125 replies to this topic

[jss78]

As long as MW5:M doesn't include multi-player, I don't anticipate it having too much of an effect on MWO.

The multiplayer arena shooter is a very specific game type which MW5 doesn't really compete with. Also it's not a zero sum game with a set number of people switching between mech games. Hopefully MW5:M and HBS BT will bring in new people. Either of those should be better at it than MWO.

As far as customization, it seems to me PGI is going towards something like a lore-based "limited" customization and economy. So you can either buy a new mech or do limited customization like a weapon swap.

But nothing like in MWO where we START by swapping the skeleton, the engine, the armour, and the heat sinks. This is not REALLY any longer customization, but a brand new 'mech. Makes no sense that a 3015 merc unit would be capable of this.

I think for a single-player campaign PGI's route is a good one. Also if they put in different weapons manufacturers, then they have a new level of detail to play with. Different flavours of medium lasers available, etc.

Edited by jss78, 01 October 2017 - 05:23 AM.

[Bombast]

Bill Lumbar, on 01 October 2017 - 05:07 AM, said:

What kills me is how long has the first look PGI's vision and video of pre pre alfa game play been shown to us? Has anything else been released or shown yet? HBS, they release footage on a pretty normal time frame, its called keeping your fans updated. All I have seen is the same video for MW 5 as I first did months ago... and honestly, I want to have hope for this coming game....but not like this... not like this.

It's a business model thing. HBS sells singular, final products by maintaining a 'slow burn' of hype, keeping people involved from start to finish, getting them to invest in the game. And they try to maintain momentum between titles, selling themselves as much as the games they make to a fanbase they are constantly engaging with. I know that sounds a bit negative, but it isn't - If you are going to run a video game business, thats one of the best ways to do it, consumer wise.

PGI doesn't work that way, and it's not really their fault. Their business model relies on a small number of people paying out big, over and over and over again, and that's hard to do with micro-updates and constant dialogue. What gets people here to shell out cash is big, periodic announcements, and so that's what PGI does - It holds back until everyone's primed and then drops bombshells on them to get them excited and their wallets out. The next bombshell is primed for MechCon 2017.

And it works, which is why they do it. One only has to go back to all the MechCon 2016 threads to see it. Seriously, I remember there was a mega thread of people chatting about how disappointing everything was, and how their wallets were closed forever, and how MWO was a dead game... right up until the very second MW5 was announced. And then it turned into a game of who could buy the most mechpacks 'to support MW5s development,' and people offering their first born children for a chance to pre-order a game they only found out about 5 seconds ago.

So that's why you know nothing new about MW5. Because the ravenous fanbase with a lot of luxury funds has provided an incentive to PGI to roll that way. It's our fault as much as it is theirs.

[TWIAFU]

El Bandito, on 30 September 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

MW5 is not here yet, and not likely any time soon. Why stop my fun now?

Because disgruntled nerds are disgruntled.

[Cy Mitchell]

I am looking forward to MW5 but it is in no way going to replace MWO for me. Just like I am looking forward to the full BattleTech game from HBS. I am in that beta but it has not replaced MWO and will not. In my opinion, all three of the games are completely different genre.

MWO is a FPS. First and foremost it is a multi-player shooter. It lacks any kind of tactical or economic depth. BattleTech type political intrigue or military maneuvering? Forget about it.

HBS BattleTech is a turn based tactical game. There will be an economy and a campaign based on the BattleTech political comflicts. It will lean heavily on a lore type story line to guide the campaign.

MW5 will be a single-player Mech Sim/RPG with an economy based on an in game free market and black market. It will feature a story campaign and side quest campaigns. It will be much more steeped in lore than MWO.

I will play all three. As per usual with me in single player games, I will play MW5 completely through once or twice and then retire the game. If there is new content released then I will play it again with that content. However, as long as MWO exist, I will always come to it because PvP is always the end game in MechWarrior games and community run leagues such as NBT is the ultimate end game for any MW type title.

So, I have no problem spending money on MWO if they produce something that I really want to use. I will get my enjoyment out of the content for years.

Additional Note: I do not expect HBS BattleTech to fully release until mid-2018 and I do not foresee MW5 releasing until sometime in 2019.

Edited by Rampage, 01 October 2017 - 05:30 AM.

[Appogee]

Rampage, on 01 October 2017 - 05:25 AM, said:

I do not foresee MW5 releasing until sometime in 2019.

Pre-orders with EARLY ADOPTER BONUSES unveiled at Mech Con 2017.

Mark my words.

[Peter2k]

Appogee, on 01 October 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

There's no way they are ever going to let us keep the stuff we bought for MWO in MW5.

ohh I'm sure the Steam rating is going to love this

also say goodbye to like half the player base then (well at least at for the imaginary online part)

Appogee, on 01 October 2017 - 06:00 AM, said:

Pre-orders with EARLY ADOPTER BONUSES unveiled at Mech Con 2017.

Mark my words.

with unique bolt on parts?

Appogee, on 01 October 2017 - 05:11 AM, said:

A passion project, not just a paycheck.

threadripper
AMD’s Threadripper Was Designed By Engineers In Their Spare Time As A Side Project

let that sink in a bit

Edited by Peter2k, 01 October 2017 - 06:25 AM.

[JC Daxion]

Appogee, on 01 October 2017 - 06:00 AM, said:

Pre-orders with EARLY ADOPTER BONUSES unveiled at Mech Con 2017.

Mark my words.

that would make me happy.. I'd also like to see mech5, BT, and MWO cross over content.

[Appogee]

Bombast, on 01 October 2017 - 05:25 AM, said:

One only has to go back to all the MechCon 2016 threads to see it. Seriously, I remember there was a mega thread of people chatting about how disappointing everything was, and how their wallets were closed forever, and how MWO was a dead game... right up until the very second MW5 was announced. And then it turned into a game of who could buy the most mechpacks 'to support MW5s development,' and people offering their first born children for a chance to pre-order a game they only found out about 5 seconds ago.

I remember someone wrote a comic about exactly that

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Rootpole, on 30 September 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

A multiplayer Mechwarrior game without the Mechlab would be terrible.

you never played Battletech 3025 or any of the old Kessemi battletech games did you?

[Peter2k]

JC Daxion, on 01 October 2017 - 06:17 AM, said:

that would make me happy.. I'd also like to see mech5, BT, and MWO cross over content.

hey its not bad per sè
its just we don't trust the people who make the product

aside from the fact that MWO is still not the product that was pitched to me as a founder

sooo
I don't know if I would pre finance another PGI title again

[JC Daxion]

Peter2k, on 01 October 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

hey its not bad per sè
its just we don't trust the people who make the product

aside from the fact that MWO is still not the product that was pitched to me as a founder

sooo
I don't know if I would pre finance another PGI title again

Really? cause i was around back then, and asked the devs about the game when the forums opened.

They told me it was going to be a PVP arena styled mech shooter, that had 4 weight classes and each a different playstyle/role

While the roles might be a bit shy of really completely different, they do have very different play styles, and do serve different purposes on the team.

Pretty much what they said it would be.. IMO it not being what players thought it could be was more about expectations than anything that was said.

No the game is not perfet, but it is a pretty great title, and very unique, especially for a game that started out as a barebones FPS with a couple maps, and a handful of mechs. We are just getting to the point that it typically takes a game to be made. Average games take 4-5 years to developed before they even see the light of day.

Heck battletech Is going be 3 years before it sees the light of day and they had mech art done and a bunch of animations, though many of those got tweaked. The engine that is great for Turnbased games and those are a lot easier than a FPS shooter. My guess is that game will be closer to 4 years before it is really hitting it's strides.

Look where this game has come in 4 years.

[Peter2k]

JC Daxion, on 01 October 2017 - 07:37 AM, said:

Really? cause i was around back then, and asked the devs about the game when the forums opened.

They told me it was going to be a PVP arena styled mech shooter, that had 4 weight classes and each a different playstyle/role

While the roles might be a bit shy of really completely different, they do have very different play styles, and do serve different purposes on the team.

Pretty much what they said it would be.. IMO it not being what players thought it could be was more about expectations than anything that was said.

No the game is not perfet, but it is a pretty great title, and very unique, especially for a game that started out as a barebones FPS with a couple maps, and a handful of mechs. We are just getting to the point that it typically takes a game to be made. Average games take 4-5 years to developed before they even see the light of day.

Heck battletech Is going be 3 years before it sees the light of day and they had mech art done and a bunch of animations, though many of those got tweaked. The engine that is great for Turnbased games and those are a lot easier than a FPS shooter. My guess is that game will be closer to 4 years before it is really hitting it's strides.

Look where this game has come in 4 years.

I'm not dissing PGI here
Not really

But taking 5 years to get "that far" is a bit, ..., slow
So about those pillars, roles, player driven economy, and quick play being a place holder until faction warfare
Man the time it took to replace those circles (being placeholders in a placeholder game mode) with a mobile base

And btw
It's the same as 4 years ago really

An arena team deathmatch shooter
You just die faster and have more skins to choose from when you're making you're dakka/laser/missile boat

Doesn't even feel like there are more maps than back then (well that's on player Voting of course)

People think MW5 might be good
Maybe worth pre ordering with glittery stickers as bonus

And I'll buy it when it's ready and out, having learnt something from MWO

Edit:
Ohh and to top it all off
Paul is in charge

Couldn't see that going bad at all

Man how many people tried to tell him that ghost laser range was effecting lasers optimal range as well
And not like he insisted only beyond optimal

Or his teasing about ecm getting a major balance change
And all they did was cut the range in half

So IK being a year old as being teased to maybe come back Ehh?

I'm sure I could come up with a list as long as my arm
Just ehh

Having a blast with zero dawn new game+ feature really

See MWO and MW5 are not in a bubble
And MWO hasn't exactly moved/progressed a lot (guess that's subjective)

Edited by Peter2k, 01 October 2017 - 08:27 AM.

[Bill Lumbar]

Bombast, on 01 October 2017 - 05:25 AM, said:

It's a business model thing. HBS sells singular, final products by maintaining a 'slow burn' of hype, keeping people involved from start to finish, getting them to invest in the game. And they try to maintain momentum between titles, selling themselves as much as the games they make to a fanbase they are constantly engaging with. I know that sounds a bit negative, but it isn't - If you are going to run a video game business, thats one of the best ways to do it, consumer wise.

PGI doesn't work that way, and it's not really their fault. Their business model relies on a small number of people paying out big, over and over and over again, and that's hard to do with micro-updates and constant dialogue. What gets people here to shell out cash is big, periodic announcements, and so that's what PGI does - It holds back until everyone's primed and then drops bombshells on them to get them excited and their wallets out. The next bombshell is primed for MechCon 2017.

And it works, which is why they do it. One only has to go back to all the MechCon 2016 threads to see it. Seriously, I remember there was a mega thread of people chatting about how disappointing everything was, and how their wallets were closed forever, and how MWO was a dead game... right up until the very second MW5 was announced. And then it turned into a game of who could buy the most mechpacks 'to support MW5s development,' and people offering their first born children for a chance to pre-order a game they only found out about 5 seconds ago.

So that's why you know nothing new about MW5. Because the ravenous fanbase with a lot of luxury funds has provided an incentive to PGI to roll that way. It's our fault as much as it is theirs.

But Bomb..... the first model is the better way for a company to build a company on. Its not my fault, my wallet has only produced about $100 dollars for PGI in 3 years.... and none of that has been spent in the last year. Unless I see something real to come to MWO..... I m not dropping any cash. I have never even bought a mech pack yet!

[Sunstruck]

The original poster is talking out his ars, anyone whos listened to NGNGs streams and Russ himself would understand that MWO isn't going anywhere, MW5 is a completely different game on a completely different engine, and is a single player game that Russ originally wanted to make before MWO was created. MWO is a different animal than any single player campaign based game, and probably why its survived for as long as it has. New maps are on the way and an entire new feature Solaris 7, gladiatorial mech combat is being worked on for MWO next year. The MWO competition scene is growing and I'm sure they'll continue the world cup for years to come.

[Bombast]

Bill Lumbar, on 01 October 2017 - 10:08 AM, said:

But Bomb..... the first model is the better way for a company to build a company on.

Apparently not.

We can all talk until we're blue in the face about how PGI is approaching business wrong for X reason, but at the end of the day, they're making money. Quite a bit of it, it seems.

[Khobai]

Quote

We can all talk until we're blue in the face about how PGI is approaching business wrong for X reason, but at the end of the day, they're making money. Quite a bit of it, it seems.

not so much anymore

people have caught on that mechpacks are a scam

and that whatever flavor of the month clan mech theyre selling is just going to get nerfed when it goes to cbills

[Bill Lumbar]

Peter2k, on 01 October 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

ohh I'm sure the Steam rating is going to love this

also say goodbye to like half the player base then (well at least at for the imaginary online part)



with unique bolt on parts?



threadripper
AMD’s Threadripper Was Designed By Engineers In Their Spare Time As A Side Project

let that sink in a bit

That was an interesting read man.... thanks for the link. I think I might pick up on and the X399 version of my AsRock Professional board. Love thinking outside the box, and that is what AMD did here.

[Cy Mitchell]

Peter2k, on 01 October 2017 - 08:20 AM, said:

Edit:
Ohh and to top it all off
Paul is in charge

I was under the impression that Bryan was the Lead for MW5.

[Bill Lumbar]

Bombast, on 01 October 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

Apparently not.

We can all talk until we're blue in the face about how PGI is approaching business wrong for X reason, but at the end of the day, they're making money. Quite a bit of it, it seems.

Well, that maybe true to a point, but they look really greasy doing it one way, when the other way would be much more profitable over time, bigger fan base, loyal fan base....etc. These are all facts, and I guess it just depends on how a company wants to roll... and their image.

[Bombast]

Bill Lumbar, on 01 October 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

Well, that maybe true to a point, but they look really greasy doing it one way, when the other way would be much more profitable over time, bigger fan base, loyal fan base....etc. These are all facts, and I guess it just depends on how a company wants to roll... and their image.

That's an entirely different discussion though. But if we're talking about running a video game company purely from a business perspective, 'greasy' isn't really a factor, nor is it a detriment. One need look no further than the industry leaders, Activision and EA, to see that.