81 replies to this topic

[Reitrix]

Well isn't this amusing.

Two things.
1) http://www.kickstarter.com/

2) If this game isn't up to what you want, use the above Link to make your own game.

It's funny because the big complaint people have is Community Warfare. Does CoD or BF or many other shooters that are incredibly popular have anything beyond Launch match, kill stuff?
The only one i can think of offhand is Planetside.

TL;DR If you don't like MWO and think it could be done better, use Kickstarter to make your own game. Meanwhile, those of us who enjoy MWO will continue to enjoy MWO.

[Kaemon]

Reitrix, on 30 December 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

Well isn't this amusing.

Two things.
1) http://www.kickstarter.com/

2) If this game isn't up to what you want, use the above Link to make your own game.

It's funny because the big complaint people have is Community Warfare. Does CoD or BF or many other shooters that are incredibly popular have anything beyond Launch match, kill stuff?
The only one i can think of offhand is Planetside.

TL;DR If you don't like MWO and think it could be done better, use Kickstarter to make your own game. Meanwhile, those of us who enjoy MWO will continue to enjoy MWO.

If you don't like the discussion in this thread, why don't you stop commenting on it?

Oh wait, that's a white knight tactic to get people to stop pointing out the mess this game is in, and we're better than that so feel free to continue to comment, we'll either ignore you entirely or try to make something constructive out of your obviously trolling posts.

Steps needed to get this moving.
0. Get your team together (cause this is going to require a few people working on it alot, it took PGI a few years to get this up and running.)
1. come up with a game plan for development (seems like mod first, game later would be the best option).
2. talk to community pillars to get the idea out there and any suggestion they have down. (talk to MW:LL King Lear, Anders, Connor, etc...) there were 8 mech games coming out last year, some of them may still be warm to the idea of getting something out there.
3. See if anyone has any com with Microsoft (they can be unresponsive unless you have $$$ ready to go, so good luck that will take a while).
4. start kickstarter for IP rights (maybe take the angle of single player solaris, or something slightly outside of what MW:O is doing so you it's different enough to be viable).
5. get artists, developers and start the pipeline creation and cranking out assets.
6. Do a PR run (NGNG, Kongkast, VCRS,etc..) start with updates early on (once you have a bit of traction) and stay consistent, small updates are better than months of nothing.

Some of these will be concurrent, and not necessarily in a linear order, and if that looks like a **** ton of work, it probably is.

I'm down for $500 for the kickstarter as well.

[Sandpit]

Well this isn't the first "I can do it better" thread

So Uhm all the players that can do it better, Uhm where's the game? I figured by now all the "experts" here on the forums would have a game out by now. Let me guess, it's delayed but we'll have it soon

[Aim64C]

Gaan Cathal, on 30 December 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

And here we have an example of exactly what I was talking about. Some of the playerbase come from a Tabletop background, some of the playerbase come from a simulator background, some of the playerbase come from an FPS background. I started with Mechwarrior 2. I was ten when that came out. I wasn't into Janes (well, there was one, but I was eleven then and she had cute pigtails) in the slightest. The TT guys (Jo Mallen comes to mind as an example of the sane end of that playerbase segment) want everything as TT/Canon-close as possible. Simulator guys want everything as..simulator-y as possible (to take the uncharitable view, as un-user-friendly as possible, most modern planes are far more user-friendly than what the simulator crowd considers a 'real' sim according to my pilot cousin). The FPS crowd want a good game (and, with respect to the former groups, will tend to be willing to sacrifice basically any TT rule or vaguely obscure pseudorealism nod at the altar of game balance).

The reason MW:O draws so much ire is that it doesn't cater to any of these groups. The TT crowd think light's aren't useless enough, mechs do things they weren't supposed to do, the mechlab is too open and there aren't even hexes on the battlefield. The Simulator crowd think that most of the physics are borked, the player vp is too much like the mech and not enough like the pilot and there's not enough advantage to those with a HOTAS/Oculus Rift/Authentic-Chair-And-Cooling-Vest setup. The FPS crowd think it's a shittly balanced fps with underpowered lights, bad weapon design and balance, atrocious hit detection and fubar design limitations that make no sense at all and appear to only exist to keep the TT crowd happy.

Disclaimer: I'm in the 'FPS' camp, also several descriptor comments are tongue-in-cheek. If you can't work out which ones, get the stick out of your arse, they're fairly obvious.

The reason people flock to MWO is because it's all we've got and it's a universe we deeply appreciate and love.

You're radically over-analyzing the game's current successes and failures. I know that's a short and kind of terse reply to what you've said - but it's really all that need be said.

The scope of game I'm talking about hasn't been done with any battletech game. The problem with a game that doesn't cater to anybody is that you develop a game that nobody likes. The problem with trying to develop a game that caters to everybody is that you have a game with no focus or identity (few developers have the savvy to pull together so many different and often conflicting perspectives).

The objective of this game is relatively simple and should ask a simple question: "What would Battlemechs be like in as close to the real world as we can get?"

You don't pick sides in the community. You pick a focus and direction for the game and you stick with it. The "simulator" crowd is not homogenous. The "RPG" crowd is not homogenous. All of the 'identifiable groups' fracture along many key gameplay design decisions.

I know I might sound a bit contradictory, here - but you don't design a game to try and appease various gamer viewpoints. You design a game to satisfy the experience you wish to create. If players are not experiencing what you designed the game around - then you need to look at fixing it.

Games are not bought and sold because they do what players want them to. Games are bought and sold because they offer an experience the players want to have. When you lose sight of that - you lose the experience, you lose the game, and you lose the players.

Reitrix, on 30 December 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

Well isn't this amusing.

Two things.
1) http://www.kickstarter.com/

2) If this game isn't up to what you want, use the above Link to make your own game.

That's a rather limited list of options you've allowed for, there. While it is not an invalid, or unwise option - this has hardly reached a point where I'm willing to actually start accepting money - particularly for a goal as vague as: "Make a better MWO."

Quote

It's funny because the big complaint people have is Community Warfare. Does CoD or BF or many other shooters that are incredibly popular have anything beyond Launch match, kill stuff?
The only one i can think of offhand is Planetside.

If you also note - those games cost, with a healthy dose of DLC, as much as the Overlord pack. Further, they offer a full single-player campaign - along with other features lacking from MWO.

Also, there is a considerable difference between what works on consoles and what works on computers. Consoles thrive on the "twelve minute mark." The idea is that you have roughly fifteen to twenty minutes invested into the game at any given time. From "I want to play a game" to "I have successfully played the game" - around twenty minutes. Twelve minutes, therefor, should be about the average match time length.

A few console games venture outside of this realm, and are successful - but most of your shoot-em-ups are low committal ventures in time.

Computer games have long been a more dedicated affair. The average amount of time invested by a player in a computer game is often around an hour. This is both because of the nature of computer use (sitting at a dedicated station) and because of the culture of computer games (which have a long history of being very information dense and requiring considerable time on behalf of the player). Players sit down expecting an hour of gameplay and receive a console game's timing structure - and you can feel the repetitiveness of the game very quickly.

Further - the point of many console games is not to sustain a long-term population that continually feeds revenue to the developer. The point of console games is to release a product that sells for a profit.

Which PGI has accomplished with this game. "Solaris" was a very profitable title launch, and many of those who bought (into) it will still be willing to play it like the last generation of Call of Duty every so often.

But that is an entirely different marketing strategy than a stable free-to-play game with long-term operating profits.

You need more than stompy robots for that.

Quote

TL;DR If you don't like MWO and think it could be done better, use Kickstarter to make your own game. Meanwhile, those of us who enjoy MWO will continue to enjoy MWO.

Aside from my stated objective of creating a game so much better than MWO that you don't even consider paying PGI, anymore and completely sinking this blimp... I don't see how I've said anything to the contrary of this (well, other than the idea that there exist funding strategies outside of kickstarter).

Sandpit, on 30 December 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Well this isn't the first "I can do it better" thread

So Uhm all the players that can do it better, Uhm where's the game? I figured by now all the "experts" here on the forums would have a game out by now. Let me guess, it's delayed but we'll have it soon

It's quite simple, really. There is no shortage of people who can do it better.

The question is who can pull together a team and begin tasking it. Building a better game and building a team are not mutually inclusive skills, but both required for the game to go anywhere.

I make no promises about whether or not there will be a game. I can't reasonably make that - certainly not at this point.

I make no promises that I can or will be an effective leader, developer, or much of anything other than a loud-mouthed forum warrior. But there's a calling for someone to do something. Where my role will take me (and others) and where it will end, I do not know. Maybe something will come of it. Maybe it will be another string of drivel on the countess forums in existence.

But that's the magic of it. That's the fun of it - the thrill. To take something that could fail - arguably should fail - and turn it into a hard reality .... that's our inheritance from God, if you entertain such notions of universal meaning. The ability to create, the ability to go above and beyond eating what you trip over to engineering materials to exploit theories (such as Type III superconductors - things that only exist naturally in magnetic field strengths as strong as a neutron star) - that's what makes life worth sticking around for.

Otherwise - it's meaningless consumption and reproduction.

[Girth Fillmore]

It's kind of funny to me that you're using MWO's forums to discuss this stuff.

Good luck, though.

[Stingray Productions]

Girth Fillmore, on 30 December 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

It's kind of funny to me that you're using MWO's forums to discuss this stuff.

Good luck, though.

lol

[Aim64C]

Girth Fillmore, on 30 December 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

It's kind of funny to me that you're using MWO's forums to discuss this stuff.

Good luck, though.

I'm not sure which is more funny, to be honest. The fact that it's almost ironic for me to use MWO forums...

Or the probability that it will be some months before PGI even becomes aware that this thread existed (if the project goes anywhere).

"Wait... you mean they were using our forums to plan this? Why the hell didn't anyone shut it down?"

"We have forums!?"

[spacekeeper]

I wouldn't blame a PGI staff member for not wanting to read this forum. The biggest enemy MW:O has is the precious, know-it-all forum users who like to constantly remind them how bad a job they're doing.

The game is fun. It's not perfect, but it's fun. So much fun, that I've got people who have never been interested in BT before to stop playing other games and play this instead.

And here we have another thread made by people who (presumably) don't even play the game any more, but still find the time to drop in, engage in some self-congratulatory group-think, and remind everyone how they don't like the game whose forums they are using.

Go away.

[Aim64C]

Variadic, on 30 December 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

I wouldn't blame a PGI staff member for not wanting to read this forum. The biggest enemy MW:O has is the precious, know-it-all forum users who like to constantly remind them how bad a job they're doing.

The game is fun. It's not perfect, but it's fun. So much fun, that I've got people who have never been interested in BT before to stop playing other games and play this instead.

And here we have another thread made by people who (presumably) don't even play the game any more, but still find the time to drop in, engage in some self-congratulatory group-think, and remind everyone how they don't like the game whose forums they are using.

I'm not going to be so condescending as to suggest you haven't actually payed for anything in this game. I'm just going to thinly veil the suggestion.

Sure - MWO is 'fun' in that it's an acceptable hole to throw time into for a month.

It's not an acceptable hole to throw money into. It ranks slightly above diseased hookers in terms of worthwhile purchases.

So fun that it's getting people to stop playing other games and join battletech?

Not really. The thing about "Free To Play" games is that there is zero investment. That is, essentially, the reason why developers are switching to 'Free To Play" models. There is no exchange of money required for you to determine whether or not money was worth the exchange.

Please, see these two threads:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2985199

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3031263

Even if one entertains the notion that the game is, indeed, 'fun' (I would suggest you expand your sampling of games, considerably) - it is not enough for people to consider the game 'fun' and 'worth playing.' The question is whether or not MWO is worth paying for.

The idea of MWO is certainly worth paying for. That is what Founder's was about. You'll find that PGI likely would have discontinued the game after the Phoenix package had the success of the Founders' packages not rung in to the tune of $5M. The game was largely a move to qualify for funding by the Canadian government and some trickle-funding from a game salvaged from Smith&Tinker's closing in 2011.

PGI doesn't have the staff or the support in place to have even created this game that we see (or, rather, they don't have the evidence that the talent currently exists within their ranks). The executable was some other group's work. Likely Smith&Tinker's. PGI was likely responsible for most of the art while jointly venturing on MechWarrior back when Smith&Tinker were the driving source.

The plan was simple - they'd spent a considerable amount of money on revitalizing a MechWarrior game back when Smith&Tinker had been around. Smith&Tinker folded - and PGI took over a number of the digital assets owned by S&T - which included much of the initial coding and groundwork for the game we see today. They polished it, centered their headquarters to get a government hand-out to the tune of $8M, and released it with no actual intention of it being a marketable success.

The Founders Program nearly matched their government stimulus package - which made them realize they had a fully marketable game. The Open Beta was originally supposed to be the 'launch' of the game (and it was - the game was never supposed to succeed).

The evidence is in the Clan mechs, released without any sign of a community warfare or faction element. Keep in mind the Clans, according to the original launch schedule, were supposed to be implemented around March of 2013 (keeping with the 1:1 time schedule). Clan mechs didn't exist at the time of launch. Work was likely just being started on them. Not because of delays - but because the game was never supposed to last past its first three months.

Futher evidence is in the recent re-negotiation of IP licensing with Microsoft. PGI has been caught in its own web of lies. There's a reason they never brought up the fact that they were re-negotiating the license, earlier - it would have exposed the fragile state of the game. A 'Free to Play' game that could not operate for longer 2 years after its open beta would be a poor investment in terms of money..... but it would also lead to the obvious question of: "Why only renegotiate the contract, now?"

While it stands to reason that IP licensing will eventually come to an end and it must be renewed... one can see multiple scenarios where $80 game packages were bought to, a few months later, be informed that their game would be shutting down 'because Microsoft would not renegotiate the IP license on favorable terms.'

And why would they choose to do that? Because, as I said, the game was never supposed to succeed. It's quite likely that much of their staff isn't even working on MWO - but some other project (or just ... not working at all, but the paperwork says they do) - something that the company sees as a better financial option. The success of MWO has left them somewhat baffled - and their marketing advisers are telling them to continue marketing content and making the occasional update. The re-negotiation of the IP license was due to the fact that each time they released a new set of mechs (that cost them all of $100K to make, in total) - $5+M dollars came flooding through the doors. While I doubt that trend will continue - the cost of renegotiating the contract is miniscule in comparison to the potential for profits to be made off of a game that is running at a net profit of around 90%

These are con-men. Plain and simple. While many of the people in their employ may not be - every indication is that MWO was a con operation from the start, and that it's not likely to change substantially. That's why Community Warfare hasn't left the drawing board. That's why the official interviews and posts made by PGI staff have contradicted each other and been demonstrated to be flat-out lies.

Quote

Go away.

That's the plan.

Except there's a bit of a problem, you see. PGI did its best to encourage all other refuges of Battletech and MechWarrior to close up shop and cease so much as mentioning the MechWarrior series. There's not a whole lot of other places to do, for the time being.

But that is about to change.

In fact, I've honestly been neglecting my duties to banter, here - as there is already a temporary forum hosting offered and I need merely make an account. I'll be honest - I procrastinate.

Perhaps you'll see what I mean. Perhaps you won't. It really doesn't matter.

What matters is that there are a lot of people who feel MWO is not the game they are looking for, and PGI have not done a very good job of putting a game together.

But, even so - by "Go away" you mean: "Cease being an influence upon my life."

And that, my friend, will be impossible. Unless you want to kill me, in which case I whole-heartedly accept your terms.

Edit to add:

http://mwomercs.com/...nc/page__st__20

Jarhead games was founded by Russ and Brian - and these are some of their title releases:



Looking at PGI's work on Duke Nukem: Forever.... there's a pattern.

Actually - this wreaks of what budget films do. Different regions and countries have various incentives to get movies to be made in their districts (and focus has been turned toward video games and their industry - a push has been launched to try and convince developers to move out and away from California).

Being, essentially, government contractors at this point - they release the minimum viable product for the contract to be considered fulfilled - the government is 'happy' (more like the people who are actually paying for it never see the bill or what it's going toward) - and the revenues from the game/movie don't even have to meet the production costs to turn a profit.

I really should have caught on to this sooner. I have to give credit where credit is due, though - the original thread can be found: http://mwomercs.com/...head-games-inc/

The original topic I say that prompted this: www.forgotten8th.net/topic/really-bad-russ-bullock-bryan-ekman-gamez-ex7

What can I say, buddy, other than you're being deceived and lied to?

Edited by Aim64C, 30 December 2013 - 09:15 PM.

[Steven Dixon]

Aim64C, I might have a very different view of PGI than you do but you have an opportunity to do something constructive here. That's why I'm following your thread even if I don't necessarily agree with you. Its easy to tear down others work but its much hard to create something yourself. You are at least getting started with creating something and I admire this.

Simply bad mouthing PGI is simply going to create a flamewar and will lead to nothing constructive. Some people hate PGI and other love them, it ultimately really doesn't matter. Focus on what you are going to do. What do you want to create and how are you going to do it and what do you need from others to make it happen. Like they say in job interviews its not a good idea to bad mouth your former boss even if you felt justified (this analogy isn't wholly apt but it does have some relevance, primarily the fact that bad mouthing makes people seem bitter and people often don't like to work with bitter people).

Negativity just breeds negativity, rise above this. If you have a vision make this the priority and ignore those that speak against it or better yet confront this issues in a calm and rational manner and see if you can sway them to your side. I don't mean to imply that your posts aren't necessarily calm or rational, simply a reminder. If you can create something that people enjoy then what else really matters. Be prepared that people will bad mouth you, that's what happens when you create. Revolutions are inspired by either hope or hate. Its always a good idea to ask yourself which do you think last longer, and which do you want?

Sorry if I sound like a self-righteous Hallmark card

[Hexenhammer]

How about MechCommander 3. I've seen some pretty impressive 3rd person rts game engines out there.

[XtremWarrior]

Aim64C, on 30 December 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

I'm not sure which is more funny, to be honest. The fact that it's almost ironic for me to use MWO forums...

Or the probability that it will be some months before PGI even becomes aware that this thread existed (if the project goes anywhere).

"Wait... you mean they were using our forums to plan this? Why the hell didn't anyone shut it down?"

"We have forums!?"

Yeah, just make that kind of fun sentences when we all know you'll be the first crying "PGI i hate you so much!" if they were to shut this thread down.

I don't agree with almost everything you said here, but creating some other Robot game is a good thing, MW:O doesn't have to be the only game that makes you feel like driving some fully-armed-metal-giants (Hawken only put "mech" skins on a fps).

But two things are bothering me in your thread:
1: trying to take PGI down from their own forums. That is really lame (or childish) and an incitation to be sued. Who would do that kind of thing for real? That make me think you're in no way going to do the slightest effort to indeed create a game.

2: even if you are honnest and really think you're the one going to create a new game, consider it: what you suggest is a simple gathering of money. Then you would invest all that money on a new game you'll be rising from the ground.
Now you have a game already built with a solid and working gameplay (which is by far the most important thing). Why not use the money you might collect as an investment, not on another game, but on MW:O? You know, like a real investor. You contact PGI, propose your money and your requests to them, then see what they're saying about your ideas and your funds...

Maybe that sounded a little too constructive, cuz it's true constructivity doesn't seem to be your motive here.

Edited by XtremWarrior, 31 December 2013 - 01:54 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

A month ago, the OP's theories about PGI were much more reasonable, along the lines of them just getting their funding shut down by mistrusting bean counters and limping along under a skeleton budget. Now it's about PGI being con men and somehow accidentally creating a strong core game when it was never their intention. I'm confused.

[Sandpit]

I'm just wondering why even though their game isn't produced yet there isn't even an official forum for this new game. I mean if I were putting together a kick starter game I'd at least have a forum put together so everyone could talk about it and explain how they would make it better

[makoangel]

As an impartial outsider, given that I have zero interest in BT and was drawn to the game by a friend, I find this thread hilarious and worrying in equal parts. What we seem to have here is a slick con-man with a slew of vague facts that most people reading this forum will have neither the time or the inclination to verify. When it panders directly to the 'issues' most long-term players seem to have with the current state of play, why would they bother?

Rebas Kradd, on 31 December 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

A month ago, the OP's theories about PGI were much more reasonable, along the lines of them just getting their funding shut down by mistrusting bean counters and limping along under a skeleton budget. Now it's about PGI being con men and somehow accidentally creating a strong core game when it was never their intention. I'm confused.

These are exactly the sort of tendencies shown by individuals who prey on the weak and the helpless in an explotative manner for their own financial gain. Until Aim64C proves otherwise with a tangible demonstration product rather than conjecture and half-truths, I'll pass and continue to enjoy the product PGI have created for us. Which in my opinion as a gamer, is great.

Be wary of giving this guy any startup funds. If you should prove to be legit OP, I look forward to playing your MW:O 'killer'. Until then, words.

[spacekeeper]

You can dredge up old, badly received games all you want. Game companies make terrible games all the time - it happens. They have to pay their bills just like you.

The only PGI game I care about is this one, because it provides me with a lot of entertainment. I'm not saying they couldn't be doing a better job of some things, but the game is good, and is getting better at a consistent rate.

You have the gall to post rambling conjectures about their being con-artists, and the whole thing being a sham, while simultaneously suggesting people support your project instead.

Where's your track record? How many (good or bad) games have you delivered? What makes you trustworthy?

Don't get me wrong though, if you do actually produce something, and it delivers a good experience, I will eat my words. Until then, though, I'll again suggest you go somewhere else. Try and build your own independent following instead.

There seems to be no shortage of angry ex-players who return to the forums just to remind everyone that they don't play any more, and how terrible the game they're enjoying is. Why don't you set up your own forum?

You could have entire threads dedicated to how much you dislike PGI and MW:O, talk about implementations before you have a design document, and wish-list your fantasy game all day.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will just keep on having fun.

[Sandpit]

I'm still waiting for an official "better than pgi btech game" forum. I mean that is the first step right? And if you do make a better btech game instead of just posting on the MWO forums about how much better it WILL be then I'll be in line to play it.
Until then? Stop posting {Scrap} like this here. You want to talk about your "new and exciting" ideas on the game you're making? Build a forum for it and pat yourself on the back over there while you're giving PGI "what for" or whatever it is you crazy youngsters say these days

[Aim64C]

Steven Dixon, on 30 December 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

Aim64C, I might have a very different view of PGI than you do but you have an opportunity to do something constructive here. That's why I'm following your thread even if I don't necessarily agree with you. Its easy to tear down others work but its much hard to create something yourself. You are at least getting started with creating something and I admire this.

Simply bad mouthing PGI is simply going to create a flamewar and will lead to nothing constructive. Some people hate PGI and other love them, it ultimately really doesn't matter. Focus on what you are going to do. What do you want to create and how are you going to do it and what do you need from others to make it happen. Like they say in job interviews its not a good idea to bad mouth your former boss even if you felt justified (this analogy isn't wholly apt but it does have some relevance, primarily the fact that bad mouthing makes people seem bitter and people often don't like to work with bitter people).

You are correct.

I do always enjoy a good argument and telling people they are stupid, though. It's a vice of mine. In some ways better, and in some ways worse than sex, drugs, and alcohol.

XtremWarrior, on 31 December 2013 - 01:53 AM, said:

Yeah, just make that kind of fun sentences when we all know you'll be the first crying "PGI i hate you so much!" if they were to shut this thread down.

No, honestly, I wouldn't.

It is the expected result. Expected results that come to pass simply inflate my ego.

Quote

2: even if you are honnest and really think you're the one going to create a new game, consider it: what you suggest is a simple gathering of money. Then you would invest all that money on a new game you'll be rising from the ground.
Now you have a game already built with a solid and working gameplay (which is by far the most important thing). Why not use the money you might collect as an investment, not on another game, but on MW:O? You know, like a real investor. You contact PGI, propose your money and your requests to them, then see what they're saying about your ideas and your funds...

Admittedly - I should have gone about proposing this idea differently. I do not plan on attempting to collect money until we have a more clear idea of who is on-board, what resources are at our disposal, and what direction we want to head. Even then - I am more than open to the idea of it simply being an open community project with not so much as an option to donate money via pay-pal.

makoangel, on 31 December 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

As an impartial outsider, given that I have zero interest in BT and was drawn to the game by a friend, I find this thread hilarious and worrying in equal parts. What we seem to have here is a slick con-man with a slew of vague facts that most people reading this forum will have neither the time or the inclination to verify. When it panders directly to the 'issues' most long-term players seem to have with the current state of play, why would they bother?

Seriously, what makes you think you're adept at discovering con-men?

That said - I can't fault you for being cautious. It would be wise for anyone to thoroughly look into any request for money.

Do note that I do not have a "donate" button, anywhere. Nor will there be one for some time (if ever).

Quote

These are exactly the sort of tendencies shown by individuals who prey on the weak and the helpless in an explotative manner for their own financial gain. Until Aim64C proves otherwise with a tangible demonstration product rather than conjecture and half-truths, I'll pass and continue to enjoy the product PGI have created for us. Which in my opinion as a gamer, is great.

There is one thing I'm leery of - and that is accepting money. I know that's merely my own anecdote - but it is something I want to express. I do not believe in hand-outs. I do not believe in exploiting others.

That is why, as I said, there will not be a "donate" button any time soon. And when there is, I will have sought legal counsel on how to set up an account/trust that holds me (and others) legally liable for the funds in it. I realize that there is no way to completely insure such accounts from fraud, waste, and abuse, completely - But if at all possible, I would like to make all transactions to and from it available to the community.

Now, perhaps you'll just see those as 'more slick words from a con-man.'

It's not my intent to change your mind or convince you to fund me.

My intent with this whole thread was relatively simple - to throw out an idea and see where the interest is. Interest in "would you play a better game" is relatively meaningless. Interest in "I am willing to contribute to it" is far more useful information. There are plenty of MWO die-hards who would love to play a "game that gives Fear a run for its money" and who would buy it. There are far fewer who are willing to 'throw down.'

Quote

Be wary of giving this guy any startup funds. If you should prove to be legit OP, I look forward to playing your MW:O 'killer'. Until then, words.

Be wary of giving anyone (or anything) any money. Money is your time and effort represented by a quantifiable exchange medium. A hundred dollars is possibly a whole day's worth of work for some people. It may be a few hours of work for others. I always advice people to think about pricing and costs in terms of time. How much time do you spend working for you to eat? For you to have a roof over your head? For your transportation?

There's a massive con-game going on in Washington and the Federal Reserve involving the delusion that a dollar has some kind of fixed value and that giving you more of them is good for the economy. If an hour gets you five dollars, and an hour buys you an average dinner at Denny's ... or an hour gets you fifteen dollars - and an hour gets you an average dinner at Denny's... the only thing that's changed is how many people are spending an hour of their life paying for food.

I know - a tangent rant on my part - and not meant to deflect from the issue at hand. But I cannot fault anyone for being cautious with their money. I would rather feel the weight of others' critical decisions than the energy of frivolous spending.

Quote

Where's your track record? How many (good or bad) games have you delivered? What makes you trustworthy?

A very valid line of questioning. That would be why I'm asking for volunteers and participation. My skills are more attuned to creating a bunch of noise and putting the right individuals together. I have never been wrong when I told a person that they were destined for great things.

Best of all, though - I've always been recognized for my ability to train and develop people. My goal isn't just a group of people making a game - it's to take the people who have the motivation and give them direction - to connect them to the people who can develop their skill/trade. It's to take the grad student who was top of his class, now kicking boxes, and give him something to put in a portfolio to get the job they want - or to place on their free-lance site to showcase why people/companies should contract their services.

Sure - I 'can' do a lot of things. That doesn't mean it is my place to do them. The number one cause of leadership failures is leaving behind a mass of followers with your passing. I may have an opinion on everything - and a loud mouth for those opinions (with a tendency for blunt delivery) - but that doesn't mean I expect or want to be in charge of everything.

Quote

Don't get me wrong though, if you do actually produce something, and it delivers a good experience, I will eat my words. Until then, though, I'll again suggest you go somewhere else. Try and build your own independent following instead.

Of course I should 'go somewhere else.'

That's kind of the point of an exodus, right?

Plenty have done just that - gone somewhere else. Quietly.

I like forum ego points a bit too much to do that quietly, though. I invite people to join me with a goal of what we're going to do once we get there.

Quote

Meanwhile, the rest of us will just keep on having fun.

Just to have the last word and be combative:

It could easily be said that you could just hit the 'launch' button and have your fun, and leave us sour-pusses to ourselves.

I mean... I realize I broke into your house, held a gun to your head, forced you to read my post, and then respond to it. That's why it was so critical of me (obviously, you were under duress and expressing your agitation).

Sandpit, on 31 December 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

I'm still waiting for an official "better than pgi btech game" forum. I mean that is the first step right? And if you do make a better btech game instead of just posting on the MWO forums about how much better it WILL be then I'll be in line to play it.
Until then? Stop posting {Scrap} like this here. You want to talk about your "new and exciting" ideas on the game you're making? Build a forum for it and pat yourself on the back over there while you're giving PGI "what for" or whatever it is you crazy youngsters say these days

Or, you know... don't read.

I know, it's just so hard to let go of the hatred. The fact is that you're so bored with the game that you delude yourself into thinking it's fun by going on to argue with those who criticize it. If we leave - it would be almost cruel.

That said - I've been poorly utilizing my time posting on here rather than setting up stuff on the temporary-ish discussion forum that has been graciously provided for the cause.

It's not what you would be looking for in terms of official-ness, I imagine - but it's a step in that direction. The issue I'll have to get straightened out is where to place the link. Technically - advertising for another forum, business, game, etc is against the Terms of Service.

Thought you got me, didn't you?

I may be more brazen than prudent - but that does not mean my brazen behavior is chosen in ignorance of the risks.

[Sandpit]

I'm not "getting" anyone just pointing out that the whole crowd claiming pgi is all talk and are going to do it better are doing nothing but talking and have done nothing but talk on mwo forums thus far.
I think I even said that if someone builds a better btech online Multiplayer game (btech mind you not mecha) I'll be in line to play it as long as it's better and probably free since this one is as well
Until there's more than "I could do it better" posts it's less than what pgi has delivered
That's not an argument or opinion, that's a statement of fact

[Aim64C]

Sandpit, on 31 December 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

I'm not "getting" anyone just pointing out that the whole crowd claiming pgi is all talk and are going to do it better are doing nothing but talking and have done nothing but talk on mwo forums thus far.
I think I even said that if someone builds a better btech online Multiplayer game (btech mind you not mecha) I'll be in line to play it as long as it's better and probably free since this one is as well
Until there's more than "I could do it better" posts it's less than what pgi has delivered
That's not an argument or opinion, that's a statement of fact

Indeed, talk is cheap. But the best things in life are free.

Mostly being argumentative, there. If you haven't realized it, yet - I get a kick out of it.

But, you are right. There is a lot of talk.

At the risk of being hammered for advertising: http://www.forgotten...-all-around-v7b

That is where we are to begin. There is a registration process that requires approval from Forgotten Eighth Legion.

I'll be sending out e-mail notices to those who I have e-mail addresses for, and PMs to those who have expressed interest, as well as updating my signature.

As I've said in private to a few people. I've no idea where this will go or how far it will go - but it will be interesting to see unfold, none the less.