153 replies to this topic

[MauttyKoray]

PeonWarrior, on 04 December 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

The salt is still strong with me but here's my view.

They reinvested their accumulated profits and capitalise on an improve MW (yet to materialise) instead of simply cashing it out to shareholders, so kudos to PGI. I also see it as a mutually exclusive decision. If their long term strategic plan (less than 3 years) is to migrate to Unreal 4 then don't encourage wasting limited resources on major improvements to MWO unless there are synergistic benefits. Maybe they already concluded the current state of MWO is a dead ship. QP has become stale for old timers and I don't play FP anymore. Cut your loss, endure short term pain for possible future gains. Disappointed at no new tech/weapon anoucement at MechCon and Russ haven't responded to tweets about definite migration of MWO to the new engine, his tweets filled with 'probably' and 'maybes'...so officially still sitting on the fence till we get new info.

An expanded view on that - MWO development is still a learning process for them and accumulated knowledge can be applied to future endeavors.

Art assets can be ported to a new version of MWO if they decide to change engines, thus any assets they create now can be beneficial in the future (mechs, map pieces, UI designs, etc).

Its great to see MW5 finally coming to fruition, as the campaigns of Mechwarrior are what hooked me into the series. I do wish in the future they upgrade MWO or develop an improved MWO hopefully building off what looks to be an amazing framework from MW5.

[Quinn Allard]

Seems like the vast majority are ok with it. Look at Devs like Bethesda, Blizzard, and Ubisoft. All will be well, stop your b*tch*ng.

Edited by Quinn Allard, 04 December 2016 - 10:27 AM.

[M T]

I have zilch interest in a Single player Mechwarrior game tbh.... So yeah I don't approve of them spending all those extra resources for it while they still havent managed to get MWO in a proper state.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I approve.

[JediPanther]

Given their past 4 years I'm not spending a penny here or a pre-order for a just announced mw5 by pgi. We all know how their announcements go and go and go and go. I'll wait till the game is delivered and buy it on steam with full steam work shop support...oh wait..pgi did that once before without the workshop.

[FupDup]

Quinn Allard, on 04 December 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

Seems like the vast majority are ok with it. Look at Devs like Bethesda, Blizzard, and Ubisoft. All will be well, stop your b*tch*ng.

Those companies are a lot bigger and already made past successful titles before moving on to other ones.

PGI is small and the only game on their resume is MWO...which still needs a lot of polishing and other things.

[MAD WALL E]

This poll is useless, i can vote multiple times.

Edited by MAD WALL E, 04 December 2016 - 11:07 AM.

[Sizer]

I'm glad they are pushing towards a future. I think it is great for the health of the game and a good sign that they aren't just going to up and shutdown the servers one day.

To me the biggest piece here is we can see a way out of the CryEngine and thus a next generation of the game.

Getting MWO ported to Unreal 4 once Mercs is completed is a huge step in ensuring we will be able to play our game for years to come.

Personally I'm super happy to see that there is a long term vision. Of course it sucks that not all the content people wanted is coming right away, but I for one am glad to see their commitment to the franchise and the players.

It takes serious investment to develop new products and expand. They could have just sat back and milked MWO for all it is worth until it died, but that definitely does not seem to be the case. While we may all have our disappointments, I think it is important to acknowledge the fact that PGI is in this for the long haul and they are willing to put all that time and money into future development. It is a good sign for all us Battletech fans.

[Felicitatem Parco]

MAD WALL E, on 04 December 2016 - 11:00 AM, said:

This poll is useless, i vote multiple times.

Poll? Ha. This is just another one of those threads were people get an opportunity to insult PGI and make themselves look cool.

[Maker L106]

While I understand that they have a populace that want a SP Campaign. I cannot help but feel a bit shammed when I threw money at PGI for mechpacks (most of which I've enjoyed so I don't really feel at a loss on that regard) and here we are with FW in the pits as it is and the basic Quickplay running okay.

I just want them to fix a good system for FW / CW / whatever they're calling it. Where they spend their money I guess really isn't my primary focus I just feel dissapointed that this isn't "Yo we fixed FW" or "Futuretech". I'd like the money spent to be relative to the game I'm playing as opposed to something completely different. But wants / etc:

[SWANN]

game developers often (especially those unattached to a big publisher) fund their own games using money from previous game sales... I understand people feeling jilted because MWO hasn't gotten much attention, and the history of unfulfilled promises for this game.... but the people who think they're entitled to a free copy or discount because they bought mech packs are just flat out wrong.Honestly, I think MWO is what they HAD to do to get the opportunity to do MW5. No evidence for this obviously, just a feeling I have.

Edited by SWANN, 04 December 2016 - 11:15 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

SWANN, on 04 December 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:

game developers often (especially those unattached to a big publisher) fund their own games using money from previous game sales... I understand people feeling jilted because MWO hasn't gotten much attention, and the history of unfulfilled promises for this game.... but the people who think they're entitled to a free copy or discount because they bought mech packs are just flat out wrong.Honestly, I think MWO is what they HAD to do to get the opportunity to do MW5. No evidence for this obviously, just a feeling I have.

No the evidence is already posted on the internet and on forums. Piranah games tried to make MechWarrior 5 many years ago but due to licensing problems with Microsoft, specifically Microsoft's refusal to allow a PlayStation Port of the game, combined with the fact that they were developing it during a recession caused the MechWarrior 5 initial campaign to fail. You are absolutely correct in stating that MechWarrior online was required before MechWarrior 5 can be built.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 04 December 2016 - 11:23 AM.

[Hunka Junk]

I think you have to hand it to the guy in a couple of ways.

He mech conned 4 months of MWO questions that basically he now doesn't have to answer. Round tables shmound tables.

Moreover, he obviously learned from that old youtube video being burned into people's minds. So, this time, his presentation lasts about 8 minutes and all you get to see is him duel a Raven. Can't nobody say anything bad about that (other than he clearly don't give two flops about timeline and lore). That's a marked improvement.

Now, the flipside is that you've just been signed up for many more years dealing with Dr Caligari and his Cabinet. The people crapping themselves about how awesome this is may have had a little too much of the punch.

[Mawai]

PGI needs more products to survive as a company. It can't subsist on MWO alone.

PGI could choose to develop a new game (e.g. Transverse debacle) ... but that didn't work out.

Or they could choose to make additional development in the same IP they are already using.

In all cases, company revenue from existing products is used to fund future development. This is normal and expected. In my opinion, MWO itself isn't perfect but it isn't bad ... it needs more and better meta game elements to keep folks playing. Skill tree, revamped FW v4.x, better competitions and leader board supports will help and appeal to various factions in the community. However, MWO development will continue at the same time as MW5 ... I would not expect any change in the pace of development however, since no matter how you look at it, PGI is a small development shop.

This provides for a lot of possible synergies depending on how well the assets can be reused (e.g. look at HBS using PGI mech geometry for their Battletech game). There is also the possibility that MWO could get a new engine drop out of the MW5 development (which is part of where I think the motivation for MW5 comes from ... if you are going to consider an engine drop for MWO then being able to monetize the work as part of a single player campaign could make a lot of sense if maps and geometry can be re-used.

Creating MW5 actually appeals to other players since PVE is a much different experience from PVP. However, if they want MW5 to attract players to the MW franchise and funnel into MWO then the games will need to be graphically comparable experiences ... which means that eventually MWO will have to use the same engine as MW5. Folks who get pulled in playing MW5 won't transition to playing a graphically inferior MWO. On the other hand, if they earn a couple of mechs in MW5 that they can keep and then transition them into MWO .. there is a lot of room for synergies between communities ... but only if PGI does it right the first time.

However, my biggest concern is that the amount of story design required to create a good story driven single player PVE campaign experience is immense. Just look at all the other MW titles ... they were stories linked by player choices determining which key battles to fight and their outcomes leading to having an impact on the flow of the story. They aren't just a framework for randomly generated AI PVE experiences that have no more meaning than earning a few more cbills for your mercenary company or beating the AI on hard. PGI has no known experience in that type of game design. (HBS does ... but I don't know whether PGI can draw on that expertise or at least advice or feedback from them). Anyway, I have my fingers crossed that PGI can produce the kind of PVE game that most folks want to see.

[Lucian Nostra]

I think it's great that PGI's next game is another Mechwarrior title, it allows assets designed by both teams to be used to improve both games.

PGI has been looking to expand, transverse itself was a bit of a mess announced to shortly after the PGI IGP "split" and was kinda.. yeah poorly handled but this shows some promise for BOTH titles.

[GrimRiver]

As long as the funds are being used on some sort of game development then I'm good.

I just hope MW5:M pans out because we need more updated MW games.

I'm a little worried about the future of MWO, will it get ignored for the favor of MW5:M?

[Maker L106]

Mawai, on 04 December 2016 - 11:32 AM, said:

Important stuff. read above.

If that's how they're approaching it I'd be glad to see the engine swap if done for MWO or even combining the two games into one via MW5:M SP and MWO being its MP model with similar mech possibilities. Though hope at this point is replaces by cautious wait and see attitudes.

[Konrad]

Voted. And will gladly pay for this game.

Edited by Konrad, 04 December 2016 - 11:55 AM.

[Zordicron]

"shrugs shoulders"

Don;t care, so long as they actually make a finished product for "launch". Not a 10 mission campaign followed by microtransaction missions for 10 bucks each. No effing way will I spend 65 dollars(64.99, you know they will do this) and then another 9.99 every 3 months for 3 years to get an actual full fledged title because they are too little to make an actual game.

if they can make an actual fleshed out game, I will gladly buy it. Captain Marine Sharpshooter doesn't have much history/background to give me a lot of faith in this endeavor however.

[MechaBattler]

I don't have personal experience in this. But I've read that it's a good idea for companies to have two projects and two teams. Because they can swap people around to work on either. It makes for more flexible development.