113 replies to this topic

[TWIAFU]

UnleashThePwniez, on 04 December 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

You're right, you don't. You seem to give no thought of the 6 year gap. It would be different if they overhauled MWO to fit the current generation of gaming, but it's hard to see PGI doing that with their past record. This is the passive aggressive and ignorant **** I'm talking about. It's sad to see that people can't even fathom what I'm saying.

WTF does a 6 year gap have to do with anything? Not like they said that we would get SP 6 years ago.

You have to wait another 2+ years for your SP BS campaign.

People cant fathom what your saying because what your saying only make sense to you and that is not anyone fault but yours.

How long have we been waiting for any SP campaign? When was the last one?

[Alex Morgaine]

TBH whether multi is in MW5 later or not, I dont think customization will. at least not at first. 3015 =/= advanced tech, and I wouldn't be surprised if they left modification options out to keep the feel of each mech more. even with customization it'll still be limited. though i do have a setup to the phract 4x that could work without lv2 tech...

[Shiroi Tsuki]

Because from a business perspective, they would be literally losing money if they do so.

As already mentioned; MWO's F2P system generates them money in the long run.
MW5 will only generate money in the short term as it is a single purchase. Unless of course, they take the greedy route and fill a singleplayer game with microtransaction shortcuts. (I hope they don't)

They also have families to feed too you know.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Bombast, on 04 December 2016 - 09:47 AM, said:

If you can play MW5:Merc Multiplayer for a one time fee, then many will do so rather then play (And pay) MWO.

There. Now you understand.

Pretty much this exactly.

If PGI included Multiplayer in MW5, it would pull players from MWO... keeping Mechwarrior 5 as a single player experience helps keep the buckets full for that.

What I WOULD like to see though, is some kind of frontend from MW5 that interfaces with MWO to allow for 3025 era CW.

THAT, I'd be ok with.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I think of it as less of PGI leaving multiplayer out of MW5, and more of PGI finally adding single player to MWO by way of MW5. It just so happens the single player is a standalone expansion

[C E Dwyer]

Looking at some of the things said about this stand alone the one that caught my eye was the time line is supposed to run from

3015 up to 3049 and the thing isn't going to release until 2018 effectively two years away.

It strikes me that P.G.I will be concentrating on mechs of that time line in this game to re use the mech assets, in a couple of years time

Also that unless the game has stupidly fast time acceleration between missions, it could take months to complete.

So what with this, and H.B.S's offering has P.G.I recognised that 2018 is the time when this game goes into serious decline population wise, as who will there be left to actually play M.W.O

[Johnny Z]

Cathy, on 05 December 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

Looking at some of the things said about this stand alone the one that caught my eye was the time line is supposed to run from

3015 up to 3049 and the thing isn't going to release until 2018 effectively two years away.

It strikes me that P.G.I will be concentrating on mechs of that time line in this game to re use the mech assets, in a couple of years time

Also that unless the game has stupidly fast time acceleration between missions, it could take months to complete.

So what with this, and H.B.S's offering has P.G.I recognised that 2018 is the time when this game goes into serious decline population wise, as who will there be left to actually play M.W.O

I can answer that. It depends how good MechWarrior online is by then. They got other competition to worry about to.

[naterist]

hold your horses op. let them make good on this promise before reaching out for more. 2018 is a 2 year time window. if they use exclusively for the use of making mw5 greast, itll directly benefit mwo in hundreds of ways. and whether its stated or not, mwo is obviously the multiplayer counterpart for mw5. in fact i think someone from pgi refered to them as 2 parts of a whole.

[Johnny Z]

MeiSooHaityu, on 05 December 2016 - 11:31 AM, said:

I think of it as less of PGI leaving multiplayer out of MW5, and more of PGI finally adding single player to MWO by way of MW5. It just so happens the single player is a standalone expansion

First PVE other than turrets and dropships is coming to this game, this month. The NPC Atlas in VIP mode if I understand properly.

[Bombast]

Johnny Z, on 05 December 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

First PVE other than turrets and dropships is coming to this game, this month. The NPC Atlas in VIP mode if I understand properly.

'PvE' is a rather grandiose term for what amounts to a bipedal cart.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Johnny Z, on 05 December 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

First PVE other than turrets and dropships is coming to this game, this month. The NPC Atlas in VIP mode if I understand properly.

I don't think that makes a multiplayer title a single player title. The original Titanfall was considered a multiplayer game only and it had NPCs (essentially Bots) running around shooting at players and being targets of opportunity. Regardless of that, it was still a multiplayer only game. I consider the Escort mission and computer controlled dropships/turrets the same thing. It is just additional BOT like NPCs in a multiplayer game.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 05 December 2016 - 12:04 PM.

[General Taskeen]

Bombast, on 04 December 2016 - 09:47 AM, said:

If you can play MW5:Merc Multiplayer for a one time fee, then many will do so rather then play (And pay) MWO.

There. Now you understand.

The irony of this post is great.

Why wouldn't you remaining PGI fans encourage the developers to dig their way out of f2p irrelevancy and develop an actual bonus MP component for an actual MW game? The Unreal engine easily supports dedicated server software that the players themselves can organize and run.

So then those that have been stuck pulling slot machines can experience actual MW multiplayer without a f2p gimmick. Hell they would own the software. I don't see how its bad if MWO goes the way of the dodo and encourage to get gud and Make MW Great Again.

[Metus regem]

BattleBunny, on 04 December 2016 - 09:51 AM, said:

thats a silly reason not to implement multiplayer.

If they create a campaign, the least they could do is make sure you can play it cooperatively with friends.
If it doesnt have coop, its just MW4 with better graphics.

I'll pass.

Considering the time frame the game (MW5) is looking to take place in, with hinted at DLC, I'd say more like MW2;Mercs with better graphics. So good on them for picking the best MW game to date to try and mimic.

[Victor Morson]

It's because they do not want to lose total control on the servers and have to deal with more fair pricing due to competing mods.

It's also why the community will never be able to mod this game to fix it's many flaws. People who actually care about the franchise could easily fix any of PGI's mistakes in a month, easy.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

General Taskeen, on 05 December 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

The irony of this post is great.

Why wouldn't you remaining PGI fans encourage the developers to dig their way out of f2p irrelevancy and develop an actual bonus MP component for an actual MW game? The Unreal engine easily supports dedicated server software that the players themselves can organize and run.

So then those that have been stuck pulling slot machines can experience actual MW multiplayer without a f2p gimmick. Hell they would own the software. I don't see how its bad if MWO goes the way of the dodo and encourage to get gud and Make MW Great Again.

Right, but this is PGI's cash cow, they're not going to make a game, that will directly compete with the game that's getting them a constant influx of cash. That would be business suicide.

[Victor Morson]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 05 December 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

Right, but this is PGI's cash cow, they're not going to make a game, that will directly compete with the game that's getting them a constant influx of cash. That would be business suicide.

Except, you know, if they were looking to build a successor to said game and maybe even move to what has proven to be an ultimately more profitable business model?

Instead of a pseudo-cash grab?

Edited by Victor Morson, 05 December 2016 - 01:22 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Victor Morson, on 05 December 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

It's because they do not want to lose total control on the servers and have to deal with more fair pricing due to competing mods.

It's also why the community will never be able to mod this game to fix it's many flaws. People who actually care about the franchise could easily fix any of PGI's mistakes in a month, easy.

actually it's because they don't want to loose the money stream that is MWO, if they release a full, pay for once game that includes multiplayer, set in the same universe as MWO... then players will flock to the game you only have to pay once for.

Why, on god's green earth, would they shoot themselves in the foot like that when MWO makes them more money than MW5 ever will?


I get the idea behind wanting a good, true Mechwarrior game with all the fixin's... but from a business perspective... doing that with MW5, would destroy MWO, and MWO is where they make the most money. It's just better business sense to release a 1 time 3015/3049 era single player game to appease those of us who were clamoring for exactly that with the old Mechwarrior 3015 trailer that ended up becoming MWO.

Really, when you get right down to it, this is Mechwarrior coming full circle, and we're getting the product we were initially pitched... hell that original trailer was even done in Unreal back in 2012.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Victor Morson, on 05 December 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

Except, you know, if they were looking to build a successor to said game and maybe even move to what has proven to be an ultimately more profitable business model?

Instead of a pseudo-cash grab?

the F2P model, is a more profitable business model than the premium game pay once + DLC market.

There's a reason there's millions of F2P games that are still out there, charging micro transactions, and making bank... and why company's are flocking to that business model. Because it's more profitable.

I get your reasoning for wanting a buy it once game, but financially for PGI, it's not worth their time to do just that game... not when MWO brings in a steady stream of cash due to microtransactions. Yes, I'm tired of the F2P milk your wallet mentality of games these days too, but it is the reality of the industry, and will be for the forseeable future. You cannot blame PGI for following the flow of the cash.

[Novakaine]

Seriously what game of this type would be released without a multiplayer component.
That would be financial suicide on PGI's part.
Why did PGI did not say anything about it?
Well it's PGI.
Remember games in general have finite shelf life before hitting the bargain bin.
Then vanishing into game limbo.
But DLC's will live a long time.

[stillnight]

Honestly many of you are very selfish. People have been clamoring for a new Mechwarrior SinglePlayer game and you want Multiplayer and Microtransactions?!

Get the **** outta here.

I'd rather them concentrate on making a fantastic SinglePlayer experience rather than a tacked on Multiplayer and Micro-Transactions. It's simple, you have MW:O for PvP and there's MW5:Mercs for Singleplayer everyone wins.

So please, don't be that guy.