146 replies to this topic

[LordNothing]

f2p was a clever idea for how to fund games you wouldn't have been able to fund otherwise. but its been abused so much i dont think it will be more than a temporary fad as it gains a bad rep. you know what we need? another video game crash. if anything to shake the money grubbers out of the works and get them on the next big legal scam, so that all that are left are those interested in making good games. f2p is a bubble waiting to pop, so it makes sense that pgi wants to get away from it.

[ice trey]

Many of us have only put money into this game because between this and MWLL, multiplayer was the only option, and not the single player game that we actually wanted.

You might have noticed there's not an awful lot of MechWarrior single player titles, lately.

My last two mech packs were bought not because I wanted to play them in this, but because I wanted to encourage PGI to make more 3025 mechs so there'd be more for HBS/MW5 to use.

You'll see no crocodile tears from me over this news, but from PGI's track record, the grain of salt I'm taking with my anticipation after the MW5 announcement is rather hefty.

Edited by ice trey, 17 February 2017 - 04:20 AM.

[The Lighthouse]

Widowmaker1981, on 17 February 2017 - 03:17 AM, said:

i work for a company that designs, builds and sells scientific equipment. Our customers pay us money for our items and we supply the items to them. The money they pay us with is used to pay our salaries and some is invested into designing new products (well, paying R&D folks salaries)

Do our customers have a right to complain that the money they spent on our products is not being used to improve their specific product? No, they do not. They paid us for the items they received.

Thats the same thing here. You paid PGI for items (mechs, etc) that you received. You knew what you were getting and you got it. From that point on, they can spend their money on exactly whatever they like, because its now their money.

No, this is not a correct comparison. At best you are utterly confused.


Your company is selling a finished 'product.' After warranty period is over (if it exists for the products you are selling) you are pretty much done.

PGI, as a free-to-play platform company, is selling us 'service.' This is continuation. We are basically continuously paying for something continuously provided to us.

By strict legal means, none of the stuffs we 'buy' in this free-to-play 'service' is actually owned by us. It is like long-term rental. We never own these mechs and cosmetic stuffs. We pay for the 'service' that PGI is continuously providing, which allows us to access to assets, and borrow those assets with un-specified time.

Yes, we DO have entitlement to complain that the money spent.

For example, say you paid an event planner company to organize your birthday party. Instead, you heard that the company spent most of the money to have a party for themselves, resulting in your birthday party became a lot less impressive. How are you going to respond this? Same situation for PGI making MW5 as well.

WELL.... there are SOME differences, actually. Because normally we can usually file class action lawsuit when such embezzlement happens, but we can't do same things for MWO case since we have zero law protections due to... lack of any formal laws regarding free-to-play videogame services.

You see, the reasons why companies are being attracted to f2p is that it makes a lot of money..... by simply being as a gigantic law loophole. If you ask me, these whole f2p businesses should had been regulated by gambling laws, and there should have been strict regulations regarding how companies can spend the money, and the customer's right to know their terms and limited privileges provided by the services from the companies.


But with Republicans took the.... meh, even if Democrats won the election, this would not change... forget about my whining about politics.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 17 February 2017 - 05:03 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 February 2017 - 08:16 PM, said:

and as Trump proves.... it's ok to to lie or say nothing at all, as long as you communicate with the masses enough!

Also.... 6 years... 200+ million dollars later....still no game. No matter how you want to doll it up.

Bishop Steiner, on 16 February 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

Not even trying to defend PGI here. Just love the desperate degree those that SC bilked go to defend the great, sainted Chris Roberts. Again, paint it as you will, for the money brought in, there should be a HELL of a lot more, and better, than what you got. Is PGI and MWO bad? Yep. So is SC....for like 10x the budget.

Bishop Steiner, on 16 February 2017 - 09:45 PM, said:

Money does hire devs, though, and devs with experience who should be able to put out stuff that doesn't need to be repolished 100x. But keep defending Chris Roberts, we know he can do no wrong.

Bishop Steiner, on 16 February 2017 - 10:43 PM, said:

at what point did I outright lie? Please, highlight it? And correct me if I am wrong, but I do recall SC offering 15000 dollar packages (and many other ridiculously expensive options. 4+ years later, no viable product. Yes, great return on investment for those cats.

And why should that bother you guys if someone does? Selective omission is the same as lying, which is what 90% of the PGI haters do. I don't see you up in arms about that. So spare me your crusade for truth, justice and the American way,at the very least.

What's this?
Four posts, four lies?

Or just some alternative facts?

There is a game, which gets regular updates. This is the alpha.
You don't have to like it, but it exists. Two games, actually., the Sapce shooter and the Shooter shooter.

When have I mentioned CR? I've mentioned the game, but jot the man. I've also specifically stated things aren't perfect, and sone things need significant work, yet according to you I'm grovelling at his feet?
Alternative Facts

5 years is a typical development cycle, with many games exceeding that. 6, with few things remaining from the first years, is not unrealistic in terms of development.

[lazytopaz]

Dear OP,

Try to look at it from a more positive side of things. I know I'm usually ranting on PGI. But hope dies last you know.

Imagine they are developing MW5 let's even say as a Single-player only game at the start. But with open gate for modding and/or multiplayer. Which would totally depend on popularity and size of community (i.e. not shrinking to oblivion).
Current team (that has proven that is unable to do simple things in CryEngine) may have a go at learning UE4 and what would follow is a MWO2. Either as a standalone or as an expansion to MW5. Imagine the possibilities.

Food for thought.

And yes I also felt betrayed after the reveal of MW5. A little bit. Probably not only me.
Not the kind of two handed warhammer of doom+5 back stabbing way. But still a small swiss knife to the kidney type.

[Lances107]

I said it before, and ill say it again be thankful that PGI even picked up Mechwarrior. No one else wanted a piece of this. Now you ask why? If they use the same control scheme, and the same load out scheme in MW5 it will actually help out this game. Instead of having to learn about the game in live pvp action, they can play MW5 to learn all the ins and outs of the game before hand. Also I get the feeling that if they use the same control scheme/load out scheme, that they may send us a few updates over here from MW5 mainly in the area of graphics. In the long run they may end up tying the games together. The one statement that caught my ear was that both teams are "working closely together" If MW5 was its own manifestation then they would not be making statements like that. Oh and did someone actually say they trust Microsoft?

[Green Mamba]

There are are quite a few people including myself who want a SP campaign game like the old MW titles but don't want PGI to be the ones to develop it as Angry Joe would say " You done Fu**** it up" .It will ruin the IP more than it than it already has been

[Steinar Bergstol]

Shadowomega1, on 17 February 2017 - 03:16 AM, said:

Way back in 2008 someone asked an IP manager at Microsoft why they haven't done anything with the Mechwarrior/Battletech license; He responded by saying "We own that IP?" They pretty much forgot they even owned it.

That's actually sort of worrying. Makes you wonder how many other IPs they've simply accidentally "misplaced" which otherwise could have had a healthy franchise life.

[Arctourus]

OP, I love this game, I really do. Only game I've ever played for four years straight and continue to look forward to. Given that, there have been lots of issues with MWO, many of which never seem to get changed. People gripe and complain, but never seem to see the results. Part of that may be because the problems run too deeply, and that fixing one problem may create another.

We are all used to constant tweaking, be it nerfs/buffs to a mech, weapon or other mechanic of the game. Typically they are small, but sometimes more dramatic. If, through years of effort, they have decided that the entire groundwork needs to be changed, whether through simple game mechanics or something as fundamental as a different graphics engine entirely, then making that move would, in essence, create an entirely new game.

So I get it. It's one thing to run a patch and get a ppc with a slightly slower velocity, but another thing altogether to run a patch and have an entirely different game load up. So instead of doing a major overhaul that may just frustrate and confuse players, they will simply start afresh and make a new one. And really, if they did all of the stuff necessary to MWO to fix these little issues, you'd end up with a new game. So just think if MW5 as simply a major, major patch. Lots of fixes, completely new look and mechanic.

Or at least we can hope.

[Alistair Winter]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 February 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

True. But let's put some perspective to that.... after 2013.... when PGI decided (in their usual tone deaf manner) to launch that.... it could have been a video of Kittens and Puppies or the best Sex Tape ever filmed.... and still would have garnered 10-1 negative reviews.
Was Transverse a bad idea (probably), released at a really bad time (definitely), further showing how disconnected Russ, Paul and Bryan were (resoundingly)? Yes. Was it quite the "worst idea ever" that the emotions of the time, and the Reddit Butthurt Remnant (many of whom are still convinced that in just a little while longer, and Star Citizen will be the BEST! GAME! EVER!!!!!) try to claim? No, not really.

Alright, let's do this point by point.

• Although many people were upset with PGI after 2013, it still doesn't explain the extreme disparity. After Bryan Ekman's CW presentation, there was still a lot of optimism that PGI would ultimately deliver the things they had talked about previously.
  
• It wasn't just a bad time on account of MWO fans having hurt feelings, it was spectacularly bad timing on every account. Not only had Star Citizen blown the doors off crowd funding, but there were already several other space sims jumping on the band wagon and PGI showed up at the party far too late.
  
• Not only did PGI show up far too late, they also made the absolutely worst looking space sim I have ever seen, relative to their competition and budget (i.e. it wasn't an indie game made by a single person). The game looked 5 years old in the trailer, and it wasn't even out yet. By comparison, Star Conflict looks ten times better, and Star Conflict was out in 2012. Elite Dangerous had a kickstarter campaign in late 2012, also looked better than Transverse. They're not even in the same ballpark.
  
• I will grant you that it wasn't the worst idea ever. However, it was definitely on my top 10 list of obviously doomed crowdfunded games. I can't name too many games that I knew would flop with the same certainty as Transverse.
  
• I am sure that Star Citizen will be the best game ever to some of the people who want it to be the best game ever. How can you tell them otherwise? If you want a game where you can land a space ship on different worlds in the galaxy and walk around with basically total freedom, there aren't really a lot of games like that. There's not a lot of competition. No Man's Sky wasn't exactly a smashing success, from what I've read.
  
• People discuss "best ever" as if it were an objective qualification. I don't even know what I consider to be the best game ever. How do you compare a space sim with a comedy adventure game? It's a pointless argument. For me, MWO is one of the best games ever, even with all its critical flaws. Each person has his own criteria for judging. I'm sure most FPS players would rank Doom 2 as a much better game than MWO, mostly by virtue of its impact on video game industry. But I never played Doom 2 5-7 days per week for a whole year, let alone several years. I got bored with Doom 2 pretty much the instant I had finished all the campaigns, if not before.

As for the amusing discussion about whether Star Citizen is even a game, that is perhaps the most salient example of how biased certain gamers are. It's funny when video gamers talk about the best games of all time, games like Tetris, Pac Man, Snake, the original Sim City, Stunt Car racer from 1989, Worms, Flight Simulator 4.0... oh sure, those were all games. Of course they were games. But Star Citizen, which has more features by a factor of more than a thousand than some of those classic games... oh no, that's not a game. Definitely not a game. Because CR promised something more, you see. That's why Arena Commander and Star Marine are not games, but Street Fighter 2 is one of the best games at all time. Because Capcom didn't promise more features. The status of 'game' depends on how many features were promised vs delivered.

Which, incidentally, is why MWO is not really a game either.

Give. Me. A. Break.

[CygnusX7]

What a close minded and obtuse statement.

[Metus regem]

Mystere, on 16 February 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

That's not the fault of CryEngine. That's the fault of shoddy code factoring, poor change management, terrible QA, and questionable release management.

Which all leads back to my original post, about PGI finding out that CryEngine was not the right engine for them to work with, either because it is too hard, or it is too butchered.

AnimeFreak40K, on 16 February 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

Yes it does. PGI got CryEngine because they couldn't afford anything else. In this sort of industry, you go with what you can afford, not what you want.

I'm sure, given the option (and sufficient funding), PGI would have used a far superior and efficient engine (or even made their own!) along with top-shelf coders and UI designers.

Sure, they spent a lot of time mucking about in CryEngine working and reworking things and breaking others... but what choice did they have other than go with what they could afford and then *force* that square peg into the round hole?

To be clear, I'm not really defending PGI here, I'm presenting reality (on a side note, the game, as a whole is 'good enough' for me in most cases, so I really don't care have much of a dog in this fight anyway).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they should've made a different choice, hind sight is 20/20, what I am saying is now that they have learned (hopefully) from their past, they can make better choices in the future. I am also saying that now that they are turning a profit with MWO, other engine options are now a reality. I do not begrudge them for going with the cheapest option, I begrudge their inability to make XML tweaks that would fix some simple issues in a reasonable time frame.

[Metus regem]

Shadowomega1, on 17 February 2017 - 03:16 AM, said:

Way back in 2008 someone asked an IP manager at Microsoft why they haven't done anything with the Mechwarrior/Battletech license; He responded by saying "We own that IP?" They pretty much forgot they even owned it.



I wouldn't mind full on expansion level dlc that cover those timelines; as long as they are worth it.

That was kind of my point, after the backlash MS suffered from the Battletech community over Mech Assault, they more or less dumped the IP in to cold storage and forgot about it. The Battletech community is a fickle lot, but still not any where as bad as the Star Wars community...

That being said, PGI could more or less take MW2: Mercs as a guide line on how to make a fantastic MW5 game experience, as well as add in the possibility for DLC campaigns for less covered events in universe and I think they could more or less print money.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 17 February 2017 - 05:19 AM, said:

What's this?
Four posts, four lies?

Or just some alternative facts?

There is a game, which gets regular updates. This is the alpha.
You don't have to like it, but it exists. Two games, actually., the Sapce shooter and the Shooter shooter.

When have I mentioned CR? I've mentioned the game, but jot the man. I've also specifically stated things aren't perfect, and sone things need significant work, yet according to you I'm grovelling at his feet?
Alternative Facts

5 years is a typical development cycle, with many games exceeding that. 6, with few things remaining from the first years, is not unrealistic in terms of development.

explain the lies?

SC started development in 2011.
When it ended it's kickstarter it had more than 20x the amount of money that PGI did from theirs.
in 6 years, they still have a game in alpha.... and last I checked, an Alpha was not a game. And even the parts that are in have been plagued every single step of the way with multiple issues, requiring the "repolishing" (your term not mine)you so disingenuously alluded too... yes, 6 years of polishing to have your alpha.

So in other words, you got nothing. GGclose.

[Roughneck45]

I'm going to go big picture here and hope that MW5 rocks and PGI is able to learn things from it that will improve this game.

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 February 2017 - 09:01 AM, said:

explain the lies?

SC started development in 2011.
When it ended it's kickstarter it had more than 20x the amount of money that PGI did from theirs.
in 6 years, they still have a game in alpha.... and last I checked, an Alpha was not a game. And even the parts that are in have been plagued every single step of the way with multiple issues, requiring the "repolishing" (your term not mine)you so disingenuously alluded too... yes, 6 years of polishing to have your alpha.

So in other words, you got nothing. GGclose.

Why more lies bishop?

Go read Winters post
It's a good one


If SC isn't a game, MWO isn't a game. It's as simple as that
SC has more features, more game types, and quite simply more game, in roughly the same timeframe (and a whole lot more money)

You also don't seem to understand what repolishing I'm referring to either. Making 5 year old ships look nice again is kind of what PGI has done as well...only, without the tumours. Hornet is currently being brought up to spec (first shop iirc), then also the Cutlass and 300 series, also early items which don't fit their current plan

Roughneck45, on 17 February 2017 - 09:08 AM, said:

I'm going to go big picture here and hope that MW5 rocks and PGI is able to learn things from it that will improve this game.

I'll be more pessimistic and hope they give us the tools and/or permission to fix what they give us broken.



But a good campaign would be nice, AI I'm not expecting to be stellar

Edited by Mcgral18, 17 February 2017 - 09:14 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 17 February 2017 - 09:12 AM, said:

Why more lies bishop?

Go read Winters post
It's a good one


If SC isn't a game, MWO isn't a game. It's as simple as that
SC has more features, more game types, and quite simply more game, in roughly the same timeframe (and a whole lot more money)

You also don't seem to understand what repolishing I'm referring to either. Making 5 year old ships look nice again is kind of what PGI has done as well...only, without the tumours. Hornet is currently being brought up to spec (first shop iirc), then also the Cutlass and 300 series, also early items which don't fit their current plan




I'll be more pessimistic and hope they give us the tools and/or permission to fix what they give us broken.



But a good campaign would be nice, AI I'm not expecting to be stellar

again..where is the lie? You keep claiming it, and yet have not refuted a damn thing I have said. Sometimes, I wonder about you. Is your head really that far up your butt that you can only spew crap?

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 February 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

again..where is the lie? You keep claiming it, and yet have not refuted a damn thing I have said. Sometimes, I wonder about you. Is your head really that far up your butt that you can only spew crap?

SC isn't a game


Lie

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 17 February 2017 - 09:23 AM, said:

SC isn't a game


Lie

Uh, no. An Alpha is NOT a game. A game is not a game until it is launched, For better or worse. But good try.

[Roughneck45]

NT Hackman, on 17 February 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

You're setting yourself up for disappointment.

I'm too jaded for that.

I just want more battletech stuff in game. We NEED things that give us a sense of scale and some immersion. A single player game will definitely have those things, maybe it will inspire some ideas for this one.