54 replies to this topic

[S3dition]

I prefer Nerds 2.0.1: A Brief History of the Internet. But open source is not tantamount to communism, socialism, or anarchy. No more than dropping a coin in a donation jar is, or habitat for humanity. Open source projects are collaborations the exist through volunteer work and donations. Mercpedia is a perfect example. Donations are nice, but we aren't expecting to get rich off it. Work continues, even if we aren't being compensated for our time. We enjoy doing it.

Crowd sourcing and funding is much more reliable and effective these days anyway, especially for projects with no premium support offerings.

Honestly, the problem with game development lies in the publisher/developer relationship (or lack thereof) and the inability to fund the development processes before having a viable product. In other words, the entire game has to be paid for up front months (if not years) before a finished product is ready to sell. When games run in excess of $100 million in development costs, everyone gets nervous and nobody wants to take risks.

That's why the indie scene is exploding. If you're joe programmer working in your spare time, you don't care if the game doesn't make $xxx million dollars and everyone hates it. You're making a game that you want, and the creativity tends to go a lot further than the static repackaging of AAA titles.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

S3dition, on 15 April 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

That's why the indie scene is exploding. If you're joe programmer working in your spare time, you don't care if the game doesn't make $xxx million dollars and everyone hates it. You're making a game that you want, and the creativity tends to go a lot further than the static repackaging of AAA titles.

Dunno; making games even though everyone hates them (but they still make millions) seems to BE the AAA market.

Also; you know this game is AAA right?
Thats what the ads say anyways

[S3dition]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 15 April 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

Dunno; making games even though everyone hates them (but they still make millions) seems to BE the AAA market.

Also; you know this game is AAA right?
Thats what the ads say anyways

I didn't say all AAA titles were bad. I said indie titles are gaining a lot of ground on them. Most AAA companies don't risk new gameplay ideas and stick with what they know works, such as Madden, Modern Warfare, GTA, etc. They add a few extra bells and whistles, but it's the same game in a different package.

Games like MWO blur the lines between indie and AAA. It's not particularly well funded (nothing like a AAA title) and started with minimal staff. But it has grown quite a bit and it's a full scale project with complex models and massive back end. I suppose it's a new class of development that starts small and ends up in the AAA category, like Minecraft, LoL, WoT, etc.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

S3dition, on 15 April 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

I didn't say all AAA titles were bad. I said indie titles are gaining a lot of ground on them. Most AAA companies don't risk new gameplay ideas and stick with what they know works, such as Madden, Modern Warfare, GTA, etc. They add a few extra bells and whistles, but it's the same game in a different package.

ya, the AAA games being bad thing was mostly truthful actually. Games have huge budgets and either they **** it up royally or they release it in a **** way. I just bought Crysis 3, great game, however, I had to hunt on the internet for a fix just to get the damn thing working and go deleted certain files because they stop the game from running.

Quote

Games like MWO blur the lines between indie and AAA. It's not particularly well funded (nothing like a AAA title) and started with minimal staff. But it has grown quite a bit and it's a full scale project with complex models and massive back end. I suppose it's a new class of development that starts small and ends up in the AAA category, like Minecraft, LoL, WoT, etc.

no, I think this is a wholly new class of AAA, the "its AAA because the developers are marketting it as that" class.
Kind of like selling a Volkswagen bug and calling it a Ferarri aventador

well less that, more like selling an orange and calling it an apple lol

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 15 April 2013 - 06:00 PM.

[Purplefluffybunny]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 15 April 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

thought that WASNT what happened to MWLL by even the words of the guys running MWLL.
Maybe the guys at MWLL got hired by PGI and had to stop for signing a non compete clause?
[...]
I dont see that a lot of people left MWO when MWLL stopped development and all the rage was that PGI had killed it (even though supposedly the guys at MWLL said that wasnt why)
[...]

I do find your name a bit ironic Mr Buddah! But to point.

Defender, who was one of the lead devs, initially made an angry (well I thought it was) post on the MWLL site's front page announcing the closure of development of MWLL. That post was then edited and changed, primarily because it was indicated to him that he would damage his career prospects (and the people concerned know how to contact me to correct me).

MWLL was actually owned by two people that worked for crytek; the same developer that sold the latest SDK to PGI to develop MWO. As both projects continued the gentleman developing the HUD for MWLL left to go work for PGI (and others later too perhaps). In my opinion he most probably had access to the design documents that contained some very well thought out systems. From what I have seen and observed of the development of MWO, well, cross fertilization is to put it kindly. Anyway, whatever happened to that community manager guy, eh?

Of course, this cross fertilization was not missed by King Leer. A poor strategic move was perhaps made when the MWLL devs decided to illustrate that such cross fertilization could be two way; you borrow from us and we will borrow from you. Certain emails were sent by PGI (Russ or Bryan, my memory fails me right now, I will check) to warn against having such cross fertilization be a two way street.

One of the biggest things that annoyed people about MWLL, was that there was no mechlab. From a game design point of view, it is easier to balance when you have just set variants. Indeed, there were a very many different variants. Some players, such as HAARP, were quite aggressive in pushing for a mechlab, through showing how it could be done. However, unbeknownst to many was that a mechlab was being worked on and close to completion. It was the case, or so I believe, that those emails from PGI made it clear that trouble may be ahead if the MWLL team released the mechlab.

When I have spoken to some of the MWLL developers post events, it became clear that this pressure from PGI occurred over a period of time. To this date many of the MWLL devs have expressed privately to me the sentiment that "PGI killed it", it being MWLL.

You don't have to believe what I am saying, it is just a point of view. If those concerned have an issue with what I am saying they are free to contact me and correct me. I am more than willing to admit error and to remove what I have said above.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 15 April 2013 - 06:58 PM.

[Purplefluffybunny]

I hate breaking posts into quoted slices. I find it an overly masculine and aggressive way to communicate, so I apologise for doing it to you below!

S3dition, on 15 April 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

I prefer Nerds 2.0.1: A Brief History of the Internet. But open source is not tantamount to communism, socialism, or anarchy. No more than dropping a coin in a donation jar is, or habitat for humanity. Open source projects are collaborations the exist through volunteer work and donations. Mercpedia is a perfect example. Donations are nice, but we aren't expecting to get rich off it. Work continues, even if we aren't being compensated for our time. We enjoy doing it.

I agree. My concerns were not with open source per se. For my part, I have a fetish for the old and love reading about those that came up with the ideas.

S3dition, on 15 April 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

Crowd sourcing and funding is much more reliable and effective these days anyway, especially for projects with no premium support offerings.

I do not think PGI can be said to have been funded via what is generally accepted as 'crowd sourcing/funding', particularly given the point of view expressed about the demise of MWLL. This is why they were embarrassed and shamed at the GDC panel discussion and avoided answering the questions. Of course, this is just my opinion. The people concerned can correct me privately if they feel I am way off the mark.

S3dition, on 15 April 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

Honestly, the problem with game development lies in the publisher/developer relationship (or lack thereof) and the inability to fund the development processes before having a viable product. In other words, the entire game has to be paid for up front months (if not years) before a finished product is ready to sell. When games run in excess of $100 million in development costs, everyone gets nervous and nobody wants to take risks.

Russ and Bryan are very proud of the fact that they have 'exclusivity' with the Mechwarrior IP with respects to differnt media products. Whether this extends to 'BattleTech', we will just have to wait and see. Of course, as PGI granted rights for IGP to commission (not sure how much is 'in-house') development of 'Mechwarrior Tactics', this publisher/developer relationship is different. This is perhaps an additional reason as to why the GDC panel discussion was awkward.

S3dition, on 15 April 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

That's why the indie scene is exploding. If you're joe programmer working in your spare time, you don't care if the game doesn't make $xxx million dollars and everyone hates it. You're making a game that you want, and the creativity tends to go a lot further than the static repackaging of AAA titles.

I agree, for the most part, with this sentiment. I would add that it is inevitable, given what is ahead in terms of scarcity of resources, that some game developers are really going to have to reassess what they think they are worth, in terms of what they are actually producing.

I am biased, I prefer it when you have projects such as MWLL that allow an environment for the new talent to train and 'break through', as-well-as being more responsive to the community of players. Indeed, many of those that worked on MWLL were drawn from that pool of players. So again, take what I say as an opinion.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 15 April 2013 - 07:00 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Purplefluffybunny, on 15 April 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

I do find your name a bit ironic Mr Buddah! But to point.

Defender, who was one of the lead devs, initially made an angry (well I thought it was) post on the MWLL site's front page announcing the closure of development of MWLL. That post was then edited and changed, primarily because it was indicated to him that he would damage his career prospects (and the people concerned know how to contact me to correct me).

MWLL was actually owned by two people that worked for crytek; the same developer that sold the latest SDK to PGI to develop MWO. As both projects continued the gentleman developing the HUD for MWLL left to go work for PGI (and others later too perhaps). In my opinion he most probably had access to the design documents that contained some very well thought out systems. From what I have seen and observed of the development of MWO, well, cross fertilization is to put it kindly. Anyway, whatever happened to that community manager guy, eh?

Of course, this cross fertilization was not missed by King Leer. A poor strategic move was perhaps made when the MWLL devs decided to illustrate that such cross fertilization could be two way; you borrow from us and we will borrow from you. Certain emails were sent by PGI (Russ or Bryan, my memory fails me right now, I will check) to warn against having such cross fertilization be a two way street.

One of the biggest things that annoyed people about MWLL, was that there was no mechlab. From a game design point of view, it is easier to balance when you have just set variants. Indeed, there were a very many different variants. Some players, such as HAARP, were quite aggressive in pushing for a mechlab, through showing how it could be done. However, unbeknownst to many was that a mechlab was being worked on and close to completion. It was the case, or so I believe, that those emails from PGI made it clear that trouble may be ahead if the MWLL team released the mechlab.

When I have spoken to some of the MWLL developers post events, it became clear that this pressure from PGI occurred over a period of time. To this date many of the MWLL devs have expressed privately to me the sentiment that "PGI killed it", it being MWLL.

You don't have to believe what I am saying, it is just a point of view. If those concerned have an issue with what I am saying they are free to contact me and correct me. I am more than willing to admit error and to remove what I have said above.

well its funny that that linked BTU game says not only does PGI know of their plans, theyre encouraging them as well

[Purplefluffybunny]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 15 April 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

well its funny that that linked BTU game says not only does PGI know of their plans, theyre encouraging them as well

I think the case of MWLL is different to that BTU game. One thing that also added to the issues over MWLL was a review of MWO that popped up. The reviewer questioned why anyone would part with cash for MWO when MWLL looked, at the time, comparable to MWO visually. The reviewer also noted that MWLL was more of a complete game with the ability to pilot tanks, battle armor and aircraft as well as having a more thought set of game modes.

Just to return to the case of BTU. Both Russ and Bryan have gone on the record to say that they welcome and support community projects. I have a thread listing all of them that I and others have asked to be pinned. It makes it easy for the community to naviagte these forums and access the wider battletech and mechwarrior online communities. We will see to what extent Russ and Bryan are going to walk the walk rather than just talk.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 16 April 2013 - 03:41 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Viterbi, on 16 April 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

This isn't true. Bryan has indicated that his conversations with MWLL have always included a mutual respect for each others' craft, and the developers of both games have addressed and refuted this allegation several times. There were also allegations of a 'cease and desist' among other pressure tactics... this is also false.

I'm happy to leave this discussion open, but I would warn you from diving into territory that undermines or otherwise falsifies the efforts of development teams from either project.

Carry on...

so much for that rumor lol

[Purplefluffybunny]

Viterbi, on 16 April 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

This isn't true. Bryan has indicated that his conversations with MWLL have always included a mutual respect for each others' craft, and the developers of both games have addressed and refuted this allegation several times. There were also allegations of a 'cease and desist' among other pressure tactics... this is also false.

I'm happy to leave this discussion open, but I would warn you from diving into territory that undermines or otherwise falsifies the efforts of development teams from either project.

Carry on...

Thanks for responding. Thing is some of the MWLL devs tell me different and this stems from quite a while back now. So for me, in order to try to make up my mind, on the one hand I have the account of one person, Bryan, and on the other the accounts of several others who all say the same thing (yes I have logs and web pages saved before they were changed). I am happy to remove the above narrative if you wish it Viterbi, you need only ask. Just so you know, I am writing a journalistic piece on this topic (this slight digression that is and as you know, I have to have 'evidence' to make some claims when I submit the article).

Cheers,

Purplefluffybunny

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 17 April 2013 - 01:10 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Purplefluffybunny, on 17 April 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

Just so you know, I am writing a journalistic piece on this topic (this slight digression that is and as you know, I have to have 'evidence' to make some claims when I submit the article).

Cheers,

Purplefluffybunny

Do me a favor an throw me a link to the article in a message when you get it done

[Pht]

Purplefluffybunny, on 15 April 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

I hate breaking posts into quoted slices. I find it an overly masculine and aggressive way to communicate, so I apologise for doing it to you below!

Wait, does that make me bruce-lee?

I've been known to use upwards of 40 block quotes.

Quote

Russ and Bryan are very proud of the fact that they have 'exclusivity' with the Mechwarrior IP with respects to differnt media products. Whether this extends to 'BattleTech', we will just have to wait and see. Of course, as PGI granted rights for IGP to commission (not sure how much is 'in-house') development of 'Mechwarrior Tactics', this publisher/developer relationship is different. This is perhaps an additional reason as to why the GDC panel discussion was awkward.

PGI cannot have exclusive rights to the battletech IP. Topps holds the overarching BT ip. MS only holds the IP for the video game end of the BT things, and PGI has their rights to use the IP from MS; and under whatever restrictions that MS feels obliged to put those rights under.

Quote

I agree, for the most part, with this sentiment. I would add that it is inevitable, given what is ahead in terms of scarcity of resources, that some game developers are really going to have to reassess what they think they are worth, in terms of what they are actually producing.

The way that any producers set their prices is by sales - if their product won't sell, they have to lower the price. If they would have to lower the price below their cost to produce the product, they will have to quit producing. When markets are free (not anarchic, but FREE), the price mechanism will tell producers pretty quickly the value of what they're making....

...and the "real" value of a product is subjective - said product is only worth what a buyer and a seller agree on.

[Purplefluffybunny]

Pht, on 30 April 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

PGI cannot have exclusive rights to the battletech IP. Topps holds the overarching BT ip. MS only holds the IP for the video game end of the BT things, and PGI has their rights to use the IP from MS; and under whatever restrictions that MS feels obliged to put those rights under.

I should have updated this thread rather than making a new one here;

http://mwomercs.com/...utting-it-down/

In that thread is a link to a statement that gives you some idea of the rights they have and what they are enforcing. You are right and I agree and thought I stated as much that PGI has the rights to Mechwarrior the video game. There is a NGNG cast where Bryan states very clearly what rights they have and what rights they granted so it is on the record at least. Indeed, I remember the rights he said they had were a little more extensive and included other things too.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 30 April 2013 - 10:59 PM.

[Zaptruder]

Because of the nature of digital technology, it's easier than ever to become ensconced into the mindset of the post-scarcity. If what you have major expertise in, and spend time with and value most becomes and more useful and more valuable for yourself and others when freely distributed, it's difficult to not fall into the mindset that this is how the world should be.

And indeed it *is* how the world should be. But the reality is such endeavours cannot be practically supported enmasse given the time and expertise required to support these endeavours, until such time we have achieved post-scarcity in all other significant areas of human needs.

We have within our capacity, the ability to strive towards a post-scarcity future within this century; within the lifetime of many posting on this board today. But... reconciling our current world of neo-liberal capitalism and corporatocracies with that world is proving to be a difficult task indeed.

Starting with the general lack of vision for a better more optimistic future from the common man. After all, how can we be expected to strive for and fight for such ideas if there is no awareness of them?

Edited by Zaptruder, 01 May 2013 - 12:38 AM.

[Denno]

Purplefluffybunny, on 06 April 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

And lo, Mohammad came down from the mountain and in one hand was a copy of the latest crytek SDK.

"Come my brothers, see what the Almighty Berners-Lee has giveth unto us! A glorious bounty of tools to quench our thirsts and satisfy our bellies"

Mohammad then held out his other hand and spake unto the massing crowd,

"Come my sisters, drink and eat from my body and bask in the glory of 'mwll art assets' that the lord Leer hath created on the 8th day and bestowed unto us!"


(good enough?)

EDIT: A few key changes!

Carefull. You risk non-concensual neck surgery just by saying the M word. But all respect to fearless literary adventurers like yourself.