I hadn't heard of Steven Wright either.
The I.P. is covers everything City of Heroes related. ... The deal would not include any of the original development files
Does anyone know if it includes concept art? The Lora AMA mentions that unreleased concept art (specifically referring to the Battalion in the question) has to stay unreleased due to some sort of contractual thing. I hope it would expire or whatever, allowing it to be used or released.
And I contest that things like the Team Transporter are actually "Pay to Win." My litmus test was "Can what this power does be done without it, even if doing it without the power is slower and/or less efficient?" And the Team Transporter passes this test. It's completely possible to run/fly to missions without it, it's just faster to use the Team Transporter to do the same thing.
That's less time spent waiting around for people to arrive, much faster merit-to-time ratio, much better average XP/inf/drops per minute, and in general having more fun and being able to do other fun things sooner.
That satisfies just about every definition of "winning" I can think of in COH. It's not intended as a moral judgment, but given its 15 minute recharge compared to the 2 hour recharge of personal mission teleport power, I think a solid case can be made that the transporter was firmly in the "pay to win" category.
I still maintain that "Pay to Win" only applies to PvP. If you're using paid powers to complete things faster, and get more items... well,
for me, I don't care. Sure, you're "winning," but you're beating NPCs. Whereas in PvP, the whole conceit of that endeavor is that everyone starts on a level playing field gear wise, and skill / build choices / etc. allow you to defeat other players. If you pay for an item that allows you to easily defeat other people in PvP, that is the literal definition of paying to win.
The only time "Pay to Win" would be an issue in PvE is in the market, but I think it was amply demonstrated that you didn't need great drops or lots of drops to be a marketeer.
I would bet serious money that somewhere out there, there is a person with saved text from all of the story arcs.
My concern with the wiki is not that arcs are missing, it's the fact that the current format for articles doesn't allow as much freedom as I would like for adding dynamic content. If you look at Sister Psyche's page, there is indeed a section about her wedding to Manticore (but nothing about Who Will Die). The issue is that it's sort of... I don't know, almost like a piecemeal way of doing things to just add "and then this happened!" at the bottom of the article for major events like weddings and deaths. There was never any need for contact articles to have a better way of presenting dynamic content, because there was little that changed in game requiring it. So the lack of forethought (poor choice of words as it implies negligence or lack of smarts which it wasn't, but close enough) in wiki formatting led to what is in my opinion a poor way of displaying info that happens to contacts / NPCs after their initial appearance. I just don't want something similar to happen to any successor game, where they don't have a way to make their characters do cool things.
The Rikti are here to destroy the world? Good thing they only landed in Paragon City!
This is why I would want a CoH 2 to expand its scope. We heard about the first Rikti War - over 20 cities hit; we heard about Mot popping up in other places - the entire population of Chicago devoured (!!); The Dawn Patrol - obviously doing their thing over in the UK. A more worldly scope would be pretty sweet.
Are you saying "Theoretically no" to the "Would it be limited?" question, or the "would it be able to license CCG, novel, etc.?" question? If it's the former, great! I am super excited to see things like CCG expansion, MOBA, comics / novels, etc. If you're saying "no" to the latter question, why would that be the case?
Essentially. But again, any contractual obligations required by NCSoft are far from hammered out, assuming anything new ever happens in the negotiatians.
Wait... I asked "Is it option A or option B?" and your answer is "Essentially."
I think the implication is that you're saying "essentially" to the "licensing would not limited" part, which is good!