597 replies to this topic

[Jyzene]

Even if this article is not the pinnacle of modern journalism, its conclusion is dead on and hits home hard.

Putting aside all differences over gameplay desicions PGI still delivers worse production quality, less content and a less complex concept then the Crysis mod Mechwarrior Living Legends team did over a similiar timespan.

If IGP as publisher has any control over PGI, they should fire PGIs upper management right away.
At least thats what typically happens in real world economy after reviewing key performance indicators like that.

Edited by Jyzene, 31 August 2013 - 06:41 PM.

[Acid Phase]

Spot on well written article. Actually he's speaking my language as well as most others. Someone I will sympathize with in PGI is Garth. Needless to say that poor communication comes from bad management. It's quite simple. A professional business has a chain of command. A boss delegates his intentions of how he wants his business to run to his right hand men/women. Which then these supervisors delegate these orders out to the workhorses. This business "company" works for the satisfaction of it's customers....and one thing these customers don't want is to get swindled by false promises/advertisement. I'm sorry Russ, but if you admitted failures within your company, what does that say about the President of Pirahna Games?

A significant amount of money has funded MWO on the basis of what the direction was since closed beta. What did PGI think, that they can screw it's customers and get away with it? I've said it before when they had a sacred announcement which turned out to be a picture of Canyon Network, and I'll say it again....I really hope they announce they have turned over the franchise to much more competent able hands. Those with balls enough to say "Screw the publisher's needs for a wider demograhic. We need to remain loyal to our core fans. The ones who actually funded this game to grow."

Edited by Acid Phase, 01 September 2013 - 03:27 AM.

[Nordhammer]

Ok so I've pretty much stopped playing when I learned that the Clans weren't happening till 2014(maybe).Still lets see command console remember that?hmmm? comes with a DDC nothing came of it.Oh the Centurion that we lost so that the Wang would sell. KNOCK DOWNS couldn't fix em removed for how long now? and you're kidding yourself if you think that doesn't effect gameplay.R/R needed tweaking nope removed...Lets go on Community Warfare this is what really will make or kill this game.No one (really at this point doubting the devs )knows what it is and that is so wrong so so wrong.People have so many hopes it'll be something great but have nothing but hope/dreams/**** to base it on.Honestly at this point thinking it'll be clan wars from WoT.Just its sad when the days of closed beta were so much more fun and ya there were boats but so many different types srm/lrm/spl/mpl....ac20 cats and on an on but after a "little tweaking" its ppc/guass/jj.Now to fix that guass is getting tweaked...gezzz surprised its not getting removed.rant over

Edited by Nordhammer, 31 August 2013 - 07:37 PM.

[RedThirteen]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 31 August 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

Problem is, they didn't give us any reason to shoot the other parts, the game is so focused on shooting the center torso and that's it.

It's very frustrating.

DISAGREE. RT/LT has substantially less armour. There are usually weapon mounts on RT/LT. Destroying RT/LT removes any weapons on the adjoining arm. Call focus fire on one part to minimise incoming fire - crucial if you're running a medium.

It's like you've never disarmed (hehe) an assault mech before.

[Delas Ting Usee]

Good article - agree with most of the points except for 12 versus 12.

Here's what I don't get, why the comparison between 'Star Citizen' and 'MWO' on this thread?

Just based off personnel and monetary resources itself, SC has (this is speculation on my part; most likely higher from what I gather) $50 mil and close to a hundred people on its payroll versus PGI's what 40 employees and maybe $10 mil at best.

It's a very unfair comparison.

I think we forget just how TINY PGI is.

I mean, let's be pragmatic about it, what would take an establish company (or one with HUMUNGOUS resources) a week to implement something, might take a small size company 1 month; maybe more.

People complain about PGI not listening to GREAT IDEAS (and there have been some on the forums), but imagine trying to find that gem in the middle of all the {Scrap} spouted.

Also, what makes you think YOUR idea deserves to be heard and implemented over others - because you've got years under your belt AS a player and are thus 'ENTITLED' to have your opinion heard over everybody else? Get over yourself.

Look, EVEN IF they wanted to implement a great idea, how would they go about it, implementation might affect timelines with higher priorities in their pipeline. How would you managed your already stretched and limited resources, especially if you don't have the 'throw money at it' solution handy?

All this hate, (and I'm responsible for some) who can blame them for circling their wagons.
It's all turned pretty ugly.

And to all the guys saying LET THE GAME DIE, so someone else can pick it up and do the job right.
Here's a question for you...if I were a potential maker of MMOGs - why the hell should I buy the rights to the Battletech Universe? It means that I have to deal with the Battletech fans who are hostile and apparently can't be pleased and ALL want their opinion's heard and changes made to their liking. Life's too short.

I believe that PGI is putting all its eggs in one basket with UI 2.0 and CW and I'm willing to quell my 'justifiable' irritation at them for all the things they've done wrong (especially 3rd PV).

I hope that gamble pays off for them on Sept. 17th. I really do want them to ultimately succeed. If not, I too would join the masses and ask for my 'Phoenix and Saber ' refund.

Edited by Delas Ting Usee, 31 August 2013 - 08:45 PM.

[onipanda]

The white knights in this thread are *adorable*.

[Tsig]

onipanda, on 31 August 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

The white knights in this thread are *adorable*.

I think it's hilarious that anybody that bothers to defend PGI, no matter how eloquently they do so, is called a brown-noser or a white knight. Can't possibly defend a game developer from their hateful, spiteful forums without being considered a corporate shill.

[AlexEss]

onipanda, on 31 August 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

The white knights in this thread are *adorable*.

Well the "black knights" are not much better to be honest.

I am not saying people should not have opinions. But if you are going to try and write something that is supposed to be taken seriously. It might be a good idea to present a balanced and well researched image.

Edited by AlexEss, 01 September 2013 - 03:36 AM.

[Muffin Stump]

****** Cain, on 31 August 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

Imagine if PGI were in control of government when Martin Luther King was around... "Vocal minority, not important"

Quite an asinine statement.

[AlexEss]

Jyzene, on 31 August 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

Even if this article is not the pinnacle of modern journalism, its conclusion is dead on and hits home hard.

Actually it does not hit hard... In fact due to being primary a opinion piece it is very easy to dismiss. Especially if you are, lets say a company that have numerical data that contradicts much of the opinions. All you end up then is speaking to the very vocal minority that already have said opinion. They of course are happy because they see it as a confirmation that they are right and the site gets a few extra hits.

That is why it is a poor slob of "journalism".

[Nicholas Carlyle]

KovarD, on 31 August 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

I made a sugestion thread and sent to Garth. This is the response I got from him:

Can't tell if you were agreeing with my point, as I said in the post (which you left unquoted) the only things Garth forwards to the devs is irrelevant {Scrap} like what you asked about.

There are so many game play and mechanics issues that the above should not even be on the table to be worried about by such a small dev team as everyone keeps telling me they are.

RedThirteen, on 31 August 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

DISAGREE. RT/LT has substantially less armour. There are usually weapon mounts on RT/LT. Destroying RT/LT removes any weapons on the adjoining arm. Call focus fire on one part to minimise incoming fire - crucial if you're running a medium.

It's like you've never disarmed (hehe) an assault mech before.

So you spend 80 damage disarming a guy, or spend 120 damage killing him?

Or whatever the exact numbers are.

If you are good, you are shooting CT.

Only times you aren't are lights (legs), Centurion's (legs) and YLW (arm).

The rest of the time shooting out a CT is the optimal way to kill a mech.

And in 12vs12, half your team using Gauss/PPC's focus firing can kill a mech in one shot. No reason to shoot off weapons in this game.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 01 September 2013 - 04:15 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 01 September 2013 - 04:14 AM, said:

So you spend 80 damage disarming a guy, or spend 120 damage killing him?

Half-disarming a guy.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

MustrumRidcully, on 01 September 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

Half-disarming a guy.

Unless it's a Griffin!

But seriously, who the hell plays to disarm now a days? The game has gotten so far from that with the sheer damage we can put into a pinpoint place.

I think half the time this is why PGI doesn't bother fixing things, so many players are just completely uninformed about the game play that PGI knows they can just BS their way through things.

[WM Jeri]

Delas Ting Usee, on 31 August 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

Good article - agree with most of the points except for 12 versus 12.

Here's what I don't get, why the comparison between 'Star Citizen' and 'MWO' on this thread?

Just based off personnel and monetary resources itself, SC has (this is speculation on my part; most likely higher from what I gather) $50 mil and close to a hundred people on its payroll versus PGI's what 40 employees and maybe $10 mil at best.

It's a very unfair comparison.

I think we forget just how TINY PGI is.

I mean, let's be pragmatic about it, what would take an establish company (or one with HUMUNGOUS resources) a week to implement something, might take a small size company 1 month; maybe more.

People complain about PGI not listening to GREAT IDEAS (and there have been some on the forums), but imagine trying to find that gem in the middle of all the {Scrap} spouted.

Also, what makes you think YOUR idea deserves to be heard and implemented over others - because you've got years under your belt AS a player and are thus 'ENTITLED' to have your opinion heard over everybody else? Get over yourself.

Look, EVEN IF they wanted to implement a great idea, how would they go about it, implementation might affect timelines with higher priorities in their pipeline. How would you managed your already stretched and limited resources, especially if you don't have the 'throw money at it' solution handy?

All this hate, (and I'm responsible for some) who can blame them for circling their wagons.
It's all turned pretty ugly.

And to all the guys saying LET THE GAME DIE, so someone else can pick it up and do the job right.
Here's a question for you...if I were a potential maker of MMOGs - why the hell should I buy the rights to the Battletech Universe? It means that I have to deal with the Battletech fans who are hostile and apparently can't be pleased and ALL want their opinion's heard and changes made to their liking. Life's too short.

I believe that PGI is putting all its eggs in one basket with UI 2.0 and CW and I'm willing to quell my 'justifiable' irritation at them for all the things they've done wrong (especially 3rd PV).

I hope that gamble pays off for them on Sept. 17th. I really do want them to ultimately succeed. If not, I too would join the masses and ask for my 'Phoenix and Saber ' refund.

Really? We forget? I would counter with how about they start under-promising and maybe I don't know over delivering!

I mean are they not in charge of managing thier resources both manpower and funding as well as communication with the player base? Don't they understand thier budget available? While I am not frothing at the mouth and they can keep the coin I spent even for the not yet delivered mechs lets revisit a few things.

• They set the timeline and delivery schedule for features not the players
  
• They stated no 3PV not the players
  
• They stated no coolant flush not the players

Etc, Etc, one could go on. Thier issues in my opinion can be summed simply, don't make statements that your fingers have not coded sufficiently to a point that you can't deliver said timeline and option, and oh yea as my father and his father before him taught me. Say what you do and do what you say. You come into this world with the same thing you go out with which is your name.

And at the end of the day how do you want to be remembered? Hopefully they can learn from all this and be a better developer/studio, I know in life I have learned far more from my failures than successes and while I appreciated thier time with the apology letter tone, temper and messaging are everything.

In the end I think they have delivered the most visually appealling and the fundementally strongest " combat shell" around a strategic planetary vision of the MW franchise to date, however if they cannot tie it all together it won't amount to much and the size of thier studio aside, they have to manage the development and deliverables and communicate realistically what they can and cannot deliver. It was not the players who put up the sales info stating the design pillars and timeline and it is not the players who commit developer resources...but it is the "Paying" player base that does commit a major share of the funding for them to be able to develop thier vision.

The issue is for this player is that he is done paying until the deliverables and timeline start to mature and stop changing from what was advertised.

Know your "target demographic", and know who is funding your project. Now I have no idea if I fall into thier target demographic but I can say the 3PV stuff annoyed me. Most everything else I let slide and continued to pay for MC and bought thier Phoenix Package... and while I dont feel "Entitled" I am a paying customer and if I am not happy well then my wallet closes so I am done for now at least as it seems to me that I am no longer thier target demographic, so for me the article is pretty spot on and I could care less about the comparison in studio size, what they do have in common is communication and how they choose to do it.

At this point SC is doing pretty well, but it is still the Honeymoon and I am sure thier turn is coming at some point. The question is how will SC handle similar events? Well only time will tell that.

Thanks and have a great day!

Edited by WM Jeri, 01 September 2013 - 04:58 AM.

[Sam Slade]

Delas Ting Usee, on 31 August 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

It's a very unfair comparison.

I think we forget just how TINY PGI is.

ok... so do you really think the rights to this IP went cheap? MS vs Harmony Gold has kept anyone from really diving into the franchise in the past while the BT IP got stale in the back of the closet... that said, let's not forget that MW2 OWNED the internet for quite a while... hell arcades build sim-pod decks based on LAN-ing it.

Then a larger media group with a smaller games developing arm comes in and says "hey! we can make a throw away dev-house and see if anything floats on this growing F2P micro-transaction tide... maybe use it to test PC/Next-Gen console crossover? Just the data we mine will be valuable!"

I used to think the long Beta was for real development... it's not; the data mine they made here will help Next Gen console devs bridge the gap between PC and console... and make the people that started it a tidy profit at minimal cost to any thing but their reputations.

AlexEss, on 01 September 2013 - 04:08 AM, said:

Actually it does not hit hard... In fact due to being primary a opinion piece it is very easy to dismiss.

'Opinion Piece' means it doesn't use facts... this article backs up it's assertions... with facts. explain your position again...

[AlexEss]

Sam Slade, on 01 September 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

'Opinion Piece' means it doesn't use facts... this article backs up it's assertions... with facts. explain your position again...

a good deal of the facts are based on opinions within the community since actual numbers and solid information on how the community at large reacts is missing.

Thus my standpoint. (and before anyone brings up sampling again, i know how it works and if you want can make a post later in the week on how easy it is to skew the numbers to fit the image.)

[Kattspya]

AlexEss, on 01 September 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

a good deal of the facts are based on opinions within the community since actual numbers and solid information on how the community at large reacts is missing.

Thus my standpoint. (and before anyone brings up sampling again, i know how it works and if you want can make a post later in the week on how easy it is to skew the numbers to fit the image.)

You seem to be confused as to what constitutes fact and what constitutes opinion. A dictionary would help you with that.

[AlexEss]

Kattspya, on 01 September 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

You seem to be confused as to what constitutes fact and what constitutes opinion. A dictionary would help you with that.

Only providing one side of a issue and with a very specific angle without giving any room for the other side (or in this case sides) and making no distinction between actual facts and opinions is usually reserved for the gossip rags and a really slow newsday.. or at least that was how my teachers taught me. The fact here is that a lot of opinion is being help up as fact and that the article in question does nothing to improve on the situation.

I´l stand firm in my opinion that it is much more a opinion piece then actual journalism. (i like to point out that nowhere does the author claim that it is journalism... It is just me pointing out that in my opinion it does not qualify as such since others have attached such a label to it)

[Super Mono]

AlexEss, on 01 September 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Only providing one side of a issue and with a very specific angle without giving any room for the other side (or in this case sides) and making no distinction between actual facts and opinions is usually reserved for the gossip rags and a really slow newsday.. or at least that was how my teachers taught me. The fact here is that a lot of opinion is being help up as fact and that the article in question does nothing to improve on the situation.

I´l stand firm in my opinion that it is much more a opinion piece then actual journalism. (i like to point out that nowhere does the author claim that it is journalism... It is just me pointing out that in my opinion it does not qualify as such since others have attached such a label to it)

You would blast Upton Sinclar's The Jungle for not saying anything nice about those poor meat packer plants. Your idea of journalism is that writer must present two sides as both equally valid and that is just garbage. There's plenty of proof presented for all the salient points in the article and the only reason you don't like it is because it's brutally honest about PGI's actions.

[Kattspya]

AlexEss, on 01 September 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Only providing one side of a issue and with a very specific angle without giving any room for the other side (or in this case sides) and making no distinction between actual facts and opinions is usually reserved for the gossip rags and a really slow newsday.. or at least that was how my teachers taught me. The fact here is that a lot of opinion is being help up as fact and that the article in question does nothing to improve on the situation.

I´l stand firm in my opinion that it is much more a opinion piece then actual journalism. (i like to point out that nowhere does the author claim that it is journalism... It is just me pointing out that in my opinion it does not qualify as such since others have attached such a label to it)

What is factually wrong?

Which opinions presented do you disagree with and why?