27 replies to this topic

[Pawn Couch]

Hawkens on Steam now, and if this game doesn't have enough paying players to add more servers then Steam seems like the best option.

And I'm sure most of you have Steam.

And if no, why not?

Edited by KING PINEAPYULA, 11 February 2014 - 03:24 PM.

[Mechteric]

Of course they should, maybe after CW though

[Pawn Couch]

I don't think they should wait that long, after all money makes the game.

[990Dreams]

I marked maybe.

From a marketing standpoint, CW should be released first. But when it is, definitely.

From a personal standpoint, I don't use Steam.

[Ryvucz]

I said no, free to play titles on Steam always bring out the worst trolls and cheaters.

Sure, thousands of new players would be great, but thousands of more trolls is also very bad.

I would reconsider my standing if PGI/IGP had more staff online to moderate in-game offenses.

[Pawn Couch]

DavidHurricane, on 11 February 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

I marked maybe.

From a marketing standpoint, CW should be released first. But when it is, definitely.

From a personal standpoint, I don't use Steam.

Not all Steam F2Ps are on Steam only, Warframe can be downloaded and played without Steam.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

I selected Maybe because there is no Yes, But Not Yet option. PGI should put MWO on Steam after and only after certain core mechanics are in place and have had their kinks smoothed out, most especially an improved new player experience (full tutorials for weapons, heat, mech configuration, etc., and refined early-mech acquisition). Once that's finished they can support the large influx of new players that Steam will introduce, which would be necessary to offset the cut to income that they'd take on a per-player basis.

The worst thing they can do is go to Steam too early and lose the rush of new players before they start spending money. MWO needs to be more feature-complete before new player retention will be at levels sufficient to justify Steam's cut of their income.

[Thorn Hallis]

KING PINEAPYULA, on 11 February 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

And if no, why not?

Cost.

[Roma Curia]

What Levi said. I don't believe the game in its current state is nearly polished enough to warrant being put on Steam. IMO getting on Steam represents MWO's biggest opportunity to increase its player base since going into open beta. It is very much in PGI/IGP's interest to make sure that retention rates for that influx of players are as high as possible. As much as I have fun playing MWO it is currently far too harsh on new players and far too unpolished to be ready to risk squandering what might possibly be the last big opportunity to quickly increase the user base.

Edited by Roma Curia, 11 February 2014 - 10:22 PM.

[NextGame]

KING PINEAPYULA, on 11 February 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

Hawkens on Steam now, and if this game doesn't have enough paying players to add more servers then Steam seems like the best option.

And I'm sure most of you have Steam.

And if no, why not?

Only once community warfare is implemented

[Hobo Dan]

While I certainly agree MWO would probably do well on Steam if presented at the right time (after CW), I doubt it will ever show up. Remember, Microsoft owns the MechWarrior IP and I don’t believe they would be very supportive of the idea.

[Gaan Cathal]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 February 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

The worst thing they can do is go to Steam too early and lose the rush of new players before they start spending money. MWO needs to be more feature-complete before new player retention will be at levels sufficient to justify Steam's cut of their income.

A Steam release also means major exposure which PGI are currently (not unwisely) avoiding - look at the low-key 'release' MW:O had, I'm not sure a single gaming news outlet has a post-beta article on it. In the current state of the game, the bad press likely to result in the increased exposure (for several reasons) will likely do as much damage to the player count as the increased access will improve it.

Hobo Dan, on 12 February 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

While I certainly agree MWO would probably do well on Steam if presented at the right time (after CW), I doubt it will ever show up. Remember, Microsoft owns the MechWarrior IP and I don’t believe they would be very supportive of the idea.

There are plenty of Microsoft-owned and/or -published games on Steam. Hence the huge number of rage threads in the Steam forums about Game X, Y or Z having GFWL.

[Modo44]

Sure, as soon as CW is out, and the game polished up for better player retention. It would be a very sad sales experience in its current buggy/unfinished state.

Edited by Modo44, 21 August 2014 - 02:57 AM.

[xeromynd]

BEFORE

[IllCaesar]

Hell yes, but only after:

1. CW is implemented. Speaks for itself.

2. Game is more polished. Honestly, aside from balance issues, I think the game is in pretty decent shape. I'm speaking more of the polished that CW will need, that the current Clan mechs need, and that the current game modes need.

3. Game is more noob-friendly. I think everybody knows what I'm talking about, I shouldn't have to explain much of what the game needs.

4. More game modes exist. If you think every game mode is deathmatch now, imagine thousands of new players swarming in at once. I'm not saying add a respawn mode, just make new modes where the objectives are an actual focus, and tweak Conquest and Assault so that capping is more viable.

Funny, just a few hours ago, I was trying to find a way I could get Steam to show when I'm playing MWO.

Also, as a long-term goal, point number five.

5. Co-op! Look, I know any possibility of this is a long way off, and I won't pretend otherwise, but PvP puts off a lot of people. Mechwarrior Online is the only PvP game I play. I play a fair amount of co-op, with a few hundreds hours of Payday 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Killing Floor, etc under my belt, and honestly I prefer it, and so do many other players. Quite frankly, the only reason I play Mechwarrior Online is because its Mechwarrior, its the only game really like it, single-player or not, co-op or not. Every other MMO I've ever played, I've only ever played PvE, never against other players. MWO has been my only real exception to this. A co-op mode will draw in a lot more players, add more content, and create a different meta-game, which will in turn cause even current players to try new things with the game.

Edited by MarsAtlas, 21 August 2014 - 05:10 PM.

[Basilisk222]

I agree with the posters that say wait. This game would probably be panned badly on steam in the shape it's currently in, and might do a lot of damage in short order.

But, I think steam's party chat system could be used to really good effect since this game has no dependable voip right now, especially if the devs allow steam names to be visible in the game client.

I think a lot more players would take initiative to set up parties and run with groups, and more friends could be made.

Yay friends.

[DrSlamastika]

Hell no. steam is downloading some xxxx when he want. Its not good. . .

[SpiralFace]

Guys, Steam is not as Developer friendly as many would think it is.

Most of the time the "cost" of putting it on steam can sometimes outweigh the benefits, since you have to apply to host on it, devote developer resources to specifically integrate their DRM systems and continuously ensure that it stay's compliant with their rules and DRM updates. In addition to that, most games will be forced to make sure your transactions go THROUGH steam with no way around it so that way Steam can take 30-40% of the total gross of the game and only leave the developer with 70 cents for every dollar spent on the game. (And that's before they more then likely have to pay out royalties to Microsoft for licensing their IP.)

Sure you get the audience of steam, but unless they are going to magically increase their physical revenue by around 40-50% to offset the cost of Steam skimming profits off the top, it really does nothing to benefit the game to have it hosted on steam rather them going solo.

At least then, I know when I buy MC and the like, it goes straight to the developers, and not a hefty chunk of it going to Valve.

[Jody Von Jedi]

I have a Steam account, but only played Star Trek Online with it. I hate having to use the Steam launcher, remembering multiple log ins and passwords. It's a hassle.

I like is as a stand alone personally. If you could continue to launch the game from the same launcher without having to go through Steam, then that would be OK. But I don't know if that's possible once a game goes to Steam?

[SpiralFace]

Most of the time, no. All depends on what you negotiate with them, but for the most part, if you host a game on steam, they want it as exclusive to them as possible, because that way you must make your micro-transactions through their client so that they can get a cut of the money from the transaction.

Basically, unless your game stands to gain 40-50% in REVENUE not players, Then most of the time, your better off hosting it on your own site as the margins are better when nearly 100% of the profit is going to the developers of the game rather then the hosting site taking a large chunk out of the gross sales.