Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Please follow the link to TTGN if you're interested in the story:

http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/11/17/19876

Catalyst have already added the 'Dark Age Era' to their list of BattleTech Eras. It's an interesting development.

BYE

To those who are better informed than I....

What is it with Battletech? The system seems to be some sort of Corporate 'Pass The Parcel'?

Is the game just not as popular as it's made out to be, are the owning companies just unsure what to do with it? What? I played an old version (with horrible, soft plastic models that paint slew straight off of) which was quite good fun, and then it disappeared in my area. Can someone offer me at least an informed opinion, if not outright fact?

The list of companies involved in BTech is actually quite simple, and involves no pass the parcel.

In 2001 the people who ran FASA decided to shut the company down. They did not go bankrupt or die because they weren't selling anything, they just didn't see much of a future in what they were doing so decided to quit while they were ahead.

The BTech lisence was sold to one of the original co-founders of FASA, Jordan Wiseman, who had started WizKids with the game MageKnight. His company made Mechwarrior: Dark Age using their Clix gaming system, and BattleTech, renamed Classic BattleTech to distinguish it from the new game, was lisenced to FanPro, a German company.

The American part of FanPro produced no less than 30-40 products during this time (2001-2006), from sourcebooks to scenario books to revised editions of previous tech readouts, and, most importantly, the current master rules - Total Warfare - which came in 2006. In the 2007 the lisence was transferred to Catalyst Game Labs, a company co-founded by Loren Coleman, one of BTech's biggest writers. A number of the current BTech writers all worked for FASA as well, so the core team of people making the game hasn't changed.

Since Catalyst took over, the work they started with the main Total Warfare rulebook in the 2006 has continued, and since then two other core rulebooks have been released, one in 2007, one this year, and the fourth to arrive towards the end of this year. Overall I think they've put out close to 20 different products since 2007, including their Introductory Boxed Set, an item that contains plastic miniautres (a big deal given that had to get permission from WizKids to do this), and has won a few awards since its release. They even released two new products this week!

On the miniature front, Iron Wind Metals now produces all the BTech minis, and 5 days ago extended their contract to continue producing miniatures.

And today Catalyst Game Labs made an offer to Topps to completely buy a number of WizKids properties, including BTech, Shadowrun, Pirates and HeroClix.

There are more interesting days ahead with the demise of WizKids, and there's the odd situation where Jordan Wiseman's new company - Tinker & Smith - is lisencing the rights to make BTech computer games from Microsoft (another long story), but BTech has never stopped. We're looking at anywhere up to 50 products (not miniautres, actual full-sized book releases) since 2001.

BYE

Personally I think the issue with Battletech is that it is "very popular" with some people, who love it a *lot*, but it is not "widely popular".

Now of course that can be said about any "niche game within a niche hobby", but I believe it to be the case with Battletech more so than with many current games.

I suspect there is sufficient demand to support a "boutique" company, maybe on a similar level to one of GW's SG's, but not enough to interest the likes of Hasbro or one of their subsidiaries who would be looking for much greater returns from a large investment.

BTech has it's 25th Anniversay next year. It's a fair bit bigger than any of GW's (unsupported) Specialist Games.

Truth of the matter is that we're spoilt by GW. There aren't many in the industry that can match their size. How many game companies have their own chain of stores worldwide? The enormity of Games Workshop overshadows everyone, and while I doubt they truly own 98% of the world's gaming market share (whatever their finance reports might want us to believe), they hold enough that they make others look very small in comparison.

BYE

I played Mageknight for a while and it was fun enough, but it seemed to just spiral. We may complain about balance, power creep and whiffy sculpts with GW but they are light years ahead of that stuff. The mechwarrior game they had looked fun too, but I never got into it because at the time it was popular locally I was broke/doing final college exams.

Sad to see them go under though, less diversity in the market is always bad. Now I hear D'n'D minis are changing from their CMG status to semi CMG designed for roleplaying, and it seems monsterpocalypse and axis and allies may be some of the only CMGs that stay stocked in any of the local games places.

I'm interested to see how long Monsterpocalypse lasts for. Going on the life expectancy of previous pre-paint CMGs, not terribly long at all. But then, every rule has it's exception to prove itself (no, I never understood that as a theory myself, as surely an exception disproves rather than proves the rule) and perhaps this is it. Me, I kind of doubt it. The main draw of a miniatures game is the modelling and painting side, making your force distinctive and increasingly 'yours'. Pre-paints fly in the face of that theory somewhat, and I really, really do not like blind buying (except with Magic, which I guess is the exception that proves my own rule!)

Osbad wrote:Personally I think the issue with Battletech is that it is "very popular" with some people, who love it a *lot*, but it is not "widely popular".

And those people who love the system are usually the ones who already have all the rules, models, etc. Since the game is essentially unchanged since it came out in the 80's, and that's considered to be one of it's strengths, there are no new rules, units, etc. I've heard that the new owners have added in a new faction, but most people still stick with the classics. So while it's very popular, that popularity doesn't necessarily translate into sales.

BigToof wrote:

Osbad wrote:Personally I think the issue with Battletech is that it is "very popular" with some people, who love it a *lot*, but it is not "widely popular".

And those people who love the system are usually the ones who already have all the rules, models, etc. Since the game is essentially unchanged since it came out in the 80's, and that's considered to be one of it's strengths, there are no new rules, units, etc. I've heard that the new owners have added in a new faction, but most people still stick with the classics. So while it's very popular, that popularity doesn't necessarily translate into sales.

Seems to translate well enough into them being confident they have the cash and ability to acquire many of WizKids properties...

Battletech has a big advantage over 40K and that is a more solid base of fans. 40K has simple rules so that they can get the younger kids to buy with parent money and play. Battletech relies on a constant system that hasn't invalidated itself with rule changes over the course of it's existence.

Battletech is an actual tactical simulation game, where 40K is just a dice game with minis. There is no flanking in 40K, just shooting from a different angle. maneuvering behind an opponent doesn't actually give you an advantage in 40K over shooting them from any other angle. Battletech uses tactics with a decent (not perfect) sense of reality to make an excellent simulation of combat. 40K has more to do with Yahtzee at times than tactical combat.

Rant over.

Mattlov wrote:
Battletech is an actual tactical simulation game, where 40K is just a dice game with minis. There is no flanking in 40K, just shooting from a different angle. maneuvering behind an opponent doesn't actually give you an advantage in 40K over shooting them from any other angle. Battletech uses tactics with a decent (not perfect) sense of reality to make an excellent simulation of combat. 40K has more to do with Yahtzee at times than tactical combat.

Rant over.

Horses for courses really. Personally I prefer "simpler" games - that I can understand and play within a few minutes/couple of hours of opening the rule book. I really haven't got the time, nor the inclination any more to spend days and days poring over rulesets, nor more than a couple of hours tops to play a game. Other things in life take my time. But if that's your bag, then fair enough. After all, there are still people raving over 2nd edition 40k... Of course its important not to equate a preference for simplicity of rules with a lower IQ - after all, you don't get a much simpler tabletop game than chess when it comes to rules, and Gary Kasparov would probably not appreciate that point of view

Digression over, the key issue is translating "love" and "interest" into sales. All the love and interest in the world won't allow a games company to pay the rent unless it translates into sales, and actually year-on-year sales growth, not just static sales. 'Tis the same with all hobbies - not just tabletop gaming. Afterall you can go fishing with a stick, some twine and a bent safety pin. But if you want to you can spend $'000's on carbon fibre rods, etc., etc. No one made a fortune flogging sticks, twine and used safety pins, but there are plenty of wealthy fishing supply companies... Its all in the perception of value for money for the hobbyist.

As GW have found, the amount of direct sales they make from people dwindles after a couple of years (although it seems that they do now appreciate that they have to keep the "vets" happy and playing to some extent, or there isn't going to be any hobby for the high-spending n00bs to join into!), so they try all sorts to keep generating new sales and perk up interest for the long term - its the reason the GTs, Games Day, Golden Daemon, etc., all exist. Without that level of financial muscle though, it is inevitable that a game will "die" (i.e. pass to a point where sales volume dwindles below a viable threshold).

As a hobby sector we are renowned for the love of the "new shiney". As a sector we'd much rather spend £20 on a new game than on expanding an existing one, unless we can be strongly convinced otherwise. It has been a mark of GW's and PP's genii that they have succeeded in "locking in" so many adherents to their own particular systems where many other companies before and since have failed. Arguably it is endemic with PPP (such as Mechwarrior became) that there is lower initial investment and therefore less emotional investment in the game, and so less long-term scope for customer retention. In my opinion most "clix" games just don't generate the love and sense of investment of self that more tradional tabletop games do - its easier to dump a game which you've got bored with if it only cost you money. If you've taken the trouble to model and paint your army you are more likely to stick the course I think.

It will be interesting to see how far Rackham can sustain interest in AT-43 and CAoR in the face of this tendency - will the rules, which are better and less broken than any clix game I have played, and the sense of "army building" alone generate enough "emotional investment" to sustain long term interest in the product ranges? Or does it need the tournament scene, modelling investment and all the other gubbins as well to sustain a product line?

Time will tell.

I agree, but I just like to try to change the opinion that Battletech is a complex game. In the end, it has far fewer rules than 40K does, despite being a more tactical system.

H.B.M.C. wrote:There are more interesting days ahead with the demise of WizKids, and there's the odd situation where Jordan Wiseman's new company - Tinker & Smith - is lisencing the rights to make BTech computer games from Microsoft (another long story), but BTech has never stopped. We're looking at anywhere up to 50 products (not miniautres, actual full-sized book releases) since 2001.

Wait. Whoah. Really? It's about time for a new Mechwarrior game. With all the advances in FPSs in the past few years, especially with Halo and Battlefield, they can start introducing those little powered armored guys as well as the giant 'Mechs.

They've had the rights to make Mechwarrior games for almost two years now? Nothing's been heard, but that's probably because whatever they're working on isn't read to be revealed.

It is a weird situation, given that Microsoft held the lisence for so long, even had a company set up - FASA Interactive - to make these games, even after FASA shut down - yet they made nothing and then lisenced the rights to someone who's made nothing...

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:They've had the rights to make Mechwarrior games for almost two years now? Nothing's been heard, but that's probably because whatever they're working on isn't read to be revealed.

It is a weird situation, given that Microsoft held the lisence for so long, even had a company set up - FASA Interactive - to make these games, even after FASA shut down - yet they made nothing and then lisenced the rights to someone who's made nothing...

BYE

Microsoft still holds ownership, and anything Weisman does has to be approved by Microsoft. Just because you hold a license doesn't give you free reign to do what you want. You have the ABILITY to make something under that name and intellectual property, IF the holder of the rights allows it.

Even though WK wasn't doeing much, Catalyst still had to have WK approval for all of their products to be produced.

They held the IP and were in the process of producing a mechassault game for the xbox 360 but the low expected sales of the property and internal politics of first party microsoft development studios saw the game put on ice. Then they collapsed the studio as a cost cutting measure. Microsoft still owns the IP, and doesn't seem willing to invest the funds to make a functional first party game under the liscence at the moment.

There are actually a few liscences that microsoft owns in this regard that they seem unwilling to capitalize on. Rare is a first party development house, and only just recently released a banjo kazooie title for the platform, and after the crapfest that was perfect dark zero they just seem to be sitting on that one as well.

They seem to favor a staggered first party launch sequence that allows for about a month to two months between major first party releases barring the run up to the holiday season. This means funding specific studios for specific IPs and games, but not leveraging the considerable development capitol on IPs considered risky.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The main draw of a miniatures game is the modelling and painting side, making your force distinctive and increasingly 'yours'. Pre-paints fly in the face of that theory somewhat, and I really, really do not like blind buying

Pre-paints aren't aimed at those who like painting. They're aimed at the ever-increasing crowd who don want to paint, or at people who enjoy collecting and are fans of the particular theme of that game.

The random element to the boosters for most pre-painted games serves to keep the price down, and if the game's reasonably popular, the secondary singles market generally means that it's not too hard to find what you want if you're chasing specific miniatures.

The main draw of a miniatures game is the modelling and painting side, making your force distinctive and increasingly 'yours'.

I wouldn't say thats the draw for everyone. Army compostion and the game itself are big draws to a lot of people. I know plenty who don't particularly enjoy painting or modeling, yet want a force customized to be there.

ShumaGorath wrote:They held the IP and were in the process of producing a mechassault game for the xbox 360 but the low expected sales of the property and internal politics of first party microsoft development studios saw the game put on ice. Then they collapsed the studio as a cost cutting measure. Microsoft still owns the IP, and doesn't seem willing to invest the funds to make a functional first party game under the liscence at the moment.

Yes, they shut down FASA Interactive but then lisenced the rights to Tinker & Smith.

BYE

Pity, their Mech Warrior games and the first Crimson Skies game for the PC were great and oft-overlooked jewels.

Mattlov wrote:Battletech is an actual tactical simulation game, where 40K is just a dice game with minis.
...
40K has more to do with Yahtzee at times than tactical combat.

Simulation of what? 40+ ton giant robots armored in unobtainium armed with pseudoscience hypertechnology guns?

Yahtzee only rolls 5 dice. 40k tactics are about getting into a position where you can roll 5 *fistfuls* of dice, or to prevent the opponent from rolling same against you.

Osbad wrote:you don't get a much simpler tabletop game than chess when it comes to rules, and Gary Kasparov would probably not appreciate that point of view

I'd nominate Checkers and Go as simpler tabletop games, the latter in particular.

Osbad wrote:As GW have found, the amount of direct sales they make from people dwindles after a couple of years
...
Without that level of financial muscle though, it is inevitable that a game will "die" (i.e. pass to a point where sales volume dwindles below a viable threshold).

It's like this with pretty much any product. New sales at introduction are what drives product, whereas follow-on sales are much lower. Why else the whole fascination with opening-nights, box office gross and first edition books. This is why the "Wave 2" approach is really mystifying to me.

Osbad wrote:If you've taken the trouble to model and paint your army you are more likely to stick the course I think.

I agree with this. Getting players to invest is what keeps them in the system. Magic has a similar hold, with the "science" of deckbuilding & tuning.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:They held the IP and were in the process of producing a mechassault game for the xbox 360 but the low expected sales of the property and internal politics of first party microsoft development studios saw the game put on ice. Then they collapsed the studio as a cost cutting measure. Microsoft still owns the IP, and doesn't seem willing to invest the funds to make a functional first party game under the liscence at the moment.

Yes, they shut down FASA Interactive but then lisenced the rights to Tinker & Smith.

BYE

Yeah, but it really depends on the relationship between microsoft and the studio licensing. They can license an IP for legal purposes without actually licensing it for production or development. Basically holding it on the burner with a sideline studio so that in the event that they decide to publish they can have avoid the process of organizing and providing capitol for a development house.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Mattlov wrote:Battletech is an actual tactical simulation game, where 40K is just a dice game with minis.
...
40K has more to do with Yahtzee at times than tactical combat.

Simulation of what? 40+ ton giant robots armored in unobtainium armed with pseudoscience hypertechnology guns?

You mean like an Eldar titan?

CBT is a little more grounded in reality than every race in 40K except the Guard. And they are a step back in evolution.

Don't worry folks.

DD has made it quite clear that he doesn't even know what BattleTech is (he thinks Dark Age is BTech 2nd Ed for Christ's sake), so it's best to ignore him on this and every other issue he's ever involved in.

Shummy wrote:Yeah, but it really depends on the relationship between microsoft and the studio licensing. They can license an IP for legal purposes without actually licensing it for production or development. Basically holding it on the burner with a sideline studio so that in the event that they decide to publish they can have avoid the process of organizing and providing capitol for a development house.

Ok great. I don't care. I'll let you 'win' this one as well, just stop trying to counter anything everyone says for the sake of winning. This isn't an argument.

BYE

Ok great. I don't care. I'll let you 'win' this one as well, just stop trying to counter anything everyone says for the sake of winning. This isn't an argument.

...

I wasn't arguing anything...

Mattlov wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Mattlov wrote:Battletech is an actual tactical simulation game,

Simulation of what? 40+ ton giant robots armored in unobtainium armed with pseudoscience hypertechnology guns?

You mean like an Eldar titan?

CBT is a little more grounded in reality than every race in 40K except the Guard. And they are a step back in evolution.

Sure. Tho I'm still curious in what reality do we have flying giant robots armed with PPCs?

Mechwarrior is grounded in reality, it just isn't cohesive. As a quick example the mechs use a series of myomer muscles to actuate their legs and arms. Yet the mech designs themselves show that as clearly impossible, instead having been designed for giant servomotors or hydraulics. There are tons of little inconsistencies within the setting like this.

It also ignores common sense alot in order to turn an interesting universe into a cohesive game about giant robots. 40k uses a lot of sci fi physics and has the warp as sort of an ex machina explanation for a lot of things, but the game itself is grounded in a more realistic sense than battletech.

ShumaGorath wrote:I wasn't arguing anything...

See, now you're arguing the fact that you weren't arguing. Does it never stop!!!!!!



BYE

ShumaGorath wrote:It also ignores common sense alot in order to turn an interesting universe into a cohesive game about giant robots. 40k uses a lot of sci fi physics and has the warp as sort of an ex machina explanation for a lot of things, but the game itself is grounded in a more realistic sense than battletech.

Exactly. We're talking about giant robot battles and warp daemons. When people start asserting that as "reality", I kind of have to wonder.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Sure. Tho I'm still curious in what reality do we have flying giant robots armed with PPCs?

There aren't any flying robots in BattleTech.

Seriously John, stop talking about BTech. You're clueless about it - even more clueless than everything else you're clueless about.

BYE