Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mechwarrior Online Developer Redefines Community Warfare

Soulskill posted 1 year,22 days | from the expectations-are-the-mind-killers dept.

Games 189

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.'"

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Maybe (-1, Troll)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726155)

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

Re:Maybe (1)

Kilo Kilo (2837521) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726187)

Speak for yourself, stravag.

Re:Maybe (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726231)

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.

Not P2W (2)

mrwolf007 (1116997) | 1 year,21 days | (#44728037)

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.

Re:Maybe (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726325)

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.

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44726741)

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

That said! Go fuck yourself!

Re:Maybe (-1, Troll)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | 1 year,21 days | (#44726797)

Ooh, I see I touched some of the nerves of the whiny & picky constituents.

Re:Maybe (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727891)

No, you're just a stupid asshole.

Re:Maybe (-1, Flamebait)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727959)

And thanks for proving my point. It's a crowd-funded project, the fuck do you people expect? These things happen all the time with these kinds of projects. But why should I bother trying holding a rational discussion with a bunch of rabid self-serving fanboys.

Re:Maybe (1)

buddahcjcc (3036913) | 1 year,21 days | (#44728033)

According to IGP/PGI Billing its not. as per the refund request I sent them, and this email I received: []

Re:Maybe (2)

Sable Drakon (831800) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727045)

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.

Re:Maybe (2)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | 1 year,21 days | (#44728025)

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.

Re:Maybe (1)

flyneye (84093) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727801)

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.

Ba la la la leh leh leh! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726163)

It's time for a grand experiment... an experiment unlike any the world has ever seen before! An ET doll will poke your bare asshole with its magic finger and inflict extreme amounts of tickle upon your ass. Why? To see what happens, of course! It's the greatest experiment! Additionally, you will be naked in a spotlight, and darkness will surround the light from the spotlight. An audience will watch your asshole get poked by the ET doll, and they'll gasp in awe at the results of the experiment!

Re:Ba la la la leh leh leh! (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726319)

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

They used a firewall? (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726185)

" 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.

I've been playing MWO since closed beta... (5, Interesting)

WilliamGeorge (816305) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726195)

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! :)

Re: I've been playing MWO since closed beta... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726239)

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.

Cool Shot (5, Informative)

archer, the (887288) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726329)

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.

Re: Cool Shot (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44726869)

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

Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... (1)

MeatoBurrito (1990634) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726381)

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. [] They have now censored everything on their website to remove anything to do with 1PV "promises" to prevent refunds to due false advertising.

Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726387)

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.

Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726471)

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.

Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726615)

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.

Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44726777)

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.

Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44726875)

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

What are YOU smoking? (5, Interesting)

N_Piper (940061) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726429)

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... [] 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 [] 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.

Re:What are YOU smoking? (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727727)

"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.

Re: I've been playing MWO since closed beta... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726533)

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

Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726673)

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.

Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726681)

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

I read the link from the summery [] (how to write an article!) and links from that. One thing I noticed is everybody on the user side is back tracking, this thread [] while locked after three pages is full of edits.

Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44727331)

So which part of the development team are you?

Re:I've been playing MWO since closed beta... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44727435)

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.

managing expectations (5, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726213)

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.

Re:managing expectations (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44726759)

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.

Re:managing expectations (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44726961)

"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."

Re:managing expectations (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44727605)

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.

Old hat (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726217)

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".

Just like Star Wars Galaxies (1)

Lophir (3036021) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726253)

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

Re:Just like Star Wars Galaxies (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726537)

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

"Arcade shooter"? (5, Interesting)

_KiTA_ (241027) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726265)

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.

Re:"Arcade shooter"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726371)

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

Re:"Arcade shooter"? (1)

Lophir (3036021) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726399)

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.

Re:"Arcade shooter"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44727117)

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.

Re:"Arcade shooter"? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727811)

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.

free-to-play flat out lie. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726375)

Mechwarrior online was NEVER any sort of 'free' or 'free to play' in any meaningful way. It was free to download. But if you want any FUN. You're paying.

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

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. BUT with the added bonus of all the scummy in game busted shit they will sell you a way around and constant transactions.

I've been a fan of mechwarrior games and lore since as long as it has existed. And these people ruined it. They should have just gone with plain ol paid monthly subscriptions so we could have a good game. And not scummy underhanded tactics designed to squeeze more money out of players at every turn. It's bullshit.

Its a motherfucking shame what they did to mechwarrior. Disgusting.

Re:free-to-play flat out lie. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726431)

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.

Re:free-to-play flat out lie. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726487)

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

Re:free-to-play flat out lie. (4, Informative)

stjobe (78285) | 1 year,21 days | (#44726881)

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.

Re:free-to-play flat out lie. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44727597)

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.

Re: flat out lie is your post (1)

LordSkippy (140884) | 1 year,21 days | (#44726949)

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.

This isn't a story, this is a distorted opinion (2)

1019 (262204) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726379)

One-sided opinions does not a story make.

Seems inevitable, somehow. (0)

gallondr00nk (868673) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726447)

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

Wasn't there a mech-style game on kickstarter? (1)

Da w00t (1789) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726475)

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.

Re:Wasn't there a mech-style game on kickstarter? (1)

Lophir (3036021) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726605)

I believe you mean heavy gear.

Re:Wasn't there a mech-style game on kickstarter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44727483)


Is HiRez doing this title as well? (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726483)

Sounds like the sad tale of Tribes.

Background (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726521)

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.

Re:Background (1)

raynet (51803) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726583)

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.

Choices (1)

Lophir (3036021) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727201)

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.

Re: Background (1)

Reapy (688651) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727809)

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?

Re: Background (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44728041)

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.

I don't get the perspective issue. (2)

taxman_10m (41083) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726547)

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.

Re:I don't get the perspective issue. (1)

Lophir (3036021) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726577)

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

Re:I don't get the perspective issue. (1)

PhrstBrn (751463) | 1 year,22 days | (#44726663)

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.

Re: I don't get the perspective issue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44726841)

MW2, MW2M, MW3 and MW4 all had 3PV

Re: I don't get the perspective issue. (1)

luther349 (645380) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727087)

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.

Re:I don't get the perspective issue. (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727699)

At least I think I recall that in MechWarrior Mercenaries.

Mech II Merc was first-person.

Re: I don't get the perspective issue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44727833)

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

Re:I don't get the perspective issue. (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | 1 year,21 days | (#44728009)

Agreed. FPS only.

Rage of the Dumb Ass Dominion (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726629)

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.

Re:Rage of the Dumb Ass Dominion (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727817)

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 .

#SaveMWO (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726631)

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.

Re: #SaveMWO (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44726773)

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

Echos of Warhammer online? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44726705)

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

Re:Echos of Warhammer online? (1)

stjobe (78285) | 1 year,21 days | (#44726901)

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...

Looking to id an arcade game? (1)

proto (98893) | 1 year,21 days | (#44726745)

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?

Re:Looking to id an arcade game? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44726805)

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.

Re:Looking to id an arcade game? (1)

Chas (5144) | 1 year,21 days | (#44726851)

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.

Re:Looking to id an arcade game? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44727043)

If you go to [] and search for Gundam, do you find the one you are looking for?

Re:Looking to id an arcade game? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44727741)

Was that Senjou no Kizuna?

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.

OP is bad and he should feel bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44726753)

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

Pay-to-win down-your-throat (3, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,21 days | (#44726893)

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.

Re: Pay-to-win down-your-throat (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44726917)

Except theres nothing P2W in MWO

Re: Pay-to-win down-your-throat (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727895)

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.

Re:Pay-to-win down-your-throat (2)

hibiki_r (649814) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727791)

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.

Re:Pay-to-win down-your-throat (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727887)

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

What do you expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44726899)

These guys shipped Duke Nukem Forever.

Re:What do you expect? (1)

luther349 (645380) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727131)

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.

Re:What do you expect? (1)

N_Piper (940061) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727287)

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.

Not all MWO players agree with this. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44727115)

I can tell you most players of MWO are having fun and believe that article is one sided propaganda. Here are some facts.

1. There is nothing in the game that is pay to win.
2. “Coolant Flush” has not unbalanced the game.
3. Removing “General Discussion” from the forum was annoying but thats about it.
4. There was a problem for a while with high-damage alphas jump snipers etc. These balance things happen in games. At the moment the changes made have made it a non-issue again. That is unless you are one of the players that thing you should only be able to fire one weopon at a time and it should take 10 minutes to kill a mech. :)
5. Ghost Heat has turned out to work well.
6. Project Phoenix is a big seller and I personally no of none of my friends that have returned it. I am sure some people have but my feeling is this article greatly overstates how many.
7. #SaveMWO acts like they speak for the entire community. In fact best I can tell they are a very very vocal mintority. As for their ideas they have both good and bad ideas just like the developers.
8. The comment that 12vs12 " received an average reception in the public game community, " is just complete BS. Most players had been wanting 12vs12 for a long time. People in the community had been griping because we did not have it yet. And this change has made the game have better tactics by and large and be more fun for most players. It is different than 8vs8 but not in a bad way.
9. Many players were very vocal about not wanting third-person view. But the truth is it made very very little difference in gameplay. There are several negatives to using third-person view. And it has been a part of Mechwarrior games for a very long time. It has by far been the most overblown thing people have complained about.

"At the end of this long history is one question: Does the Mechwarrior Online community have the right to be so angry?" Answer No

And by the way for those of you who have not players. Here is what you need to know. If you have not played Mechwarrior the learning curve is kinda steap right at first. But they are working on tutorials that will come out around the launch of the game. There is no pay to win you can do just fine without ever giving them a dime. And most importantly its fun to play.

"oathbreaking"?! Frell! Someone been watching way (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44727271)

too much Game of Thrones.

This sounds like something out of the Inner Sphere (1)

Rolpa (3036845) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727313)

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

Summary bad, article very good (1)

LoneBoco (701026) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727571)

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

Re:Summary bad, article very good (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44728055)

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

It's about all the broken oaths. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44727577)

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.

IP? (1)

Sean (422) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727593)


Game have shifted to 3rd person??? (1)

IronSighted (3036867) | 1 year,21 days | (#44727683)

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.

You made your bed, now lie in it (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44727985)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>