Jump to content

Mwll Developement Have Been Stopped.

168 replies to this topic

#161 Catamount


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,280 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:18 AM

View PostPurplefluffybunny, on 17 January 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

No where has Defender retracted parts that pertain to facts known, some of which were known before this embarrassing affair.

1) Kamikaze and Criminal own MWLL, work for Crytek and don't currently contribute to the development of MWLL in a hands on capacity.

2) Russ had a conversation, (Russ's own words) with them. He expressed a wish for a single project, his project.

3) Kamikaze and Criminal shut down development of MWLL of their own accord.

4) Some devs actually working on MWLL would like to continue to do so but can't due to the wishes of the legal owners.

These are established IMO and nothing about these points has been retracted or countered. Indeed Russ's (?) statement reinforces these points. A lot else follows from accepting these four points as 'true' statements. I won't go into them here :P .

So congratulations, you've now established that:

1.) PGI employees like their own game (because clearly that makes them evil), and like to have casual conversations about other projects going on, conversations that Defender himself described as overall being "supportive", something I note you've conveniently left out

2.) Kamakazi and Criminal, for reasons not really known, decided to shut down their own project (as if that was ever in dispute).

I'm glad we've managed to establish nothing incriminating that indicates anyone doing anything that they could be blamed for, except the two lead developers of MW:LL. Maybe now you'll go bother them.

Really, I like how the one question you guys haven't managed to answer thus far is "what are you accomplishing". What are you even doing here, in this thread, and for that matter, as members of this forum? Do you expect MWLL to come back if you whine and moan enough, and throw misdirected anger out over the wilder assumptions you make regarding a hole-ridden and often-inconsistent mixture of facts and hearsay? No? See my first question.

Clearly this is why my explanation makes more sense :huh:

Edited by Catamount, 18 January 2013 - 07:17 AM.

#162 Mister Blastman


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 7,126 posts
  • LocationIn my Mech (Atlanta, GA)

Posted 18 January 2013 - 08:55 AM

View PostPurplefluffybunny, on 18 January 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:


Not like this had not been on the cards for a while now. At least it is all in the open now. The above post was from around the same time that I was told by three different members of the MWLL dev team, that forceful emails were sent from PGI.

The best thing ALL of us can do is... to get everyone we know to start playing MWLL. It is a better game, anyways.

The only holdup is the lack of a mechlab but I think that can easily be overlooked with superior gameplay.

#163 Syllogy


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,696 posts
  • LocationStrana Mechty

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:32 AM

View PostCongzilla, on 16 January 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

PGI has gotten the rights for Mechwarrior from Microsoft and by doing so is expected to protect the IP which includes shutting down people producing games based on the IP without the licensing rights.

You are wrong.

MW:LL had a legal license from Microsoft to develop that product. Before you rage-post, you might want to check your facts.

In my opinion, MW:LL was either underfunded and/or understaffed for this project, or there were a significant number of people that wanted to move on to different projects or move on to different companies.

#164 Mister Blastman


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 7,126 posts
  • LocationIn my Mech (Atlanta, GA)

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:49 AM

MW:LL underfunded?


Do you realize that MW:LL was a free MOD developed in the spare time of those that worked so hard on it?

#165 TB Freelancer


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 783 posts
  • LocationOttawa

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:02 PM

View PostEgomane, on 17 January 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

Drawing to a conclusion without knowing all the facts.

PGI, very openly declared, that they made an agreement with the folks of MW:LL. Those folks, with the exception of Defender, all say, that all communication has been very friendly. Why is it so hard to grasp, that this might have been mutual? That you can not blame one without the other?

Why is the one voice of Defender, who is the only Developer who spoke against PGI (and his post has been edited since) held in so much higher regard, then all the others on both sides of the coin? What is making his so much more trustworthy?

You want PGI to be guilty, but you don't want to look beyond that, as the truth might hurt how you envision PGI/IGP as the bad guys. I believe this is very sad!

I swear half the guys on these forums are Truthers and probably the same type that say 9/11 was an inside job, that the massacre of school children was staged to make Obama look good, and have thousands of other wild notions of how everything is a conspiracy.

They are impervious to logic, reason and hard proof. They are 100% committed to believing what they believe, the truth be damned.

PGI might want to get in contact with some tinfoil manufacturers and offer to sell MW branded tinfoil. Might make more money off that than the actual game.

Edited by TB Freelancer, 18 January 2013 - 01:04 PM.

#166 SquareSphere


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
  • LocationIn your clouds, stealing your thunder

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:48 PM

/shrugs/ there are fan boys on both sides of the fence here. I love MWLL sure, everyone knows that. I'm fine with the truth that the founders pulled the plug because its a conflict of interest for them. Some folks don't want to believe that's the truth then ok, sure. We'll never have the whole truth unless they want to divulge it. People take loss differently than others.

What's ironic is the fact the talks were about bringing the communities together to reduce duplicate effort. That's the bitter point for most fans of MWLL I think.
  • Do I think MWO will continue to get better? Well I hope so.
  • Do I think it'll ever be combined arms like MWLL? Not on your life.
  • Do I respect the work that's gone into MWO? Of course, it's why I have a founders tag instead of asking for a refund like so many others.
  • Do I have a lot of skepticism for PGI? Yes but then I was in the 1st round of Closed Beta testers, so much of my skepticism was created through their actions (or lack their of)
Ultimately I can't say what the other MWLL fans are hoping to find or prove. All I can do is post that MWLL has been my game of choice for many years and I'm sad to see it go.

Edited by SquareSphere, 18 January 2013 - 02:49 PM.

#167 BloodShot12


  • 2 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:06 PM

I can understand MWLL being shut down for competition, I wouldn't have held it against PGI if it was true. What I can hold against them and the MWLL founders is the refusal to divulge information that doesn't dance around what happened. It was the same crap with Diablo 3 and Jay Wilson, and I see no point having so much of the obvious damage control that both sides are doing.

"proof" is a weak word to throw around in this context, all it is being used as is an aversion to anything. You can do the exact same thing with all of science since there are no hard "facts" either, which by this thread's logic, should invalidate our entire way of thinking.

I'm sure had the situation been reversed some of the more eager defenders of mutuality would have something to say other then "show me proof" - since the only thing those posts are doing is restating a way of thinking that that person obviously wants to shove down a MWLL defender's throat just as much as the MWLL defender wants to shove the "PGI blame" theory down that person's throat.

It's futile, repitious, and quite frankly childish from both sides, I would expect this from regular community go-ers, but I would not expect such weak and almost troll-like responses from a moderator.

#168 Gremlich Johns


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,818 posts
  • LocationMaryland, USA

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:41 PM

MWO will never have tanks, vtols, aerospace, or battlearmours. Hell, I don;t think they'll ever get Clan Mechs balanced if they ever bring them in.

I predict that they will restart the MWO timeline to 3025 when they do not have to mess with anything more difficult than Wolf's Dragoon mechs.

#169 Pht


  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,299 posts

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:59 PM

View PostSyllogy, on 18 January 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

You are wrong.

MW:LL had a legal license from Microsoft to develop that product. Before you rage-post, you might want to check your facts.

In my opinion, MW:LL was either underfunded and/or understaffed for this project, or there were a significant number of people that wanted to move on to different projects or move on to different companies.

You do realize that if your info is true about MWLL being under some sort of legal liscensing or such from MS ... that it was probably (directly or indirectly) MS that ultimately perpetrated the closure of the product that was *competing with the other game using their ip - said game which would make PROFITS for MS?*

If you are right, this could be nothing more than a vanilla act by the all-controlling beancounters that run virtually every company on the stock market - you don't let anyone compete with your profit makers if you can legally stop them from doing so... and keeping the stockholders happy is top priority in a business that's traded - NOT keeping the consumers happy.

Yes, the two groups - stockowners and product consumers - usually don't have interests that collide - but collide they do at times.

You can afford for some of your consumers to be ticked off at you. You CAN'T afford for ANY significant amount of your captiol-backers to be ticked at you.

... and you know what, if the above SPECULATION is true,.. it doesn't make MS evil. It just means they did something we didn't like... and PGI might just not have had any say in it - or any ability to have any counter-say in it.

Heck, we already know that PGI is under some sort of not-insignificant restrictions on the use of the IP (otherwise, it wouldn't have been complained about publically by JW and others) ... it's not like they can go up against MS, which would be against their self interest.

Edited by Pht, 18 January 2013 - 05:03 PM.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users