227 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

Widowmaker1981, on 04 February 2016 - 12:39 AM, said:

Well, the $20 pack has the one im mainly interested in - the KDK-3 with its 4 torso mounted ballistic slots**, so i can probably be happy with that pack. Not getting collectors for sure, since the KDK-1 is very definitely not going to be my favourite variant, i don't want the Hero, because its missile focused, so its either 20$ or 35$ if i decide to go for the 2 extra (one is interesting for STD engine, twin gauss, twin LPL shield side, or 2xUAC10 + lasers)

**LOLOLOL bye bye Dire. You are now 100% obsolete, come May 17th.

I don't think that's the case honestly... Some of these builds sound great but I think Gauss in the torsos and hardpoint layout is going to get old.

[General Taskeen]

C I L L I P U D D I, on 04 February 2016 - 12:53 AM, said:

And if you think $70 for 6 mechs is too much you need math lessons.

$70 for 6 mechs is a huge stretch compared to the roots of MW.

MW4 $49.99 - 36 Mechs - Dynamic SP Campaigns - 19 Multiplayer Maps - New 'Tech - New Features - Server Lobby - Highly Customizable Server Options w/ 6+ Game Modes

Just to put into perspective what people are paying for now: Pixels (that belong to the server host, not you)

[Ratpoison]

General Taskeen, on 04 February 2016 - 09:27 AM, said:

$70 for 6 mechs is a huge stretch compared to the roots of MW.

MW4 $49.99 - 36 Mechs - Dynamic SP Campaigns - 19 Multiplayer Maps - New 'Tech - New Features - Server Lobby - Highly Customizable Server Options w/ 6+ Game Modes

Just to put into perspective what people are paying for now: Pixels (that belong to the server host, not you)

Actually it's polygons. The number of polygons in those 6 mechs probably exceeds that of all the MW4 content you posted, several times over. 3D models don't make themselves, it's an intensive labor process. You have to pay for that process whether or not you get something physically tangible.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

Actually it's polygons. The number of polygons in those 6 mechs probably exceeds that of all the MW4 content you posted, several times over. 3D models don't make themselves, it's an intensive labor process. You have to pay for that process whether or not you get something physically tangible.

Technology also makes that process much easier, it is also important to remember that games use high poly models to generate textures with, the low poly is something created with engine limitations in mind. So the poly count difference probably isn't as big as you think when considering high poly models.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 04 February 2016 - 09:38 AM.

[Ratpoison]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 04 February 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

Technology also makes that process much easier, it is also important to remember that games use high poly models to generate textures with, the low poly is something created with engine limitations in mind. So the poly count difference probably isn't as big as you think when considering high poly models.

You still aren't fully making the connection. Development of this content is fully dependent on LABOR. People have this idiotic idea that money is for "getting stuff", and since video games aren't not physically tangible they think they're entitled to all of it for nothing. Money is not for "getting stuff", it's for compensating labor. Regardless of polygon count and engine limitations, it all ends in a dollar and labor cost, and THOSE are what make the prices what they are. Making new battlemechs in this era of gaming is incredibly labor intensive, costing thousands of man hours, and tens of thousands of dollars, JUST to make each new mech chassis.

Now think about how much those costs would be for 36 mechs and 19 maps instead of just one mech chassis. The labor cost alone would bankrupt PGI before it was even half done. The fact that you can get what you do for only $20 is something to be thankful for.

[xTrident]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

You still aren't fully making the connection. Development of this content is fully dependent on LABOR. People have this idiotic idea that money is for "getting stuff", and since video games aren't not physically tangible they think they're entitled to all of it for nothing. Money is not for "getting stuff", it's for compensating labor. Regardless of polygon count and engine limitations, it all ends in a dollar and labor cost, and THOSE are what make the prices what they are. Making new battlemechs in this era of gaming is incredibly labor intensive, costing thousands of man hours, and tens of thousands of dollars, JUST to make each new mech chassis.

Now think about how much those costs would be for 36 mechs and 19 maps instead of just one mech chassis. The labor cost alone would bankrupt PGI before it was even half done. The fact that you can get what you do for only $20 is something to be thankful for.

Free? Who's talking about free? No one. No one actually expects any of this to be "free" even though that is just exactly what PGI advertises their game as.

No sir, I actually wouldn't have a problem dropping $60 for this game in it's entirety. And by entirety I mean being able to use all the mechs, weapons, modules etc... Or at the VERY least a lot less time to unlock some of the things such as the modules. But as it stands I've got over $90 into this game and I can "play" just a small portion of what's there. Specifically talking about mechs.

At this point the $90 gone is whatever for me. But I certainly won't let my experience and what little I got for said money be forgotten. I have a library of full games on Steam alone that I've purchased for $60 or less.

And the MW4 reference is fair and valid as Quicksilver isn't saying MWO should be completely free. It was merely a comparison of what we got for far less money compared to what we get with MWO. But if you don't like that reference and want to discuss how it's much more difficult and costly to develop a game now.... Then I reference back to my Steam library of full releases that I got for $60 or less.

Edited by xTrident, 04 February 2016 - 10:11 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

Regardless of polygon count and engine limitations, it all ends in a dollar and labor cost, and THOSE are what make the prices what they are. Making new battlemechs in this era of gaming is incredibly labor intensive, costing thousands of man hours, and tens of thousands of dollars, JUST to make each new mech chassis.

More than likey the increased overhead is more due to complicated engines than the actual mech making process, because the mech making process probably has not changed much since MW4 other than maybe slightly higher expected quality and higher engine limitations. That said, even if it took $100,000 to make a new mech and all its variants (variants are easier/cheaper than the chassis itself), if it were $10 for the whole thing it would only take 10,000 people to even make it even which judging from sales of prior packs (if rumors are true), then that sort of thing could easily be met. I would be willing to bet it takes more money per mech (but minus the cost of things like special camos).

I'm not saying it has to be that cheap, but the prices in this game have been a little bit ridiculous outside of the recent $20 packs which are actually pretty good.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 04 February 2016 - 11:02 AM.

[Ratpoison]

xTrident, on 04 February 2016 - 10:08 AM, said:

Free? Who's talking about free? No one. No one actually expects any of this to be "free" even though that is just exactly what PGI advertises their game as.

No sir, I actually wouldn't have a problem dropping $60 for this game in it's entirety. And by entirety I mean being able to use all the mechs, weapons, modules etc... Or at the VERY least a lot less time to unlock some of the things such as the modules. But as it stands I've got over $90 into this game and I can "play" just a small portion of what's there. Specifically talking about mechs.

At this point the $90 gone is whatever for me. But I certainly won't let my experience and what little I got for said money be forgotten. I have a library of full games on Steam alone that I've purchased for $60 or less.

And the MW4 reference is fair and valid as Quicksilver isn't saying MWO should be completely free. It was merely a comparison of what we got for far less money compared to what we get with MWO. But if you don't like that reference and want to discuss how it's much more difficult and costly to develop a game now.... Then I reference back to my Steam library of full releases that I got for $60 or less.

Of course you wouldn't mind paying $60 for everything...because this game costs far more than that. You're still expecting to be entitled to everything in a game with an ongoing development cycle, for the price of a game with a high budget static development cycle. $60? Okay, you get the 2012 release version of the game, since you didn't pay for the 3 years of post launch development. You are still making the same foolish mistake, expecting to be entitled to 3 extra years of development you didn't pay for. I know you armchair devs love patting each other on the back, but please do try to not be so ignorant.

[Pezzer]

FupDup, on 03 February 2016 - 02:03 PM, said:

B-b-b-b-but I get to choose which ones I buy so it's totally more efficient per dollar!

This is what has me pissed off. The community asked for this idiotic price-gouging. THEY. ASKED. FOR. IT. Because they had less money to purchase the maximum-size big packs, it was time to whine on the forums and get the price-effective mega packs replaced with smaller packs that are almost the same price, so that their e-peen can be satisfied when $40-$60 gets the biggest pack with the best badge attached to their account.

Thanks, forumwarriors! If this continues, I'm never buying a mech pack again. Because the idiots wanted smaller packs and the whales wanted to buy heroes and reinforcements additionally, it now costs $70 to get 6 variants of the same chassis. I can't afford this nonsense, but I CAN afford $80 for 4 mechs that have 3-4 variants each.

I really hope they go back to the old system, but based on how many people are piloting these Unseen mechs, it's probably not happening.

Edited by Pezzer, 04 February 2016 - 11:15 AM.

[Isolani]

I'm still considering, but right now I am leaning towards getting the $20 pack + $15 hero addon. Just getting the $20 pack seems well worth it to me, you get quite a bit for $20. And $15 for the hero mech is worth it to me, but arguable if you don't want to play an assault with a bunch of missiles. After that, it seems like you don't get near as much for your money. But it's fine that the option is there for people who want all available Kodiak variants plus some extra premium time and other stuff.

[Scout Derek]

KDK-2 and KDK-4 are the most obsolete variants, so better off getting the Standard and Hero, and maybe the Special variant if you're feeling that you don't like GB paint job on the thing, but like the Special and Hero's paint job.

If you're wondering what the hardpoints are total, here they are:

KDK-2

6E, 1M, 1B, 1 AMS.

2 in each arm and 2 in the CT for energy.


KDK-4

4E, 2M, 2B, 1 AMS

2 in each arm for Energy, 2 Ballistics in the RT, and 1AMS.

[xTrident]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 11:10 AM, said:

Of course you wouldn't mind paying $60 for everything...because this game costs far more than that. You're still expecting to be entitled to everything in a game with an ongoing development cycle, for the price of a game with a high budget static development cycle. $60? Okay, you get the 2012 release version of the game, since you didn't pay for the 3 years of post launch development. You are still making the same foolish mistake, expecting to be entitled to 3 extra years of development you didn't pay for. I know you armchair devs love patting each other on the back, but please do try to not be so ignorant.

So now we're going to talk about ongoing development cycle? Okay, I'll reference you to GTA V. A game I paid 60 bucks for and Rockstar has released countless updates/patches/additions etc without costing me a dime.

And three years of development...? I wouldn't necessarily say their additional three years of development up to this point is such a good thing when MW4 and everything you got with it on initial release was brought up.

But quite frankly the $90 I've given to PGI should be sufficient for "their" years of development, especially considering what we have which is still a game lacking a single player story mode. That mode may not be important to some, but for me that's nearly half the game.

Putting words in my mouth as if I still think it should be free or that I haven't given my fair share to the cause just doesn't fly with me because I've personally given quite a damn bit of money to PGI.

And maybe an additional three years of development wouldn't be needed if the game was complete and/or done right in the first place? I know that's a low blow, I know I'm not a dev and apparently because I'm not one my opinion means diddly **** to you but I am a gamer and I've played my fair share of games. I know what I've spent on them and what I've gotten out of them.

[11kodiak11]

Not even reading the messages. I waited too long for this mech. Take my cash!

[C I L L I P U D D I]

7 Assault Mechs for $70. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's $10 per mech. Kodiak's are legit the cheapest mech pack released.

Keep being poor though guys

[Felicitatem Parco]

C I L L I P U D D I, on 04 February 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

7 Assault Mechs for $70. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's $10 per mech. Kodiak's are legit the cheapest mech pack released.

Keep being poor though guys

Actually, it's three 100 ton Clan Assault Mechs with Clan 400XL engines and DHS, plus 4 modules and 6.5 million cbills for $20. That's $6.66 per Mech kitted with the most expensive tech in the game plus the add-ons.

[xTrident]

C I L L I P U D D I, on 04 February 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

7 Assault Mechs for $70. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's $10 per mech. Kodiak's are legit the cheapest mech pack released.

Keep being poor though guys

I am glad you think $70 for seven mechs (of the same variant) is a good deal.

[C I L L I P U D D I]

How is it 3? KDK 1/2/3 (S) $40 KDK-SB $15 KDK 4/5 $15 Is that not 7 mechs for $70?

[Ratpoison]

xTrident, on 04 February 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

So now we're going to talk about ongoing development cycle? Okay, I'll reference you to GTA V. A game I paid 60 bucks for and Rockstar has released countless updates/patches/additions etc without costing me a dime.

And three years of development...? I wouldn't necessarily say their additional three years of development up to this point is such a good thing when MW4 and everything you got with it on initial release was brought up.

But quite frankly the $90 I've given to PGI should be sufficient for "their" years of development, especially considering what we have which is still a game lacking a single player story mode. That mode may not be important to some, but for me that's nearly half the game.

Putting words in my mouth as if I still think it should be free or that I haven't given my fair share to the cause just doesn't fly with me because I've personally given quite a damn bit of money to PGI.

And maybe an additional three years of development wouldn't be needed if the game was complete and/or done right in the first place? I know that's a low blow, I know I'm not a dev and apparently because I'm not one my opinion means diddly **** to you but I am a gamer and I've played my fair share of games. I know what I've spent on them and what I've gotten out of them.

Yeah, cuz MWO has the budget of GTA V right? MWO is big enough of a title to have 3+ years of staying power on the market like GTA, right? You're just reaching for the nearest thing that makes you feel like you're right. You've already admitted you have no perspective on game development, so how about you take the next step and accept that your expectations are misplaced. You're being entitled, and that just isn't constructive to anyone.

[FupDup]

Pezzer, on 04 February 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:

This is what has me pissed off. The community asked for this idiotic price-gouging. THEY. ASKED. FOR. IT. Because they had less money to purchase the maximum-size big packs, it was time to whine on the forums and get the price-effective mega packs replaced with smaller packs that are almost the same price, so that their e-peen can be satisfied when $40-$60 gets the biggest pack with the best badge attached to their account.

Thanks, forumwarriors! If this continues, I'm never buying a mech pack again. Because the idiots wanted smaller packs and the whales wanted to buy heroes and reinforcements additionally, it now costs $70 to get 6 variants of the same chassis. I can't afford this nonsense, but I CAN afford $80 for 4 mechs that have 3-4 variants each.

I really hope they go back to the old system, but based on how many people are piloting these Unseen mechs, it's probably not happening.

What I asked for personally was the ability to mix-and-match mechs from the normal multipacks rather than using the pre-set tiers system. For example, I think I should be able to buy the Hunchback IIC and Highlander IIC for the same price as Jenner IIC and Orion IIC (should be $40 either way), or whatever other combination. Like the Founders pack had.

PGI took it to the extreme by making it a la carte 2.0.

Edited by FupDup, 04 February 2016 - 12:38 PM.

[xTrident]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 12:19 PM, said:

Yeah, cuz MWO has the budget of GTA V right? MWO is big enough of a title to have 3+ years of staying power on the market like GTA, right? You're just reaching for the nearest thing that makes you feel like you're right. You've already admitted you have no perspective on game development, so how about you take the next step and accept that your expectations are misplaced. You're being entitled, and that just isn't constructive to anyone.

But you offering nothing with this reply accept to simply say - you're wrong - is constructive? I've continued to give examples and reasons to counter everything you've said. You continue to completely ignore the fact that I have dumped a substantial amount of money into the game which negates your argument to me pointing the finger that I believe it should be free.... Uhh obviously not. No, PGI doesn't have the budget Rockstar does. But at this point who's fault is that? By that I don't mean PGI should have or even could have Rockstar's budget, but I wonder what business plan is working better? Development of a complete game then releasing it to the masses - GTA V, or this F2P version that essentially gouges it's players? Per person the F2P method is better because you're getting more money, but then you'll also have less, maybe even much less of a player base willing to pay because of the prices. I'm also quite sure GTA is much bigger and more renowned title to gamers which also helps. But it's not like Mechwarrior is chopped liver in comparison. There's quite a sizeable fan base that I'm sure would have paid to play MWO, i.e. dropped $60 for it.

And then when I say I'm not a dev you assume that means I have absolutely no perspective on game development. I have some idea on bits and pieces of it. But labor is labor and comparisons should count for something. If not, then I guess there's no labor involved in the development of any other titles out there.

I really don't understand why you're continuing this idea that I and others have this feeling of entitlement - especially when I have given PGI money. I repeat, I have given PGI money. Entitlement my ***.

Edited by xTrident, 04 February 2016 - 12:39 PM.