238 replies to this topic

[Neverise]

I don't have a problem with this. I happen to enjoy Steam, but I can see why people wouldn't like it. I agree with your third option; allow MWO to be on Steam, but don't force it onto everyone.

ultraviper, on 07 July 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

Just because a game is multiplayer and online doesn't make it a MMO. MWO as far as I know is 24 players per game. Or do you consider Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, Quake, etc. MMOs? The first M in MMO stands for Massively, meaning hundreds/thousands of players in a persistent environment. 24 is not massive.

Games like League of Legends and DotA 2 are both part of the MOBA genre, which also has 'massive' standing for the first M. There are a massive amount of people who play it, but only 5 people in one persistent 'area' or 'arena' at a time.

[Ultraviper]

Neverise, on 07 July 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

I don't have a problem with this. I happen to enjoy Steam, but I can see why people wouldn't like it. I agree with your third option; allow MWO to be on Steam, but don't force it onto everyone.



Games like League of Legends and DotA 2 are both part of the MOBA genre, which also has 'massive' standing for the first M. There are a massive amount of people who play it, but only 5 people in one persistent 'area' or 'arena' at a time.

Nope, that M is for Multiplayer. Nobody calls those games MMO. Well, I guess maybe the same kind of people who say MWO is a MMO might.

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

Steam has only ever caused connection issues for me, and headaches. I would rather this is kept separate, as it will be.

[Ranek Blackstone]

MWO is an MMO because of how the 12v12 matches tie into the rest of the system. Factions that win consistantly in the 12v12 battles will slowly begin to take over the IS as they beat back the other Houses to claim their land. These battles wage in real time in a persistant enviroment influenced by thousands of people. It's an MMO, but not in the same way EVE or WoW is.

[Freyar]

Teirdome, on 07 July 2012 - 05:41 AM, said:

Apple takes a flat 30% from their store (well known).
Microsoft takes 30% from XBLIG (James Silva's quote on Gamasutra).

When 30% is a well established rate among digital distribution channels, why would Valve change it? Because they're nice? Throwing EA games off of their platform because they dared to sell directly to their customers (the exact thing Valve does with games that require Steam) shows that they aren't so kind.

The next question is why would they charge the same amount for F2P titles. I believe they would. What they're doing with normal titles is taking a percentage of the revenue stream. Why would they change it?

XBLIG, Apple, Microsoft, and even Steam's Retail sales are just that, retail. The differences is that currency sales for Free-to-Play are significantly different. Recurring revenue typically means you can relax your cuts in exchange for a higher number of transactions. Why would you ever charge 30% on 10 transactions when a 10% cut on 50, 100, or virtually infinite number of transactions are possible? It doesn't make good business sense to treat a currency sale the same as a retail sale.

Teirdome, on 07 July 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

I also don't see how you can perceive the 30% as a wild assumption. A wild assumption would be 50% or 10% when the rest of the industry does 30%. 30% is very logical.

It's a wild assumption because it's a different product.

Quote

Valve got a ton of crap because it finally exposed some parts of the contracts that publishers/developers have to follow when putting a game out on Steam to the larger audience. By having their ToS structured that way, they have said that it is not okay for other companies to sell directly to customers from games purchased on Steam. Meanwhile every game that is steamworks enabled allows Valve to sell directly to customers. This hypocracy was why everybody was upset.

Was EA wrong to violate the ToS? Yes.

Did this incident expose Valve as merely a company out for profit with some shady practices instead of the flawless savior of the PC? Yes.

DLC sold via Steamworks is also purchasable through other places too. IE: You can buy these DLC bits if the publisher decides on places like (former) Direct2Drive, GMG, and other providers, then register it. The difference was that EA was not willing to allow Steam to sell the DLC, despite selling it via Origin, D2D, and other providers. In short, EA allowed Steam to sell the core game, but wasn't allowed to sell the DLC content.

[T0RC4ED]

Im all for it being on steam. I hope it does not require steam, but i hope to see it as an optional type thing (like Rift for example). Ive been playing games on steam for a long time now and have not noticed any issues i would consider serious.

One of the biggest positive points to it being on steam is the updates... Ive played games in the past where updates were done p2p and that was a nightmare.

Edited by T0RC4ED, 07 July 2012 - 04:38 PM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Ranek Blackstone, on 07 July 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

MWO is an MMO because of how the 12v12 matches tie into the rest of the system. Factions that win consistantly in the 12v12 battles will slowly begin to take over the IS as they beat back the other Houses to claim their land. These battles wage in real time in a persistant enviroment influenced by thousands of people. It's an MMO, but not in the same way EVE or WoW is.

^ This. As I said, judging the game ENTIRELY by its match size is foolish. This is not going to be something like League of Legends where winning more games every day simply means you get more exp/cash that day. There are factions in an war.

[KaOTiK911]

Neverise, on 07 July 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Games like League of Legends and DotA 2 are both part of the MOBA genre, which also has 'massive' standing for the first M. There are a massive amount of people who play it, but only 5 people in one persistent 'area' or 'arena' at a time.

Actually MOBA stands for Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, not massive

MWO isn't an MMO imo. There is nothing wrong with that, but just because it is online it keeps track of some other stuff, doesn't mean it is an MMO. You can't go meet up with 100 other people, in fact, you can't do anything other then go straight into battles from your hanger.

Someone mentioned WoW and doing dungeon finder, really? Just because you don't choose to take part in the rest of the world and instead want to just play with a small group in the dungeon doesn't mean there are not hundreds/thousands of people actually on the server and you can run into and see.

There seems to be a lot of bad/plain out wrong info on Steam in this thread.
There are some things we need to realize, Mechwarrior isn't as big and well known in gaming as most here would make it seem.
For everyone wanting PGI to do great and support the game (so many legendary founders claimed they just wanted to support them/the game), you guys sure do want them to be restricted. I would think you want as many people as possible to know about and play MWO so that it does well and continues to grow. Sure they would make less per person who plays on Steam, but the increase in people playing and paying would also increase by a good amount offsetting the less per person.

I'm not saying they should or should not go on Steam, but there is so many one sided/narrow views with bad info that it makes me shake my head.

Edited by KaOTiK911, 07 July 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Actually MechWarrior is very well known in gaming, and since it hasn't had a new game in 10 years, that says a lot. As far as not using Steam goes, it might be restrictive or it might not. We can't make that judgement without being inside Piranha HQ and reading business sheets. As I said, the question comes down to whether or not the extra advertisement is worth the cut that Steam would take out of their profits. I do not think it is, but it could be. Ask someone at Piranha. Random forum goes simply do not know this information and even Piranha might not know it themselves until release when they see how well the game sales. Many games start out without Steam then go hit Steam if their sales are bad and since they haven't mentioned a connection with Steam yet(nor has Steam mentioned them), this might be their plan.

Edited by Bluten, 07 July 2012 - 05:49 PM.

[Deathz Jester]

[Skadi]

We recently had a thread on this (Search it, tis your friend) and, either Russ or Garth (sorry guys cant remember) stated they had no plans as of current to put the game on steam.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Skadi, on 07 July 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

We recently had a thread on this (Search it, tis your friend) and, either Russ or Garth (sorry guys cant remember) stated they had no plans as of current to put the game on steam.

Then I hope not allying with Steam is the best choice. I don't care much if they do it or not I just want them to do the choice that helps the game the most.

[Kyle Lewis]

Iron Harlequin, on 06 July 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

So because YOU haven't had any problems, and all of YOUR "friends" haven't had any problems and all of the forums YOU have been on haven't had any issues, we should all love & adore steam, and pray that they gain a monopoly on every game out there just like EA?



If you didn't like the response, why did you ask for reasons why steam sucks?

Really you are telling him he can't have an opinion, because he is only one person? So then your list of suck reasons, using your own argument is also invalid?

[Deathz Jester]

Kyle Lewis, on 07 July 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Really you are telling him he can't have an opinion, because he is only one person? So then your list of suck reasons, using your own argument is also invalid?

WHY ARE YOU TYPING SO BIG...

oh wait.....


No, I'm not telling him he cant have an opinion because he is only one person, would you care to point out exactly where I did so? Then again why am I getting into an argument with you, when the best you can do apparently is caps lock, ctrl+b, font size 18, me to death, and claim I said something that I did not.

I was saying that it was rather pointless to ask for reasons why something sucks, if you're going to bash it down the instant you see it.

[Adm Awesome]

Also an argument against the ongoing "money hungry evil vampires" point that some of you seem to make of Valve... Look at all their games. FREE UPDATES. Look at when they made the first Medic update years ago for Team Fortress 2, and the only reason they didn't add the items to the 360 version is because Microsoft said they would only do it if they got to charge players for the updates, Valve didn't want that. So whatever money Valve is making off of people that sell their things on THEIR platform, well it's only what they need, or at the very least deserve. They did an amazing job with their micro transactions in TF2 as well. You not only can get all items as random drops, but you can create them with old weapons that you don't want anymore as well.

Yes I'll defend Valve to the end, their company is so amazing that I almost want to aim at a job there, even though I'm not really that interested in the Gaming Industry.

[PCMAN]

As a long time PC gamer, when Steam first came out as a game distribution service I hated it. Having to be online in order to get a game and not have a disk or manual to have and hold was a tough sell for me. When I owned a LAN center I had a Cyber Cafe licence for Steam and began to see the light. One monthly fee gave me access to a TON of games and handled all the management and update headaches.

With the integration of the steam store, friends list, one launchpad for the bulk of my games I would not go back to individual installs and updates. As a game distribution service I have never had a problem with Steam. Though I have problems with their "A-List" titles pricing model. (why should I pay the same price for the retail version as the online version?)

But with all the deals and Steam sales they have it is very easy to get a good deal. Whether MWO could benefit from Steam is an unknown. Most "free to play" MMO's on my account are uninstalled. I am sure Steam gets a nice chunk of any revenue the publisher gets from sales. It will certainly get MWO into more potential hands, but at what price?

[SpecTRe X]

Freyar, on 07 July 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

What do you mean asked or tested before hand? Steam's responsibility is not that of running BLR, that is entirely PWE/ZS's responsibility. Would you tell a retailer like Walmart to ensure there is sufficient server capacity for say.. Aion at it's launch (7 hour queues anyone?) Steam is just a vendor with neat little things to make it nice to use. They are not in the position of a publisher, nor should they for third party games.

You can turn off advertising, but really the most it does is track your time (as a social option), track your purchases as it manages your licenses, and tracks what DLC offers might be available for you. The hardware survey doesn't happen without your permission, it doesn't even SCAN the system till you give it the go-ahead.

You're expecting too much. BLR is a free-to-play game. Put any free-to-play game in combination with easily created accounts and a channel that reaches ALL or a majority of players and you'll get the same behavior. Throwing out the possibility of drawing in players from Steam because of behavior is petty when this isn't an issue about where the players come from, but the accessibility and ease of joining the game. Battlefield 3, Call of Duty, EvE Online, World of Warcraft all have their trolls, hackers, teamkillers, swindlers, cyber...ers, and racist morons. MWO and BLR are no different with the exception that it will be MORE visible due to the nature of Free-to-Play.

Steam isn't walmart in the fact that it has a community, walmart has no such community. I understand they are not responsible for running blr but are you telling me it wouldn't be responsible or wise to make sure that these servers and infrastructure could handle the influx of players that STEAM was bringing to the game? The walmart argument only works if these people rushed to the game without steam advertising it to them.

You're still missing the point with my data argument and I don't know how to make this any clearer.

I'm not expecting this from BLr per se, I am however expecting this or hoping for this from MWo. My point wasn't to ask this of any other game but ask that we have SOME games that meet this expectation.
Yes, it is a matter of where the players come from, who are most likely to find this game? In my mind it's people who have been playing MW and BT games before this and people that have been waiting for a new mech game. I'd be willing to bet that at least 50% of the people on steam will not hear about this game unless its put on steam or the ads are inescapable. Further more I play eve now and then and find the amount of infants and toddlers that play that game are much fewer than any other I've played. The game style of eve is different though and this type of player can be easily confused. Lastly you're missing a key factor which is game complexity. The majority of these people won't care to play a complex game if it is 'too hard' for them to learn to play which is one of the nice things about eve, it's complexity.

[Valorcalls]

Some people still fail to read the changes to the OP instead of just commenting based on name. So go read the OP and argue elsewhere. if there is out-of-mech roaming, then it will be a MMO like STO is. STO can have battles very similar to 12v12 (usually 8v8, but larger ones can be arranged) but still has things that can be done single-player, and has large gathering places. Does the fact that it has battles equal in size make it not a MMO? No. It is still an MMO, so by the definition of MMO (MASSIVELY Multiplayer Online) DOES NOT MEAN that everyone is together at once, or joining a server to fight. It means that they are simple all PLAYING THE GAME at once.

[MaxFool]

Valorcalls, on 08 July 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

Some people still fail to read the changes to the OP instead of just commenting based on name. So go read the OP and argue elsewhere.

Some people read OP two days ago and had no reason to think there was something new there.

[Kyle Lewis]

Iron Harlequin, on 07 July 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

WHY ARE YOU TYPING SO BIG...

oh wait.....


No, I'm not telling him he cant have an opinion because he is only one person, would you care to point out exactly where I did so? Then again why am I getting into an argument with you, when the best you can do apparently is caps lock, ctrl+b, font size 18, me to death, and claim I said something that I did not.

I was saying that it was rather pointless to ask for reasons why something sucks, if you're going to bash it down the instant you see it.

I was replying via phone and increased my font to see what I was typing. I clearly quoted your post where you bolded the words you and your, that clearly indicated that you felt that the poster did not have the right to disagree with your list of suck items, becuase he had not had your experiences with steam. So how is your bad experiences with steam different then his good experiences?