153 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

I am surprised some people here are celebrating when I myself smell another minimally viable product, especially given PGI's development history.

This is going to be so popcorn-worthy fun.

Hunka Junk, on 04 December 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

It explains why 2016 MWO development has been half-baked.

You're being extremely generous.

[Kael Posavatz]

If they are spending MWO funds on something other than MWO, that is not only unethical, but illegal.

On the other hand, PGI is a for-profit company and there is nothing illegal, unethical, dishonest, misleading, or otherwise underhanded about taking their profits and plowing them into a different business venture. This is, in fact, how most businesses put products on the shelves.

Frankly, I welcome MW5. Not only will multiple revenue streams make it less likely PGI will close its doors, but it means that certain expenses such as power, water, the lease, internet hookup, business admin and the like will pull from multiple sources which will actually free up MWO funds for more MWO.

Since IP contract renewal/extension happens in mid-2018 this is potentially something they can use to make that extension more attractive, but that's another argument entirely.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 04 December 2016 - 08:44 AM.

[FupDup]

Well, I guess that explains why MWO hasn't gotten much development other than mech packs...

Still doesn't make the current situation feel any better.

[Mystere]

Now it's on Microsoft to put the kibosh on both projects.

[grendeldog]

All I can say is that as somebody who came in right after IGP stopped being involved - when player sentiment was at what I would call it's all-time low - I have enjoyed the heck out of this game and paid for that enjoyment.

I wish faction play was a living thing. I wish we were getting more content, as this means MWO development aside from mech packs is going to slowly wind down. But I've also spent stupid amounts of money subsidizing this game and don't regret it at all.

It was always 100% a sure thing that with no private client - no peer to peer or private servers - the servers would eventually turn off. So you're paying for digital ephemera. I prefer to think of it as paying for the fun I've had playing what's by far my favorite videogame since Warcraft 3, and Brood War before that as far as the amount of time sink and the amount of enjoyment derived.

So if you buy mech packs you MUST know that you're paying for the fun of playing until the servers come down because that is 100% an expected event in the future. You have to be cogent of that from the outset!

If PGI wants to put their profits towards a single-player game in a better, more modern engine, I say that's what people have been asking for for a long time.

They could have chosen to put it towards some other IP of their own derivation instead! Think how much salt would be spilled if that were the case...

I do not speak to founders here; that was before my time. But coming into the community when I did, my experience has been that I enjoy the hell out of this game. What is done with my money is up to the person I hand it to.

Edited by grendeldog, 04 December 2016 - 08:48 AM.

[nehebkau]

I approve!

Why? Unlike most of the nearsighted people I recognize that this is a good business path. PGI gets to leverage it's MWO art, design and knowledge to build a first player game with a new engine -- that makes developing MW5 easier and quicker. A single player title will bring revenue to PGI which they sorely need. After MW5 is developed PGI will have staff with extensive unreal experience who can then be leveraged to make MWO 2 (perhaps a persistent universe which has way more long-term revenue potential than the current MWO design). Included in MW5 could be a redemption code for some MWO mechpack or something similar.

It's the first smart business decision PGI has made in a long time. If you look at the long-game and not the short-game this is great news.

Edited by nehebkau, 04 December 2016 - 08:50 AM.

[JaxRiot]

Im on the fence about it.

Personally, I have only spent about 100 bucks on the game and havnt spent any money on it in over a year. I feel like I got my moneys worth and so dont feel jaded.

On the other hand, I feel for those that have spent thousands on this game.

With the near glacial rate of progress that MWO has had for years, I cant help but feel that PGI hasnt been investing nearly as much back into MWO as their players have been.

I dont know how much MWO money and resources have been funneled over to MW5 (if any), but I cant help but think that a bare minimum was invested back into MWO.

Which in my mind doesnt seem fair to the people who have been funding MWO hoping for a better game, but instead might have been funding something else entirely that they didnt even know they were funding at the expense and quality of the game that they thought they were funding.

It just doesnt seem right to me

Edited by JaxRiot, 04 December 2016 - 08:57 AM.

[Kael Posavatz]

FupDup, on 04 December 2016 - 08:44 AM, said:

Well, I guess that explains why MWO hasn't gotten much development other than mech packs...

Eh, I think it's gotten more development than some give credit.

The FW4.1 is a lot more involved than what was pitched at the round-table. In some ways that's good, I mean, they managed to address bukkits, the segmented system, integrate QP maps, and address the Long Tom. In others--namely that the Round-Tables were supposed to be quick-turnaround and simple to implement--that's perhaps not-so-good. And they are at least at the planning stages of restructuring reward trees among other things.

Two new game modes, one done, the next should be available for play-testing next month (Let's be serious here, the new Assault has precious little in common with what we currently have).

Skill trees? That's going to be huge. And a pain. Russ specifically said a full refund for XP/GXP and C-bills for modules. That isn't as easy as looking at what modules each person has in inventory and forking over the sale price. People have sold modules, and the difference is going to need to be determined and made up.

And then there is stuff that wasn't mentioned. Solaris-themed Mech, Solaris-themed Map, it makes me wonder if someone has decided to go ahead with the engine-upgrade that was previously said was necessary to actually implement Solaris, or if they have found a path that may lead to implementation without an upgrade. Since the Fire Moth is another thing they have previously said will require an engine upgrade, we may have another data-point next month as January's mech is supposed to be a Light, and we've now had to IS mechs in a row.

And they managed that while also doing the Energy Draw concept and testing.

Mechs and Maps are the work of artists. All of the rest of this? That's a different kind of art altogether.

On the whole I think we are getting a lot more out of this than we did last year after InfoWar feel through.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 04 December 2016 - 09:01 AM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Jun Watarase, on 04 December 2016 - 12:57 AM, said:

All you have to do is look at the updates for 2016 to know that MWO isn't getting sufficient development time/money.

I think this is my problem with it. I have probably $1000 invested in MWO over the course of the game from the initial purchase of my founders pack until know and it really kind of irks me that the reason this game has not really seen any progress is because PGI pretty much abandoned it to work on another project. I mean yes it is MW5 and looks like it might be a great game but I am heavily invested in MWO and want MWO to be good as well.

Sure I understand that profits are going to be used for new game development, I am not that naive, but it really shouldn't have been done at the expense of MWO. They should have made sure to have a large enough development team and budget for MWO that is wasn't completely neglected.

[Lightfoot]

Mystere, on 04 December 2016 - 08:45 AM, said:

Now it's on Microsoft to put the kibosh on both projects.

Microsoft just buried MechWarrior for ten years and didn't blink an eye. Any other owner of MechWarrior would have made 5 to 10 games in that time. M$ will just bury MW again because they still can't figure out how to make it work, they just own it.

[MauttyKoray]

Viktor Drake, on 04 December 2016 - 09:07 AM, said:

I think this is my problem with it. I have probably $1000 invested in MWO over the course of the game from the initial purchase of my founders pack until know and it really kind of irks me that the reason this game has not really seen any progress is because PGI pretty much abandoned it to work on another project. I mean yes it is MW5 and looks like it might be a great game but I am heavily invested in MWO and want MWO to be good as well.

Sure I understand that profits are going to be used for new game development, I am not that naive, but it really shouldn't have been done at the expense of MWO. They should have made sure to have a large enough development team and budget for MWO that is wasn't completely neglected.

Hunka Junk, on 04 December 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

It's better than some random other thing.

It explains why 2016 MWO development has been half-baked.

And, the MW5 announcement is essentially announcing the end of MWO development. Sure, it' "still very important". That means we still get to do more product testing and mech buying. What you see, though, is absolutely what you get.

This is the game.

Sig updated.

Its an entire separate team...if you'd read or listened to the stream you'd know. Even PC Gamer does their research before making assumptions:

"what we do know is that MechWarrior 5 is a completely standalone singleplayer game being developed by Piranha Games using a separate team than the one currently supporting Mechwarrior Online"

http://www.pcgamer.c...uffer_pcgamerfb

"Set for release in 2018, MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries is under development by a dedicated development team at Piranha Games. Piranha's existing F2P multiplayer-focused tactical 'Mech combat game, will continue its ongoing live development by the MWO team at Piranha."

source: http://http://www.mw5mercs.com/

Edited by MauttyKoray, 04 December 2016 - 09:27 AM.

[Tombstoner]

kilgor, on 04 December 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

Didn't most of the MWO community want a single player experience any way and stated that, so this is another way of addressing the community want. While I was too late to sign up as a founder, I've been with the game since I could do open beta and it's had its growing pains. I still hate how Faction Warfare was gutted like it was and hoped there would be some improvements other than a lazy make it IS vs Clan, but I hope the Unreal 4 engine will make for more possibilities with MWO.

Yes but the interaction between magically precise linked fire and perfect AI targeting skill is problematic. Keeping things like MWO turns the game into a RNG win generator. With current game mechanics an AI can head shot your mech 100% of the time at full speed at max range as long as it has LOS . A single player experience will have to take this into account. The only way to have meaningful "skill" based targeting is with a dynamic circle error probable( CEP - AKA - cone of fire) that scales based on choices made by both player and AI. I don't want my game play scaled artificial by a %150 damage/armor buff so i can face and take down 1,000 tons of opposition that has a flat 25 % chance to hit my Jenner standing still. People in MWO opposed any sort of "realistic" ish targeting. I presume because people don't like how world of tanks implemented the CEP. yes that incarnation of CEP was heavy handed. The game designers learned from that mistake and have that mechanic present but well hidden in world of warships.

As someone who has been here since 2011 this experience has been a cluster KCUF. PGI is in no way obligated to listen to or involve its players in any way... But some of its choices are highly suspect and demonstrate a complete lack of design foresight. i expect more of the same for MW5.

Is it ok to divert resource from MWO into MW5.... absolutely. Its a must for the long term viability of any company. Game/product development has multiple stages. As one stage transitions into the other it frees up resources not needed in the next stage. Art work is a good example. The game needs a minimum number of mechs at launch. this is resource heavy. once that game is launched it becomes one mech a month freeing up art resources that cant be used for code or server maintenance. Some times people get sick of working on the same thing and get rotated in and out. Job development is also a concern the player base may not consider.

That was one of the few times i will defend PGI, because of the realities of running a business. However don't LIE to me. telling me your working on something(clan warfare) when in reality your working on transverse because your in contract negotiations with Microsoft for the second half of the IP agreement. Also don't insult your player base.

TL;DR

PGIs paradigm for developing MWO - minimally viable. I expect more of the same for MW5. As such i will be playing the Battle tech kick starter.

[Lightfoot]

I just see both games as two sides of the same coin, what benefits one will benefit the other and in the end result in MWO being a much richer experience than it would have been alone. Especially if PGI were to invest those profits into an unrelated game.

[Cato Phoenix]

What, were some of you expecting to play this for the next 20 years?

I'm excited for another mechwarrior title - MW5, period. Getting angry at PGI for making something new would be like getting angry at EA for making new games.

I'm actually excited that there might be a -possibility- that MWO could get ported and a new license on life so we can all keep shooting each other, maybe with better graphics and gameplay in the future.

For now, I'm happy with MWO, but it will age out. A transition plan is better than the game dying a slow ignoble death.

[Lightfoot]

MauttyKoray, on 04 December 2016 - 09:12 AM, said:

Its an entire separate team...if you'd read or listened to the stream you'd know. Even PC Gamer does their research before making assumptions:

"what we do know is that MechWarrior 5 is a completely standalone singleplayer game being developed by Piranha Games using a separate team than the one currently supporting Mechwarrior Online"

http://www.pcgamer.c...uffer_pcgamerfb

No they will be using the same game assets. Didn't you watch the video? Obviously the two games will have their own dev teams, they have too to get anything done. But if you are telling me that the assets developed for MW5: Mercs won't be migrated to MWO's systems, such as a PvE mission scripting system and AI's, you are mistaken. MW5 Mercs means MWO is going to inherit PvE RP to support FW a lot sooner than any of us expected. Without MW5 it might never have happened. With MW5 the AI systems are half built.

[MauttyKoray]

Lightfoot, on 04 December 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

No they will be using the same game assets. Didn't you watch the video? Obviously the two games will have their own dev teams, they have too to get anything done. But if you are telling me that the assets developed for MW5: Mercs won't be migrated to MWO's systems, such as a PvE mission scripting system and AI's, you are mistaken. MW5 Mercs means MWO is going to inherit PvE RP to support FW a lot sooner than any of us expected. Without MW5 it might never have happened. With MW5 the AI systems are half built.

You're right, they will have MORE ASSETS to use at their disposal being created by 2 separate teams. Meaning the development of MW5 will not HARM the development of MWO. People are complaining about MWO development slowing/stopping because of MW5.

This would in fact speed up the process of both games as existing assets are available from MWO (probably with some work to make them look shinier) for use in MW5 including mechs, as well as MW5 development with bring forth new assets, mechs, and coding that can in turn be used to expand the development of MWO.

Granted this is assuming the coding is translatable between the two games. Art assets are one thing and could be used with modifications, touch ups, or minor reworks, but coding doesn't tend to be 'plug and play'.

[Mal]

There is no "MWO Money" there is PGI Money..and they can do what they want with it.

Using funds from project A to finance project B, is how all game studios work..

[Mad Strike]

I'm ok with it , every company has the basic right of doing whatever they want with their money - period.

Plus i was really looking forward for another MW game paralel to MWO.

[MauttyKoray]

Another little quote, straight from the horse's mouth. MW5 will not hamper the development of MWO.

"Set for release in 2018, MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries is under development by a dedicated development team at Piranha Games. Piranha's existing F2P multiplayer-focused tactical 'Mech combat game, will continue its ongoing live development by the MWO team at Piranha."
source: http://http://www.mw5mercs.com/

Edited by MauttyKoray, 04 December 2016 - 09:47 AM.

[PeonWarrior]

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.