Titanfall-Place your bets.

[Ninmecu]

Now, personally. I had no interest in it. The fact that it went full MP is meaningless to me. But a thought struck me. With games having a continuing no local multiplayer experience and this one having no possible single player campaign this ultimately means that you'll need to pay for XBLG or PS+(I THINK it's Xbone exclusive but correct me if I'm wrong.) To play the game...So, that being said, who wants to take bets they still try and put a full AAA pricetag on the game you can't play without paying for a service?

It should be noted that although it doesn't affect me and most of you will have XBLG regardless, it seems like theft if they try for a full price tag with that in mind. Granted, I've never bought a Halo game for it's gripping SP campaign(Still enjoyed them. Blasphemy I know.) but all the same, the local MP and Forge mode made up for it when I didn't have the money to access XBLG, which was frequently. Had to feed myself and my teenaged brother, put us both through school and pay rent/utilities on about 1000 bucks a month. We were lucky to have 20 bucks to spare for w/e. So yeah, thoughts? Counter Arguments?

 

[Cabisco]

I haven't completed the Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty Black ops2 stories but I still play those games a hell of a lot because the multiplayer is amazing and the single player simply doesn't matter to me at all (therefore evil). I don't feel cheated at all by the lack of Single Player, I'd actually prefer there not be one in the case of say Battlefield if it meant more of the sweet lovely multiplayer could fit on the disc. I'm fully aware of what I'm paying full price for and I'm happy to do it

 

[BrotherRool]

Actually, according to the leak before E3 (which seemed to be all correct) Titanfall had a "One-Player Mode" (which would explain why they went to the trouble to state that it had no single-player campaign) so if that's true, it would presumably still be online, because Cloud, but would you also need PS+ or Live to play it?

But either way, the cost of PS+ or Live is split over all the games you have with multiplayer. And if you only play Titanfall for a month it's still only $5/month, and considering you'd have gotten far more than an average games money worth of play out of it, charging full is okay.

Alternately, say you play 3 games in a month that have multiplayer (including games you already own). Then we're looking at $5/3= $1.67. There's no way they're going to knock $1.67 off the price tag, that would be a pretty meaningless deduction.


So either way, I think that calculations of PS+/Live cost when you calculate one games share of it, is so minimal that it's correct that they still charge full price.

If you were to buy PS+/Live and then only play Titanfall online that year... well it's still fine because of the free games you get. So yeah, it seems greedy, but it's not really. They just need to be clear with the labelling so everyone understands what they're getting into

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I really don't get what's supposed to be so interesting about Titanfall. It just looks like Killzone 3, but without the single player story.

Maybe someone who is excited for the game will explain to me what all the buzz is about.

 

[Glongpre]

I really don't get what's supposed to be so interesting about Titanfall. It just looks like Killzone 3, but without the single player story.

Maybe someone who is excited for the game will explain to me what all the buzz is about.

It has better mobility than other FPS and has mechs, which are also mobile. And it is like cod.

I don't see why it can't be 60 dollars, I mean Bioshock Infinite is worth 60 for a couple playthroughs but playing multiplayer everyday for years is not?

 

[Soopy]

Its on PC as well, multiplayer is free there?

 

[Vigormortis]

What fascinates me about Titanfall, at least as far as the gaming community is concerned, is how petty and ridiculous some of the complaints have been.

For years now, people, especially on this forum, have been incessantly bitching about todays games having either tacked on multiplayer or singleplayer experiences. They whine about how the studios design for a game clearly favored one mode of play over the other, and how much that mode (and subsequently the game) suffered by a splitting of resources to make both.

Yet, here we have a small dev team, of which is making a game with a specific style of play in mind, deciding to forgo stretching their already thin resources to make a singleplayer campaign, and the gaming community around here is bitching about it. They're insistent that the game needs both modes or it's a waste of time.

Jesus jumped-up Christ, I am honestly starting to hate being associated with the gaming community now-a-days.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I was interested until I realised it wasn't on PS4.
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is about it not having single player campaign. Why do games require single player to be worth the full price? People accept games without multiplayer for £X so why can't you accept a game without single player for £X? Seems like a case of double standards for me, especially since if a game has multi I spend a lot more time on that than solo.

 

[BrotherRool]

I was interested until I realised it wasn't on PS4.
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is about it not having single player campaign. Why do games require single player to be worth the full price? People accept games without multiplayer for £X so why can't you accept a game without single player for £X? Seems like a case of double standards for me, especially since if a game has multi I spend a lot more time on that than solo.

The essence of his complaint here isn't that multiplayer only = less money. But that to play Titanfall, because it's on a platform where you have to pay separately for online multiplayer you need to pay for Titanfall and buy a Live subscription. So he's asking why we have to pay more for a multiplayer only game than we would a singleplayer only game.

There are answers to that and I hope I gave some above (and apart from anything else, it's Microsoft not EA that get the Live money), but he's not saying 'multiplayer only sucks' or anything like that. If you didn't have to pay for Xbox Live this particular thread wouldn't exist.

EDIT: Actually since people seem to be dismissing the OP out of hand without really dealing with the issue he was talking about. Here is an argument for why Titanfall should be cheaper. When I buy a game that doesn't require a subscription to an online service to play I get that game for life. I'll be able to play Uncharted 2 to the end of days, and that's part of the value I consider when making a purchase.

However I can only play Titanfall as long as I continue to subscribe. The minute I stop subscribing to Live the game becomes completely worthless and about as playable as the manual inside the box. So whereas a normal game has infinite life and is part of the value of the product, Titanfall has a limited shelf-life unless you want to be tied to subscribing for Live forever. If you haven't been playing many new multiplayer games later and decide to let the subscription lapse, then tough luck playing Titanfall

 

[Soopy]

I was interested until I realised it wasn't on PS4.
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is about it not having single player campaign. Why do games require single player to be worth the full price? People accept games without multiplayer for £X so why can't you accept a game without single player for £X? Seems like a case of double standards for me, especially since if a game has multi I spend a lot more time on that than solo.

The essence of his complaint here isn't that multiplayer only = less money. But that to play Titanfall, because it's on a platform where you have to pay separately for online multiplayer you need to pay for Titanfall and buy a Live subscription. So he's asking why we have to pay more for a multiplayer only game than we would a singleplayer only game.

There are answers to that and I hope I gave some above (and apart from anything else, it's Microsoft not EA that get the Live money), but he's not saying 'multiplayer only sucks' or anything like that. If you didn't have to pay for Xbox Live this particular thread wouldn't exist.

EDIT: Actually since people seem to be dismissing the OP out of hand without really dealing with the issue he was talking about. Here is an argument for why Titanfall should be cheaper. When I buy a game that doesn't require a subscription to an online service to play I get that game for life. I'll be able to play Uncharted 2 to the end of days, and that's part of the value I consider when making a purchase.

However I can only play Titanfall as long as I continue to subscribe. The minute I stop subscribing to Live the game becomes completely worthless and about as playable as the manual inside the box. So whereas a normal game has infinite life and is part of the value of the product, Titanfall has a limited shelf-life unless you want to be tied to subscribing for Live forever. If you haven't been playing many new multiplayer games later and decide to let the subscription lapse, then tough luck playing Titanfall

The live subscription isn't a flaw with Titan fall though. So I don't feel its fair to be critical because of it.

This is a problem with Xbox, not Titan fall.

 

[Ninmecu]

Before I jump into things. Let me partly re-iterate my stance. A game that has a primary focus on Multiplayer selling for 60 dollars just rubs me the wrong way for a few reasons on it's own. Coupled with the fact that it requires a Subscription on top of said costs just kinda clinches my annoyance at it. That being said, I feel that if all their focus is on an MP experience, I don't know if they can fully deliver on a variety worthy of 60$ upfront+Mandatory Subscription costs for the Console. Hear me out before you burn me at the stake...

Multiplayer games exist and grow predominantly from Players. Not developers. Yes, the dev team creates the world, the maps, the rules. But without the Player, the world is meaningless. Making the Content Creator have to pay the full price for a(by design) incomplete product just irks me. But, like I said, I didn't intend to get Xbone or Titanfall, I'm just curious as to why we've accepted this. Though I agree with BrotherRool regarding his/her Mathematics on the subject, it helps make me understand the logic behind the decision to buy it. But as I iterate further in the post, I play games to Experience Stories that I otherwise could not. I do not have a visually inclined mind. I think with words, not pictures or images. As such, video game stories are the most important part of the experience for me. Games like Super Mario never really do it for me on the same level as some RPG's or JRPG's.

The live subscription isn't a flaw with Titan fall though. So I don't feel its fair to be critical because of it.

This is a problem with Xbox, not Titan fall.

I hate being "That guy" who nit picks. But if they don't have their own dedicated servers set up for this, then it is a point of valid criticism(Obviously in my opinion of the matter). Don't get me wrong. The guys and gals who are making this have every right to spitshine their experience whatever way they desire. If that means pure MP experience, more power to them. I know I'm NOT the target audience. I have a love and adoration for Single Player campaigns that has evolved since Local MP is basically non existent these days. I've lived in borderline poverty my whole life(still do) so that's always been a dirty nitpick of mine.

What fascinates me about Titanfall, at least as far as the gaming community is concerned, is how petty and ridiculous some of the complaints have been.

For years now, people, especially on this forum, have been incessantly bitching about todays games having either tacked on multiplayer or singleplayer experiences. They whine about how the studios design for a game clearly favored one mode of play over the other, and how much that mode (and subsequently the game) suffered by a splitting of resources to make both.

Yet, here we have a small dev team, of which is making a game with a specific style of play in mind, deciding to forgo stretching their already thin resources to make a singleplayer campaign, and the gaming community around here is bitching about it. They're insistent that the game needs both modes or it's a waste of time.

Jesus jumped-up Christ, I am honestly starting to hate being associated with the gaming community now-a-days.

Don't get me wrong. I hate tacked on MP as much as the next guy, feel the same when it's tacked on SP. If they want to unify their bases and focus purely on an Excellent Multiplayer Experience instead of a half baked Single Player and Multiplayer split, more power to them.

My issue is paying for a subscription has always been a pain to me. Granted I was a WoW whore for years. Didn't like the 15 bucks a month I had to fork over for the game, but I got so much out of it, it felt fair. Xbox Live on the other hand I've always felt cheated. I don't know if it's my lackluster connection(I'm lucky to get 400kbps down on downloads.) or the fact that I'm in Canada, but I frequently get Disconnected from MP games. I'm also terrible at making friends in games(Both online and Offline. Combination of my Autism and my naturally high skill level in most video games makes people want to avoid me because I'm "That guy" as told by Yahtzee regarding those players who play the games alone and can't be beaten.) so the additional "bonuses" of XBLG were non existent for me. Coupled with the fact that as a Canadian, netflix is limited, Hulu/TSN/w/e else they threw at me(Plus all the fucking advertisements!) were basically non functional at best, irksome at worse.

TL;DR I've always felt cheated by XBLG, which is the issue I have with this games model.

I really don't get what's supposed to be so interesting about Titanfall. It just looks like Killzone 3, but without the single player story.

Maybe someone who is excited for the game will explain to me what all the buzz is about.

It has better mobility than other FPS and has mechs, which are also mobile. And it is like cod.

I don't see why it can't be 60 dollars, I mean Bioshock Infinite is worth 60 for a couple playthroughs but playing multiplayer everyday for years is not?

I'm a story snob, to a degree. I loved Final Fantasy 9 for its story. Didn't particularly care for 7 and 8 for similar reasons.(blasphemy I know.) Love Kingdom hearts and Kingdom Hearts 2 because it was fun, I felt like a 14 year old boy shouldn't be so god damned excited to be running around with Goofy and Donald. But I enjoyed the game, enjoyed the story.(I feel even more moronic as a 23 year old man looking at Kingdom Hearts 3 Reveal and going FUCKING FINALLY!!!!) Saints Row 2 is in my top 5 games of the last generation, my top 20 favorites. Saints Row 3, is the only game I've ever returned in my whole life. The difference between them? A good story was behind SR 2, a terribly half baked poorly written repeatedly changed pile of dung was rolled out for SR3. (The gameplay mechanics for both were about on par. Certain things in 2 I favored, certain things in 3 I favor. They both get about an 8.5 on Gameplay mechanics.) Bioshock Infinite I could take a 60 dollar hit for. The story, while a bit...um, fucking odd. Was at least close to how immersively beautiful the original Bioshock was. I play games less for the escapism and more for the "Interactive Book" feel of it. (I'm not a visual thinking autistic, I'm a verbal thinker. I have a hard time creating imagery to match what's being read in a book, hence my gravitation towards games.) From my stand point, a game with a pure focus on Multiplayer, that is to say Competetive and not Co-Operative, is rather biased towards being against the idea. But, to each their own.

Also unrelated, but how can I fail a Captcha in which I'm supposed to describe something with any word(s)?(Bearing in mind the fact that I didn't say anything crass.)

 

[Soopy]

snip

snip

snip

The game is NOT an XBOX exclusive. How many times must it be explained that the game is also coming out on PC?

I said as much myself, twice even?

 

[Ninmecu]

snip

snip

snip

The game is NOT an XBOX exclusive. How many times must it be explained that the game is also coming out on PC?

I said as much myself, twice even?

Which still isn't relevant to the issue at hand for the Console equivalent version.

 

[Soopy]

snip

snip

snip

The game is NOT an XBOX exclusive. How many times must it be explained that the game is also coming out on PC?

I said as much myself, twice even?

Which still isn't relevant to the issue at hand for the Console equivalent version.

No its not, which is exactly why I pointed out the fact that the subscription fee is not the fault of the developers. It seemed as if it was being held against the game in the OP. Which didn't really seem fair, especially considering they offer the same experience for free on PC.

 

[Ninmecu]

snip

snip

snip

The game is NOT an XBOX exclusive. How many times must it be explained that the game is also coming out on PC?

I said as much myself, twice even?

Which still isn't relevant to the issue at hand for the Console equivalent version.

No its not, which is exactly why I pointed out the fact that the subscription fee is not the fault of the developers. It seemed as if it was being held against the game in the OP. Which didn't really seem fair, especially considering they offer the same experience for free on PC.

I'll admit, the PC version doesn't have that issue. Very likely it never will. But at the same time, Titanfall would likely get steam sales, sells for 50 dollars new because it's on PC, likely will have modifications increasing it's overall value in time. So-ultimately, the PC version is so far removed from my issues it's hardly worth discussing. But I'll admit I am somewhat at fault over that fuck up on my part.

 

[BrotherRool]

(EDIT: And I agree that this underlines one of the really nasty aspects of Xbox Live. I'm a bit gutted that Sony started doing it too, even if I understand the reasoning. Titanfall really highlights that we're paying a subscription to play content that we really already bought=

snip

snip

snip

The game is NOT an XBOX exclusive. How many times must it be explained that the game is also coming out on PC?

Yeah I never said it was an exclusive either. I guess it was because I was talking about Xbox Live? But that was because I was talking specifically about the Xbox version. PC pricing is completely different from console pricing anyway so it's not relevant to this thread.

The live subscription isn't a flaw with Titan fall though. So I don't feel its fair to be critical because of it.

This is a problem with Xbox, not Titan fall.

Yeah that's why I said the flaw with the OP logic is that MS gets the money for Live and not EA. The rest of my post was simply because everyone was misreading the OP and treating this as if it were slightly more simple than it is. It deserves some thought to come up with the answer instead of being dismissed out of hand, but I believe there is a valid answer and I hope I gave it in my posts

 

[Soopy]

snip

snip

snip

The game is NOT an XBOX exclusive. How many times must it be explained that the game is also coming out on PC?

I said as much myself, twice even?

Which still isn't relevant to the issue at hand for the Console equivalent version.

No its not, which is exactly why I pointed out the fact that the subscription fee is not the fault of the developers. It seemed as if it was being held against the game in the OP. Which didn't really seem fair, especially considering they offer the same experience for free on PC.

I'll admit, the PC version doesn't have that issue. Very likely it never will. But at the same time, Titanfall would likely get steam sales, sells for 50 dollars new because it's on PC, likely will have modifications increasing it's overall value in time. So-ultimately, the PC version is so far removed from my issues it's hardly worth discussing. But I'll admit I am somewhat at fault over that fuck up on my part.

Eh, I spent the last 6 years bashing my head up against the same wall with my 360. Consoles have just become a nuisance to me. There always seems to be something holding back the experience with them.

 

[Vigormortis]

TL;DR I've always felt cheated by XBLG, which is the issue I have with this games model.

But as I'm sure others have said, that's not this games issue. Microsoft charging to play online is all Microsofts doing. Respawn has nothing to do with that.

Also, Respawn has said several times that someone can easily play this game by themselves. No matchmaking required. (as in, no need for other players)

Besides, the game is not exclusive to the Xboxes. It's also coming to PC. On which it will have free multiplayer.

I hate being "That guy" who nit picks. But if they don't have their own dedicated servers set up for this, then it is a point of valid criticism

It would be if they hadn't already, and repeatedly, discussed in just about every interview since E3 that one of their primary concerns before release is getting a healthy number of dedicated server clusters up. So, barring unforeseen issues, dedis won't be a problem.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I can't help but feel a vast majority of the gripes and criticisms being levied against Titanfall are all stemming from either a lack of information on what's actually going on or a prejudiced dislike of Respawn because "Oh, they once worked on Call of Duty. Ew."

Yes. The two founders of Respawn were originally the co-founders of Infinity Ward. They were also two of the project leads on Call of Duty 4, arguably the best in the series.

However, most of what Call of Duty has become is firmly on the shoulders of Activision. The folks at Respawn (or rather, Infinity Ward) didn't have much say.

In fact, it's one of the primary reasons the two left Infinity Ward. They wanted more freedom in the creative process.

Now, if someone wants nothing to do with Titanfall because they genuinely don't like multiplayer, that's fine. I'd question why they were interested in the game in the first place, but whatever. It's not for them.

But, whining that a clearly multiplayer-oriented game won't have a half-assed, tacked on singleplayer campaign? That's ludicrous at best. Those people confound me.

Regardless, I'll be keeping on eye on it. It looks to have the potential to be very fun and innovative.

However, given that EA, and Microsoft to a degree, are publishing I worry what might be tacked onto the front-end. (like exclusivity to just one PC platform, or only running on Windows 8, or over-priced DLC/map packs) As such, I'm pensively optimistic.

 

[Smooth Operator]

We all know they are going full price with that and they are doing it because the sort of people this is made for (MMS fans) are completely indifferent, even if they put in 3 maps total and the rest is DLC people will praise them for it and possibly claim those 3 maps are just that much better.

 

[loc978]

I'm actually mildly interested in it, since it'll be coming to PC. Haven't played an arena shooter with jetpacks and mechs before.

It'll probably have modern cookie-cutter health/cover/weapon mechanics, though... I don't expect my interest to last.

As for subscription costs... wow. Still can't believe people have been paying those for online multiplayer with a goddamn console. Glad I've never seen the point in that.
It's possible that when they launch the Xbone and its Live subscription fee, they could require some Games For Windows Live subscription fee thing for games like Titanfall... even if they require plain ol' GFWL, that's a deal-breaker for me. Never been able to keep an account open for more than a month or so. Not sure if it's the fact that it comes with a Hotmail account I refuse to use or the fact that I logged into it fairly often running games in Linux via Wine.
Either way, fuck 'em. Never again.