Titanfall Beta Had Around 2 Million Players

[tdylan]

There's also a sense that it's too much free for all and too little structure and goals, I've never really been a fan of team deathmatch pubbing. Counter-strike was good because you had objectives, which introduced a sense of strategy, teamwork, deception, and subterfuge. Me and the teammates I spoke to figured that this game doesn't even really need its voicechat.

I got the impression that the game took a lot of cues from Brink, and will likely have some "objectives" similar to the way they were implemented in Brink. I didn't play the beta, but the reading that I had done on the game made me think of Brink from the very beginning.

 

[Vigormortis]

That's the exact thing they said about the Bad Company 2 beta. And the BF3 beta. And the BF4 beta. Granted, those have been the only games from EA that I was interested in enough to follow, but the precedence remains. Those games were supposed to be EA's killer app at the time, and when people complained about issues that they witnessed, they were told that they were "objectively wrong," and that the issues had already been addressed; the beta was an "old build" simply for "stress testing" purposes. Yet each of those games suffered server issues (as well as others) at launch.

You seem to be ignoring; whether purposefully or unintentionally; quite a few rather important details.

Most of those betas weren't designed as stress tests for the servers. EA claimed some were after the fact, but most simply weren't. And even those that were weren't very useful for the stress tests as they had very limited testing pools.

The Titanfall beta was purposefully pushed well beyond it's intended scope. Respawn made a point of attempting to break the Azure servers and testing how well they scale. This was not done with the betas you listed.

Speaking of the Azure servers, these are owned and operated by Microsoft, not EA. I could explain what they are but I imagine you have the wherewithal to find out yourself.

Another key difference is this: DICE, and subsequently Battlefield, are owned in whole by EA. EA had almost complete control over the creative process and the creation of the infrastructure designed to support those games. This is not the case with Titanfall. Respawn has, along with Microsoft, assumed total control over the building of the infrastructure around the game. EA's role in this venture is simply distribution.

Now, this does by no means indicate the Titanfall launch will be faultless. There's every possibility that something could still go wrong.

However, the fault won't lay with EA. And, despite your rather tenuous comparisons to other betas, Respawn is taking extraordinary measures in an attempt to make the launch as smooth as possible. Certainly far more than most do.

Don't drink the kool-aid.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Selling a ton of consoles has put them in a billion-dollar net loss for 2013 alone. The only way they'll recoup those losses is with a solid performance selling exclusive titles. Thus, Titanfall may be their best....maybe even their ONLY....shot at recouping their losses to date. If Titanfall sells mostly on the PC or 360, the Xbone is in big, big trouble.

To be fair, none of the consoles are not doing much better. Sony will post a $1 billion this quarter, even with selling off the TV division, they're selling the PS4 at a loss, and it took five years for them to get a profit even with higher demand of PS3's. I don't think I need to say anything about Nintendo currently.

The truth is consoles just aren't that profitable no matter which way you look at it. It's one of the reasons so many doomsayers out there shout "Consoles are going to die!!!!!!"

 

[fix-the-spade]

dont play the fave game of opening up the one platform and making the other fight for a handful of keys like beggars after a handful of change, respect all the platforms you support... not just the bloody bone.

Microsoft's contribution to the development budget says that Xbone gets priority on everything, EVERYTHING!

Of course, this could end up being the most damaging thing to the Titanfall brand, there's seventy million 360's and fourty odd million Origin accounts that are about to get treated like dirt, roll on Titanfall 2.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

To be fair, none of the consoles are not doing much better. Sony will post a $1 billion this quarter, even with selling off the TV division, they're selling the PS4 at a loss, and it took five years for them to get a profit even with higher demand of PS3's.

To be fair, that's a $1 billion loss *after* all of their divisions are considered. Most of their actual losses are coming from TV and PC sales, not the Playstation division. By comparison, Xbox has been nothing but a money sink for Microsoft for its entire lifespan, across multiple consoles.

But yes, Sony's in bad shape too.

I don't think I need to say anything about Nintendo currently.

I still think it's hilarious that people are predicting doom and gloom for Nintendo when they're arguably the best off. Even with their console doing terrible, 3DS sales being down, etc, they're still only suffering losses at a third of the rate of their competitors. And given the massive stash of cash the Wii netted them, they're the only company right now that can really afford those losses.

No, they're still not in a good situation, but relatively speaking they're not as bad off as Sony or MS right now.

So yeah, they're all doing bad. However, there's no question that there's a hierarchy here. Microsoft's in the worst shape by far financially (with the XBox division being a giant money pit), Sony's second (due to overall corporate losses), and Nintendo is third (with declining sales on both of their major consoles). Granted, "winning" this contest is sort of like being the best loser, but there it is.

I never thought Nintendo was doom and gloom. I just said they're not doing well "currently", which is true. They're the only ones with cash reserves right now, so I know they can whether it for some time.

Also, Microsoft has posted a profit this year when you consider all their other divisions, which we're doing right now. Like Nintendo, they also can whether through this.

 

[tdylan]

The Titanfall beta was purposefully pushed well beyond it's intended scope. Respawn made a point of attempting to break the Azure servers and testing how well they scale. This was not done with the betas you listed.

Now, this does by no means indicate the Titanfall launch will be faultless. There's every possibility that something could still go wrong.... Respawn is taking extraordinary measures in an attempt to make the launch as smooth as possible. Certainly far more than most do.

So your argument is, "they've tested them thoroughly, but there will probably be issues in spite of that testing?"

 

[Vigormortis]

So your argument is, "they've tested them thoroughly, but there will probably be issues in spite of that testing?"

Not even remotely what I said. What the hell are you talking about? Seriously...

I said Respawn was far more thorough than most companies in testing the servers in preparation of launch day. But, all the prep in the world can't help you anticipate unknown variables or circumstances.

Looking at most of your posts I'm starting to wonder if you even read the posts you quote. Seems all you want to do is argue by using baseless accusations and false associations.

But please, go right ahead and continue your nonsensical hate train and dismiss all of my counter-points by attempting to throw a straw-man my way. Really gives credence to your claims.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

Snips

Thank you for actually doing research and being logical about this, not many people seem to understand the whole EA/Respawn thing and just assume the worst.

Respawn at least appear to be going about this the right way, would certainly be nice to see no serious issues on day one.

---

I liked the Beta more than I expected, didn't get much time in but the feel was pretty solid. Just curious to see how the game pans out with regards to volume of content before I buy it. Not surprised by the numbers, seemed everyone was trying to get in.

 

[Vigormortis]

Thank you for actually doing research and being logical about this, not many people seem to understand the whole EA/Respawn thing and just assume the worst.

Respawn at least appear to be going about this the right way, would certainly be nice to see no serious issues on day one.

It still amazes me how much irrational hatred is being levied against Titanfall[footnote]And, for the matter, anyone who dares say they want to play it. Especially on this forum.[/footnote]. I honestly believe it is the most polarizing game to come along in years. Over the past three weeks I've been called a "shill", a "mindless consumer sheep", and a "loser who throws out my ethics in the interest of instant gratification" more times than I can count; all because I've shown interest in the game or because I said I enjoyed the beta.

Seems most criticisms; of which are usually from people who actually haven't tried the game nor even really looked into what it really is or what's behind it; stem from one of two positions:

The first is the utterly hyperbolic reaction of "I see an EA logo, therefore this game is the epitome of evil and will be inundated by DLC and microtransactions". No matter how tenuous the connection between EA and Respawn. (there are far too many people who actually think Respawn is an EA 1st party dev, like Bioware or DICE)

The second is "This game will suck and will be aimed solely at dude-bro casuals because it's being made by those 'COD guys'".

Sad part is, this is the kind of game many of these same people have been screaming to see for some time. As in, a game whose entire design philosophy is controlled by the developer, with no influence from the publishers. A game whose designers are repulsed by the ideas of microtransactions and over-priced DLC. A game with a clear design goal that sees it's designers foregoing crow-barring in superfluous modes and features in the interest of broadening the games appeal. A game with a design team that's being open, honest, and upfront with it's community about everything.

And many gamers' reactions? Disgust and revulsion.

Ugh, and people ask me why I don't like being called a "gamer" nowadays...

 

[Roxas1359]

Just wanted to say that Respawn isn't actually an EA studio. EA is only distributing the game, they don't own Respawn nor the Titanfall IP.

I believe EA may also be providing some of the servers and the server space for the game, because I don't think Respawn would have enough money to set up the servers and maintain them at the same time on their own. But other than that Respawn is responsible entirely for the games coding and they are more than likely responsible for patches and everything else so if there are patches that go out I say expect them way faster than any other division that's for sure. *glares at Maxis and DICE for terrible launches of SimCity and Battlefield 4*

 

[Vigormortis]

I believe EA may also be providing some of the servers and the server space for the game, because I don't think Respawn would have enough money to set up the servers and maintain them at the same time on their own. But other than that Respawn is responsible entirely for the games coding and they are more than likely responsible for patches and everything else so if there are patches that go out I say expect them way faster than any other division that's for sure. *glares at Maxis and DICE for terrible launches of SimCity and Battlefield 4*

Actually, most (or all, really) server duties are being handled by Respawn and Microsoft.

Respawn, from the outset, was looking for a way to handle the traffic load and AI iterations they were expecting in the final product; and a cost effective way to do so.

Microsoft gave them the best solution with the Azure servers. https://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/

Now, one could argue that matchmaking might be affected by EA's infrastructure in Origin, at least in regards to the PC build of Titanfall. However, almost all server responsibilities rest squarely on Respawn and Microsoft this time around.

In which case, if there are server issues at some point, those two will be to blame. Respawn if an error in the game code causes an issue; Microsoft if server loads or instability cause the issues.

 

[tdylan]

I believe EA may also be providing some of the servers and the server space for the game, because I don't think Respawn would have enough money to set up the servers and maintain them at the same time on their own. But other than that Respawn is responsible entirely for the games coding and they are more than likely responsible for patches and everything else so if there are patches that go out I say expect them way faster than any other division that's for sure. *glares at Maxis and DICE for terrible launches of SimCity and Battlefield 4*

Actually, most (or all, really) server duties are being handled by Respawn and Microsoft.

Respawn, from the outset, was looking for a way to handle the traffic load and AI iterations they were expecting in the final product; and a cost effective way to do so.

Microsoft gave them the best solution with the Azure servers. https://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/

Now, one could argue that matchmaking might be affected by EA's infrastructure in Origin, at least in regards to the PC build of Titanfall. However, almost all server responsibilities rest squarely on Respawn and Microsoft this time around.

In which case, if there are server issues at some point, those two will be to blame. Respawn if an error in the game code causes an issue; Microsoft if server loads or instability cause the issues.

To quote someone that put it more eloquently than I:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.844546-Xbox-Live-Sign-In-Problems-Are-Not-a-Titanfall-Issue#comment_form

But but but...the Cloud!

Perhaps Microsoft should have some of those 300,000 Azure servers available now?

 

[Vigormortis]

To quote someone that put it more eloquently than I:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.844546-Xbox-Live-Sign-In-Problems-Are-Not-a-Titanfall-Issue#comment_form

But but but...the Cloud!

Perhaps Microsoft should have some of those 300,000 Azure servers available now?

So, uh....why are you quoting me? Are you agreeing with me that the servers are Microsoft's responsibility? Are you vaguely disagreeing with...whatever the hell point I made that you deem incorrect? I'm very confused.

Also, I really don't see how the current Live fiasco is relevant to any of the points I made. Or rather, how it addresses any of them.

Can you please explain? Perhaps I'm being obtuse but I fail to see the point in your post.

-edit-
Given you haven't responded in days, I'm going to go ahead and assume you had no point in quoting me and were simply looking to antagonize.

Kind of speaks volumes that the only people attempting to antagonize others over Titanfall are the people who openly lament their distaste of the game.