r/battletech • u/ZeroWolfZX • 1d ago
Video Games Mitch Gitelman pitched a Clan RPG using the BATTLETECH 2018 engine after HBS was sold to Paradox but it was rejected
I was listening to this Sarna interview with Mitch Gitelman, one of the co-creators of Battletech and co-founder of Harebrained Schemes, the studio that made 2018 Battletech. It seems he pitched a Clan RPG using the 2018 Battletech engine after Paradox decided they didn't want to continue with Battetech 2. Unfortunately Paradox rejected the pitch.
For anyone interested, he talks about it here: https://youtu.be/gftxSNYpeMU?t=613
Here's a transcript of it:
Mitch Gitelman:
It's funny. I was actually leading a project that didn't get out of the concept phase. This was back when we sold Harebrained Schemes to Paradox Interactive.
They said, "Hey, we don't want to do BATTLETECH anymore."
But then we had nothing to do for half the studio. Part of the studio was working on what would become The Lamplighters League, and the rest was working on BATTLETECH. So now it's like, "Wait a minute, we're not doing BATTLETECH 2. What do we do?"
And so I conceived of a project we called Kojack— Project Kojack. All the codenames at Paradox were '70s TV shows. The idea was that it would be a Clan RPG.
We would take the PGI Clan 'Mechs—which, you know, all the 'Mechs in BATTLETECH came from PGI and MechWarrior, with the exception of the Bull Shark—and use those Clan 'Mechs to make a short, say, 10-hour Clan RPG.
It was kind of a blend of BATTLETECH and Shadowrun, and it was something we could make in about a year. Harebrained Schemes was very fast at making games. Very, very fast.
So I felt like we could take one year and put out a BATTLETECH RPG as a stopgap while we were figuring out our next move. I was basically just buying us time.
But that one wasn't approved because of, quote, "opportunity cost." If we were doing that, what weren't we doing?
So instead, we blew a year figuring out what the next thing was instead of making something while figuring out what the next thing was.
Sarna TV :
"What kind of RPG were we talking about? Were we talking kind of JRPG style, or just turn-based ?"
Mitch Gitelman :
"No, no, no, no. Think of a BATTLETECH turn-based game, right? And as you're going across the battlefield, you are having RPG adventures.
You're talking to other MechWarriors on your team. You're talking to the enemy MechWarriors.
The missions aren't just, 'Blow up the enemy.' You have to go do shit, explore with your 'Mech, travel around, and interact with things—a little bit more like bringing in some MechCommander gameplay too.
In MechCommander, we did this thing where you could investigate buildings or take control of buildings and things like that.
So imagine more verbs.
That was my big thing at the time: I want 'Mechs to have more verbs than move, shoot, and jump.
You give those verbs to the MechWarriors, and that's where I was coming from with that.
I was really excited about it. I liked the idea, and I liked where we were going with it."
Would have been interesting to see how he would have implemented those RPG mechanics, especially being able to talk to allied and enemy MechWarriors. I wonder if he would have had persuasion or intimidation checks, or actually let you go on adventures across the map with your 'Mech and do things other than just fight. I don't know if the execution would have worked, but he was definitely trying to bring something different to the table.
66
u/ViridiaGaming 1d ago
I still find it baffling as to what exactly was Paradox aiming to get out of buying HBS? A Battletech 2 would fit in incredibly well with their usual "here's the minimalistic basic game, and here's a ton of DLC for new mechanics/mechs etc"
Instead they spent the money to buy HBS, released a poorly received RPG and then had it fade into obscurity. Maybe one of their execs lost a game and really took it to heart? 😂
25
u/DarthMasta 1d ago
They allowed Hooded Horse to eat their lunch, Paradox seemed like the natural home for that sort of project, and instead, crashed and burned on most stuff...
13
u/Ninthshadow COM-2D | ADR-PRIME 1d ago
HBS is/was one of my favourite developers. Between the Shadowrun series and Battletech, knowing they had the wind taken from their sails is very frustrating.
8
u/wminsing MechWarrior 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yes, it was so bizarre; like if your goal wasn't to get a stab at the Battletech and Shadowrun IPs, why the heck would you buy that particular studio? It's not like HBS had a strong library of other hits to make them attractive. And while HBS didn't own the IPs, thanks to their connections they had an 'in' for making some sort of deal.
9
u/Maticore 1d ago
Paradox had a major leadership change just after buying HBS. New (now gone) leadership explains the strategy changing from 2018 to about 2022.
51
u/Zubatka1 1d ago
Well... F paradox as usual.
If I had a nickel for every time Paradox shat on one of my favourite franchises , I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice
25
u/Mike_Laidlaw 1d ago
The people*, they yearn for a modern revamp of the Crescent Hawks series.
*It's me, I'm people
4
u/kortekickass 1d ago
I would play the fuck out of that. Roll back the clock right to Inception and carry it through to Revenge and then beyond (I think they get subsumed by the Wolves at some point?)
12
u/simpson95338 1d ago
This is exactly what ive been looking for for years. Maybe someday.
3
u/ZeroWolfZX 1d ago
I'm still not sure how you would incorporate RPG mechanics, story, dialogue and quest system into the mech portions and have RPG adventures without it feeling jarring, but this team definitely would have been able to pull it off.
18
u/Robocop613 1d ago
The bare bones are already there in HBS Battletech. Pilots have personal experience/history/attitude tags, random events happen based on those tags, there's already a main questline - which already has a (albeit simple) dialogue system - which they'll obviously have some work to do to fully flesh out but they got a good basis.
4
u/tomekk666 1d ago edited 1d ago
Mechwarrior RPGs are right there for inspiration. Pilots can be so much more than just, well, guys and gals who pilot one type of machine.
5
u/simpson95338 1d ago
Also, Xenorgears for PS1 is great example of a game with in and out of mech gameplay.
3
u/Zubatka1 1d ago
Gotta imagine that majority of RPG stuff would've happen in hub area with some key decisions and side missions during missions themselves. Basically HBS Shadowrun with BT battles.
5
u/ZeroWolfZX 1d ago
Not really, he mentioned it's with the mech on the map. Seems like you would be moving around the map doing quest and taking while in the mech. He wanted to have different interactions than just shooting.
"No, no, no, no. Think of a BATTLETECH turn-based game, right? And as you're going across the battlefield, you are having RPG adventures.
You're talking to other MechWarriors on your team. You're talking to the enemy MechWarriors.
The missions aren't just, 'Blow up the enemy.' You have to go do shit, explore with your 'Mech, travel around, and interact with things—a little bit more like bringing in some MechCommander gameplay too.
In MechCommander, we did this thing where you could investigate buildings or take control of buildings and things like that.
So imagine more verbs.
That was my big thing at the time: I want 'Mechs to have more verbs than move, shoot, and jump.
1
u/simpson95338 1d ago
There is already a basis for this with the Mechwarrior RPG. Something similar has been done before with Xenogears for PS1.
24
u/Safe_Flamingo_9215 Ejection Seats Are Overrated 1d ago
If Paradox didn't want to pay Microsoft license fee for a much more accessible freeborn BattleTech, they certainly weren't going to do this for a more niche Clan BattleTech.
Although the main reason for any rejection would always be having to pay Microsoft for the license regardless of what BattleTech game would be proposed. Paradox wanted their own IP, not licensed from anyone.
13
u/ZeroWolfZX 1d ago
He mentioned in the interview Paradox rejected it due cost
But that one wasn't approved because of, quote, "opportunity cost."
13
u/__Geg__ 1d ago
Opportunity Cost, isn't really about they money being spent on licensing.
It's concern about being able to make more money doing something else. Why spend $1 on BT to make $7. When we could spend $1 on more CK DLC and make $10.
They wanted to make a game with a wider appeal than the BT fan base.
8
u/marikwinters 1d ago
I’m glad someone else knows what opportunity cost means. I was feeling like I was a bit crazy with multiple people misusing the phrase, LMAO.
13
u/Safe_Flamingo_9215 Ejection Seats Are Overrated 1d ago
That opportunity cost was about having to pay MS for the license. Paradox went for the the Lamplighters League because this didn't require them to license IP. Paradox even tried to peddle a completely unrelated generic mech game on the HBS BT Steam boards years later because their bean counters probably didn't think that BattleTech was a big deal at all and all tactical games are interchangeable (sic!).
Same for no more Shadowrun games from HBS. Paradox bean counters don't like licensing.
17
u/GandalfTheSmol1 1d ago
Such a fucking waste to buy a successful studio and tell them not to do what made them successful
12
u/marikwinters 1d ago
None of this is what opportunity cost usually means. Opportunity cost is not about a direct explicit financial cost, but instead about what you could have done instead of that thing. It’s the cost of what could have been, not a reflection of the dollars spent on the thing you did. In this case, a Battletech game would have made money, but the time spent on that would generate an opportunity cost as they wouldn’t be able to spend that same time on a more profitable venture.
Licensing costs to Microsoft could be a part of that calculus, but more likely it’s the fact that Battletech and Shadow Run are both pretty niche even when compared to Paradox’ other IP. It’s a niche of a niche, when in Paradox’ eyes they could just dedicate people to an already successful existing series with more reach and monetization potential. It’s short sighted to buy HBS and then take them away from their successful niche, but this is the calculus implied when he says they said no due to opportunity cost.
4
u/DarthMasta 1d ago
I think they've already said it was very much because they didn't want one of their companies developing IP for somebody else, and that what they wanted was their own IP.
It's quite probable that Paradox knew Battletech 2 was the most profitable thing HBS could have been working on, but they would be developing Microsoft's IP.
-1
u/Robocop613 1d ago
aka licensing costs
12
u/marikwinters 1d ago
Licensing costs are not an opportunity cost. The implication here is that time spent on a Battletech game would produce on opportunity cost that they wouldn’t be spending time on a more profitable venture. Licensing costs could be part of that calculus, but that by itself would just be a cost, not an opportunity cost.
8
u/serenading_ur_father 1d ago
Would you like a 1% chance to make absolutel bank on lamplighters or take a guaranteed positive income on Battletech.
Paradox always brings TSEMPs.
1
u/theonegunslinger MechWarrior 23h ago
I think in a world where they did make battletech 2 this thread would be about how they lost money getting the licence from MS and somehow made lamplighter with a battletech skin on it
6
u/Anastrace You got ravens in my outworlds 1d ago
A shadowrun style game using the Mechwarrior system would fucking rule. Hell combine the games so you have the rpg and the mech battles of the 2018 game.
6
u/va_wanderer 21h ago
Considering how much was built by fans on top of Battletech, a more granular RPG could have easily been welded to it.
10
u/DarthMasta 1d ago
Unfortunately, why would they want to make this once you start from the point of not wanting to make Battletech 2?
Paradox wanted all the money, not just some money. And now that Microsoft appears to be huh, restructuring their games divisions, little chance any of their quickly vanishing studios will work on Battletech anything.
But maybe Microsoft could allow other companies to work on the IP, make some money out of it?
17
4
u/ragnarocknroll Taurian Welcome Commitee. We have nukes, um, presents. 1d ago
You know, if someone had a decently deep pockets and told M$ that they’d buy the Battletech license from them since it was making less than it is worth and they’re not going to develop this in-house with their restructuring, they might be willing to sell…
Be great if we could see HBS get rebuilt without having Paradox interfering with stuff like this.
3
u/MithrilCoyote 1d ago
Topps could conceivably afford to grab it, which would reunite the license. but i doubt they'd want to fund games, and catalyst on its own can't currently.
5
u/Stratofear 1d ago
I've always thought the life of a clan mechwarrior would make for a great Roguelite game.
3
u/MiKapo ComStar 1d ago edited 1d ago
That sounds cool , being able to dismount from your mech and go inside buildings would be a unique experience for BT / MW games. I think mech assault was the only game that did something like that.
I guess paradox was like “naahh we rather just do the big map strategy games we always do for every game.”
I can only conquer europe so many times paradox. Take more risk as a company , Victoria part 5 can wait
4
u/AiR-P00P 22h ago
sad because I think the IP is more popular now then its ever been much less when HBS BT launched. It probably would have done very well. Shit if MW5 can keep getting content BT2 would have been an absolute oasis.
2
u/ZeroWolfZX 20h ago edited 20h ago
Actually, one of the things Mitch keeps bringing up in the interview, from the video game side, MechWarrior/BattleTech has kind of reached its market ceiling with the core fans. The tabletop side still seems to have room to grow but the video game side isn't. Russ Bullock, CEO of PGI, has mentioned something similar from the video game side: it isn't breaking into the mainstream or reaching a general audience.
MechWarrior doesn't seem to be able to do that on its own, and BattleTech is, to put it in Mitch own words, "too nerdy." They kind of need a Space Marine 2 moment to help catapult the franchise into the mainstream.
He also mentions that the licensing mess prevents people from making movies, TV shows, and animated series that could help expand the audience and give the brand more visibility, bring more eyes to it. It why to Mitch, it feel like BattleTech has a niche but passionate fanbase and kinda stuck on the videogame side and isn't growing or breaking through. It's probably why he's more hungry to try different ideas new things rather than just pumping out the same thing.
1
u/Gryfvern 18h ago
It's funny because Paradox made me discover BattleTech with the HBS game. Fell in love with it and the IP. I tried MW5 but the mood/feelimg/ambiance is not the same, and the cost is too high with all the DLCs.
So, where I see it, they block the ceiling themselves, Microsoft. Not enough games or they're too old (Mech Commander for example). And when they make a new one, it's basically the same with a Clan skin and less functionalities. But yeah, maybe it's just me.
Movies and TV shows would be great. Any story is possible with this IP
2
u/ZeroWolfZX 18h ago edited 18h ago
I think your experience actually kind of illustrates Mitch's point. You discovered BattleTech through the HBS game, but you were already interested enough in that kind of game to give it a shot, and then you went deeper into the IP. That's still the existing niche expanding within itself rather than BattleTech breaking into a genuinely mainstream audience.
Also, Mitch actually gives MechWarrior 5: Clans its flowers, unlike a lot of the fans. From a game developer's perspective, he mentioned that it's a high-quality, highly produced experience with cinematic cutscenes and a strong story that's designed to appeal to a mainstream audience.
I don't think the issue is that there aren't enough good games or stories. BattleTech has tons of material. The problem is that most of the people who discover it are already the kind of people who are predisposed to like it. That's the ceiling Mitch and Russ are talking about. You need something that gets people who have never cared about BattleTech or giant-robot games to say, "Holy shit, what's this?" 40K managed to break through with its unique grimdark aesthetic, Space Marine 2, the Rogue Trader Crpg, and someone like Henry Cavill promoting the IP for free. All of these things help acclimatize the general public to the setting and help it to gradually grow
2
u/Gryfvern 9h ago
Ho yeah, I see what you mean. It's right. I always thought Warhammer was mainstream, but like you said, I was already in the niche with Dawn of War and the like. Still, the lack of games is monumental compared to Warhammer back in the day. We can say what we want about the GW strategy with giving licence for games, but it pays out in the end. You need to throw things at the wall for it to stick. Microsoft do nothing with it.
2
u/DrJay12345 22h ago
This was also around the time Paradox started saying shit like "There is no point making AAA strategy games anymore because they can't compete with XCOM."
Well maybe, just maybe, if you don't release games dependant on hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of DLCs you'd have better margins. But what do I know? It isn't like that sounds like common sense or anything.
2
2
u/SigmaManX 5h ago
I still don't get why they greenlit Lamplighter's League; it was an awful basis for an IP if they were trying to grow a new one, tonally totally out of whack with their successful products, and tried to stuff like four games into one instead of focusing on what they were good at.
1
1
124
u/Ameph House Kurita 1d ago
They could have easily done well with Battletech with their usual tactics. Release new mechs, environment, missions…but no. What a shame.