Slashdot Mirror


Mechwarrior Online Developer Redefines Community Warfare

New submitter MeatoBurrito writes "The latest iteration of Mechwarrior was crowdfunded (without Kickstarter) as a free-to-play first-person mech simulator. However, despite promises to the founders, the game has been shifted to a third-person arcade shooter and now the community is rioting. This followed a series of other unpopular decisions; the developers decided to sell an item for real money that had a significant impact on gameplay, crossing the line separating cosmetic/convenience items and 'pay-to-win.' Then they added a confusing game mechanic to limit its use, which had the unfortunate side effect of making some strategies completely useless. From the article: 'PGI’s community practices showcase a fundamental misunderstanding of both freemium development and community management. The developer has never had to deal with such a large player base before, and it has never had to deal with the strains of continuous development before. Rather, PGI seems to be handling Mechwarrior Online in much the same way they might a AAA game: by keeping quiet and only discussing its work in vague terms. ... Mechwarrior Online’s road to launch is a cautionary consumer tale, fraught with anger and betrayal. It shows how a company can take a fan base dedicated to an old IP and completely alienate it through lack of communication, unpopular features, and oathbreaking. It shows how players need to be cautious of supporting a project based solely on the IP backing it.'"

189 comments

  1. They used a firewall? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

    " It shows how a company can take a fan base dedicated to an old IP and completely alienate it through lack of communication"

    I thought that firewalls handled that already.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  2. Re:Maybe by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 1

    Speak for yourself, stravag.

  3. I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And I wonder what the heck the submitter / article author is smoking?

    Yes, they've done some things a lot of folks (myself included) have been unhappy with - I could list several things if you guys want - but the stuff in the summary is largely not true. What item is this he claims they have sold for real money (implying you can't get it with in-game currency) that has crossed the line into pay-to-win? I know of no such item!

    The biggest issue they've had recently is the addition of 3rd person view, which upset a lot of us - especially since they promised a separate 'hardcore' queue for those who didn't want to play with folks using 3PV, and then didn't follow through on that. They have made some other moves instead, though, which at least help: the real competition-level 12 vs 12 organized group games will not have 3PV available.

    On the plus side, the gameplay is generally fun and they have also done an *amazing* job with the mech designs! Are there things still to be done? Yes - tons! Are there things I would have done differently - yes, but they can't please everyone! But are they completely shifting to an 'arcade shooter'? Heck no! :)

    --
    William George
    1. Re: I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Original poster is an idiot. It's a fun game as it is, sure there is always more we'd like and we may disagree about some implementation details...but that will always be the case.

    2. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by MeatoBurrito · · Score: 1

      William, When the game was funded they made a point of promising a 1PV Semi-Simulator that would never include "features" like coolant and 3pv They crowed funded the game as no publisher would touch it Without the founders there would have been no MWO at all. People are upset due to the developer’s lies. http://i.imgur.com/DZatw0S.jpg They have now censored everything on their website to remove anything to do with 1PV "promises" to prevent refunds to due false advertising.

    3. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      This is such a piece of obvious shilling.

      A post claiming that hnudreds of PLAYERS have no idea on what they are compaining about.
      And a followup exactly 10 minutes later boldly agreeing with it.

      All with the typical " personally I adore it" tone, offering no explanations for the , oh so obvious bullshit he apparently debunked.
      But of course making up for the lack of argumentation with a sudden burst of score.

      Add to that, the fact that this account has EXCLUSIVELY comments praising ,directly or indirectly, a certain company or its products.

      No opinions.

      Not a sigle non-product-related answer.

      And a few "Funny" modded puns sprinkled here and there to make it more palatable.

    4. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You people really can't believe that people sometimes have different opinions can you? Maybe if the account was made yesterday you'd have a point. But maybe it's entirely possible some people just aren't as mad as you are about this.

    5. Re: I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'out of body' 3PV mode is the real issue, I mean it is borderline torturous for many die hard MW fans.

    6. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Can you tell me who his employer is? Cause I sure as hell would love to get paid to post comments on slashdot. Haven't found a single sponsor dumb enough to fund a slashdot shill in all these years of searching. Maybe one day.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    7. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like a classic case of whinging vocal minority (whom do not really have the full picture of the game). this happens in a lot of these kind of games.

    8. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      And I wonder what the heck the submitter / article author is smoking?

      I read the link from the summery http://www.gamefront.com/mechwarrior-online-forum-ragesplosion/ (how to write an article!) and links from that. One thing I noticed is everybody on the user side is back tracking, this thread http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/132638-3rd-person-an-update-and-apology-feedback-thread/ while locked after three pages is full of edits.

    9. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh the irony.

      Oh well, its to be expected.
      I won't follow the manual approach and confront you on a personal level.
      I wont question or resort to the human behind that script/manual of yours.

      I will just, add slashdot to the list of corporate owned mediums and never read it again.
      So long, It's been fun.

    10. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "People don't agree with me therefore they are shills"

    11. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So which part of the development team are you?

    12. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I play the game with my 2 brothers and 2 best friends, and a few other people.

      I agree with WilliamGeorge - completely.

      This ARTICLE is a farse. There is DEFINITELY no item sold for real money that you can't get with free money which changes the game. What a stupid lie. If this exists... TELL US THE ITEM. Why hide it???

      Yes, the 3rd person view is SO SO SOOOOOOOOO dumb. I hate it. I want them to take it away... BUT

      I will say this - it sucks, completely. It offers the 3rd person user ZERO advantage in almost ALL situations - and only a few situations it offers a LITTLE advantage. So I hope they get rid of it but thsi doesn't ruin the game for me.

    13. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 1

      Actually, while they did some crowd-funding (the Founders program - I'm one myself, as is my brother) they *do* have a publisher: IGP. I always thought it funny that PGI made the game and IGP published it :)

      And yes, as I mentioned they have changed things - some to the disappointment of fans, including myself. But they have definitely *not* gone pay to win (the coolant flush can be purchased with real money or 'researched' and then purchased with in-game XP / credits). I'd prefer they had never put it in, of course, but it does not break the game and is not pay to win.

      They have a legitimate point about some people learning better with third person. I've been trying to teach my son to play, who is 5, and he didn't get movement at all until I showed him 3rd person. I think they could have avoided that with a proper tutorial, which the game still lacks (I hope they have that fixed for launch), but at least they are going to prevent it on the serious 12 v 12 organized matches (which I hope carries over to the big 12 v 12 fights between merc companies in community warfare as well - we'll see).

      So while many of us hard-core fans may not like everything they are doing with the game, and there is still tons of room for improvement, they are not turning the game into either pay-to-win or a purely arcade game. Can people play casually in a more arcade style? Sure - but if they stay in 3rd person all they time they will have an advantage 5% of the time and be at a disadvantage the other 95%.

      --
      William George
    14. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 1

      Wait, what exactly are you accusing me of? I'm in no way affiliated with PGI or IGP - aside from being a MechWarrior player. I work for a computer company, but not one that makes or markets games:

      http://www.pugetsystems.com/bios.php?name=williamgeorge

      Now I *did* write a blog post on MWO, when it hit open beta, because I really like it. I liked it more at that time, since some of the sillier elements (3PV, coolant) had not been added yet - but even though they've done some things I don't like I still enjoy the game.

      http://www.pugetsystems.com/blog/2012/10/03/our-favorite-games-mechwarrior-online/

      Now again, what were you accusing me of? Was it just having different opinions than you? If so, I plead 'guilty' :)

      --
      William George
    15. Re: I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 1

      I agree, though in all fairness every past MW game has had it too. I play without it, and am *very* pleased that it will be removed from the serious, 12 v 12 grouped games :)

      --
      William George
    16. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The reality is they are targeted a particular audience in the F2P PvP (which I like to call purse vs purse and yes the connotation of those players attacking each other with their cute little Fabergé purses is appropriate) which is highly fractious. For quite a few of them it is not about gaming it is about beating other people and in their mind humiliating them, no matter how much the spend (lame) or cheat to do it. Do anything to upset them (like spill soup on them in a restaurant, beat them to a carpark et al) and they immediately go off the deep end.

      I think a lot of game developers are starting to find out that focusing in on F2P PvE vs PvP, attracts a much easier to deal with customer base and overall for long term sustainability and profitability is preferable.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    17. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      There's a definite negative agenda behind the original summary and article. The bulk of the community ARE happy with the changes and have continued to play. It's only a vocal minority that have screamed at the top of their lungs for attention, I sat in (online) on a couple of #saveMWO meetings and apart from a few well considered opinions the bulk of the talk was whining/specualtion about things that hadn't happened yet or were basically untrue.

    18. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of players,out of a player base of at least tens of thousands. If you look at the original amount of money raised and assume that most people bought one of the top 2 tiers then there were at least 50,000 players at launch and probably a lot more now.

    19. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      If you can only be mechanically competitive 1 out of X hours with a real money spender it's part time pay to win.

    20. Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped playing after the introduction of ghost heat. It's a dumb mechanic that does a poor job fixing a perceived problem poorly, and worse, is completely non-intuitive and u documented in the interface. Since I stopped, I haven't seen PGI do anything to attract me back, and worse, they've done plenty to drive me off, and I'm not alone in feeling this way. The narative in PGI's defense that it's 'just a bunch of whiners trying to play game dev' misses the biggest concern, PGI is actively alienating their fan base. I don't want to tell them what to do, I want them to make an enjoyable game, and they're failing at that.

  4. managing expectations by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I would say it was more an issue of managing expectations and the fan base expecting something for nothing.

    When you "crowdfund" something you are giving money with really no basis for expecting anything in return. This is why I would rather just buy something instead of crowdfund it. I don't do investment, it is risky. I do do Kiva though for small amounts.

    This is problem with kickstarter and the like. Managing expectations. It looks like you are buying a product when in fact you are giving money to someone to develop an idea. This illusion of buying a product is reinforced by the limitation on 'fund my life projects'.

    In this case a game was produced. It sounds like due to financial constraints of running the game certain compromises had to made. This is standard. The initial concept is almost always unfeasible. Certain comprises have to be made during the engineering process. But the fact remains that apparently the money was used to develop a product that was, in general, like the product being advertised.

    What the firm maybe should have done is said that the original product could not be developed, and, BTW, we have no contract to give you anything, so we will just take the work done and make this complete other product, which looks almost the same, but we promise isn't, and you can pay just like anyone else. Which really is what they did but they tried to sugarcoat a bit better than that.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:managing expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you cannot guarantee any return I would still expect the developers to do there best to produce the product they promised to produce.

      I would not expect them to spend my money on a holiday in the Bahama's. I would not expect them to produce a novelty can-opener when I funded the production of a game. And when a series of promises about a game are made (for example in this case not including third-person view) I would not expect those promises to be broken without a good explanation.

      In this case it looks like a lot of the initial selling points are being changed or removed and no explanation is being given beyond "we aren't developing for you any more". Had I given money I would rightly be pissed off in that situation.

    2. Re:managing expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "We aren't developing for you anymore" is a patently retarded way to read what was actually said.

      Here is the actual quote for anyone interested:
      "After releasing 3PV we saw an immediate improvement in our target demographic, with a good bump in new player retention!"

      A sensible person would read this as "This feature helped the specific demographic (new players) that we intended it to help."

      Crazy people read it as "This entire game is now an arcade shooter now get out."

    3. Re:managing expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding from RTFA was that an original promise made in order to garner funding was that there would be no 3PV.

      To turn around and break that promise, introduce 3PV, then say it helped "the target demographic", would, all emotion aside, imply that the original funders were no longer in that demographic.

      So that doesn't strike me as crazy at all, just the inevitable logical conclusion of the companies statement and representations.

    4. Re:managing expectations by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Actually, that isn't sustainable.

      When people give money to one of these projects, it is a an agreement between fans and developer.

      Is it legally binding? No. And that might be part of the problem. The fans were dumb enough to think they didn't need an ability to legally compel the contract.

      If fans have no expectation of things actually getting done they're not going to contribute to these projects.

      I've personally given a few thousand dollars to various kickstarter projects and all of them have lived up to their obligations.

      If they don't, I absolutely have a right to feel betrayed. This is precisely why publishers hold developers by the nuts. They put real money on the table to get a job done and they expect value for money.

      The whole kickstarter/crowdfunding system will die if developers do not deliver and contributors see themselves as idiots of even trying.

      A developer that does not respect his fan base does not deserve to be funded. End of story.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:managing expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just hit the nail on the head with sentence #1.

      "it was more an issue of...the fan base expecting something for nothing"

      Seriously people....there SHOULD be a charge to play a game like this. It takes a lot of money to maintain, and develop. I applaud them for even allowing free gameplay. The model where you can choose when and how much to contribute -- for the ability to be impatient and buy stuff much faster than via building up in-game currency; OR to have certain things available to those that are NOT freeloaders is great.

      Welcome to life....quit whining like a spoiled brat!

  5. Old hat by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    It shows how players need to be cautious of supporting a project based solely on the IP backing it.'"

    Or as those of us in the old guard of the geek community call it... "The Lucas Effect".

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  6. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why shouldn't they be whiny? The online gaming hivemind decreed a long time ago that anything "pay to win" was something that they generally don't want. This was and still is the line for many people where monetizing a product stops being about making a reasonable profit and starts being about wringing consumers for every last penny.

    There is no reason, in this day and age, that developers need to be making massive game destroying mistakes like this. There are many business models out there that skirt the "pay to win" boundary without crossing it that they could have copied (see LoL, Eve, PS2, etc). It's just incompetence on the part of the developers.

  7. Just like Star Wars Galaxies by Lophir · · Score: 1

    PGI has managed to snatch failure from the jaws of success, by ignoring, insulting, and lying to it's community.

    1. Re:Just like Star Wars Galaxies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmmmmm Yup smells kinda like Smedley did doesn't it?

  8. "Arcade shooter"? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hah, how sensationalist. No, they just added a third person camera like all the old Mechwarrior offline games and a bunch of tryhards who seem to know better than the developers -- and these sort ALWAYS think they know better than the developers -- are upset about it.

    1. Re:"Arcade shooter"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mechwarrior is past its prime, and will never get over its Xbox incarnation.

    2. Re:"Arcade shooter"? by Lophir · · Score: 1

      3rd person was fine in singleplayer offline games. This game was billed and founded and collected money as a first-person-only multiplayer sim game.

    3. Re:"Arcade shooter"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adding a third person camera is one thing but replacing the cockpit view with it is a whole other thing. You just don't do that with simulator games. A lot of people have bought a mech control panel to play mech games and those go for over $300. I'd be upset too.

    4. Re:"Arcade shooter"? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The best Mechwarrior single-player, IMO, was Mechwarrior 2 Mercs, a first-person 3D. While old, it was awesome.

      In any case, that's changing the game. Many don't want it, end of story, they vote with their cash, and therefore you're wrong.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:"Arcade shooter"? by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      3PV has minimal impact in the game. No one uses it, it has some moderate drawbacks, and frankly it is just not that great.

      Was it a waste of development time. Yes. Is it a real problem. No.

    6. Re:"Arcade shooter"? by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Out of 10+ drops last night (120+ players, or 110+ if I don't include myself in the ten drops) I saw 3 people using 3PV. Anecdotal evidence only, and I'd be in a higher player bracket but still....

    7. Re:"Arcade shooter"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well they do know better than the developers, because those "tryhards" experienced 3PV firsthand in MW4, and it is being used now exactly as it was used then. Gotta love it when knowitalls start spewing nonsense based on their minimal knowledge on the subject.

    8. Re:"Arcade shooter"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issues is not that they lied about adding it (They said in the beginning this is a mech simulator) but when they did a poll asking about implementing 3rd person view (about 7000 said no while only about 150 said yes) they lied again about people wanting it.
      The final drop was when they said they would put 3rd person view but would NOT force anyone who wanted to play in a 1st person view only aka hardcore mode.
      They option is there but you CANT use it. And they force people to use by default. (No big deal since you can go into options and disable it. (so you start each match in 1st person view.
      PGI says you don't have a tactical advantage when using 3rd person view but the truth is even when it nerfs other things it does provides a huge scouting and cover advantage.
      In the end people spoke with their wallet and cancelled their purchase of the Phoenix package.

      You can say it' about nerd rage but instead of working on real issues and keeping their promise they not only ignored forums request to correct bugs but literally spit in their fan-base face. A same many have already left the game altogether.

    9. Re:"Arcade shooter"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MW2 Mercs was one of the best online games in years at the time. Long live Defenders of the Dixie Cups.

  9. Re:Ba la la la leh leh leh! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    What will those crazy psychologists think of next ???!!!

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  10. Re:Maybe by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fan base shouldn't be so whiny and picky. That goes for any fan base or gaming community.

    If you want a less whiny and picky fanbase don't, Just Don't base your game's appeal on a continuously-developed-since-1984 tabletop-wargamer-nerd cult hit. Especially not one with several successful-but-now-dated PC game interpretations already built by other developers.

    If you have made that mistake, don't double down on the stupid by systematically alienating players and pushing the game toward the direction of being a generic action/arcade title (because that's not a crowded genre where better-funded franchises will crush you like a bug or anything...)

    If you want to play the "This is my goddam gameworld, you don't have to like it, the door is that way!" strategy it's idiotic to base the game on a well-established franchise universe: it severely limits your creative options and ensures that you'll have a pack of fanboys with reference materials rules-lawyering you on every point. It's not as though there isn't a market for 3rd-person robot-blaster games, it just isn't called Battletech.

    If you want a prefab fanatical player base, (which you can get by adopting an established franchise universe), be prepared to keep in mind that, so far as the gamers are concerned, it's your job to turn the universe they care about into a game that does it justice. You are just the means. If you can do that, you get the advantage of having the buzz done for you to some extent; but if you try to push against them, they'll quickly take the stance that you aren't doing your job.

  11. Cool Shot by archer,+the · · Score: 5, Informative

    The top tier Cool Shot is what the author is saying was pay-to-win. I never used one. I built my mechs to not overheat and thus take advantage of opponents who did.

    I've been playing the game for 6 months. It's been fun, but I've just been finding it too repetitive lately. I'd still recommend it to anyone who likes the MechWarrior concept. Just be prepared to spend time on the forums learning how to play, as no tutorial is provided by the developer.

    1. Re: Cool Shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a free equivalent to the top tier cool shot. Ergo, not P2W

    2. Re:Cool Shot by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      Cool Shot (a one time use heat disipation module) is NOT pay to win.

      There is an in game module you can get that has the EXACT same effect.

      As someone above stated, there have been issues some peopl e have had (3PV) but PTW is not one of them.

      Frankly I think the 'uproar' is a tempest in a teapot. The 3PV is annoying, but certainly not game changing. They wasted development time on it, but that is really y only problem with it at this time.

      Honestly, this post seems like one guy whining about something he doesn't like in a game.

    3. Re:Cool Shot by mrwolf007 · · Score: 1

      The top tier Cool Shot is what the author is saying was pay-to-win. I never used one. I built my mechs to not overheat and thus take advantage of opponents who did.

      You must be kidding. Even 3 medium lasers are enough to overheat a mech on all but the coldest maps. With double heat sinks that is.
      So you only play with machine guns and Gauss rifles?

      Aside from that, yes, Cool shot is pretty much crap.

    4. Re:Cool Shot by RMingin · · Score: 2

      The article (past page 1) is NOT about Cool Shot. Cool Shot is addressed on page 1, page 2 is primarily about Ghost Heat, and page 3 is about Third Person View and the many, many, many reversals of previous commitments that PGI has now made.

      If you want to make a widely-popular shooter set in the MW universe, that's FINE. Really, it is. It's been done dozens of times.

      But if you want to make something special, something sim-like and first person, and leave out the pay to win elements, then you need to DO that, and NOT backtrack or change your mind when the funds get low!

      You die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villian. PGI lived too long, they outlasted their own ideals.

      --
      The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
    5. Re:Cool Shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats why you need to modify your builds to have sufficient heat sinks...

    6. Re:Cool Shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm learn how to design a mech and time your shots?

    7. Re:Cool Shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until the community got upset, the Money Cool Shot 18 was much much better...

      Uproar = change to coolshot.

      And you think "one guy whining" isn't useful?

    8. Re:Cool Shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be kidding. Even 3 medium lasers are enough to overheat a mech on all but the coldest maps. With double heat sinks that is.
      So you only play with machine guns and Gauss rifles?

      Aside from that, yes, Cool shot is pretty much crap.

      what are you on about?

      I run a Cat K2 with dual UAC5's and 4 med lasers and I have to really try to get that thing to overheat.

  12. This isn't a story, this is a distorted opinion by 1019 · · Score: 2

    One-sided opinions does not a story make.

    --
    shame on us / for all we have done / and all we ever were / just zeroes and ones
  13. What are YOU smoking? by N_Piper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about the part where the guy doing the "Ask the Devs" thread regularly take on questions that he answers with something along the lines of I don't know.
    Or that the Community Manager's only apparent contribution is getting big names in the "Let's Play" and Game reviewing to make videos of the game...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIn-im_tWEg Reference Video
    Or that instead of a Valve style change log the updates instead focus almost exclusively on purchasable content, there wasn't even a foot note when all the weapon sound effects were changed.
    Do I even need to bring up the cluster fuck that is ECM? Bringing in the Raven mech whose role as a dedicated ECM platform is somewhat undercut by the fact that only one of the three versions can mount ECM at all was a bad idea made worse by the fact that ECM was totally overpowered to the point of totally disrupting the team alliance indicators making it impossible to tell who you were shooting at.
    Also to remind you the Hero Mech design are Cash money only variants different from any acquired with in game currency that also have a bonus to exp and in game currency.
    Really though the main gist of the post is that PGI has failed to keep people happy or to even make enough empty promises to hold off full out rioting, Remember back a few months ago when PGI went ahead and deleted over half the official forums because it was getting unruly, Or we can look at the bottom half of this post http://mwomercs.com/news/2013/08/730-september-creative-developer-update where they admit things are getting so abusive that they are considering calling police on some commentors...
    That is not a well managed community, not at all.
    I play in a group and have seen several Gold Founders (people who paid $120 to get into the closed beta) walk away in disgust or boredom.
    Things are going downhill.

    1. Re:What are YOU smoking? by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "I play in a group and have seen several Gold Founders (people who paid $120 to get into the closed beta) walk away in disgust or boredom."

      Everyone had the big warning light flashing called "F2P" when mechwarrior went online only. That alone should have told anyone in the know all they needed to know. The reality is the fans who paid for MWO are stupid fucks. They are the reason developers are exploiting gamers, the dumb half of the gaming community is just so huge and missing brain cells.

    2. Re:What are YOU smoking? by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My brother, who is also a Founder (like I am) nearly walked from the game due to the 3PV issue. Then a few days ago he asked me to join him to play and record (FRAPS) a few games, with the idea of trying to exploit 3PV and post results to the forums.

      You know what? After trying we found that yes - sometimes, in just the right circumstances, it could be exploited... but that in PUG matches it didn't really seem to alter the overall match results, and that not a ton of people were using it anyway. Beside that, if you sit in 3PV you are at a disadvantage much of the time for aiming and other important aspects of advanced gameply. He has since started playing a lot again, and we were both greatly encouraged by PGI stating that the pre-organized 12 v 12 matches will *not* have 3PV as an option starting in a couple of patches.

      --
      William George
    3. Re:What are YOU smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying its basically jsut a bunch of over zealous fan freaking out over a minor change?

    4. Re:What are YOU smoking? by Chrontius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also to remind you the Hero Mech design are Cash money only variants different from any acquired with in game currency that also have a bonus to exp and in game currency.

      And my anecdote? During the "LRMAgeddon" phase of beta, just after missiles' lofted trajectories were dialed back to make cover work, I played a Centurion. It mounted 15 LRM tubes in the left torso, and an AC/20 in the right arm for when the missiles went dry and/or someone got too close for comfort.

      A few weeks later, the server was reset and I lost my well-loved war machine. Then I found out that the economy was scaled back to the point of grinding with 'rental' mechs, after a month of evenings I plunked down my C-bills for a new Centurion chassis. I discovered I couldn't fit an AC/20 in the arm, and then I discovered they were selling my variant - but only for real-world money. And once I bought it, I'd earn money and XP 30% faster. The economy seemed to be balanced around those boosts now, for progress became painfully slow, and the game became boring - competing against real-money mecha with perfect builds in a 20-ton Commando, purchased so the 75% "you don't own your mech" penalty to earning money and the 100% "you don't own your mech" penalty to earning experience, is an exercise in futility. Because there is no respawning in this game, I typically spent about 5 minutes playing, 25 minutes spectating to get my money and XP.

      Not strictly pay2win, but working your way into the real game content the cheap way became an exercise in masochism.

  14. Re:free-to-play flat out lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I should also add that i am a founder member. And i have abandoned this game.
    Paying them before seeing what kind of scummy greed was going to run the game and the fun was damm stupid of me.

    R.I.P mechwarrior.

  15. Seems inevitable, somehow. by gallondr00nk · · Score: 0

    1: Buy the rights and announce a multiplayer version of a dearly loved series of games, suggest some great ideas, receive lots of money and goodwill.

    2: Drag your feet, procrastinate, dumb the game down, fail to implement features and watch it finally drift endlessly as yet another average, money grubbing F2P.

    3: ???

    4: Profit!

    CAPTCHA : pitiable

    1. Re:Seems inevitable, somehow. by horm · · Score: 1

      Battletoads Online!

  16. Wasn't there a mech-style game on kickstarter? by Da+w00t · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember there being a mechwarrior style game on kickstarter that looked really good in videos - now for the life of me I can't track it down. It was a mech style game, but not the mechwarrior brand.

    --

    da w00t. mtfnpy?
    1. Re:Wasn't there a mech-style game on kickstarter? by Lophir · · Score: 1

      I believe you mean heavy gear.

    2. Re:Wasn't there a mech-style game on kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawken?

  17. Is HiRez doing this title as well? by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the sad tale of Tribes.

  18. Re:free-to-play flat out lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even most of the people who now hate the game agree that the game is anything but P2W.

  19. Background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's some background for those who are wondering WTF this is all about: about 13 years ago MW4 came out and a combination of factors, including the visibility 3rd person view afforded the pilot, turned it into a "sit behind a hill, jump and take potshots" type of game. Because of the stories they've heard from uninformed/biased sources, most people who didn't play MW4 think 3rd person view is the devil and any mention of it drives them into an incoherent, foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.

    Put yourself in the devs' shoes for a second. There's a feature you want to implement but any mention of it sends the community into an incoherent rage. You know why and how this feature was abused in the past and have a plan to make it abuse-proof but if you even bring up that you want to put it in the game, you'll have a lot of people ragequitting the whole game before they even see if the feature's as bad as they feared. Do you tell them and risk losing a lot of players, or ninja it in and hope the community is intelligent and open-minded enough to see it's not nearly as bad as they thought?

    I haven't played MWO in a while but I keep in touch with people who do and what I've heard is that 3rd person view isn't anything special and they still prefer 1st person when playing competitively. The OP is nothing but agenda-driven horseshit from a sore loser who hasn't gotten over his hate of the myth of 3pv enough to see that the addition of it has done exactly nothing to the game.

    1. Re:Background by raynet · · Score: 1

      Clever developer would allow people with 1st person view choose if they want to play with 1st person view players only or allow 3rd person view players too. And same option for 3rd person view players.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    2. Re: Background by Reapy · · Score: 1

      Wait, I'm confused. I played mw4 but not mwo. After reading the article it seems to me there is that cool shot item ( how long to grind that out?) that makes alpha striking better than ever. 3rd person jump sniping further supports that. I stopped playing mw4 due to disliking the hill humpping and jump sniping alpha strike gameplay. I see that as a bad thing IMHO, but others might enjoy it I guess...but why was mw4 jump sniping bad vs mwo jump sniping being good?

    3. Re: Background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that cool shot item ( how long to grind that out?)

      A couple of hours flipping burgers.

      There's an in-game-currency variant but I'm not sure how long you'd have to play to get it.

    4. Re: Background by mrwolf007 · · Score: 1

      After reading the article it seems to me there is that cool shot item ( how long to grind that out?)

      It costs 15k GXP (one time XP cost) to upgrade coolshot-9 modules into coolshot 9x9 modules which are identical to the coolshot 18 (pay currency version).
      At around 50-100 GXP per match (~8 minutes) thats about 20-40h of playing the game to be able to upgrade it. Its not used much though (there are non-consumable modules which are better on basicly every build).

    5. Re: Background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats sort of the point of f2p. You can pay to advance faster. 20-40h doesn't seem as bad as some other games.

  20. I don't get the perspective issue. by taxman_10m · · Score: 2

    I thought the article said a person could toggle between first and third person. Wasn't that always the case in the Mech games? At least I think I recall that in MechWarrior Mercenaries.

    1. Re:I don't get the perspective issue. by Lophir · · Score: 1

      The Mechwarrior and Mechassault series were in third person. MWO was billed, founded, and collected money as first-person-only multiplayer sim game.

    2. Re:I don't get the perspective issue. by PhrstBrn · · Score: 1

      The game was initially advertised as a first-person-only multiplayer game. People liked the idea of a first-person-only mech game.

      Problem with 3rd person is that it kills a lot of strategy and decisions inherit to a first person only game. An easy example, in a first-person-only game, you can hide behind a rock and be completely hidden. The only way to see what's on the other side of the rock is to walk around the rock (this goes for both the person hiding AND the any attackers). With 3rd person mode, you can simply rotate your camera angle around and check what's on the other side of the rock without having to poke your head around. This in effect makes any scouting roles less useful, since you don't need to scout around objects any more, just swing your camera around.

    3. Re: I don't get the perspective issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MW2, MW2M, MW3 and MW4 all had 3PV

    4. Re: I don't get the perspective issue. by luther349 · · Score: 1

      because it was not supposed to ever be put in the game. it has to do with gameplay the fps view had its limits like not seeing behind you etc without turning the mech. so you had buddy's watch your six. scouts also would need to be sent to check in hiding places like behind a rock. now all you do is swing the camera around essentially braking the core game play they promised to deliver. i don't think it would have gotten as much hate if they would have added the promised hardcore mode that disabled 3pv but they did not yet.

    5. Re:I don't get the perspective issue. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      At least I think I recall that in MechWarrior Mercenaries.

      Mech II Merc was first-person.

    6. Re: I don't get the perspective issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a 3pv, but it was mostly more trouble than it was worth.

    7. Re:I don't get the perspective issue. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Agreed. FPS only.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    8. Re:I don't get the perspective issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=6590&tab=controls

      "C external tracking camera (xtc) on/off"

      How about no.

  21. Rage of the Dumb Ass Dominion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, the anti-PGI propaganda is spreading. The Dumb Ass Dominion (DAD) continues to shack their fist in the air about how they where "wronged" by a feature that is so horribly gimped, it might as well not be there. The bases for the outrage, PGI originally stated that they didn't have plans to include the feature because it wasn't part of their initial vision. Now PGI realized that the feature was essential to attracting and retaining new players. But the DAD has to rage because they don't want players who will play the game differently than they do.

    1. Re:Rage of the Dumb Ass Dominion by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Not play it differently -- play a different game. Enormous difference.

      They took the money promising one thing, and pulled the rug out from under the very people who funded it .

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Rage of the Dumb Ass Dominion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it isn't a different game. It is still a mech shooter. 3PV was added as an option, but it is practically useless to play in.

    3. Re:Rage of the Dumb Ass Dominion by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      So if it is useless why add it then? All it does is piss off the people who wanted a sim, which is what they were sold. And now, it is no longer that game. Of course they are pissed.

      A simple fix would be to allow players to simply get put into different battle/match queues by selecting a choice of:
      A) "only play with people with 1st person view"
      B)"only play with people using 3rd person view"
      C) "play with both 1st person and 3rd person views available to all players in the match"

      Wow! An amazing concept that doesn't alienate the people who funded you to begin with while still allowing you to add a "feature" which might bring more diverse people to the game.

      But really if you as me, this is probably the final straw for many people. They put up with a lot of stupid crap already, a lot of which hasn't even been mentioned in the article. I personally didn't put up with it and stopped playing and got my refund on the original founders pack when they pushed out the game WAY before it was ready. They also have all kinds of balancing issues to this very day (one of the things mentioned in the article) because the developers of the game have no clue how to simply use the already balanced weapons in the Battletech/Mechwarrior Universe and apply them into a video game. The reason there is a need for "Cool Shot" is because they have the heat cycle for weapons at INSANE levels compared to the actual universe rules. There are hundreds of mech configurations in the universe which you simply cannot make in the video game because the heat is so high that you need 5-6 times the number of heatsinks that it should take to cool it. That equates to all lost weight which would be used for weapons or armor, and in many cases simply means you can't be heat stable when it should be, which is because they wanted to SELL you "Cool Shot".

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    4. Re:Rage of the Dumb Ass Dominion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was added because new players where having problems understanding that the direction of their torso and the direction of their legs were different. As a result, they would get frustrated with the game and quit. Unfortunately, PGI's implementation is so bad, that it actually causes more frustration than it alleviates. As soon as they realize this, I expect PGI to fix 3PV to be more playable in the future. They pretty much have to.

      The DAD originally did not want split queues. The DAD stated that splitting the queues would be bad for the game. In a way, PGI listen to them by not splitting the queues, especially after PGI saw that 3PV was more of a handicap than an advantage.

      Already balanced weapons in BattleTech? You've got to be kidding. They did start out with the BattleTech number and found that they were not anywhere close to being balanced. BattleTech relies on randomness to "balance" its weapons. But in MechWarrior, that randomness is replaced by player skill which isn't as random. For this reason, BattleTech favors more, lighter weapons (more chances to hit the opponent) while MechWarrior favors a few heavy weapons with high damage output. The heat generated by weapons are almost exactly same values for both. So if you are calling MechWarrior's heat generation is "insane" then so is BattleTech's heat generation.

      As for "needing" Cool Shot, well it is available for 40,000 C-bills (the in game currency). Even in a bad match, you can recoup the cost. But all my mech builds are pretty cool running and I don't contently alpha them. Well except for my Quad-AC/5 Jagers. But they have a heat efficiency of nearly 100% with just the 10 DHS in the engine. I run out of ammo long before I have to worry about overheating. My UAC/5 based Cataphracts are in a similar situation. Makes me wonder when PGI reintroduces Repair & Rearm if this same group will QQ that it is some sort of "money grab" because it R&R is a C-bill sink.

  22. #SaveMWO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please google #SaveMWO for additional information on PGI's handling of this, I can assure you this is not a "one-sided" representation of what is currently going on in MWO.

    I'm glad some people can still find enjoyment in this game, but in ignoring the most dedicated and competitive of their fans, PGI have forsaken the long-term health of their game for their short-term goals. The game has very real problems, and the developers refusal to communicate and listen to their fan-base have caused a great many of us to throw our hands up in disgust. It is especially disappointing considering the state of the game was generally quite good in closed-beta when they were listening and working with their community, but they've thrown that all away now that the game has gotten more publicity. I can only hope the bad press finally forces them to reconsider the direction they've chosen, but until that point I will not be playing or giving them another dime.

    1. Re: #SaveMWO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #SaveMWO is being run by the same goons who broke Eve Online

  23. Echos of Warhammer online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geeze this sounds just like what happened with warhammer online (save for the crowdfunding aspect)

    1. Re:Echos of Warhammer online? by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Gah, don't remind me.

      Mythic was so bad as a MMO developer they gave rise to the next level of fail after Epic fail: Mythic fail.

      And still I played that damn game for 2.5 years...

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
  24. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well maybe they not be ruining a game that people loved and spent cash on...

    That said! Go fuck yourself!

  25. Looking to id an arcade game? by proto · · Score: 1

    There was this Mechwarrior-type arcade game from Japan I saw in a Pizza restaurant. I can't remember the game's full name but I was dazzled by the game play effects. It had Mechwarriors movements as fast as the Flash of DC comic books. The player commit strikes that emit light flashes similar to lightning. The user can switch between two perspectives: fighting view from within the Mechwarrior or 3rd person view as in Mortal combat. I can only remember the name contained "Gundam". Do you know of this game? Is there any capture video on youtube of this arcade game?

    1. Re:Looking to id an arcade game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can only remember the name contained "Gundam". Do you know of this game? Is there any capture video on youtube of this arcade game?

      You need to be more descriptive, alas.

      The game wasn't "Mechwarrior-type", by the way. Japan is absofreakinglutely crazy about Gundam simulation games. Mechwarrior? Battletech isn't even a thing compared to the Gundam fandom.

      As it were, you can find metric tons of gameplay video on YouTube. Helps to be able to understand/type in Japanese, though searching for 'Gundam simulator' should get you started. May not help in finding that specific game, though.

    2. Re:Looking to id an arcade game? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Basically this was an arcade-ized version of the MW4/Virtual World BattleTech game.

      It'd drop you as a single cockpit into a bunch of bots and let you shoot it out.

      One of the local theaters in my area had one at one time.

      Honestly, I've been a BattleTech-head for decades.
      And I was prepared to spend some money on MWO. I even opened my wallet for a Founders package.
      But the way PGI is shaping up, I have real difficulty justifying giving them any more money. Ever.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    3. Re:Looking to id an arcade game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you go to http://www.arcade-museum.com/ and search for Gundam, do you find the one you are looking for?

    4. Re:Looking to id an arcade game? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that Senjou no Kizuna?

      http://youtu.be/pALLp0L_Xkw

      I spent a whole day in Tokyo playing this. If Mechwarrior could get something similar, with the same level of multiplayer, that would be amazing. It would probably not really go anywhere, though, about like Virtual World.

  26. OP is bad and he should feel bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody not familiar with MWO should come try the game out instead of listening to this troll. The monetization system the same as LoL in that nothing you can buy is P2W. This so called riot is mostly coming from Goons and sock puppets. PGI communicates way more than Square Enix, EA, Ubi or most other major developers. I'm upset that CW and Clans got delayed too but hey they still update more often than Valve and I'd rather wait then make childlike demands to have it right away in some broken mutant state. 3rd Person View is no where near as bad as any of the whiners made it out to be. Unlike lots of F2P, They are even refunding people who preordered and got mad about a freaking camera. I love my stompy robots and so do alot of other people do come play with us. Inb4 white knight

  27. Re:free-to-play flat out lie. by stjobe · · Score: 4, Informative

    They were selling all of the mechs people want to play with for cash. The entire stable of mechs. All for sale.

    This is very wrong, so much so it must be an intentional lie. Out of 93 'mech variants, only 12 are cash-only. 81 are available for in-game currency.

    Can you download and drop into an atlas and go killing? Hell no. You got a very very limited selection of what to do. And what you could do with it.

    As a new player, you'll start out in a selection of trial 'mechs while you earn in-game currency to purchase your own 'mech (that you can then customize to your liking for more in-game currency). To facilitate this, you get a rather hefty in-game currency bonus for your first 25 games. At the end of those 25 matches, you'll have enough both to purchase and customize and Atlas, if that's what you want.

    Every battle quickly shaped up to be paid players stomping the shit repeatedly out of free players.

    Almost the entire point of the mechwarrior series was behind a credit card. Thats not any sort of free to play. That's flat out pay to play

    It's also not true. The Hero 'mechs (the cash-only 'mechs) aren't superior to the in-game currency ones, and there's generally not enough of them on a team to make a difference anyway. People generally play in regular, non-Hero 'mechs. What is happening though is that organized teams "stomp the shit" out of disorganized groups of non-team players. But hey, it's a team game.

    these people ruined it.

    While there's no love lost between me and PGI, they haven't actually ruined the game yet. They seem to do their damndest to get there, but they haven't quite managed yet. At its core, the game is a really great 'mech simulation; it's just all the other bits that suck.

    Oh and the fact that it's getting less and less BattleTech with every patch. That sucks really bad as well.

    --
    "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
  28. Pay-to-win down-your-throat by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Free-to-play is an awful model, thrust upon gamers because the publishers have decided it must be so. If it can't be online, then it can be pirated, and the notion that there's a nickel in a gamer's pocket that doesn't come to them violates the most dearly-held religious belief of the game companies.

    Nobody really likes free-to-play. I don't know anyone for whom it is their first choice of gaming platform. When a gamer hears that some well-known property is coming out as free-to-play, there is a sinking feeling in their collective stomach.

    And this physical reaction is very interesting. I've tried a few F2P games, and I find I get an actual nausea from them. One is actually a good game, Planetside 2, but the impossible-to-escape awareness that there's a guy there, tapping you on the shoulder to try to get you to buy something, or to just give him some money, permeates every moment of game-time. If Planetside 2 was a subscription model like Eve, or a dedicated server model, I'd gladly buy the game. But no matter how fun Planetside 2 is (and if you get a good group of people it's a LOT of fun), that nausea never leaves. Whenever you realize that spending another $12 will get you better weapons and armor, and a temporary boost to XP, you get that sick feeling.

    Maybe this will change some day, but I see a future with a lot more of these Mechwarrior situations where a community of fans, who have happily PAID MONEY for the game in the past, just decide, "Fuck it" and look for something else to play.

    I certainly don't see the me-too, uncreative, group-think that goes on in most game companies giving up on the F2P strategy. They're sold on it and it really doesn't matter what the gamers - the customers- want. It's the way of the world now. There's always another crop of 12 year-olds who will spend time on F2P games but they'll move on to the next one long before serious brand-loyalty comes into effect. If Mechwarrior had started out as F2P, I guarantee that it wouldn't have any "community" to be outraged.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re: Pay-to-win down-your-throat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except theres nothing P2W in MWO

    2. Re:Pay-to-win down-your-throat by hibiki_r · · Score: 2

      Free to play is not necessarily bad: It just happens that it can be done badly, just like DLC.

      Look at, say, Dota 2. You get access to the full game to start. Every hero is available when you turn the game on. Paying more hours provides no gameplay advantage. Paying provides no gameplay advantage. You can pay for cosmetics and to watch pro tournaments in game. That provides plenty of money to keep the game running. It just happens that after someone sinks 1000+ hours into a game, and he's never paid a dime for it, chances are he'll find something to buy, because you might as well hand something back in exchange of so much entertainment.

      There's also Plants vs Zombies 2. If you are any good at the first game, you'll be able to finish it just fine without paying a cent. You can pay to make the game easier, but chances are you won't need it.

      Free to play doesn't have to be about hooking people in, or put roadblocks to stop their progress: It's a great way of getting players when there's a lot of competition. Just think of the problem of multiplayer games: Sell it for 60, quid, and if you do not get critical mass, your game is done, because there are long wait times to start a game, if ever. Make the game F2P, and you at least get your game played. If your game is played, and it is good, monetizing it without alienating your players will not be a problem.

    3. Re:Pay-to-win down-your-throat by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I didn't say they couldn't be a little bit fun, but just that there is something off-putting about the model itself.

      There will never be a AAA free-to-play title, I believe. Planetside 2 could have been AAA, but the F2P choice has relegated them to a sort of ghetto of half-good games, simply because of the model used to monetize the game.

      Same with DOTA 2

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re: Pay-to-win down-your-throat by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't Pay-to-Win. It's more basic than that. The problem is Free-to-Play.

      It's like having a nice dinner out with a friend who keeps sticking his fork in your plate to take a bite of this or that. Constantly. All night long.

      You'd be happy to just buy him a meal. it's not the paying that's the problem. It's the ever-present come-on.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Pay-to-win down-your-throat by trawg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Free-to-play is an awful model, thrust upon gamers because the publishers have decided it must be so

      Free-to-play exists because the developers that have nailed it with a good game are making money hand over first, and everyone else wants to do that too.

      Nobody really likes free-to-play. I don't know anyone for whom it is their first choice of gaming platform.

      Allow me to introduce myself - I'm someone that likes free-to-play!

      I've been playing Dota 2 a lot in the last 6-8 months. It is as often frustrating as hell, but it's great fun having a good game with friends.

      It is a free-to-play game; they make revenue selling in-game content like clothes and effects for characters. I am totally, completely uninterested in this, but I am by far the unusual one - most of the people I've played have dropped at least the cost of a normal AAA game buying stuff, and I know a few people who have spent over $100 - no doubt there are even more.

      There's the occasional in your face thing trying to get you to buy something - usually just an item expiring notice or something - but they are few and far between. I am easily able to ignore it.

      I often spend hours a day playing this and cannot believe they're giving something this awesome away for free. Maybe I'll buy something some day - some of the in-game content looks really visually impressive and it gives your character a unique flavour - I can see why people like doing it, although it seems like playing dress up with virtual dolls.

      Some games are more obnoxious about it - I play a bit of Tapped Out, the Simpsons game. It is much more in your face trying to get you to buy stuff. I love the game because I love the Simpsons, but it's just idle pleasure for me and I have no plans to drop money in it either.

      (plug: I did a review of Dota 2 which outlines the game for noobs. I encourage people to play it because it's F2P done right, it's extremely well engineered and well featured - and it's great fun.)

    6. Re:Pay-to-win down-your-throat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would consider DOTA 2 an AAA multiplayer game. I was really into both playing and watching competitive Starcraft 2 and I feel the polish and quality of DOTA 2 easily matches that of SC2.

    7. Re:Pay-to-win down-your-throat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody really likes free-to-play. I don't know anyone for whom it is their first choice of gaming platform.

      I love free-to-play. In fact, I haven't spent a single cent on computer games in the last 10 years. For the last year or so, the only game I ever play is Tanki Online, and it's quite good for what it's worth.

      In adddition, world of tanks is pretty big at the moment. I believe it's free-to-play as well. I haven't played it ever, but if I ever get fed up with Tanki I'll give it a try.

      So, I suggest you take a look at the real world instead of making baseless generalizations.

    8. Re:Pay-to-win down-your-throat by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I think the free to play bubble is already bursting. A lot of the companies who made their name in that market, particularly Zynga, are in dire financial straits. At the same time, publishers who had made previous statements committing themselves heavily to that model (EA, Square Enix to name two) have started to hedge their bets over the last month or two. EA is talking about the importance of singleplayer and the traditional pay-to-own model again, while Square Enix (the masters of free-to-play scamware like All The Bravest) have gone with a very traditional purchase-and-subscription model for their newly relaunched flagship MMO, FF14: A Realm Reborn.

      Free-to-play was a pretty blatant trick played upon users. Emphasise the "free" and obfuscate the "paywalls everywhere once you start playing". Then hope nobody notices that your game doesn't actually contain anything that looks like game mechanics; just a surface imitation of a game designed to extract microtransactions.

      If, like me, you first started gaming during the 1980s, you might remember seeing Commodore 64 offerings which advertised things like "50 great games on one tape!" for the price of a single "normal" game. If, like me, you hadn't yet reached your teens at the time, that probably looked like a fantastic offer. Of course, the first time you spent the pocket money you'd been saving on these rather than on a normal game, you realised that all 50 were unutterably shit. Next time you had the money for a game, you didn't fall for that trick again.

      Free to play's basically the same thing. It had a brief wave of success based on tricking a large number of people for a short span of time. In most of the world, revenues from it seem to be falling through the floor now that people (and not just people who would describe themselves as "gamers") have wised up to it.

    9. Re:Pay-to-win down-your-throat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't say that world of tanks online is free to play when they have ammo you can only pay real money for... that does more damage.

      That right there is the heart of pay to win. You pay. You're better than those that didn't. Shot for shot. The person who paid. Wins.

      And mechwarrior online has so many of the same problems. The fanboys hide behind 'oh you can get that with in game cash!'. Yeah. After 1000 hours of play you could. While those 1000 hours were facing people who paid and got the advantage.

      Pay. To. Win.

      My credit card can beat up your skills. My credit card can beat up your credit card.

      Pay to win.

    10. Re:Pay-to-win down-your-throat by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'll still happily trade you all of my Steam trading cards for a copy of The Witcher 3 when it comes out.

      "Free-to-play" is just an insulting business model. DOTA 2 would have been immeasurably better if it had just had dedicated servers, LAN games, and a price tag. As it is, playing it just makes me sad.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:Pay-to-win down-your-throat by TrollheartBlue · · Score: 1

      League of Legends. Terrific game, free to play. Paying money doesn't get you anyhwere. Quality game that is the first recognized e-sport by the U.S. Government.

      --
      Hey, look at me! My opinion is valid because I found a website that says the same thing.
  29. What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys shipped Duke Nukem Forever.

    1. Re:What do you expect? by luther349 · · Score: 1

      only because they sank tons of money in 3d realms for them to sit on there asses and play wow. the only reason the game shipped was they where bought to sue the crap out of 3d realms for breach of contract. they knew the game was incomplete garbage but they also had to make some of there money back. so don't blame them for 3d realms scamming.

    2. Re:What do you expect? by N_Piper · · Score: 1

      Neither here or there...
      Duke Nukem Forever has the stink of development hell all over it.
      Compare it to other games that got stuck there and it is pretty similar, Daikatana, Too Human, The Bureau: Xcom declassified, Ailens: Colonial Marines.
      After a certain point of time in development a game is guaranteed to ship incomplete and buggy.

  30. Re: flat out lie is your post by LordSkippy · · Score: 1

    You must have been playing a very different version than I've been playing. Your entire post is so off the mark!

    They were selling all of the mechs people want to play with for cash. The entire stable of mechs. All for sale.

    The entire stable of mechs are purchasable with real money, yes. However all but a few are only purchasable with real money, and those are only variants of mechs that are available with in game currencies. And the vast majority of those are considered to be sub-par. You can purchase every single chassis with in game currency you earn by playing the game.

    Can you download and drop into an atlas and go killing? Hell no.

    If an Atlas is one of the trial mechs, then hell yes. If not, then hell yes - after you earn the in game currency to buy one; and with the cadet bonus, that's 25 games.

    Almost the entire point of the mechwarrior series was behind a credit card. Thats not any sort of free to play.

    I've been playing the game sense closed beta, and I have no idea what the hell you are talking about there.

    The entire point of the mechwarrior series?

    Do you mean Community warfare? Because that isn't even out yet, so it can't be behind a credit card.

    Stompy giant robots blasting each other? That's there and free to play.

    Every battle quickly shaped up to be paid players stomping the shit repeatedly out of free players.

    No, wrong, wrong, wrong! It wasn't paying players that were stomping free players, it was organized group players stomping PUG drops. Payment had nothing to do with it at all. You didn't need to pay to drop with other players, and paying didn't make you instantly have a group to drop with.

    --
    My karma is in a nose dive
  31. Re:Maybe by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 2

    And how would you like it if you were on the recieving end of a bait & switch campaign? I imagine you'd be just as pissed off about it, shelling out hard earned cash for one thing and getting something completely different. That's what happened here. Players were baited with an online MechWarrior 3/4, but ended up getting a tactical version of MechAssault.

    --
    The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
  32. Choices by Lophir · · Score: 1

    That would be the smartest thing to do, but it is likely that there simply isn't enough of a player base to allow that. Not that breaking promises and going against the pillars of design that you used to collect five million dollars from founders won't further erode the player base anyway.

    1. Re:Choices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A spit queue was also heavily opposed by the anti-3PV group. Funny that they are now QQing over the lack of a split queue.

  33. "oathbreaking"?! Frell! Someone been watching way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    too much Game of Thrones.

  34. This sounds like something out of the Inner Sphere by Rolpa · · Score: 1

    I'd expect this sort of thing from House Liao, but from Piranha Games? Ha!

  35. Summary bad, article very good by LoneBoco · · Score: 1

    The summary for this is inaccurate, but the article is one of the best articles I have seen thus far explaining the issues. But even then, the article has a few mistakes (albeit minor ones). When ghost heat was first introduced, nobody knew what it was supposed to solve. It didn't affect the dominate meta at the time at all (2 PPC 1 gauss) and only screwed over gimmick builds, canon builds, and legit builds. It was only much later that we got confirmation that it was designed to "fix" boating, which was never even a problem. #savemwo was started around this time because the sniping meta had existed for over 6 months by this time. Everybody thought ghost heat was the attempted fix, so when it turned out to not do anything at all, many of the competitive groups started doing letter writing campaigns to the publisher. A group of players didn't think that writing the publisher would be effective, so #savemwo was started. By the way, PGI finally came up with a game plan to solve the sniping meta. It is called ghost delay and doesn't solve anything

    1. Re:Summary bad, article very good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Hint: It's not actually called ghost delay.)

  36. It's about all the broken oaths. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that the developers have repeatedly promised that the game would be first person camera only, and that there would be a separate queue so that if people wished they could play first person only and not compete against others using the 3rd person camera. The gamefront article does a good job summing up the situation and detailing the several oaths PGI has broken and the abusive way it had treated its community.

    1. Re:It's about all the broken oaths. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PGI didn't make any "oaths". They laid out an initial concept and features they wanted to implement. Some of those features got dropped along the way, other features were added, and several are still being worked on. It seems that the DADs believe that a development company has no right to change their initial concepts as things, like players having trouble with mech movement, become evident or simply don't work out.

  37. IP? by Sean · · Score: 1

    Trademark?

  38. Re:free-to-play flat out lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You can also bet that people willing to pay are also willing to put in more effort to create more organized and skilled teams. Fact it, they dedicate more to the game, so they are better at it.

  39. Game have shifted to 3rd person??? by IronSighted · · Score: 1

    Really? Cause when you drop, there's no one using it. This article is so full of crap it's not funny. Nice try #saveMWO but you're little crusade is failing.

    1. Re:Game have shifted to 3rd person??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly anyone uses 3PV because it is so bad to play in. You are actually at a huge disadvantage in 3PV over a 1PV opponent.

    2. Re:Game have shifted to 3rd person??? by IronSighted · · Score: 1

      Exactly... so why is everyone freaking out if its a disadvantage? I have yet to see a case where a match was lost because the other team was playing in 3rd person. Just another case of a minority... and yes.. you complainers ARE a minority. How can I say that? Because in-game people are having a lot of fun. The vitrol and bs found on the forums does not carry over into games. And when it does, it the same small group doing it.

    3. Re:Game have shifted to 3rd person??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are little crusade is failing?

    4. Re:Game have shifted to 3rd person??? by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

      Did the little astroturfer forget to log into his other account to agree with himself? Laughable at best.

  40. Re:Maybe by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the fanbase funded it, or funded some ego anyway.
    Investigations and lawsuits should follow.
    If I pay for something, bastard, you best give it to me or I will walk off with a soiled knife and your yarbles in my pocket.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  41. Re:Maybe by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    No, you're just a stupid asshole.

  42. You made your bed, now lie in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PGI has been taking player's money for almost two years now but refuse to come out of beta testing or acknowledge they have a live product with paying customers. Players who continue to support them with funding deserve what they get.

    Also, PGI was responsible for the majority of the finished Duke Nukem Forever. That should speak volumes about them.

  43. Re:Maybe by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2

    I avoid these situations by paying for a product only after it has been fully developed, or in a state where I'm content and can keep with.

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  44. Re:Maybe by buddahcjcc · · Score: 1

    According to IGP/PGI Billing its not. as per the refund request I sent them, and this email I received: http://pastebin.com/89jGXvFg

  45. Not P2W by mrwolf007 · · Score: 2

    There is no reason, in this day and age, that developers need to be making massive game destroying mistakes like this. There are many business models out there that skirt the "pay to win" boundary without crossing it that they could have copied (see LoL, Eve, PS2, etc). It's just incompetence on the part of the developers.

    Actually there is not a single p2w item in the game. You can get all the consumables with in game currency as well, though it does take a while to grind the skills to have the cbill (ingame) versions just as good as the mc (pay-currency) versions.
    Aside from that you can buy "hero" and "champion" mechs, which have a cbill or experience bonus respectivly. No in-match advantages though, just makes grinding faster, similiar to "premium time" which lets you gain cbills and experience faster.
    The only item you definately need to buy if you play this game after a while are "mech-bays". You only have 4 of those at the start of the game, and assuming you want more than 4 mechs you need to buy more.

    1. Re:Not P2W by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      So, what you're saying is that there is a game mechanic (the XP system) whose effects are to make the game less fun by turning it into work, but which you can pay real money to lessen, and you don't see that as a problem?

      If players imagine that the fun parts won't manifest for 40 hours of play-time (and they must be made to feel that way to think paying real money to reduce that portion of the game is worth it), they might just decide not to bother finding out if the game really does change into something fun after all that work.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Not P2W by mrwolf007 · · Score: 2

      So, what you're saying is that there is a game mechanic (the XP system) whose effects are to make the game less fun by turning it into work, but which you can pay real money to lessen, and you don't see that as a problem?

      Yeah, having an "XP system" is obviously a pretty stupid idea. I doubt it will catch on in any MMO or MMORPG.

    3. Re: Not P2W by barc0001 · · Score: 2

      Too bad this is nothing like an MMO or RPG. You're not leveling up to take on a boss at the end of a lengthy quest, you're just getting dropped into random match after random match. The concept of grinding hours on end to unlock a handful of efficiencies is dreadful.

    4. Re:Not P2W by julesh · · Score: 2

      So, what you're saying is that there is a game mechanic (the XP system) whose effects are to make the game less fun by turning it into work, but which you can pay real money to lessen, and you don't see that as a problem?

      Different people have different tolerances for repetitive play, and different amounts of free time that they can spend on it. People with less free time have a tendency to want to advance faster so that they can enjoy different parts of the game; people with more free time tend to prefer to take progress through the game at a more leisurely rate so they can enjoy it for longer. While I haven't played this particular game, it is usual for the cash shop in free-to-play (and even sometimes non-free) games to sell ways to modify your progression rate, increasing it or even in some cases decreasing it (I know several players in LOTRO, for example, who have paid for the ability to stop gaining XP in order to allow a single character to complete all the quests at each level, which is not normally possible because you gain XP too quickly and there are many quests; the item costs about $5, so it's a non-trivial purchase, but some people find it lets them enjoy the game better, so...).

    5. Re:Not P2W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you can pay to xp you can p2w.

      pay to xp is pay to win. practically all of so called free social games nowadays do it.

    6. Re:Not P2W by Meski · · Score: 1

      if you can pay to xp you can p2w.

      pay to xp is pay to win. practically all of so called free social games nowadays do it.

      Humans are inherently lazy, if their real job pays more per hour by factors of 100's and lets face it, most do, they'll go for p2w. If your real job doesn't, I pity you, and you're probably not playing games.

    7. Re:Not P2W by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      with P2W, you're not really playing games either. Except for the game of "my job is better than your job"

      Would Chess be a fun game if you could just buy pawn promotions early?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:Not P2W by Meski · · Score: 1

      That is assuming chess is a fun game now, but I take your point.

  46. Re:Maybe by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

    I agree that's a complete dick move on their part. But when you see "We may, from time to time at our sole discretion and without notice or liability, create, amend, change, or delete any content from the IGP Offerings." at the top of their terms, that should raise a *huge* red flag before you reach for your wallet in the first place.

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  47. Re:Maybe by buddahcjcc · · Score: 1

    The other part of it being a dick move is them denying refunds based on it not being crowdsourcing when IGP's CEO was saying that it WAS a crowdsourcing profram everywhere someone would listen: http://www.vg247.com/2012/10/30/mechwarrior-online-to-be-a-lot-better-thanks-to-crowdfunding/ "Speaking to Gamasutra, Infinite Game Publishing parent company boss Nick Foster said that MechWarrior Online was traditionally funded at first, but then used crowdfunding to make up any shortfalls. “We’ve raised minimal investment funds to build a viable product for each of our games. We then launch it [in beta] and use that minimum viable product to start generating an income stream,” he said. “We keep a very close partnership with our developers and use that income to reinvest in the game, build out the features that the users want, and head into a period of ongoing development. New content, new features. “The product will be a lot better for players because of the crowdfunding. It’s allowed us to maintain a higher level of ongoing development in the product, than if we were waiting for momentum to build immediately after going live. In the next few months, we’ll be able to release a lot more features.” http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/180401/ MechWarrior Online's long-awaited open beta begins today, partially made possible by a successful crowdfunding initiative that's raised over $5 million, without the help of Kickstarter. http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/29/mechwarrior-online-the-story-of-how-one-mmo-got-crowd-funded-wi/ "Nick Foster, CEO of Infinite Game Publishing's parent company 7G Entertainment, explained some of the rationale behind this approach to funding. "The product will be a lot better for players because of the crowdfunding. It's allowed us to maintain a higher level of ongoing development in the product than if we were waiting for momentum to build immediately after going live. In the next few months, we'll be able to release a lot more features." http://www.crowdsourcing.org/article/mechwarrior-onlines-unconventional-crowdfunding-pays-off/20390 "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," says IGP CEO Nick Foster. http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/29/the-first-of-three-major-titles-from-igp-mechwarrior-online-moves-into-its-open-beta-test/

  48. Re:free-to-play flat out lie. by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

    The GP is making a serious effect to misinform Slashdot. Literally NOTHING he posted is true. There is a subset of the userbase that I believe is intentionally trying to tank the game through misinformation after they realized that PGI is not going to make the game exactly the way thy want (#SAVEMWO). They are children who refuse to acknowledge that compromise in game making happens.

    As StJobe said, there have been decisions made by PGI I dont agree with, but all the crap posted in the GP is just dead wrong.

    MWO is a good game with the potential to be a great game. Will it get there....I don't know. I hope so, but there are serious hurdles. IF the Community Warfare plays out well and fairly quickly after launch, I think ti will have along life.....if it flops or suffers further delays...not so much.

  49. 'oathbreaking' by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

    Apparently when a Dev says something will happen (no #pV) and 9 months later they Devs change their minds, it is now considered 'oath breaking'

    This is the same logic that people use to say that when a politician says he is for something, then is presented evidence of that position being wrong and changes it, that said politician is wishy washy.

    Changing your mind when presented with evidence is a GOOD thing.

  50. Re:Maybe by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I saw that mentioned in the last line of the email. I didn't realize they were abusing the community so badly.

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  51. Re:free-to-play flat out lie. by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    Given most of what you said is flat out incorrect or a lie I find it hard to believe you are a founder. I am also a founder and have recently quit the game but you are still full of shit.

  52. Actually no by mrwolf007 · · Score: 1

    They have been reading to many BattleTech novels (aka Game of Thrones IN SPACE).

    1. Re:Actually no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BattleTech has been around since the 70s. More of a 13th century europe IN SPACE!!!!

  53. Inexperience + Money = PGI by danknight48 · · Score: 1

    I seen this coming months ago.

    I actually feel sorry for the Founders. PGI promised a specific game which players funded with a 5+million Kickstarter, yet, it seems greed and money has taken over PGI.

    Its the same story with most "beta F2P" games.
    When the market isnt big enough, simply change the game, ignore your previous funding to reach the bigger market.
    PGI has either become greedy, or, the current MWO player base is at its maximum limit and PGI has burnt their money.

    "but they need to make money". Doesnt even come into it.
    PGI knows how big the MechWarrior market is from the kickstarter. They just couldn't be bothered to make a game whilst sticking to that level of funding.
    Now, they want more, even if it means slapping founders in the face.

    I have no respect for PGI.
    I played MWO for months a while back and all i seen in progress was new mechs which cost £20 a pop:
    - There were no bug fixes for months (the broken/missing hud bug which required you to leave the game)
    - Scripts.Pak showed me everything i needed to know about their lack of programming skills. More references to nano suits than mechs. (unencrypted, opens in zip)
    - An apology post from a dev who cant even be bothered to use paragraphs, let alone acknowledge the fact they are slapping most founders in the face. Says it all really.

    MWO really is a prime example of poor development with one goal, money. Theres no love, or, devotion from PGI anymore and it shows.
    They dont care about the previous 5+million founder injection, or, the promises they made.

    This really is why you shouldn't pump money into a idea/company with bad previous reputation. You'll only be disappointed, i was.

  54. Not Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been playing Battletech since the early 1990s, and played all iterations of the Mechwarrior games. I also beta tested EA's Multi-Player Battletech: 3025 when it was in development over 10 years ago. When I heard about MWO, I had dreams of a modern enhanced version of MPBT:3025, with lessons learned over the past 10 years in MMOs (esp. games like WOT) leading the charge in refining mechanics.

    They pitched it as following the table-top rules. I was invited into closed beta, and at first it was pretty good. I bought myself a top-level Founder's pack soon thereafter. Then the game started a sudden decline. They rushed to "Open Beta" with the announcement that no more resets would occur. The difference between "Open Beta' vs. "Live" then really is in semantics. However, all MWO is is a series of match-maker battles on random maps. Unlike the MPBT:3025 engine of 10 years ago, there is no Inner Sphere map with battles over control of planets/areas. Nope, none of that. Also, instead of implementing new game systems, the development team spent build after build tweaking weapon damage and heat values. Then when a new game system was added, the delicate balance that they had previous attempted to achieve would be thrown into utter disarray. Also, with the promise of no more resets of player data, they couldn't really adjust much, for fear of introducing a game-breaking exploit or imbalance that would allow early adopters a huge advantage.

    I left, I got my refund of my founder's pack on my way out the door. I know of many others that walked at the same time. Some waited it out another month or two, hoping it would get better, and then were denied their refund, since "Open Beta" had started. I had been really excited for their Mechwarrior: Tactics game to give me a good computer version of the tabletop game. However, I now hold very little hope out for that game.

  55. Re:Maybe by buddahcjcc · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this is likely the last beta ill ever do. Or at least the first and last of anything that I put money into before its launched

  56. Mech warrior 2 in Dosbox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Playing mw2 in Dosbix and seem to be having more fun.....................

  57. Re:Maybe by CyberNigma · · Score: 1

    I'm just nitpicking here, but I think you mistakenly said Battletech when I figure you meant MechWarrior.

    Specifically, BattleTech has ALWAYS been some sort of 3rd person tactics game, whether tabletop or the old Crescent Hawk games.

    MechWarrior, on the other hand, has been anything from a Mech Simulator ( which , funnily enough, was Multi-Player BattleTech 3025), semi-casual simulators such as the MechWarrior games, or arcade shooters such as the MechAssault games - as well as the original pen and paper MechWarrior..

    These developers originally said it would follow the mold of something like Multi-Player BattleTech 3025, which was more mech combat simulator, and in effect may be turning it into something in between that and MechWarrior 4 (a more arcade/casual MechWarrior).

    The problem with the franchise itself is that over the years the lines have been blurred between what was BattleTech (turn-based strategy) and what was MechWarrior.

    For BattleTech, you have the old Crescent Hawk and Mech Commander games.

    For MechWarrior, though, there was never just one type of digital game. It kinda went all over the grid, from the original MechWarrior, to the more casual MW2-MW4 to the very arcadish MechAssault games. MPBT3025 was really close to THE online mech combat simulator game before it got canceled. MechWarrior Tactics (another current online game) blurs the name in the other direction - it really should have been call Battletech.

    tldr; You are right about the fanbase and the developers. The developers are indeed changing the game into something different than originally projected, however the MechWarrior and BattleTech franchises have really lost most of their meaning over the decades since their original conception, with lines very blurry between the two 'different' aspects of the same game universe.

    I have been a fan of both BattleTech and MechWarror over the years. I enjoyed the pen and paper/miniatures versions of the games and various incarnations of the video games. I love the Crescent Hawk series as good BattleTech play.. I loved the origina MechWarrior and settled for the MechWarrior 2 -4 games (not a really big fan of 4, too fast-paced and arcady for me) and my favorite was probably MultiPlayerBattleTech3025 (which was canceled).

  58. Re:free-to-play flat out lie. by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2

    At its core, the game is a really great 'mech simulation; it's just all the other bits that suck.

    It isn't a really great 'mech simulation. It is a good robot simulation that pretents to call things with the same names as in the Battletech Universe. But don't think for one second that the things in MWO act or work like the things named the same way from Battletech, because they don't. As such, it is pointless to call this game "Mechwarrior" and be a licensed property of Battletech. Absolutely nothing is correct and true to the Battletech Universe, which has lead to all the balance issues that the developers have released countless patch after patch after patch to try and "fix" the new "problem" they created for themselves when there would have been no issue had they simply followed the rules to begin with. But no, we can't follow rules that have been balanced over the course of 30 years, we're the developers, we know better....

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  59. Re:free-to-play flat out lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the true shills speak out with the standard party line.

    "Oh it's available for in game cash!"

    Yes, but. How much in game cash?

    "eeeeerrrmmm.. um... about a years worth.... BUT IT'S THERE! YOU CAN GET IT IN GAME! THAT MAKES IT FREE TO PLAY!'

    Yeah no. mechwarrior online is plain old pay to play. Pay to win. The gp is right. It's not free to play at all.

    Fuck mechwarrior. It went to shit when microsoft touched it. And it's only gotten worse since then.

    captcha:slither. Quite fitting for the slimy snake like pay to win under the guise of free to play.

  60. Re:Maybe by Chas · · Score: 2

    Specifically, BattleTech has ALWAYS been some sort of 3rd person tactics game

    Bzzt! You're forgetting the BattleTech Virtual World pods. So no. Not "always".

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  61. Who owns the IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't MWO a takedown notice waiting to happen?

    CAPTCHA: owners

    1. Re:Who owns the IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PGI owns the IP for the video games. TOPPS has no control over it as they only own the IP for the board game.

  62. Re:Not all MWO players agree with this. by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    If you are expecting a full sized pickup to haul around your gaming fun and end up with a compact car. The ones who said they were delivering the truck have a lot of explaining to do especially if you put money in ahead of time.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  63. Re:Maybe by julesh · · Score: 1

    I agree that's a complete dick move on their part. But when you see "We may, from time to time at our sole discretion and without notice or liability, create, amend, change, or delete any content from the IGP Offerings." at the top of their terms, that should raise a *huge* red flag before you reach for your wallet in the first place.

    I don't know about your jurisdiction, but mine has "unfair contract terms" legislation. One of the Act's cited examples of a term which is unfair and therefore not enforceable in any contract is a term which:

    has the object or effect of
    [...]
    enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid
    reason any characteristics of the product or service to be
    provided

    Quoting from government advice on interpretation of this law:

    Where circumstances could prevent the supply of the
    goods or services agreed (or a version of them that the consumer has
    indicated is acceptable) then the consumer should be able to cancel the
    contract, and receive a refund of prepayments.

    A term which could allow the supplier to vary what is supplied at will –
    rather than because of bona fide external circumstances – is unlikely to be
    fair even if customers have a right of cancellation and refund. The
    consumer should never have to choose between accepting a product that is
    not what was agreed, or suffering the inconvenience of unexpectedly not
    getting, for example, goods for which he or she may have an immediate
    need, or a long-planned holiday, just because it suits the supplier not to
    supply what was promised.

    If you have similar legislation in your jurisdiction, you may want to challenge the decision not to supply what you paid for in court. You may be entitled not just to a refund, but also compensation.

    IANAL; this is not legal advice; consult a legal professional before commencing court proceedings; etc.

  64. Re:free-to-play flat out lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It takes no more than a few days to grind out enough cash for a new mech with plenty of cash to configure it the way you want. About a week for one of the assaults. The only way it could take a year is of you only play one 15 minute match a week. And I have my doubts that it will take THAT long.

  65. Haters Making Much of Nothing ... by david.c99 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The reality is that the "Hater Community" got their panties in a twist when PGI didn't "kow tow" to their demands ... that "Haters" predicted the changes would kill the game, which they didn't, and now they are basically forced to double-down and spread even more negativity.

    I play at the competitive level, and the game is in the best shape it has been in so far ... there is one big outstanding issue (HSR/Hit Detection) that once fixed will make MWO a solid platform ... There is still lots of stuff that needs to be done, but from a "how does the game play", it's in great shape.

    As far as the haters issues? Blown way out of proportion. The "real money" item? called "cool shot" ... and can be purchased with "free money" ... can only be used once per match, and rarely, if ever, affects the outcome of a match. Cool Shot is Manufactured crisis 1. "Ghost Heat" is a mechanic that limits how many weapons of a certain type you can fire at once ... you can still equip them, you just have to be careful how you use them. It has virtually stopped the worst abuses as it was intended and made the actual game experience better then before. Ghost Heat is Manufactured crisis 2. "Third Person View" (3PV) was added to the game to help new players ... and it can do that. It's rarely used and generally only by n00b players and is NEVER seen in competitive 12v12 games. It's really a non-issue as far as the game is concerned. "3PV" is manufactured crisis 3.

    In the end, the only people the haters are really hurting is their friends and the rest of the community. Nobody I knows spends any times at all in the official forums or in other places like reddit because of all the hate these twits are spewing. Right now, the best thing that can happen for the game is if the Haters would STFU and GTFO and go bother some other game ... that is the #1 thing that would help MWO right now.

    1. Re:Haters Making Much of Nothing ... by merky1 · · Score: 1

      So what would call someone like me, who isn't a "hater", but is sorely frustrated that we are weeks from release and so far we have none of the features we were sold on.

      You call out Hit Detection as a bug, but you missed some pretty significant bugs:
      1 - Movement / stuck on terrain. Getting stuck on cigarette butts is getting old
      2 - Heat. PGI has severely mismanaged the heat system due to a lack of understanding of the IP they bought.
      3 - Built in Comms.
      4 - Community anything. A lobby? anything?
      5 - Jump Jets. No ability to add directional movement, just up/down and coasting if your moving before jump. Defeats the purpose of sitting behind a terrain feature, jetting up and over and raping your opponents back armor.
      6 - NO REPAIR / REARM - this pretty much removed the ability to constrain resources. Want to reduce the prevelance of AC/40's, reduce AC /20 ammo stocks or jack the price up like the XL engines.
      7 - HSR / hit detection. I play a spider, and I get tired of being hit by rounds that go wide away from but HSR decides that the shooter's screen is the authority.
        (I play a spider because it is about the only mech that I can play a "phoenix hawk" type of role. The blackjack was a horrible implementation of that role)
      8 - game modes.
      9 - Terra Therma - the pinnacle of PGI demonstrating the complete lack of testing / program management.

      Of course the biggest issue, PGI basically completely reversing decisions on things like 3PV. The outrage has been turned into "haters" on 3PV thanks to PGI spin. The reality is, this is the most measurable aspect of the community realizing that PGI is unable/incapable of delivering on the originally advertised game by "release in september."

      --
      --WooooHoooo--
  66. Re:Maybe by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    Yeah, those should have been branded as Mechwarrior, rather than BattleTech. They were entertaining. Expensive though. And as arcadey as arcade games get. Worse than Mechwarrior 4 (which is infamous even among Mechwarrior player, let alone hard core BattleTech fans).

  67. goons and trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look the MWO trolls and goons made it to slashdot. Same small group spreading the same lies. Just from this you can tell how popular MWO is becoming, MWO has picked up a whole subsection of goons and trolls that seem intent on trying to kill this game.

    1. Re:goons and trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I see an article on the game, I look for the first hate comment. 80% of the time it's a name or posting style I recognise.

  68. The author must be smoking crack... by Garnaralf · · Score: 1

    Title says it all. The author seems to say he speaks for the community. Yet the game keeps growing and growing. Third person view is OPTIONAL and removable with 1 keystroke. The community has been asking for this option. The game is free to play. Free to Win as well. They are offering options, is all. You can earn them in game, or quicker through micro-transactions. just like every other free to play game. PGI seems to be a good company, as well as a socially conscious company. They just completed a charity campaign where the players were able to puchase a specially designed and skinned mech for $10 US. Every single penny of that ten bucks was given to the Canadian Cancer Society in the name of one of the player's daughter, Sarah, who passed away from cancer. the child used to play with her father. They designed the skin with some cute things just for her. And 15k players, including myself, bought one. Over 150k US donated. That's saying a lot. The author is smoking crack. Must be, because he's sprouting nonsense.

    1. Re:The author must be smoking crack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much did PGI as a company or as private individuals donate themselves?

      That's right - zero.

      Socially conscious my ass.

  69. Re:Maybe by Chas · · Score: 1

    Actually. No they shouldn't.

    Up until MW4, they were a completely separate product from the MechWarrior brand.

    It was only with MW4 that the products co-mingled. Mainly because it wasn't until then that consumer-grade video cards were powerful enough to rival the custom-made setups previously used in BT pod construction. Essentially MW4 started as a back-port of the VWE BattleTech engine to a consumer-grade setup (I've actually seen some of the backporting they'd done for the Red Planet game).

    Then a bunch of the changes made in the system were back-ported into the VWE system, which emerged as "Firestorm".

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  70. Re:Maybe by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    This is why I don't fund anything on Kickstarter.
    Make the product first and then try to sell it, not "Gimme money while I promise the sun and the stars and still work on it..."

  71. Re:Maybe by CyberNigma · · Score: 1

    You're right. I had remembered them when I wrote the reply, but did not think to mention them as an exception, which I should have.

    Thanks for driving my point home with that.

    With those included now, I guess the video game versions of BattleTech and MechWarrior could probably include everything from turn-based strategy, first person simulation, to arcade action robot fighting.

    With video games concerned, the basic definition of a MechWarrior or Battletech game nowadays across the board is something with big robots fighting each other, which could include the playstyles of games like Armored Core, Robotech (that one's obvious since they shared IP previously), or even Virtual-On (see MechAssault), but with the BattleTech/MechWarrior IP (either the current or the Harmony Gold stuff they borrowed back in the day).

    The only sense of separation between MechWarrior and Battletech has to be with the tabletop/pen and paper versions. As for video games, well, I guess anything goes.

  72. Re:Maybe by CyberNigma · · Score: 1

    meh, to correct myself again... I forgot to mention the Wizkids MechWarrior line which does actually blur the lines between the two non-video game systems..

    so yeah.. BattleTech/MechWarrior is just as much MechAssault as it is MPBT3025. The only thing that really matters is which form of gameplay on that scale the developers had in mind...though that apparently can change on a whim too :-)

  73. PGI just doesn't care by s13g3 · · Score: 1
    They ignored the Mechwarrior: Living Legends (aka MWLL) developers, its community, and everything that came before in every previous Mechwarrior game. I've got significant other dirt I could share, but will refrain so as not to burn bridges and put other people in uncomfortable situations, but suffice it to say they have shown themselves to be underhanded enough to threaten people's careers and industry connections if anyone in the know should dare to actually tell the truth about their behavior.

    In any event, there has never been even a hint of a reason to believe that PGI has any interest in learning from the successes and failures of anyone else, that they have any interest in listening to or heeding the demands of the community - without whom there is no reason for their game to exist, and so this should be their highest priority - or has any desire to do anything but milk the Mechwarrior property - that they muscled a large team of devoted volunteer developers out of making a free game in because they were intimidated by their ability to produce high-quality work for free - of all the money they can.

    As for Garnaralf's diatribe above:

    The fact that it's selling means nothing. It's the first commercial Mechwarrior game - a series with hundreds of novels to its credit and a fan base spanning 30 years - since the atrocity that was MechAssault (aka MechAssFault or MechsAsFail) so it was unquestionably going to attract a large number of downloads (which means nothing. I presume they count my player account towards their playerbase, and I've never actually done anything more than register my user name) and user registrations. Making a game free to play also means nothing, and has no reflection on the goodness of the company making it: it's a viable business model, nothing more.

    The LONGSTANDING Mechwarrior community (almost 30 years old now) has by and large shown nothing but hate and derision for 3rd Person Views, at the very least since Mechwarrior IV, where it was well known to be a game ruiner: the MWLL team patently refused to consider it; 90% of MWO's players, by PGI's own polls, said they did not want a 3rd Person View, and made it clear that if there was to be such a mode, they did not want to play in the same match as other people using it due to the fact that it breaks immersion, changes the tactical mechanic, and provides an unfair advantage to those using it over those who don't. So what did PGI do? Ignore them, implement it anyway, then lied about separating 1st/3rd person players into different matches, repeatedly: that's not the sign of a "good company". I'm not sure what else you're basing your assessment on besides the fact that they make a game of which you are clearly a player, but if anyone needs to put down the crack pipe and do a more thorough investigation of reality, it's probably you.

    Where was PGI's social consciousness BEFORE a player's daughter passed from cancer that obviously resulted in a social media campaign that they elected to pile on to to improve their image? You *do* realize that they get a HUGE tax break for that, right? The amount of money a game earns for a charity by pulling on players heartstrings and offering them up something that took almost no effort or time on their part (did I mention I'm a texture artist with significant CryEngine experience as well as friends and professional contacts at CryTek? There is, maybe 20 minutes of texture work, *tops*, on that Jenner, and 5 minutes of XML to edit the weapons config, plus 10 minutes to commit it to the build) in return for that charity donation is also not an indicator of a company's goodness: how much of their own profits did they donate? How much did the owner and executive officers pony up out of their own pockets? How much is the company going to be donating - regardless of charities - to cancer prevention every year from now on?

    No, without going into excessive detail or listing my qualifications (I know I have them, I was there, I was involved),

    --
    "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
  74. Re:Maybe by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    My comment was in reference to the experience, not the software lineage or the hardware required. BT pods played like MechWarrior, not Battletech.

  75. This reminds me of the Living Legends debacle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PGI? Horrible? Naaahh.. can't be.

  76. cheapt jordan shoes,Air max shoes,wallet sale by gaobiele · · Score: 0

    Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in. ( http://www.sheptrade.com/ ) (Discount Air jordan shoes) $36, (Air Max shoes) $35, (Nike shox shoes) $36, (Handbags) $39, (Sunglasses) $16, (wallet) $18, (Belt) $17, (T-shirts) $20, (Jeans) $37, (NFL/MLB/NBA)Jerseys $25, ( http://www.sheptrade.com/ )