45 replies to this topic

[kuma8877]

The 2.0 is referencing the hope of an engine upgrade (new iteration in UE4 or LY etc.) with existing accounts intact, rather than what PGI or the community might think constitutes an actual sequel such as would be MWO 2, with a whole new business model and new accounts for everyone attached.

[Anjian]

Personally, I believe that all the digital and publishing rights to Battletech should be bought out from Microsoft and Topps and then formed into a new venture called the Battletech Company.

Its been shown that franchises tend to flourish and survive better under an independent body and custodian rather than under a major corporation. Examples: Lucasfilms for Star Wars, Marvel Company for all Marvel stuff, the Pokemon Company for all things Pokemon. Examples of franchises that suffered without an independent custodian: Star Trek under Paramount Pictures/CBS; DC Universe under Warner Brothers.

[Andi Nagasia]

Anjian, on 15 December 2017 - 06:56 PM, said:

Personally, I believe that all the digital and publishing rights to Battletech should be bought out from Microsoft and Topps and then formed into a new venture called the Battletech Company.

are you saying that some one would but BattleTech fully from Microsoft and then make a BattleTech Company,
or that Microsoft should pull its right for BattleTech, then form it into a franchise company,

Anjian, on 15 December 2017 - 06:56 PM, said:

Its been shown that franchises tend to flourish and survive better under an independent body and custodian rather than under a major corporation.

sometimes it does some times it doesnt, its rather hit or miss,

also,
the Pokemon Company Nintendo for all things Pokemon.

[Anjian]

Andi Nagasia, on 15 December 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

are you saying that some one would but BattleTech fully from Microsoft and then make a BattleTech Company,
or that Microsoft should pull its right for BattleTech, then form it into a franchise company,


sometimes it does some times it doesnt, its rather hit or miss,

also,
the Pokemon Company Nintendo for all things Pokemon.

Nintendo doesn't own Pokemon. The Pokemon rights come from a company called The Pokemon Company. Nintendo has shares on the Pokemon Company, but does not own it. For that matter, both The Pokemon Company and Nintendo has shares on Niantic Labs, which is also Google has a share of, since it is a Google spinoff. Niantic makes Pokemon Go. Nintendo owning shares on Niantic and on The Pokemon Go does not make Nintendo owners of Pokemon Go either. The Pokemon Company also licenses the rights for the card games, merchandise and not the least, the anime tv shows and movies, for example, the just approved live action Detective Pikachu that will have Ryan Reynolds as Pikachu's voice.

I am saying that Microsoft should divest and sell its rights on Battletech as it no longer serves their X-Box function, nor does it align with its new corporate goals, e.g. The Cloud, competing with Amazon, Google and IBM on that regard.

With regards to the new game engine, even if MWO 2.0 looks identical and plays identical to MWO 1.0, a straight port with improved more optimized graphics, I would consider it necessary and imperative from an IT maintenance standpoint, which may not be that important for players, clients and users, but is absolutely essential for the administrative side of things. You will likely find more developers versed on Unreal than Crytek. The other game engine alternative would be Unity, but MW5 would give some heads up for a potential MWO conversion.

I would think that if Russ would continue to get Mechwarrior rights past 2018 or 2019 (hence why I think all BT rights should be with a neutral owner or foundation), that would give him good motive for a game engine migration, and would also be easier to justify with a bank to get a loan for that purpose.

Edited by Anjian, 15 December 2017 - 08:33 PM.

[Mister Glitchdragon]

I don't understand why people don't want MW:OII. Swaths of MW:O's source code are lostech to the current dev team. They did a lot of "learn as you go" programming and balancing. They mangled lore and FW making it up as they went along. They keep doing these "whackamole" balance passes that create at least as many problems as they solve. The end result is a game that feels and runs kind of monkey-strung.

In addition to an engine upgrade that would flat out look better, MW:OII would be a great opportunity for PGI to learn from their mistakes, start over, and make a better game from the ground up. Think in terms of coding (melee, variable ammo, conversion, and general stablility). Think in terms of balance (considering mechs' scale, hitboxes, and hardpoints from the concept phase, any of a million better ways to do heat, skill tree from the get go, etc.) Think about how un-mucked FW could be if they started over and laid down the rules from the start (Want more people to play loyalist? No clan mercs. Clan/IS asymmetry. etc.) So much of why PGI can't do things right is because they cocked it up at the start and too many people around here cry bloody murder whenever anything changes.

I mean, how could MW:OII be worse?

I get that a lot of people have spent a lot of money on MW:O; I have, too. Hell, tonight I bought the SNS early-adopter package and I'm not even playing right now and won't be for months (remote living, spotty internet). We'd be leaving a lot of gear behind, I feel you. The thing is, if the basic mechanics remain the same, good players will be able to port their skill, free of charge, into a better game. Who's not down for that?

We're not talking about pulling the plug next week, for crying out loud. I think what others have been saying about 2020 sounds about right. And even then, PGI can leave a few servers on for the whales who can't let go, throw 'em a new mechpack every six months to pay for it.

Let's see how the licensing goes, and see how MW:5 plays out. If it looks good and plays well and we love it, I think a lot of people are going to look at what we have here and want something better.

[arcana75]

Gwahlur, on 15 December 2017 - 06:44 PM, said:

Which pretty much equals making a new game

Edit: And from what I hear, they can't even make enough sense of their current code to implement ammo switching, so they'd have to rewrite it all I imagine

They might not have to rewrite it all, if the porting from CE3 to CE4 or 5 is possible esp if CryTek assists them. CE5 has been available since 2016 and has had several upgrades since then. Several notable companies/games use CE, including the devs of Star Citizen/Sq42, Ubisoft's Dunia (Far Cry) and Amazon's Lumberyard (which Star Citizen is using now), whom all use inhouse-modified versions of CE, so it's not a dead engine by any measure.

[Jonathan8883]

I would not trust anything involved with Star Citizen to actually work as promised this decade.

[Fiachdubh]

While I think there are many great elements to the game it has two main problems from my point of view. First the engine is just absolutely terrible. At the lowest graphics settings it looks like a game from over 10 years ago and still has a frame rates averaging high teen to low twenties dropping to single digits if get close to moving mechs. This on a computer that runs newer games on the highest graphics settings. The second is that it is an online multiplayer game with no campaign and an FP system that may as well not be there.

I backed MWO because after the cancellation of MW5 it was the only option for another BT game so paid my $40. If MWO was the stepping stone we needed to get to an eventual MW5 then great. I will buy regular MW games but will not sink money or time into an MWO 2.0 unless it is vastly different from the original. At least with a standalone game you know what you are getting, there is a single player campaign and the option to play online if you so wish. The recent announcement that Rise of Flight is coming to an end and ownership of all those planes I paid for will not be transferable into the new version has put me off MMO games and paying for content as opposed to the game. I want MW games that are complete upon release (genuine old school expansion packs are welcome) and are not dependent on a company maintaining online servers.

Edited by Fiachdubh, 16 December 2017 - 07:06 AM.

[MischiefSC]

A new mwo in 2 years after mw5 with new engine.

New game, have to start over.

[FireStoat]

The thing that has me curious is MW5 having 4 player Co-op coded into the game as well as full mod capability. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't 4 player Co-op imply the presence of a form of multiplayer code within the client, with or without the need for a PGI hosted server to interact with it? Wouldn't this open the door for a potentially modded PvP version to be developed?

Exactly how long would it take some talented fans of the game to turn this into a mega version of Living Legends?

[Lostdragon]

They should work on porting the game to the MW5 engine and making FW more like it was laid out when MWO was still in development. Make QP free to play and put FW behind a subscription. If FW was better designed and implemented I would be willing to pay a subscription for it and that long term income would give PGI some stability in revenue that would probably help them a lot.

[Wolfways]

FireStoat, on 16 December 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:

The thing that has me curious is MW5 having 4 player Co-op coded into the game as well as full mod capability. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't 4 player Co-op imply the presence of a form of multiplayer code within the client, with or without the need for a PGI hosted server to interact with it? Wouldn't this open the door for a potentially modded PvP version to be developed?

Exactly how long would it take some talented fans of the game to turn this into a mega version of Living Legends?

There are no words to describe how much I want this.

[C E Dwyer]

Mole, on 15 December 2017 - 03:32 PM, said:

I actually tweeted Russ about this earlier today while I was at work, telling him that the extreme generosity they were showing on the 27th has sparked fears that the MWO servers will be going offline soon. I asked him if he could deny that, and he responded saying that it was silly, that they planned to release Solaris in spring, and that he does indeed deny it. Take that for what you will.

Of course any business man is going to say yup sure we're closing, in the spring, summer, autumn..

Sorry but, no company is going to admit it's closing.

No this isn't me joining in on the sky is falling theory, just that expecting an honest answer to a question like that is rather naive

[Prof RJ Gumby]

They definitely won't do anything drastic with MWO until MW5 and its expansions/dlcs are properly sold out. That would have terrible impact on MW5's PR.

I would like to see MWO2 one day, even if that would mean starting from scratch, but to succeed with this they would have to provide, or at least pretend to provide, a vast improvement in terms of aspects other than graphics (graphics are basic, but that's not enough). MWO2 would need a long list of improvements to appease people disliking starting over (it's a must, currently they sold most mechs they could sell, and will still sell them for at least a year or two). So they would need to reinvent and improve a lot for the game to feel attractive and new - ammo switching, heat mechanics, anti-boating mechanics, weapon mechanics, movement mechanics, map generation (procedural maps? that would be something) etc. Maybe even the damn 'circus' quads.

For example, in terms of movement, they would need to introduce or at least promise some things like raising arms, melee, crouching and maybe jumping - things that would allow them to sell the game as "new", instead of "same old one, but remastered". WIthout things like that many people that could get angry about starting from scratch won't see any counterarguments, reasons for them to start from scratch. And starting from scratch is basically a must, PGI business model is living off mechpacks, and there is less and less ideas for mechs attractive enough (and different from previous ones) for the people to buy.

EDIT: good idea for them to have an "excuse" for the new MWO with new accounts could be 'total' reinvention of the modes. MW5 already has tanks and helicopters, meaning they could try and head towards 'combined arms' modes with players fighting each other among AI-controlled tanks and flyers, while standard 'FP' modes would pretend to be solaris games.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 16 December 2017 - 12:52 PM.

[sycocys]

My suggestion would be for them to build MWo:2 in a simila style of this one on a new engine, but be with the intention (at least initial design intention) that it not be tied to the license.

That way if they don't get the license, they can just make new robot designs - or they forgo the license and hire use that money to develop an alternate IP by hiring writers and such. Little harder road, but they are in a niche market either way and it would make sense to develop your own branch IP rather than paying whatever ransom MS is charging them. It probably would also require them to step aside and hire someone better able to manage it all so licensing might be the better approach.

They could also do a new IP, and just open source the servers for this game since its likely at the end of its profit run.

[LT. HARDCASE]

sycocys, on 16 December 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

My suggestion would be for them to build MWo:2 in a simila style of this one on a new engine, but be with the intention (at least initial design intention) that it not be tied to the license.

That way if they don't get the license, they can just make new robot designs - or they forgo the license and hire use that money to develop an alternate IP by hiring writers and such. Little harder road, but they are in a niche market either way and it would make sense to develop your own branch IP rather than paying whatever ransom MS is charging them. It probably would also require them to step aside and hire someone better able to manage it all so licensing might be the better approach.

They could also do a new IP, and just open source the servers for this gamesince its likely at the end of its profit run.

Do you think people would put up with PGI's crap, if this wasn't the Battletech IP?

[Rogue Jedi]

arcana75, on 16 December 2017 - 04:58 AM, said:

They might not have to rewrite it all, if the porting from CE3 to CE4 or 5 is possible esp if CryTek assists them.

about a year and a half ago Russ was talking about porting MWO to a new engine, he mentioned that the version of Cryengine MWO uses has been massively modified to the point that there would not be much less work to port to a newer version of cryengine than to a whole new engine. Then about 6 months later they announced MW5.
I think they are doing at least half the work with making MW5 so after that is released they can put the rest of the work into the MWO 1.5 conversion.

I much prefer the 1.5 label as that is much more accurate based on Russ was talking about last year. When the engine upgrade/swap investigation was announced the plan was to transfer MWO to the new/upgraded engine to give it another 4+ years of life, not make a whole new game.

[Mole]

Cathy, on 16 December 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:

Of course any business man is going to say yup sure we're closing, in the spring, summer, autumn..

Sorry but, no company is going to admit it's closing.

No this isn't me joining in on the sky is falling theory, just that expecting an honest answer to a question like that is rather naive

Please. We both know if Russ gets asked a question he doesn't want to answer he will ignore the tweet instead of trying to fabricate a lie.

[Wolfways]

LT. HARDCASE, on 16 December 2017 - 02:17 PM, said:

Do you think people would put up with PGI's crap, if this wasn't the Battletech IP?

Well...it isn't anymore really

[sycocys]

LT. HARDCASE, on 16 December 2017 - 02:17 PM, said:

Do you think people would put up with PGI's crap, if this wasn't the Battletech IP?

No, absolutely not if they didn't hire on some people to keep from repeating the same issues they delivered this time around.

What I am saying though is that there is actually a reasonable market for this style of game regardless if this particular IP is attached to it. So it would be their best course of action if they were going to pursue an engine change with the license coming due soon to do it first with the intention of not having the IP to fall back onto so they had a route to take if MS prices them out or simply doesn't want to renew.

And even if they decided to just walk away, I bet if they launched into an original IP in this game's style they'd still drag along enough people and find enough more to make it work. How many people are still buying mechpacks, decals, and lootbox keys even though they haven't made any substantial improvements to the game other than developing a large store - there's definitely people that would make a non-BT ip a project that would at least scrape along.