Problem with F2P games is they try to nickel and dime you, and to get a normal game play experience you typically have to pay *more* per month than if it was a subscription. Sure, you can play the game and never spend a game, but you are often playing against people who *do* spend the money. Thus, you end up loosing to those with more money than you, and its horribly unbalanced. World of Tanks is a great F2P game, but if you can afford "premium ammo", you automatically have a much better lead over your opponents. Some people like F2P, but IMO its just corporations trying to squeeze more money out of you, just like DLC. 15 years ago if a game sold well they'd continue to support it for a while, now they often just make it, release it, and leave it.
Browser based means there are serious limits on things like textures and models. All that stuff has to be downloaded over your internet connection, and you can't play it without internet. There is no way to mod the game, or do any tweaks yourself. The unity engine is more of a framework for scripting things to make a game, and will have its own limitations and overhead. But, a browser based game *does* open the door for people with older hardware to play it, which is the #1 reason to do a browser game. Thus they are targeting this for the lowest common denominator to have more players.
A collectible game on the computer? So you start with maybe 4 designs, and you gotta pay a few bucks for each one after that. You gotta pay for new equipment, pay for new armor, etc, etc, etc... again, people with more money have an automatic advantage, and IMO the amount of money you have shouldn't automatically give you an advantage in play over some kid who saved up for 3 months to just get his first upgrade.
I have experience with software development, with online games, with game architecture, game design, directx, various 3D game engines, etc, etc. So it isn't that I'm biased on this game, I just really think it'll be pretty crappy. Heck the entire way it plays is completely different than BT. Its a you-go-I-go method, like warhammer. I didn't see any vehicles or infantry either. And only 1 lance??? Well, that is probably falling back to the architectural limits of the browser engine.
As for doing an official BT product, kickstart or otherwise, I don't own the IP. And tho I have a lot of experience in the industry, I have no idea who to talk to at MSFT to get a license (I've sent numerous emails with no success). That is where my motivation falls off, the whole legality thing. Plus, I am working on my own BT project that has been my goal for a really long time, and that is far closer to master of orion than megamek.
The key thing about either of these games IMO, is aside from the few thousand of us fans around the country that will surely play it, we are the minority of players on both. Hopefully these 2 games will open the doors to the BTU to people who aren't familiar with it, and perhaps get some more people buying books and miniatures. Even if its really bad there will be *some* people who play it, and even a couple hundred new BT board game players in the US is a noticeable bump.
I'm very open minded to both MWO and MWT, and will try both, but I find it amazing how many people are so adamant about defending both games without playing them, especially when so many negative features are coming out about both of them. Sorry, but F2P, Browser Based, and collectible are all "negative features" for players, and all 3 "positive features" for the companies that make them.