272 replies to this topic

[Thorn Hallis]

Mechpacks lose them money? I wonder how this could ever happen with afterthoughts like Hellfire, Hellspawn, Incubus or Vulcan (not talking about their effectivness here). And now Russ is telling is us we need to buy 'Mechpacks to sustain MWO (which I thought was the whole reason of 'Mechpacks to begin with). So how about a 'Mechpack that many many people really want to buy this time?

[Navid A1]

Bluttrunken, on 01 June 2019 - 09:12 PM, said:

Is this your conjecture of what happened behind the scenes? Or have you been secretly spying on PGI all these years? I don't really want to take part in this discussion but simply making things up to support your own opinion won't help anybody.

It is my best guess based on What I've seen and heard during the years from PGI themselves and the decisions, directions and events since 2015.
You can take that in whatever way you like. I said this at the end of my post:

Quote

Anyways... what I said above is my personal opinion and you are more than welcome to disagree.

Edited by Navid A1, 02 June 2019 - 01:13 AM.

[Ruediger Steiner]

[Timberjac]

Well, we know the worst that can happen, that the MW5 is a disaster and the MWO ends up closing from two to three years.

But let's examine the other options.

The MW5 can be a good title, sufficiently innovative to attract players to the MWO itself (because after all, the cooperative mode is fine, but players always end up wanting to break the backbone against other players, not against IA.

If the success of the MW5 is large enough, perhaps even PGI could think of improving the MWO itself in part of the technology of the MW5... Or at least create a MWO 2.0... Although that would be a problem on whether to start from scratch or while, as a bonus to the players of the 1.0 as they acquired Mech, which will now end up being put on sale again.

Anyway, I think the only thing I have to do, is little by little, continue to buy some pack that I have, waiting for them to decide to take another, with special mech or my beloved StoneRhino... If only, to animate the results account of PGI in relation to the MWO itself and continue giving viability.

In any case, a huge hug to everyone.

[Alreech]

Tesunie, on 01 June 2019 - 09:17 PM, said:

I didn't want to touch that myself either, because it went a little counter to how I remember/heard the story... I kinda recall IGP pushed for the Clan's release (and Gold mechs), and then PGI bought IGP out of the project completely.

So, it was IGP who pushed the Clan's release, not the Mechwarrior 2 Fanbois crying out "No Timber Wolf no buy !!!11111" ?

To be honest, it was always clear what the Clans have to be are a part of any Mechwarrior Game, and it was clear what PGIs idea to use the table top rules and values will recreate the same balancing nightmare the table top has with IS / Star League / Clan Tech.

Quote

I'm more inclined to believe IGP had more to do with the base problems with MW:O (such as being made on Cryengine as my take on things for an example) due to how IGP handled MW:Tactics (supported by IGP, produced by someone else).

A new, unknow publisher what had never before published a game forced PGI in 2012 to use the new Cry Engine 3 (released 2009, well know for big levels and "realistic" look) instead the old Unreal Engine 3 (released 2006, well know for it's "plastic" look) ?
I'm doubting that was the way it worked...

PGI and Smith & Tinker have had a hold on the Mechwarrior License in 2007 but didn't found a publisher for a single player game. IGP was probably contaced by PGI and hinted to get the Mechwarrior license.

And the Game Engine ist the last problem MWO has.
MWO is build as a 12 vs 12 Team Shooter with no / limited respawns.
The Players should work as team, using Mechs build for with a specific role like NARCer & LRM Boat or Sniper or Brawler.
And since Day ONE most players play Solo Quickplay where the "teams" are disbanded after one match and mixed up for the next, leading to simple tactics like NASCAR.
Nascaring around the center of the map didn't become better game play if you use the Unreal Engine...

MWO also ignored the posibillitys of a strong lore.
In other MMOs you have guilds that fight for a specific faction, in MWO most players play Quickplay where the factions are insignificant.
So why to spend MCs on faction cameos, colors and decals if the faction doesn't matter ?


In most MMOs guilds are the thing that keeps the game alive. In MWO your unit have to be big (at least 12 regular players for Faction Warfare) to enjoy the faction part of the game.
But you are better of to drop as 12 player premade in Group Quickplay...
As small unit you also better drop in Group Quickplay, but that forces you to either waste tonnage or play certain Mech classes. And you will get stomped by the 12 player premade.
MWO lacks smaller match sizes like 4 vs 4 or 8 vs 8 for smaller Units.

In most MMOs guilds generate income by selling guild specific services to them, PGI don't offer any of that.
Example:
A Webpage for the unit, with privat forum for the unit members, payed with MCs ? Nope, you have to go to Enjin and have to mange all the access to that page by your self.
A private Teamspeak channel for the unit, payed by hour with MCs ? Nope, you have to go to Enjin and have to mange all the access to that page by your self (and MWO uses Teamspeak as VOIP solution).
Reduced prices for fixed Unit Colors, Decals and Patterns to lure the players to spend MCs ? Nope.
Custom Decals for MCs ? Nope (understandable: to much work to avoid legal trouble with other IPs like Hello Kitty)

[Ngamok]

F

[Zacharias McLeod]

Alreech, on 02 June 2019 - 02:57 AM, said:

A new, unknow publisher what had never before published a game forced PGI in 2012 to use the new Cry Engine 3 (released 2009, well know for big levels and "realistic" look) instead the old Unreal Engine 3 (released 2006, well know for it's "plastic" look) ?
I'm doubting that was the way it worked...

PGI and Smith & Tinker have had a hold on the Mechwarrior License in 2007 but didn't found a publisher for a single player game. IGP was probably contaced by PGI and hinted to get the Mechwarrior license.

IGP was founded by PGI.

Yes, Russ was the CEO of PGI and one of the IGP CEOs.

PGI wanted a puplisher for MWO so Russ asked some investors to found IGP.

[Tank]

Timberjac, on 02 June 2019 - 02:35 AM, said:

The MW5 can be a good title, sufficiently innovative to attract players to the MWO itself (because after all, the cooperative mode is fine, but players always end up wanting to break the backbone against other players, not against IA.

Did you seen MW5 so far? Why do you think we get to see only very limited and selected bits of it and there is no promotion for it? There is nothing to promote in MW5 it's painfully mediocre.

This is painful for me as a Battletech fan, because I want to be good, but nothing shown so far indicate this.

[Navid A1]

Tank, on 02 June 2019 - 05:41 AM, said:

Did you seen MW5 so far? Why do you think we get to see only very limited and selected bits of it and there is no promotion for it? There is nothing to promote in MW5 it's painfully mediocre.

This is painful for me as a Battletech fan, because I want to be good, but nothing shown so far indicate this.

I'm actually surprised by how little they have shown so far. I've played MW5 at 2 mechcons. It played solid.
But for some reason, since the pre-order, there has been radio silence.

I don't count screenshots as info. They are too used to mech release cooldown on MWO, thinking that a couple screenshots are enough to send the community into a hype frenzy.

I've told them many times on MW5 discord that you can't generate hype by showing screenshots of mechs from 2013. Those designs were cool when people were seeing them for the first time thanks to Alex's magic.

They need to release clips of gameplay. I'm dead serious. They need to show off a lot of footage. It does not need to be a trailer. It's not like MWO. MW5 is already voice acted... just showing off a generic mission would go a long long way.

the material that is being discussed in AMAs are pre-alpha level.



Radio silence only a couple months from beta release is not a good sign... maybe they are thinking about a delay to end of year.

Edited by Navid A1, 02 June 2019 - 06:24 AM.

[Tesunie]

Zacharias McLeod, on 02 June 2019 - 05:37 AM, said:

IGP was founded by PGI.

Yes, Russ was the CEO of PGI and one of the IGP CEOs.

PGI wanted a puplisher for MWO so Russ asked some investors to found IGP.

May I ask for evidence of this? This is new news to me, and I'd just like some confirmation of facts on this.

One thing that was announced publicly, somewhere on these forums, was that IGP pushed for the gold mechs, and that PGI would never attempt gold mechs again as they didn't think it was a good idea. This leads me to believe that what you say seems unlikely, but if true...

[Tesunie]

Alreech, on 02 June 2019 - 02:57 AM, said:

So, it was IGP who pushed the Clan's release, not the Mechwarrior 2 Fanbois crying out "No Timber Wolf no buy !!!11111" ?

To be honest, it was always clear what the Clans have to be are a part of any Mechwarrior Game, and it was clear what PGIs idea to use the table top rules and values will recreate the same balancing nightmare the table top has with IS / Star League / Clan Tech.


A new, unknow publisher what had never before published a game forced PGI in 2012 to use the new Cry Engine 3 (released 2009, well know for big levels and "realistic" look) instead the old Unreal Engine 3 (released 2006, well know for it's "plastic" look) ?
I'm doubting that was the way it worked...

PGI and Smith & Tinker have had a hold on the Mechwarrior License in 2007 but didn't found a publisher for a single player game. IGP was probably contaced by PGI and hinted to get the Mechwarrior license.

And the Game Engine ist the last problem MWO has.
MWO is build as a 12 vs 12 Team Shooter with no / limited respawns.
The Players should work as team, using Mechs build for with a specific role like NARCer & LRM Boat or Sniper or Brawler.
And since Day ONE most players play Solo Quickplay where the "teams" are disbanded after one match and mixed up for the next, leading to simple tactics like NASCAR.
Nascaring around the center of the map didn't become better game play if you use the Unreal Engine...

MWO also ignored the posibillitys of a strong lore.
In other MMOs you have guilds that fight for a specific faction, in MWO most players play Quickplay where the factions are insignificant.
So why to spend MCs on faction cameos, colors and decals if the faction doesn't matter ?


In most MMOs guilds are the thing that keeps the game alive. In MWO your unit have to be big (at least 12 regular players for Faction Warfare) to enjoy the faction part of the game.
But you are better of to drop as 12 player premade in Group Quickplay...
As small unit you also better drop in Group Quickplay, but that forces you to either waste tonnage or play certain Mech classes. And you will get stomped by the 12 player premade.
MWO lacks smaller match sizes like 4 vs 4 or 8 vs 8 for smaller Units.

In most MMOs guilds generate income by selling guild specific services to them, PGI don't offer any of that.
Example:
A Webpage for the unit, with privat forum for the unit members, payed with MCs ? Nope, you have to go to Enjin and have to mange all the access to that page by your self.
A private Teamspeak channel for the unit, payed by hour with MCs ? Nope, you have to go to Enjin and have to mange all the access to that page by your self (and MWO uses Teamspeak as VOIP solution).
Reduced prices for fixed Unit Colors, Decals and Patterns to lure the players to spend MCs ? Nope.
Custom Decals for MCs ? Nope (understandable: to much work to avoid legal trouble with other IPs like Hello Kitty)

Just like to point out:

Tesunie, on 01 June 2019 - 09:17 PM, said:

I'm more inclined to believe...

Tesunie, on 01 June 2019 - 09:17 PM, said:

However, I'll leave conjecture there...

I also provided a reason for my theory:

Tesunie, on 01 June 2019 - 09:17 PM, said:

...due to how IGP handled MW:Tactics (supported by IGP, produced by someone else).

All of which was guesswork based upon what I've seen and heard. It's how I've taken things, not necessarily how things actually happened (as we may never know the exact details).


Some of what you mention are also a relation to how players have handle the game, not how the game was purposefully designed. Defaulting to "NASCar" tactics isn't a direct fault of the game. Maps that don't encourage this tactic seem to be disliked by the community, for a simple statement. It's no different than maps in other shooters that encourage to find a secluded room and hold it, forcing the enemy go through narrow corridors to get at you. If it wasn't NASCar, it was "find the small room and hold" which seemed equally disliked as a tactic, but equally utilized. (Old Therma's center, for an example.)

Unreal engine seems to have better ability to code for this style of game. Cryengine suppose to support first person shooters better. Getting our missiles to work apparently was a re-writing of the grenade coding, something I've been told was just a default option with no special coding in Unreal. So development in some areas of the game could have been less involved, which means other parts may (key word: may) have received more attention sooner. (Also, Cryengine selection was a singular plausible example of what might have been a cause related to IGP rather than PGI.)

I'll leave that off with a "I'm not a video game designer, nor do I deal with code". All I can say is I've enjoyed this game greatly since I joined up in Dec of 2012 (and sadly, I think the game was overall better back then, but that could be nostalgia and "the game is new"ness). I can't recall a singular game I've spent more money on than this one.


Some other notes:
I don't think people would have spent MC for a voice com channel, considering there are free options. Why pay money for something you can get for free? (TS and Discord)
Needed a forum/web page for your unit? There are also free options for this, so why pay MCs?
Unit colors? Yes. I would have loved that.
Custom decals? Moderation nightmare. Inappropriate, crude, IP issues from other games, Etc.

[Smokeviper]

I feel sorry for Tina. Not going to waste my time reading more than the little I did. I'll just go play the game that you all seem to be experts on fixing. You armchair quarterbacks should all go open up your own game companies because I'm sure they would be such a success. (that's sarcasm)

[Tank]

Navid A1, on 02 June 2019 - 06:23 AM, said:

Radio silence only a couple months from beta release is not a good sign... maybe they are thinking about a delay to end of year.

All of it leads to that the game is no way ready/good enough to promote or ignore your advises - hardly news to anyone who been in MWO for years.

They better delay if it's not ready. Can only hope they fix it.

[colt]

Well...hope MW5 succeeds. Maybe they can move on to MW5 converted into MW5-Online. Seems that the game stuck in rut, people getting fed up.

[Sabertooth1966]

I took two large breaks from playing do to PGI's decision making but seem to always come back, just came back again this past month. The "stake holder" comment from Paul in the faction play thread and the delay in this Dev update had me guessing the plug may soon be pulled. Even with the breaks I have had many hours of enjoyment in this game. I will miss it when they pull the plug but will keep playing until then.

F

[Eskandare]

@Russ

I feel like I can'r let this game go. I had hoped it would keep living much like how WoW had been running for almost 20 years and still going. Even if PGI feels like dumping MWO, I feel like a part of me is dying. A lot of the games issues is not the community but visibility. I am part of several communities and even develop for one. All PC gaming communities have salt, venom, and whiners; that isn't what is bringing down MWO. Lack of visibility to the game is tearing down MWO. Lack of stable financial model. If you look at long running games like SWTOR, WoW, ETC. they have a FTP and Subscription elements to the financial model. FTP you lose some features, gear, and stat abilities and have caps on 'money' elements; subscribers have access to all features. But going back to visibility, getting the name out making the game more visible in media and ads showing off game play. I know many hard core MW/BT fans that hadn't heard of MWO until I told them about it. I feel so sad. I want to help support this game into the future. I feel like I'm losing my investment in the game and I invested a lot. I really don't want to see my investment become bust.

Suggestions:

• Change financial model (relying on mech packs alone wasn't stable) Change to subscription and FTP models (where FTP have feature limitations.) Continue mech packs for additional income.
  
• A little more visibility, it is a really great game and I have fun playing.

Things I was hoping for:

• Engine update to unreal (MW5 engine)
  
• Stone Rhino
  
• Phoenix Hawk IIC
  
• Fire Moth
  
• Quad Mechs
  
• Vehicles in FP

PGI Please don't let this game die.

[Ruediger Steiner]

Smokeviper, on 02 June 2019 - 07:43 AM, said:

You armchair quarterbacks should all go open up your own game companies because I'm sure they would be such a success. (that's sarcasm)

And then there is always this one guy. So we are not allowed to criticize after PGI ****** the game up so many times?
If it wasn´t how i want the game to be, okay.
If 90% of the community would say we love what you do, okay.
But if a company makes one huge mistake after another, year after year, ******* up the gameplay people like over and over and over. And here we are, with a FP update, we all waited for over half a year, that was supposed to improve FP and bring people back to play FP ... and now 90% of the FP players are gone, because the update was so extremely full of ****, not just some minor problems, full of ******** it is beyond belief. From a company that worked for 7 years on this game and doesn´t know **** about the gameplay or the community. They just don´t know ****, it´s my firm belief they actually don´t give a ****.
And than you dare to blame the people who actually care about the game?

[Navid A1]

Smokeviper, on 02 June 2019 - 07:43 AM, said:

I feel sorry for Tina. Not going to waste my time reading more than the little I did. I'll just go play the game that you all seem to be experts on fixing. You armchair quarterbacks should all go open up your own game companies because I'm sure they would be such a success. (that's sarcasm)

And there is this guy.

You realize that by that logic, a car company can just say you can go make your own car if you have a problem with the car lacking a wheel, windows, and front lights, right?
What's that?... you are not a car maker?... so deal with what you have!

You are not happy that the chair you just bought has only three legs?... well you don't make chairs do you? how do you know a chair should have four legs?

It's amazing how people use this anti-logic for every concept.

I develop mathematical models for electrical engineering simulation packages for a living. I'm an electrical engineer myself. Yet If an electrical engineer using those models reports a problem with them, or expresses concern with results, you bet your a$$ I'm going through the model from scratch to try to pin the problem down and fix it.
The reason is that the user in question is one who is actually using the product in a realistic scenario, not me.

PGI is not giving away this game out of charity. It's a business. The fact that this game is still around means that those "armchair quarterbacks" have been buying content.



Also btw,... I'm sure most of the "armchair quarterbacks" you mentioned have more games played than you.

Edited by Navid A1, 02 June 2019 - 09:40 AM.

[Zacharias McLeod]

Tesunie, on 02 June 2019 - 07:03 AM, said:

May I ask for evidence of this? This is new news to me, and I'd just like some confirmation of facts on this.

One thing that was announced publicly, somewhere on these forums, was that IGP pushed for the gold mechs, and that PGI would never attempt gold mechs again as they didn't think it was a good idea. This leads me to believe that what you say seems unlikely, but if true...

Stupitly they clean all infos about PGI and IGP so you have to bee a long time member of the MWO community to get this infos between the lines. You can not find infos about the owners of IGI anymore.

It is to long ago so I can not remember when and where I read thiy infos.

But IGP was build 2011 only a short time before PGI startet the crowdfounding for MWO. IGP was also a canadian company.

All you can find now about IGP and PGI are some broken parts in the MWO forum.

Maybee I am wrong. Like I said it is long ago and this are the things I read and could remember.

PS:
IGP published only 2 games.

MWO and MW-Tactics. They also had plans for a game set in the Dark Age time.

So IGP was founded to publish BT Games.https://www.giantbom...hing/3010-7793/

Edited by Zacharias McLeod, 02 June 2019 - 10:24 AM.

[Tesunie]

Zacharias McLeod, on 02 June 2019 - 10:08 AM, said:

Stupitly they clean all infos about PGI and IGP so you have to bee a long time member of the MWO community to get this infos between the lines. You can not find infos about the owners of IGI anymore.

It is to long ago so I can not remember when and where I read thiy infos.

But IGP was build 2011 only a short time before PGI startet the crowdfounding for MWO. IGP was also a canadian company.

All you can find now about IGP and PGI are some broken parts in the MWO forum.

Maybee I am wrong. Like I said it is long ago and this are the things I read and could remember.

PS:
IGP published only 2 games.

MWO and MW-Tactics. They also had plans for a game set in the Dark Age time.

So IGP was founded to publish BT Games.https://www.giantbom...hing/3010-7793/

IGP may be gone, but the new's articles are not.
https://www.newswire...-510955871.html

Quote

"The success of the Founder's Program reinforces IGP's vision to help independent developers build exceptional games with the right economic model for the global marketplace," said Nick Foster, CEO of IGP.

It says right there that the CEO of IGP was Nick Foster. It also goes on to say how IGP handled the marketing (and yes, sales) of MW:O related aspects, such as the Founder's program (as mentioned within the article). It wouldn't be much of a stretch to presume IGP was in charge of all of MW:O's sale concepts, such as Clan mech packs (which last I recall PGI said they didn't want to include Clans because of balancing reasons... oh wait... what's been one of the biggest contested points of this game to date?) and Gold Mechs (which was also supported by a response by PGI at the time of IGP's removal as "publisher").
FYI: I would not call IGP's concept of "economic model" good, considering some of the things I heard/presume was directed by them, and how they handled the shutting down of MW:Tactics.


About the removal of IGP:
https://www.pcgamer....pment-promised/

About MW:Tactics:
https://bg.battletec...p?topic=43284.0
https://mwomercs.com...ame-publishing/

I got this after about a 10-15 minute google search for "Infinite Games Publisher" (IGP). I was just hoping you had a more direct piece than that on hand...