12 replies to this topic

[Texugo87]

The following is based on my own knowledge and experience, and a hefty dose of inference and assumption. Video game publishing is not something I am directly familiar with, but I do have some familiarity issues around intellectual property, copywrite, and practices in other sectors. I have no direct knowledge of the actual agreement between PGI and IGP, my intention is to paint a very basic picture of how publisher/producer interactions can work, and how it might work in this case.

My goal with this post is to inform the community, and enable them to direct their energies in a way that will best affect positive change in the game.

PGI is a game studio, they create the product. IGP is a publisher, they bring the product to market. Despite the confusingly similar acronyms PGI and IGP are not the same company, nor are the connected through ownership, management, etc. (In so far as I can tell).

PGI had the idea and desire to make a MechWarrior game, IGP has the resources (money namely, infrastructure, business connections), and expertise (advertising, lawyers) to bring such a product to market. In the case of MechWarrior/Battletech as far as I can tell IGP holds atleast some of the licensing rights, this is why they are publishing both MWO and MW: Tactics right now. PGI may have had to go through them to use the IP, IGP may have acquired the IP rights after PGI pitched the game to them, or PGI may have held the rights and licenced them to IGP as part of their deal. This is the least clear part of their relationship, if anyone knows more about who holds what rights I would love to hear about it, as the BattleTech IP is an interesting, but complete, mess historically.

PGI wanted to make MechWarrior 5, but no publisher would back them. MWO was what a publisher would back.

IGP pays PGI. That likely took the form of initial development capital, continuing cash infusions when needed, and probably some percentage of profits. In return for this backing IGP gets control over certain aspects of development, and the right to make money off the game.

When you buy MC, (or likely any future product that comes out associated with the game) you are paying IGP, some of that money then trickles down to PGI in various ways.

PGI for the most part will maintain creative control over the product, with in some limits, and at points requiring approval from IGP.

IGP likely has near total control over monetary aspects of the game, what you can buy, how much it costs, etc.

Hero mechs are a great example of the interface between these 2 aspects. PGI likely has a lot of control over what the mech will be, it's stats, its story, its appearance, etc. IGP likely has control over how much it costs, whether it will only be available via MC, how often they come out, how many of them there will be, etc. IGP may have to approve the hero mechs, saying they think they are something players will want to buy.

Your founders package money went to IGP, it would have been their idea, under their control, that's why MW: Tactics has a very similar founder system.

Pricing, and the types of items for sale will likely change over time as IGP recovers their initial investment and starts to make money off the game. I think we've already seen this with the introduction of sales.

Prior to the first sale there was likely a fairly steady, smooth flow of cash. Sales have the potential to bring in more cash on average, but people will now wait for sales to occur to either buy or use MC (using MC leads to buying more MC), the income is now less predictable, and has peaks and troughs depending on when the last sale was, how desirable the sale is, etc. Sales are higher risk, but potentially higher reward than the pre-sale model. Likely IGP had a target of some sort for introducing sales (profitability, % of investment recovered, etc) before introducing the higher risk model. There are likely future milestones as well, one possibility would be a price decrease which could increase revenue by having more people buying, or could generate less revenue if the increase in purchasers didn't offset the decrease in price. Reversing the price decrease would likely alienate some previous purchasers making such a move high risk, though with a potential benefit of having the increase in number of purchasers outweigh the decrease in per purchase earnings. PGI will have very little say in those decisions in all likelihood.

IGP can likely dictate what types of things will be sold for the game. Likely what happened with consumables was IGP said "we're seeing good revenue with persistent purchases (cockpit items, camo/color, mechs, hero mechs), but consumables seem like an area for growth (the only current consumable is premium time, mechbays are semi consumable)", and told PGI they want a system of MC only consumables, that will be used at a high rate (in game, and desirable to use). PGI likely couldn't say "no", because of the way control over the project has been divided in return for IGP's backing. It then falls to PGI to make the system work in game, probably subject to IGP's approval. The consumable system could have been pushed by IGP with little notice and little to no consultation with PGI. (see Niko's post on PGI staff despising "pay to win")

So what is my point?

IGP has the power to make this game "pay to win", PGI doesn't have the direct power to say "no". However, PGI is the interface between the community, and IGP. Our response will be passed on to IGP through PGI. Yelling at PGI does nothing, our actions must convince IGP that any sort of "pay to win" or "pay for an advantage" system will threaten their revenue, not increase it. Actions do that, simple, clear, statements of "I like this game, but I will not put more money into it if this happens" followed up by action (or really inaction), will communicate that messages.

Further Thoughts (total speculations)

The game is doing well financially. If the game wasn't doing well financially IGP would not take any action that could alienate those already paying into the game. They would offer more of the same, and let the game fizzle out in as low risk (financially) manner as possible to recover as much of their investment as they could. A big change would only come if there was very very little money coming in, but at that point they would probably just pull the plug and cut their losses, instead of continuing to pay for servers, support staff, and developers to introduce new features, and keeping up development to make the game look alive. Also he have a much larger playerbase than most of us though (100,000 players over the hero weekend), and I see a lot of paintjobs, hero mechs, and cockpit items in game. Mixing up the system probably means they are trying to grow existing revenue, not stave off loss. This works in our favour.

PGI doesn't like the pay only consumable system. See Niko's post, and Bryans Command Chair Post. It sounds like consumables exist on paper/in photoshop only right now. Why would they tell us about them so early, with such detail, when often we don't hear about similar systems in such detail until they are in play testing on the test servers or nearing completion. Also why use coolant flush as an example? Airstrikes, artillery, etc. are things that the community wanted for the most part (though not in a potentially p2w implementation), why not use those as an example? Why use Coolant Flush as an example when the community has voiced a loud and persistent opinion against such a system, and the developers have said in the past they weren't fond of it. Also, PR101 is that you introduce things you know will be unpopular on Friday evening, so fewer people notice them, and people forget about them over the weekend. If you want something noticed you announce it early in the week and early in the day. Particularly, consider how much traffic the forums likely get on the Monday and Tuesday before a patch relative to other times. Does it maybe seem a little like PGI might want us riled up over this?

Think about 3rd person view. Who would want 3rd person view more? The gamers/battletech nerds making MWO, who had previously said it would be 1st person only. Or the publisher, who wants as wide an audience as possible to make the most money off of (in theory). Why was it brought up so long ago, so long before it would ever be brought in? Following the discussion of it (that still continues) it seems dead in the water...hmmm...

TL;DR

PGI controls creative more, IGP controls financial. That said IGP has final say on most/all things. You sell your soul (control) to a publisher for their backing (money). Pay only consumables likely came from IGP, not PGI. PGI can't say "no" (how the business world works). Community convinces IGP pay only consumables are a bad idea, then no pay only consumables. Actions will convince IGP, not yelling at PGI.

"Making MWO more like CoD", and other common refrains, almost certainly comes from the publisher (IGP), not the developers (PGI). PGI's hands are largely tied when it comes to these sort of things (contracts, etc). Yelling at PGI will do little, direct you energies in ways that will convince IGP that profit lies in making MWO different from the pack, not more of the same.

[Attalward]

Now you made me paranoid...

Okay so now PGI soldiers are masters of subterfuge and have bombed their own barricades to show their stupid generals at IGP headquarters how badly they will lose the war if obbeying this stupid orders?

[Elessar]

Considering the relationship between other game studios and their publishers, I have no doubts that your assessment may be correct

[SI The Joker]

Well written post.

Follow the money.

Edited by SI The Joker, 05 March 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[Rizzwind]

He is right on the money. But at some point or another IPG thought it would be a good idea to pay for all 3 of there games using the cash flow from only this one game. This ties down the hands of PGI who never wanted things like consumables to be pay 2 win. The first view of what this game should be as all but gone out the window. They have to follow what IGP says or IGP pulls the backing and down goes all of PGIs hard work.

[Mawai]

If that is the case then consider sending polite and well worded responses to IGP regarding concerns with their current plans for MWO. It is doubtful that much of this turmoil actually makes it up the chain of command to those that actually make the decisions.

[Tykelau]

Seems plausible, now what ways would would be best for telling IGP how we feel?

[Caviel]

Having met some IGP folks in person back at the nVidia event, this is way too "tin-foil hat" of an analysis. IGP handles stuff like the website, moderation, support, and publishing so PGI can focus on the game and design. They had the next four maps concepts lined up (This was before River City) back then, we now know those four were River City, Alpine Peaks, Tourmaline Desert, and the Moonscape map, plus we have the volcano map in the works as well.

While I have no doubts that there have been adjustments along the way, everything we are seeing has been planned for months already.

[Kaspirikay]

Publishers and game producers never get along. Look at EA.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

PGI owe money to IGP

IGP require PGI to make money to pay them

IGP = In control.

[Rizzwind]

Caviel, on 05 March 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

Having met some IGP folks in person back at the nVidia event, this is way too "tin-foil hat" of an analysis. IGP handles stuff like the website, moderation, support, and publishing so PGI can focus on the game and design. They had the next four maps concepts lined up (This was before River City) back then, we now know those four were River City, Alpine Peaks, Tourmaline Desert, and the Moonscape map, plus we have the volcano map in the works as well.

While I have no doubts that there have been adjustments along the way, everything we are seeing has been planned for months already.

He who has the money calls the shots. IGP can just pull it's backing at any point and watch PGI sink. How many little Dev corps did EA buy up and the cut to little bits? That is what a publishing group is they support a game for a return. If the return is not what they want it to be the force a change or outright sink the group making the game.

[Tennex]

honestly the only reason IGP is making PGI its betch in the first places is because PGI has a ****** resume. PGI has been screwing this game over with the decisions they've been making since day 1.

If this game fails. both IGP and PGI deserves it.

Edited by Tennex, 05 March 2013 - 09:03 AM.

[orion0117]

Sounds like a typical scenario of change within the big corp I worked at. You can consider it anecdotal, as we'll likely never know the true motivation behind PGI's actions. I know we weren't allowed to tell customers the real story at my job.

Consider:
Corporate Big Wigs of my company = IGP
My local office and staff = PGI

Corporate looks over reports and and decides more money can be made and their bonus checks will inflate if they make some change.

sidenote
I say money is the motivation due to previous changes. One December, we were told no one but management gets a raise. February rolled around, and the announcement came that Corp was buying another company for 4.5 billion. Sounds fishy to me.

back to the story
Corporate calls my local office staff to a conference call to inform us of the change. We are told this is the way it's going to be, accept it. Some changes are transparent to the customers, others directly affect them. Corp makes us responsible for sending letters to customers explaining the change.

Most of the time after the conference calls, we are all like WTF are they thinking. The customers call us to complain. We don't agree with corp's actions but we have to tell customers that's the way it is. Some customers will cancel service.

POINT: PGI is not necessarily the bad guy. IGP may have said to PGI, we want more money, what are you going to do? You have until March 5th. PGI puts content into the game that apparently no one wants and no one has been asking for, PGI gets reamed for it, but their hands are tied.

Edited by orion0117, 05 March 2013 - 11:04 AM.