must live in another universe where software companies give away things for free forever on products that clearly are long, long past their warrantee period. Not to mention that I doubt anybody here hasn't gotten their money's worth about 10 to 100 times over out of their original game purchase.

So if it seems like I think some people have unreasonable expectations, that's because I do :) And because of that those people should get used to this because we're bound to keep on disappointing them for many, many years to come. Much better then the companies that disappoint their customers by going out of business.

Steve

[Moon]

Later TODAY? Awesome, I can live with that!
Actually more like tomorrow. It will take most of today to test and recompile.

[Battlefront.com]

Killroy,

Blizzard released a new patch for Starcraft (released in 1998) in January of this year!

Which you get by being signed up for Battlenet.com, which is a service that Blizzard makes money off of. So yeah, you're paying for it even if you don't know it.

Plus, if we are going to compare things I can find you 1000 examples for every one of yours.

Are you eating this thread yet Steve?

Try it again and the next time you go to post you'll find you can't. Your posting pattern indicates a pattern of abusive, disrespectful, and rather... how shall I put this... "unproductive" postings. Both in this account and your other account. Yup, we are now aware that you have two accounts and we'll probably ban both of them anyway, so I suppose you can have at me again one last time if you want. You won't be missed.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Change of mind. I banned Killroy and Kellysheroes. Same person, same abusive and completely pointlessly unproductive "contributions" to this Forum. Apparently if you don't have a good enough point to make with one account, two is even better.

I'm sure he'll figure out a way to come back again. The really bad apples have a way of continuing to turn up. Obviously because they have nothing better to do with their time.

Steve

[Boris Balaban]

Down loading now.
I have an interesting problem.
I am running Windows 7RC on both my desk top and lap top.
CMAK 1.03 worked on both. But latly the update from Microsoft has stopped any of the 3 games (CMAK, CMBB and CMBO) from running on my desk top but I can still run them on my lap top. I am still running Windows 7RC.

[Lurker765]

Steve,

Thanks to BFC and Phillip Culliton for getting a patch out to make the CMx1 games compatible with the latest Microsoft OSs. I have one friend who I introduced to CMx1 who will be a very happy camper since he can now play on his laptop rather than in the basement on an old machine.

I don't mind the $5 fee for the work as long as the new sales of CMx1 go out with the patch for free (which it sounds like you are doing). People bought the game before that knowing what they were getting and if they are still playing it have obviously gotten their money's worth from it and a small maintenance fee doesn't seem onerous IMHO.

I'm not so happy about the banning you just did. It is your forum of course, but from what I see of killroy/ kellysheroes posts going back years he didn't seem too abusive until perhaps just lately. And this particular scrimmage seems like you started it with the statement:

What software companies you know provide free patches for 6-8 year old software? Or better still, which companies do you know provide patches of any kind for 6-8 year old software? If you can even name one, I'd be surprised. And if it is a game company I'll print out this thread and eat it.
Steve

He got obnoxious, but he did point out several cases and you threw down the 'name one' gauntlet first and wouldn't admit the fact that he met your challenge.

Your counterpoints seem a bit hollow since you are still making money on CMx1, tried to change the argument to naming more games than he can, etc.

Plus large game companies like idSoftware do things like release their games as open source five years after release which is even better than a patch since the community can then improve them even more. Quake even got a ten year special release of stuff from Romero.

Anyway, thanks to Phillip (and you) for making it possible for people to enjoy these classic games on systems sold to most people nowadays.

[MarkEzra]

2 Forum ID's is subject to banning, yes?

[przy]

Killroy was kellysheroes as well? This guy got banned back a while ago on the wargamer forums as well. Don't know the guy personally, but from his tone and attitude, came off as a complete @ss. Deserves what he got.

[Moon]

2 Forum ID's is subject to banning, yes?
Our forum rules allow only one account per person. Usually only one account gets banned immediately if we find out that someone is using two accounts, but in this case Steve had additional reasons.

[Sequoia]

I knew his time here would be limited when he insinuated modern soldiers were cowards in the CMSF forum.

[Battlefront.com]

Lurker765,

I'm not so happy about the banning you just did.

The guy was being a troll and that in and of itself warrants banning. However, that was not what he was banned for. He was banned for having two concurrent accounts. This is a cardinal sin here on this Forum and there are NO exceptions to this when it is deliberately concealed from us.

Now, the fact is the two issues are related because his being such an arse caused us to get suspicious and therefore we checked things out. What made us most suspicious? Someone with "30 years of gaming" experience, who clearly knows the games inside and out as well as this Forum, is a Junior member with 17 posts to his name *and* a name that is in and of itself a red flag? ("Killroy was here"). Who here believes this is Killroy's first foray onto this Forum? Not us, so we checked, and sure enough it wasn't. We were expecting he was a previously banned guy (and probably is).

And you should double check his posts. I did before judging him so you should check them out before judging me.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Actually...

Both accounts are banned immediately unless there are extenuating circumstances. Those generally include people who lost their passwords or forgot their user names, yet didn't email us or take other actions to resurrect their earlier accounts. This is easy to verify because the two accounts don't overlap and the earlier one isn't banned. If the accounts do show concurrent posting and/or one account is banned, and the person doesn't identify himself correctly and consistently in both accounts, there's no hesitation on my part because it's clear the person is doing this to undermine the rules and trust of the Forum.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Charles has just confirmed that CMBB is OK and CMAK needed at tweak. The tweak has been made but it's late here on the East Coast so no testing will take place until tomorrow. Then we have the fun of recompiling the installers and uploading them.

Sorry about that guys!

Steve

[Underfire]

Just to let you guys know, you have made me a very happy bunny.

I have no problem paying this amount. I've wasted a lot more on other games that only lasted a couple of weeks on my shelf.

[Jaws]

Kill-roy, Kelley's Heroes.. I know a guy named Headshot..... He terrorized the forum and PBEM games a few years ago and was banned too. Wouldn’t be surprised if this is the same guy.

[Ted]

I’ve been playing CM since the first alpha demo and have followed it’s development long before that.
I belong to a club, The Band of Brothers, and am currently playing in three separate tournaments.
I believe I’ll be playing CM1 well in to the future.

I know Battlefront has said before that it will no longer support, or patch, CMBB/CMAK which given it’s age and their focus on the future is completely understandable
So, this patch comes as a great surprise and if all it costs is the small sum of $5 then I am more than happy to oblige.

It looks like a third party did the programming with the help of Battlefront and I’m happy to help compensate anyone for taking their time to create a patch of any kind for CM1.
In fact if other patches can be done, i.e. CMBB Fortification VP penalty, I would be more than happy to pay for them too.

One of my fears is that people complaining about a few dollars for an upgrade may discourage BF from any future patches.

I for one would just like to say thanks to Steve, Martin and all the guys at Battlefront for putting out one of or the best tactical war games on the market today.
And thanks for thinking of the people who bought this game so many years ago and helping us play in to the next decade.
(Along with CM2 of course :) )

Well done guys, keep up the good work.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I doubt this is part of the patch, since it is a Vista fix, but, by some random miracle, is the text problem for ATI fixed?

I have no problems with BB or AK on Vista 64 with an ATI 4800, except that I had to download the bmp text fix, which works, but is quite irritating, visually.

[sfhand]

Lurker765,



The guy was being a troll and that in and of itself warrants banning. However, that was not what he was banned for. He was banned for having two concurrent accounts. This is a cardinal sin here on this Forum and there are NO exceptions to this when it is deliberately concealed from us.

Now, the fact is the two issues are related because his being such an arse caused us to get suspicious and therefore we checked things out. What made us most suspicious? Someone with "30 years of gaming" experience, who clearly knows the games inside and out as well as this Forum, is a Junior member with 17 posts to his name *and* a name that is in and of itself a red flag? ("Killroy was here"). Who here believes this is Killroy's first foray onto this Forum? Not us, so we checked, and sure enough it wasn't. We were expecting he was a previously banned guy (and probably is).

And you should double check his posts. I did before judging him so you should check them out before judging me.

Steve

And all this time I was reading his name as Killjoy... <rimshot>

[Lurker765]

Lurker765,
The guy was being a troll and that in and of itself warrants banning. However, that was not what he was banned for. He was banned for having two concurrent accounts. This is a cardinal sin here on this Forum and there are NO exceptions to this when it is deliberately concealed from us.

Now, the fact is the two issues are related because his being such an arse caused us to get suspicious and therefore we checked things out. What made us most suspicious? Someone with "30 years of gaming" experience, who clearly knows the games inside and out as well as this Forum, is a Junior member with 17 posts to his name *and* a name that is in and of itself a red flag? ("Killroy was here"). Who here believes this is Killroy's first foray onto this Forum? Not us, so we checked, and sure enough it wasn't. We were expecting he was a previously banned guy (and probably is).

And you should double check his posts. I did before judging him so you should check them out before judging me.

Steve

Steve,

I did double check his posts and didn't really see much outside of his going ballistic in this particular thread (at least nothing that stands out from the norm for an internet forum IMHO). I mean, how much damage can Killroy have done if he has 19 total posts with six of them in this thread and the others mostly complaining about Vista since his account started in April of 2008?

Maybe I looked at the wrong KellysHeroes (there are three of them with slightly different spellings), but the one I looked at didn't seem combative and the other two haven't posted in years. The only Kellysheroes that has posted lately has only one post since March and that is in the TOW2 forum.

Not that my opinion matters -- it is your forum and you can do what you want. It just strikes me that you got mad about losing this debate and banned him in a fit. Not a good impression.

BTW, I have two accounts. My original one is 'gravburg' with my last post from 2007 (two that year and before that one from 2003). I forgot the password and just set up a new one when I started posting again a couple years ago. I have no idea how to remove that old account, but if you care you can delete it.

Anyway, thanks for upgrading CMx1. It is appreciated.

[Jose Carlos]

Obviously you have not read a single post from this thread, nor perhaps any other thread in this forum?

Yes, I have.

I know I haven´t posted many times in this Battlefront´s forum. Sorry about that. I have posted about 930 times in another Spanish website well known for you ("Punta de Lanza") because I love "Combat Mission" series. But believe me: you are in "My Favourites" at my web browser, and I read you very often ;)

Sorry if I said something that you didn´t like. It was just an opinion: don´t like to pay for a patch at all. But it was just me. Don´t take it very serious, and keep fighting. You are doing good!

And please, let me give you just an advice: probably you´re very young. I´m sure, younger than me. But this is for Steve and you (Moon) and then I´ll go for good): just try to be polite with customers (or potential customers). I repeat: economic situation isn´t good (as businessman know that), and you´re working "in front" of a company (a very good software company, I add).

And because that, you´ve to try to avoid being rude with customers (or potential customers). What I mean to say is: if somebody is bad-mannered with you, you´ve to try not to step at the same level (or even on a low level). You are administrators. I know it´s very difficult. I know it´s more difficult if you´re young and with blood in your veins. But you´ve to try. It´s a question of self-preservation and surviving ;)

It will give a better company image to Battlefront.

That´s it! Sorry for boring you.

Good bye now, and good luck!

[Sequoia]

Steve,

I It just strikes me that you got mad about losing this debate and banned him in a fit. Not a good impression.

.

Steve lost the debate? Not as I see it. Did Kilroy really convince any one the patches should be free? And at least half of what Kilroy was saying wasn't even true. IIRC Paradox has not released any patches to games 6-8 years old (i.e Crusader Kings or HoI II or Victoria) but only to for expansions to those games that came out much more recently.

[Lurker765]

Steve lost the debate? Not as I see it. Did Kilroy really convince any one the patches should be free? And at least half of what Kilroy was saying wasn't even true. IIRC Paradox has not released any patches to games 6-8 years old (i.e Crusader Kings or HoI II or Victoria) but only to for expansions to those games that came out much more recently.

I think this is my final post on this since I honestly don't particularly care and the derailing that this thread took was painful.

But, if the argument was about Killroy naming one software product that was still receiving patches 6-8 years after it's release and if Killroy could indeed name one that was a computer game then Steve would print out this thread and eat it....then, yes, I believe Steve lost the argument.

He pointed out that StarCraft just received a patch more than ten years past its release.

He also mentioned Steel Panthers which prompted Moon to agree that he had 'won'.

He also mentioned HPS issuing patches to remove the CD checks for their games, etc

Plus idsoftware releases all the source code for their games after five years which is even better than a patch.

And when Steve mentioned any software company releasing free patches for a 6-8 year old product I would imagine that Microsoft XP would also qualify since it was released back in 2001. Same for Internet explorer 7 which is still receiving free patches.

So, yes, I do believe that Steve was incorrect in his statement and that Killroy was right. When Steve tried changing the subject to say that this is unusual he was correct, but that was not the argument that Killroy was running into the ground.

[Melnibone]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1083771&postcount=25

Strange man :D

[GenSplatton]

I think this is my final post on this since I honestly don't particularly care and the derailing that this thread took was painful.
.
That's putting it mildly. So what is the status of the CMAK version issue? Didn't see anything on the front page yet.

[British Tommy]

Been reading this thread with interest and thought I would share my views :)
I must admit I was surprised to see BF charging for patching AK and BB. Both games are old but much loved by many players worldwide. It has been the players (and clubs) who helped extend the life span of both games by giving away for free scenario's, operations, mods and articles explaining about tactics, weapons etc. Part of my surprise I have to say is the complete turn around by BF. Countless times players mentioned the Vista problem and every time we were told, 'it's an old game and there will be no more patches'. As a self confessed fanboy of the CMx1 games, I just glad BF has seen the light and made it possible to play the games on Vista but charging for the patch? Hmmm....

[Jaws]

I give up. For all those ppl who play the CM series, who have power supply, a internet connection and ..... and enough money to buy a new system with Windows Vista...... and then start whining about 5$. Shame on you. It would be good for you guys to take a holyday to Afghanistan and see what the real problems in this world are.

[WWWolf]

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=34829

OK, so please enlighten me. What software companies you know provide free patches for 6-8 year old software? Or better still, which companies do you know provide patches of any kind for 6-8 year old software? If you can even name one, I'd be surprised. And if it is a game company I'll print out this thread and eat it.
Starcraft: 1998; Latest Patch: 1.16.1 (2009) - 11 years.
Diablo 2: 2000; Latest Patch: 1.12a (2008) - 8 years.
Neverwinter Nights: 2002; Latest Patch: 1.69 (2008) - 6 years. "adds a dragon's trove worth of new content and bug fixes to the game". FOR FREE!!
Doom: 1993; Source Code released: 1997 - 4 years.
Morrowind: 2002; Latest Patch: 1.2.0722 (2008) - 6 years.
Daggerfall: 1996; Entire game released for free: 2009 - 13 years.
Elder Scrolls Arena: 1994; Entire game released for free: 2004 - 10 years.
I count four companies and that's just off the top of my head. Blizzard obviously win the patch game however id Software win a prize for releasing source code and making everyone code their own patches. Also patch-wise are BioWare who are doing pretty good. Bethesda surely have to take home a special prize though for releasing two entire games for free. Who else does that? ZOMG NO-ONE THAT'S WHO. YOU SHOW ME ONE OTHER GAME COMPANY THAT DOES THAT EVEN ID SOFTWARE MAKE YOU BUY THE GAME TO GET THE CONTENT IN THE WAD FILE. :rage:

Not to mention for product that was probably 10 times under priced for the experience it has given the average customer per hour of entertainment. Perhaps 1000 times under priced for the hardcore customer.
Yeah, that's not really an argument. He should charge more and see how that works out for him.

Therefore, if you think you have something to complain about for a patch which costs less than an average lunch out, go right on ahead and complain.
You mean an extra $5 on top of lunch I've already bought because it's not compatible with my fork? I mean okay, sure, he can argue he doesn't owe anyone **** but really. It goes beyond that. Good customer service. Loyalty. "Hey guys, here's a patch for a ten year old game that makes it work on Vista for free. How awesome are we? Tell all your friends!" works a lot better than "Suck it. I don't have to do this, I can charge for it so I will. ALSO MAKING GAEMS SUKS ASS LOL AND I SHULD B A STORKBRAKER".

If I could see into the future like that I'd be putting my money in the stock market, not wasting my time with this stupid game company stuff.
The guy's not really enjoying the whole game programming thing, is he?

It would have been better, if only from a PR point of view, to include new features, units, campaign, scenarios...whatever. Paying for a pure compatibility fix rather sticks in the gullet.
Except in that case, the actual Vista patch itself would need to be released free with the extra content being an extra $5 option.

Why does everyone believe that patches have to be free? Especially if the product was never released for the mentioned OS (Windows Vista)?? This ain't communism, bitches.
If I have to start paying for patches with no content... :rage:

[Destraex1]

There is a bit of debate on the wargamer.com about this atm.
http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.aspx?&m=362271&mpage=2

I have a small question that will probably still some of the debate.
Was it more than .dll issues that needed to be corrected to work with Vista?
Many think that this sort of .dll fixing is just a a quick fix and not worthy of money.

Personally I just wanted to know if their were more issues such as how DEP and others are stricter in Vista. Sidebar interferance or UAC problems?

What interest do I have in Battlefront?
I am actually an owner of the original CMSF and am looking forward to British Forces... hoping for a bundle actually with marines thrown in.
Would you believe I passed on CMAK due to clown heads on infantry and turn based system, fixed in CMSF!
CMSF has most I want including real time. I do miss coop play and better frame rates though. But they are not big deals.
I also own TOW but will prolly pass of TOW2 in favour of British forces after TOW1 frame rate issues on my high end system at the time.

[Jaws]

Seems Killroy is back with 2x new account.

[Redwolf]

Since the contest of "who's patching how long" continue it is also worth noting that many game did not need a Vista patch and still run with whatever patch was released at the end of their lifetime.

CMx1 used some 3D library that locked it into DX5 on the PC and Rave on the Mac. That was a mistake at the time that others didn't do. John Carmack of iD software was bashing game developers to use OpenGL beginning 1996 and arguably if BFC had listened we would have been in a lot less trouble, including the constant ATI problems (there isn't a second fog API that was broken in ATI's OpenGL).

For example, I estimate that all Quake games run on Vista without further patches and without relying on the source code. I'll never have Vista so I can't test, feel free to point out I'm full of it.

[Moon]

As others said, this thread here has been completely derailed from the original topic, I am therefore locking it.

[Moon]

WWWolf - When we ban someone then it is for a good reason and with the intended effect that that person does not post on our forums anymore. What you are doing is effectively getting around the ban, and we cannot allow that. I have edited our forum rules to close this particular loophole. You will only get a warning for now, not an Infraction.

[Battlefront.com]

Oops... I didn't notice the thread was locked. Post retracted.

Steve