257 replies to this topic

[King Arthur IV]

NinetyProof, on 22 March 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

3) Online Games *evolve* ... that's the nature of the beast.

evolve to degrade? or improve?

imo 3rd person will degrade the game.

examples: refer to page one.



bacon pancakes

out!!!

Edited by King Arthur IV, 22 March 2013 - 10:54 AM.

[Dustein]

NinetyProof, on 22 March 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

1) That's not a promise to not add a 3rd person view.

2) You go back and play the game that was released back then

3) Online Games *evolve* ... that's the nature of the beast.

[TehArgz]

Belphegore, on 22 March 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

Founders, most have you have probably spent 90% or higher of the funds you planned to put into this game, so PGI aren't bothered if you threaten to stop spending because they already got your money, all they want is a revolving door on the player base of people that come in, spend cash and move on.

It's sad but honestly, that's the truth, hence the addition of the 3rd person to bring all the DLC buying COD crew in here etc.

This and similar ideas illustrate a lack of understanding basic economics as they apply to this game and it's customers. In the overwhelming majority of cases, there is no '90% of planned funds spent on this game'. It doesn't work that way. Most of the people who spend money on this game do not 'budget' for it and pre-plan it. I find the assertion that they (we) operate in that fashion, highly absurd. People spend money as needed to get the things they want.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are definitely people who have done exactly as you describe, but it is not a significant number as compared to those who do not operate in that fashion.


This is all basic economics and consumerism, I do not have access to their books. Perhaps they are not making enough money and they have to do SOMETHING. If this is the case, the game is doomed. Barring some sort of 'fad' or other unforseeable boost in customers, they will not gain enough income to offset what they will lose by alienating all of these paying customers. I've seen too many games flop, for too many reasons, to expect this game to survive while seriously alienating some of it's most affluent players.

Hopefully everything works out and I am proven wrong. I would love for things to work themselves out in a way that leaves all of us reasonably content at the end of the day. That does not seem likely at this point..

tl;dr
Some of the people posting in this thread are economically illiterate.
If the current sources of income are not enough to keep this game afloat, then I would say it is pretty much doomed. If in the process of attempting to expand the player-base, they alienate many of their current customers, even more so.

[Mycrus]

TehArgz, on 22 March 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

Some of the people posting in this thread are economically illiterate.

call me a greater fool

http://en.wikipedia....ter_fool_theory

FAKE EDIT: i'm not trolling you.

FAKE EDIT2: i'm *not* selling my account / would never do that...

Edited by Mycrus, 22 March 2013 - 11:39 AM.

[PANZERBUNNY]

TehArgz, on 22 March 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

This and similar ideas illustrate a lack of understanding basic economics as they apply to this game and it's customers. In the overwhelming majority of cases, there is no '90% of planned funds spent on this game'. It doesn't work that way. Most of the people who spend money on this game do not 'budget' for it and pre-plan it. I find the assertion that they (we) operate in that fashion, highly absurd. People spend money as needed to get the things they want.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are definitely people who have done exactly as you describe, but it is not a significant number as compared to those who do not operate in that fashion.


This is all basic economics and consumerism, I do not have access to their books. Perhaps they are not making enough money and they have to do SOMETHING. If this is the case, the game is doomed. Barring some sort of 'fad' or other unforseeable boost in customers, they will not gain enough income to offset what they will lose by alienating all of these paying customers. I've seen too many games flop, for too many reasons, to expect this game to survive while seriously alienating some of it's most affluent players.

Hopefully everything works out and I am proven wrong. I would love for things to work themselves out in a way that leaves all of us reasonably content at the end of the day. That does not seem likely at this point..

tl;dr
Some of the people posting in this thread are economically illiterate.
If the current sources of income are not enough to keep this game afloat, then I would say it is pretty much doomed. If in the process of attempting to expand the player-base, they alienate many of their current customers, even more so.

IF they are banking on 3rd person to bring in the bacon for some extra funding.....this game is lost.

There are a myriad of other awesome things to be done that can bring in revenue without turning on your word, making yourselves out to be liars.

[TehArgz]

Mycrus, on 22 March 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

call me a greater fool

http://en.wikipedia....ter_fool_theory

FAKE EDIT: i'm not trolling you.

Better the greater fool, than the bagholder.

IMO when virtual or digital product is involved, the greater fool theory also applies to the virtual or digital product. This goes beyond the monetary value expressed in the purchase, because there was never an incentive of monetary return, the incentive was virtual return.
So in my case, I have not spent any money on this game since my founders purchase. I consider myself the greater fool here as well. I am receiving the virtual returns from those who continue to invest in development. The difference is that in my case I am intentionally not supporting development because I do not trust the company and their intent to make what I initially invested in. It is definitely a two-edged sword, because what I am reaping is not exactly what I sowed, but then again I am not sowing anymore...

[Nonsense]

zverofaust, on 22 March 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Frankly put, the reason PGI isn't listening to you is because you already stopped spending money, and they need to exponentially increase their sources of income.

You're not listening to peoples' reasons for not spending more money. You're up to your usual stupid-assumption-making shenanigans again.

[PANZERBUNNY]

TehArgz, on 22 March 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

Better the greater fool, than the bagholder.

IMO when virtual or digital product is involved, the greater fool theory also applies to the virtual or digital product. This goes beyond the monetary value expressed in the purchase, because there was never an incentive of monetary return, the incentive was virtual return.
So in my case, I have not spent any money on this game since my founders purchase. I consider myself the greater fool here as well. I am receiving the virtual returns from those who continue to invest in development. The difference is that in my case I am intentionally not supporting development because I do not trust the company and their intent to make what I initially invested in. It is definitely a two-edged sword, because what I am reaping is not exactly what I sowed, but then again I am not sowing anymore...

I'm still sitting at 14k MC from my founders.

It's going to last a long time.

[Ransack]

NinetyProof, on 22 March 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

1) That's not a promise to not add a 3rd person view.

2) You go back and play the game that was released back then

3) Online Games *evolve* ... that's the nature of the beast.

Somebody else asked: How did PGI lie? Where is the double-talk. Personally, I would like to see some examples of lies myself.

If this is the example then of double-talk, then a lot of you must have failed basic english comprehension and might want to take a refresher in your local community college (or maybe just finish High School first?).

http://mwomercs.com/...rd-person-view/ Closed Beta Poll. They knew what they would be getting in to

http://mwomercs.com/...rd-person-view/

read reply #9


3rd Person & MWO - Link to this when needed.

On Pay to win

http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__454650

exact quote

Quote

Stock Catapult C1
2 LRM 15's
4 ML
Currently 2 Missile Hardpoints and 4 Energy Hardpoints.

Founders Catapult C1
2 LRM 15's
4 ML

Currently 2 Missile Hardpoints and 4 Energy Hardpoints.

They're identical with the exception of a slight model change and paint scheme.

And another thing:

Paying for weapon X with C-Bills is NOT P2W
Paying for weapon X with C-Bills OR MechWarrior Credits is NOT P2W
Paying for weapon X with MechWarrior Credits ONLY, THAT is P2W and what we are NOT doing.

Watching people who don't even bother noting that we are following up with everything we've promised come up with outright fabricated "facts".... priceless.

Yet Hero mechs have hardpoints that are NOT the same as the standard variants. They are unique MC items only, whether you like them or not.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Dragon and Cicada hero are the only ones that come to mind as an actualy "advantage" over the stock variant, but since the X-Cicada has no ECM, it's not really.

I feel only the Dragon with the AC 20 torso is a step up if you are wanting to run AC 20's in your Dragon. More versatile and survivable over your arm.

[NinetyProof]

King Arthur IV, on 22 March 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

evolve to degrade? or improve?

imo 3rd person will degrade the game.

examples: refer to page one.

bacon pancakes

out!!!

Evolve = Change ... Change does not equal lies / double talk.

That still not "double talk" or "lies".

Still waiting for anybody to post anything where PGI actually lied. And please, review my post history and you will see I am not a FANBOI like most of you making these ignorant arguments.

Edited by NinetyProof, 22 March 2013 - 12:34 PM.

[NinetyProof]

Ransack, on 22 March 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...rd-person-view/ Closed Beta Poll. They knew what they would be getting in to

Closed Beta = Close minded people ... small sample pool ... nobody really cares about small closed minded vocal minority feedback ... or as it's more appropriately labeled: noise.

Closed Beta = Bug Testers ... period. Sorry if you guys thought you were SPECIAL.

Ransack, on 22 March 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...rd-person-view/
read reply #9

Did you read the reply? I guess not.

We are solely a first person game. 3rd person may come into play a few years from now but no where in the near future.

Ransack, on 22 March 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

3rd Person & MWO - Link to this when needed.

again:

Investigate 3rd person

Again, they left the door open ... and remember, this is a moderator, not a developer.

They left the door open in both cases ... and again, you have no idea how this will be implemented .. how it will work ... what the trade offs will be.

Ransack, on 22 March 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

on Pay to win

I have always held this game is "Pay-For-Power" or "Pay-To-Win" ... so preaching to the choir.

None the less ... doesn't change the fact that the "vocal minority" on this issue are IGNORANT of basic facts, like calling PGI liars when they clearly are not, based upon the links you provided (unless your claiming the timeline) ...

Also, everyone, myself included is IGNORANT about how it will be implemented, and ergo have no idea how it will effect the game. Sure, PGI might screw it up ... but hey, let's at least let them screw it up before we break out the tar and feathers :-).

Edited by NinetyProof, 22 March 2013 - 12:47 PM.

[King Arthur IV]

NinetyProof, on 22 March 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Evolve = Change ... Change does not equal lies / double talk.

i say you lie?!?!?

lie or no lie, 3rd person is a thumbs down.

[CDLord HHGD]

Ransack, on 22 March 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

don't forget your towel

Towels are OP.

[Mycrus]

NinetyProof, on 22 March 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Closed Beta = Close minded people ... small sample pool ... nobody really cares about small closed minded vocal minority feedback ... or as it's more appropriately labeled: noise. Closed Beta = Bug Testers ... period. Sorry if you guys thought you were SPECIAL

[King Arthur IV]

cdlord, on 22 March 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Towels are OP.

your moms OP

[Slater01]

So in other words; after all these posts, still no proof that PGI (ie Russ or Garth) came out and said we will NOT do 3rd person view.

I say if want to know what the Devs are doing, listen to the Devs (ie PodCasts, Command Chair, and all the other places that they give info)

[Peace Possum]

I mean absolutely no offense to Paul, but I really don't think he has a strong enough understanding of F2P dynamics to make this game succeed. It's for that reason I refrain from spending any more money on MWO(not to mention the absurd price of the items), not because of third person, regardless of how much I'm against it.

[Voridan Atreides]

Please stay off-topic. You are no longer in GD.

[Dustein]

Slater01, on 22 March 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

So in other words; after all these posts, still no proof that PGI (ie Russ or Garth) came out and said we will NOT do 3rd person view.

I say if want to know what the Devs are doing, listen to the Devs (ie PodCasts, Command Chair, and all the other places that they give info)

This is nice in theory, but if you had actually been paying attention to what the Devs do say in the PodCast, Command Chair, Anouncments, Twitter, Facebook, PC Magazine, IGN and other sources.. then compare it to what they actually do.. there is deviation.

An example from the LEAD DESIGNER on the matter of Mech Warrior Online being a First Person Simulation:

Yes that is an example of double-talk; for those who requested some of us go back to school.