Mwo 2
#1
Posted 01 June 2019 - 09:01 AM
I say that MWO made PGI what it is today. Studios don't just make one game and it carries them for decades. They make many games that all contribute to the bottom line. A PC game only has a certain amount of shelf life. MWO has had a long life and provided a huge amount of income for PGI. Why in the world would they not be interested in making a MWO 2?
I say quit feeling sorry for yourself Russ!!! Get off your a** and start work on the sequel. MW5 is great and I'm sure it will do well. But it's a different kind of game. Get to work on MWO 2. I know you can do it. You have so many assets now that you didn't have before. You have so much knowledge that you didn't have before. MWO 2 would be considerably less work if you made it in the same engine as MW5. You have the skills, you have the people, you know you can do it.
YOU CAN DO IT! MWO 2!
#2
Posted 01 June 2019 - 09:24 AM
#3
Posted 01 June 2019 - 09:32 AM
PGI had a good run with the Mechwarrior franchise. They got seven years out of an arena shooter. They are now focused on delivering a traditional Mechwarrior game, Mechwarrior5 Mercenaries. This means instead of mechpacks and premium time, transactions will be game purchases and DLC. No server maintenance or constant rebalancing of mechs and weapons. Where does that leave the players of MWO?
1) If PGI wants to continue to run MWO servers either on Cryengine or port MWO to Unreal with Mech5 great. But they have had seven years to make MWO something more than an arena shooter and never quite hit the mark with Community Warfare, Faction Play or Solaris7 modes. We continue to play MWO's current version for a few more months to years.
2) If after the MW5 release Russ and Paul are hanging up their neurohelmets and shutting down the servers to move onto other products, I would wish them well. We may have to wait years, but some other developer will want a try at Mechwarrior.
Edited by SilentScreamer, 02 June 2019 - 06:33 AM.
#4
Posted 01 June 2019 - 10:13 AM
#6
Posted 01 June 2019 - 03:40 PM
#7
Posted 01 June 2019 - 03:47 PM
1)PGI isn't going to port everyone's accounts over to an updated version of MWO, no money in that.
2) People aren't going to rebuy all the stuff they purchased in this MWO again in another version.
3) PGI had 7 years to elevate the game, this is what they can produce enjoy it while its here.... move on when its gone unfortunately.
#8
Posted 01 June 2019 - 03:48 PM
Eatit, on 01 June 2019 - 09:01 AM, said:
Takes funding to do so.
If MWO isn't sustaining it, as opposed to sustaining and surplussing it with the resources to get make new stuff....
then its potentially hemorrhaging money. With what funds would it then make a new game?
Now to be fair, they're making a game already.
And after it rolls out the door it'll make more money which they could use to make that new game.
But why an MWO2? And what would that mean for the current one?
If the license expands far enough..
Why not Tankwarrior... with Battletech tanks?
Aerotech pilot with Battletech aerotech?
Why not Urbanwarrior... with Battletech infantry?
Why not Transverse?
....too soon?
#9
Posted 01 June 2019 - 03:51 PM
Racerxintegra2k, on 01 June 2019 - 03:47 PM, said:
I think a way around this issue would be for "MWO2" or whatever we call it to use entirely new mechs that were not featured in MWO1, at least for the first like year or so. Then people wouldn't feel like they were being charged twice for the same thing.
#10
Posted 01 June 2019 - 03:57 PM
FupDup, on 01 June 2019 - 03:51 PM, said:
I'd be fine with them reusing the mechs... if the funding model didn't revolve around pumping out a new preorder every month.
If it resembled the BT universe with how you could acquire and lose your machines, didn't rely or even allow cash to get them.. and also began providing alternatives. For example mechs are rare. Know what isn't rare? Boots on the ground. Tanks in the field. Aircraft in the sky. And as the battle rages, someone gets a mech.
...Wait, wait..
Damn, that's out already.
Titanfall.
And to think almost 20 years before that, Starsiege beat them to it...and almost 20 years before that, some game called Battletech beat them to it...
Now why didn't we get that game?
(Okay I'm done trolling now.)
But seriously, if we got something other than War Thunder with Mechs for our MW universe, I'd be fine with starting over.
My only hope for it right now is the Living Legends mod for MW5: Mercs (which Russ said was okay so long as it was using MW5)
#11
Posted 01 June 2019 - 04:20 PM
No thanks.
#12
Posted 01 June 2019 - 04:34 PM
You'd think now that they have some if not most the IS models in unreal they'd just work on clans and then bam done. Drop in a clone of canyon network and there. Game made to pgi standards.
#13
Posted 01 June 2019 - 04:36 PM
But we all know they wanted to get that World of Tanks success with a low effort deathmatch game. Though I don't think even they wanted the game to run as bad as it does.
Edited by MechaBattler, 01 June 2019 - 04:41 PM.
#14
Posted 01 June 2019 - 04:36 PM
#15
Posted 01 June 2019 - 05:18 PM
It'd need new engine, and combined arms, or some other HUGE differentiating factor. A new engine isn't big enough on it's own.
If PGI had the resources to make it, a Battlefield-style Mechwarrior game in the same vein of living legends could work really well. Of course, there's a lot of differences since everyone still wants to be able to build their own 'mech, but some sort of combination of Titanfall and Battlefield could really work for Battletech. And that would be different enough from MW:O that people probably wouldn't mind buying into it again.
That would take both triple-A resources and money, neither of which PGI has right now. I suppose in an ideal world they could join up with Microsoft since they own the license and have the resources, or even partner with the leader in that field, DICE, but I don't think it's likely.
#16
Posted 02 June 2019 - 12:27 AM
SilentScreamer, on 01 June 2019 - 09:32 AM, said:
Now while your assertion that it doesn't agree with consumers when a game is shut down in order to immediately start a sequel isn't necessarily incorrect your examples do not actually support that assertion:
- Everquest wasn't shut down in order to launch Everquest II. They ran (and to an extend still are running) side by side with reasonable success regardless of what Everquest veterans had to say about Everquest II
- SW:ToR was done by completely different publishers/studios so that the year of the shutdown of SW Galaxies only coincided with SW:ToR's release but wasn't directly connected in a sense where one was a sequel to the other
#17
Posted 02 June 2019 - 06:24 AM
Der Geisterbaer, on 02 June 2019 - 12:27 AM, said:
Now while your assertion that it doesn't agree with consumers when a game is shut down in order to immediately start a sequel isn't necessarily incorrect your examples do not actually support that assertion:
- Everquest wasn't shut down in order to launch Everquest II. They ran (and to an extend still are running) side by side with reasonable success regardless of what Everquest veterans had to say about Everquest II
- SW:ToR was done by completely different publishers/studios so that the year of the shutdown of SW Galaxies only coincided with SW:ToR's release but wasn't directly connected in a sense where one was a sequel to the other
Thanks for clearing that up, I will strike the examples.
#20
Posted 02 June 2019 - 12:54 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users