Titanfall's Season Pass is Now Completely Free!

[StreamerDarkly]

This can really only be applauded as a great move from Respawn. Paid DLC map packs end up fracturing the community, by separating those who bought them from those who didn't, and the game's increasingly barren online scene could really use an injection of new players.

Yup! They can only be applauded for what ended up screwing over people like me who actually paid for it.

Yeah, what a ripjob. You only got, like, 12 months head start on most people. Would you rather play with nobody?

I can't overstate how much I agree with this. Rather than feeling ripped off for having bought new maps in the first place, giving them away after a time significantly enhances their value because we actually get to play them again in matchmaking. This is is an issue that the Halo series has really suffered from.

As for the correct time frame for transitioning paid DLC to free, I think it's more like 6 months than 1 year.

It's a shame the map packs weren't free from the get-go...

Debatable. If I feel like there was enough meat on the bone to justify the initial $60 outlay, I don't mind paying a fair price for new maps.

 

[tzimize]

Wait...are there actually people still playing this? From what I heard this was now a more-or-less dead title. >.>

This seems more like a "Please buy our game! We'll give you this stuff for free!!!" cry of desperation more than a "Thanks for staying with us and playing for a full year! Now here's a bunch of free stuff that you most likely/hopefully already paid for and have!" way of saying thanks.

My thoughts exactly. Havent tried it, still not interested at all.

 

[hermes]

Well, the online is a lot better than COD:AW, but I am not sure about a multiplayer online game.

OK. Why all the sudden hate for Titanfall? I thought we liked it.

Its EA, of course people hate it. When TF2 was turned into free to play, everybody was "happy that more people get to enjoy it", when EA does something that seems consumer friendly, everybody is "pissed of because I wasn't benefited by it"

 

[hermes]

Still no viable offline singleplayer component.

Still no value for me in this game

do you expect singleplayer component from world of warcraft? A mmo is a mmo. its good that they dont just throw a convoluted singleplayer just to mark a tick in the box. if thats not your thing thats fine, dont play it, but expecting MMOs to cater t your needs is unfair.

Titanfall is not an MMO, its a multiplayer FPS. Its like a COD game, without a campaign.
Personally, I would like Titanfall to have a campaign, if only to add context.

The entire game is divided in two factions, the IMC (PMC by another name) and the Frontier Militia (presented as the rebels)... yet the game makes no distinction among them, the armors are the same, the titans are the same, they have the same stats, everything about them is the same (except for the color swap). The fight because of something, in an alien planet they reached because of something... Don't tell me there are no foundation for a lore to explore there.

And MMOs are not a good analogy. While WoW has no singleplayer component, it has a pretty extensive and rich lore explored by the quest givers, the bosses, the items or even collectibles. This has the potential for a rich lore, but it is barely a premise...

 

[truckspond]

do you expect singleplayer component from world of warcraft?

No because last time I checked World of Warcraft was not a sci-fi first-person shooter

 

[Strazdas]

do you expect singleplayer component from world of warcraft?

No because last time I checked World of Warcraft was not a sci-fi first-person shooter

genre is irrelevant, gameplay structure is. Both WoW and Titanfall is designed to be multiplayer interactive gameplay.

Titanfall is not an MMO, its a multiplayer FPS. Its like a COD game, without a campaign.
Personally, I would like Titanfall to have a campaign, if only to add context.

The entire game is divided in two factions, the IMC (PMC by another name) and the Frontier Militia (presented as the rebels)... yet the game makes no distinction among them, the armors are the same, the titans are the same, they have the same stats, everything about them is the same (except for the color swap). The fight because of something, in an alien planet they reached because of something... Don't tell me there are no foundation for a lore to explore there.

And MMOs are not a good analogy. While WoW has no singleplayer component, it has a pretty extensive and rich lore explored by the quest givers, the bosses, the items or even collectibles. This has the potential for a rich lore, but it is barely a premise...

If World of Tanks is a MMO then so is Titanfall. the two are exactly same principle - team based multiplayer battles.

And yes, developers were lazy and instead of making balanced gameplay they just solved it by making both sides the same. same way it was done in Counter Strike, except counter strike even had different weapons.

I didnt say that Titanfall is a good game, far from it, it lacks many things, one of them you mention here - lore. that does not make it any less multiplayer team battle though.

 

[DeadProxy]

So has anyone with an Xbox1 decided to download and play this again? I'm somewhat interested in going back into the game, since this will breathe a small amount of life back into the game, but I don't want to waste the time downloading this is there's still only 4k or 5k people playing, if that. If there's 10k people on, then I'll give it a go.

Last time I did play was back in July/August, and even then there was only a few thousand people playing...You know a game is dying when you can recognize names from a week before.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Yup! They can only be applauded for what ended up screwing over people like me who actually paid for it.

Yeah, what a ripjob. You only got, like, 12 months head start on most people. Would you rather play with nobody?

It's amazing that people never get it isn't it.

There's this whole "I bought it for full price, so everyone should have to for all time." mentality which is absurd, all games get cheaper as does their DLC, it's been a year, so people in that mind set should get over it.

 

[Vivi22]

This is great what they've done, but they kinda screwed over people who liked the game enough from the get go to buy the season pass. Seems kinda stupid to piss them off by pretty much saying they wasted twenty-five dollars. Don't get me wrong, I'm applauding what they've done, but they really should give something back to the people who have purchased the season pass.[footnote]No, I have not purchased this game yet. I would be in the group benefiting from this.[/footnote]

People who buy the game from the get go and bought the season pass already benefited from it by getting access to the content before anyone who will benefit from this. It's a silly argument that they should get something in return for spending the money because they already did. It'd be like saying that someone who bought a console at launch should get something a year later because the price dropped by $50.

What is the incentive to buy it now if it will devalue over time? Why not wait and hope it goes free like other games? If not, just settle for the main game.

The incentive is obvious. So obvious that I can't believe I even have to point it out to anyone. If you buy the game and season pass early, you get earlier access to the content. If you wait, you may get cheaper content, but you also might find yourself playing a game with a fairly dead online community because that's just the way things go as most games age. I legitimately can't believe that this isn't self-evident to anyone.

 

[Ham Blitz]

Glad I didn't uninstall this game yet to make room for other games, I might actually try the maps out now.
Still not happy with how little memory the new consoles have relative to the size of the games that you now have to install to play.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Great now when you get Titanfall you get all the maps and DLC that no one is on anymore so yo can't play anyay.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

The incentive is obvious. So obvious that I can't believe I even have to point it out to anyone. If you buy the game and season pass early, you get earlier access to the content. If you wait, you may get cheaper content, but you also might find yourself playing a game with a fairly dead online community because that's just the way things go as most games age. I legitimately can't believe that this isn't self-evident to anyone.

First off, you didn't have to. I'm sorry if you were put out.

Secondly, as I said in many posts... I do not care about timely fashions. I only care for a complete game. I don't care if I'm first. I care that I got the complete experience. First might mean something to you. Then your opinion is totally right.

Possibly. I might be playing different games than you, so I don't know if my experience is the same as yours, but every season pass I bought just meant the day a DLC came out, I got it. That doesn't mean I got it first. If you didn't buy a season pass, you could still buy that DLC that day. Wouldn't you have gotten it 'first' in that respect as well?

So once again.

If I don't care about being "FIRST". And there's a possibility that the dev will just give the dlc for free in the future... I do not have an incentive to get that DLC when it costs something. As half of this thread says, titanfall going free would be good because now maybe people will start playing the game again, or more people will play the new maps. If I'm not 'first' with the season pass, I can easily be in good company if this in flux of newbs come with the free DLCs. So why should anyone really care about 'first'?

If your response is still based on first, I will read it respectfully and move on. I have nothing left to say about time.

 

[truckspond]

genre is irrelevant, gameplay structure is. Both WoW and Titanfall is designed to be multiplayer interactive gameplay.

Alright, let's talk about the gameplay structure.

Wow: Top-down RPG

Titanfall: 3D First Person Shooter

Do those sound the same?

 

[Strazdas]

genre is irrelevant, gameplay structure is. Both WoW and Titanfall is designed to be multiplayer interactive gameplay.

Alright, let's talk about the gameplay structure.

Wow: Top-down RPG

Titanfall: 3D First Person Shooter

Do those sound the same?

Once again you are talking about genres.

No, lets talk about gameplay structure.

Wow: Online multiplayer only game with player controlled characters with permanent world with groups of players fighting againts eachother or NPCs.

Titanfall: Online multiplayer only game with player controlled characters without permanent world with groups of players figting agiants eachother or NPCs.

 

[Ragnar47183]

Great. Now get it off Origin and I will buy it.

 

[Vivi22]

Secondly, as I said in many posts... I do not care about timely fashions. I only care for a complete game. I don't care if I'm first. I care that I got the complete experience. First might mean something to you. Then your opinion is totally right.

If you don't care about being first, why did you buy a season pass? You can always save money on DLC by waiting for it to go on sale a year or more later so why get the season pass? Frankly, I don't buy your claim that you don't care about getting the DLC right away because someone who cares more about saving money than getting it the second it's out doesn't buy games at launch and spend money on season passes. End of story.

Possibly. I might be playing different games than you, so I don't know if my experience is the same as yours, but every season pass I bought just meant the day a DLC came out, I got it. That doesn't mean I got it first. If you didn't buy a season pass, you could still buy that DLC that day. Wouldn't you have gotten it 'first' in that respect as well?

I'm not sure what the hell you think people have meant in this thread by getting first so let me rephrase it: you get it immediately and long before people who wait for it to be free. That is the incentive to getting a season pass. You also pay less for all of the DLC than people who buy them piecemeal as they come out, so there's another incentive.

If that doesn't interest you, then stop paying money for season passes. I mean Christ, who the hell does that if they don't want the stuff as soon as it's released? It doesn't matter if the DLC is eventually free or not, you can always get it cheaper in a sale down the road than at launch so why are you wasting your money on incentives you say you don't care about.

But let's not sit there and pretend there's no incentive to get a season pass. You may not care for the incentive which, again, I don't really believe if you're buying season passes at all, but the incentive is still there: cheaper and immediate access to all DLC released for the game. You not caring for the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If I don't care about being "FIRST". And there's a possibility that the dev will just give the dlc for free in the future... I do not have an incentive to get that DLC when it costs something.

Good, so stop paying for them.

If I'm not 'first' with the season pass, I can easily be in good company if this in flux of newbs come with the free DLCs. So why should anyone really care about 'first'?

I doubt there's likely to be a big influx of new players just for free DLC. If most people haven't been interested in buying the main game yet then it's not likely a bunch of people are going to jump on board now. Some, sure. People who didn't see the value in paying a higher price for the main game, but who may value it more with the free content added in.

If your response is still based on first, I will read it respectfully and move on. I have nothing left to say about time.

My response is based entirely on the premise that incentive to get a season pass still exists, even if the DLC is released for free down the road. In your original post I quoted you specifically asked what the incentive was. You didn't ask why you should care because you don't care about getting DLC right away, you asked why anyone should care. And such a question is just plain silly at face value. If you actually meant to ask why you should care then so be it, but do try to be clearer in the future and provide some information explaining why the incredibly obvious incentives don't apply to you.

 

[truckspond]

No, lets talk about gameplay structure.

So the player perspective and the underlying mechanics of the gameplay are not considered to be a part of the gameplay?

Once WoW gets parkour and giant robots that players can use in combat and Titanfall changes to a top-down isometric viewpoint then maybe you might have a valid point. Otherwise you quite simply don't and you are kidding yourself if you think that you do

 

[hermes]

Titanfall is not an MMO, its a multiplayer FPS. Its like a COD game, without a campaign. Personally, I would like Titanfall to have a campaign, if only to add context.

The entire game is divided in two factions, the IMC (PMC by another name) and the Frontier Militia (presented as the rebels)... yet the game makes no distinction among them, the armors are the same, the titans are the same, they have the same stats, everything about them is the same (except for the color swap). The fight because of something, in an alien planet they reached because of something... Don't tell me there are no foundation for a lore to explore there.

And MMOs are not a good analogy. While WoW has no singleplayer component, it has a pretty extensive and rich lore explored by the quest givers, the bosses, the items or even collectibles. This has the potential for a rich lore, but it is barely a premise...

If World of Tanks is a MMO then so is Titanfall. the two are exactly same principle - team based multiplayer battles.

And yes, developers were lazy and instead of making balanced gameplay they just solved it by making both sides the same. same way it was done in Counter Strike, except counter strike even had different weapons.

I didnt say that Titanfall is a good game, far from it, it lacks many things, one of them you mention here - lore. that does not make it any less multiplayer team battle though.

Wait... did you even read my comment? At which point do I comment on World of Tanks? At which point do I say Titanfall is not a team multiplayer game?

My point is that Titanfall does not have lore, or only has a barebones lore, that is the role of a campaign (to provide context to sell people into the world), and they would benefit from such a campaign. As it is, they don't even make justice to the barebones lore: by making both factions identical in technical prowess, weapons, resources, etc; they are not presenting a faction as an scraped militia and the other as a well-founded army.

My other point is that, while Titanfall is a team based, multiplayer game, it is not persistent (as far as I know). If the world doesn't change when the player is not playing, then it is not persistent. Persistence doesn't mean having a user account, it means that the world around changes with time, or by the actions of other players while you are not connected.

Since most MMO have a shared world between several players, they are the best examples of persistency, by having events that affect everyone during or after their game. For example, World of Warcraft had events like Cataclysm, which changed the layout of the map. It happened independently of your character actions and didn't even need you to reach some point of the story. If Titanfall world doesn't have a status of its own that changes outside of the instanced multiplayer matches, and it might change the experience for someone that plays now from someone that played at launch (outside of whom you where matched with), then it is not persistent, the same way Battlefield or Call of Duty are not.

This is not a critique over Titanfall. It is just to distinguish what it is and what it is not.

 

[Strazdas]

No, lets talk about gameplay structure.

So the player perspective and the underlying mechanics of the gameplay are not considered to be a part of the gameplay?

Once WoW gets parkour and giant robots that players can use in combat and Titanfall changes to a top-down isometric viewpoint then maybe you might have a valid point. Otherwise you quite simply don't and you are kidding yourself if you think that you do

player perspective does not matter for gameplay structure, only for camera angles and genre specification.

You were talking genres and not underlying mechanics. read your post again.

Once again you are unable to see the firest for the trees. specific gameplay enements are not what makes a game MMO. Being "Masive multiplayer online" does.

My point is that Titanfall does not have lore, or only has a barebones lore, that is the role of a campaign (to provide context to sell people into the world), and they would benefit from such a campaign. As it is, they don't even make justice to the barebones lore: by making both factions identical in technical prowess, weapons, resources, etc; they are not presenting a faction as an scraped militia and the other as a well-founded army.

My other point is that, while Titanfall is a team based, multiplayer game, it is not persistent (as far as I know). If the world doesn't change when the player is not playing, then it is not persistent. Persistence doesn't mean having a user account, it means that the world around changes with time, or by the actions of other players while you are not connected.

Since most MMO have a shared world between several players, they are the best examples of persistency, by having events that affect everyone during or after their game. For example, World of Warcraft had events like Cataclysm, which changed the layout of the map. It happened independently of your character actions and didn't even need you to reach some point of the story. If Titanfall world doesn't have a status of its own that changes outside of the instanced multiplayer matches, and it might change the experience for someone that plays now from someone that played at launch (outside of whom you where matched with), then it is not persistent, the same way Battlefield or Call of Duty are not.

This is not a critique over Titanfall. It is just to distinguish what it is and what it is not.

Having lore is not what makes game a MMO. i agree that Titanfall lacks lore, it does not however disqualify it as a MMO, merely makes it a MMO people who want lore will dislike.

Persistence is not necessary for a MMO. it is traditionally included in MMORPGs, but thats about it. Far from all MMOs have persisten worlds. Did you knew that there are maps where WoT teams fight for land which earms them gold over time? Is that not an example of your "word that players change"? Oh and before you start speaking about WoT is not TitanFall - the core gameplay that is team deathmatch is very similar and WoT is very close example for a game.

Events that affect everyone during and after game is hardly a MMO trait. even then, both TItanfall and World of Tanks had those. And players didnt even have to pay for them so everyone got affected.

Beside, this entire discussion started about expecting singleplayer campaign from multiplayer only games. Perhaps i should have used LoL instead of WoW and things would ahve gone smoother.

 

[hermes]

My point is that Titanfall does not have lore, or only has a barebones lore, that is the role of a campaign (to provide context to sell people into the world), and they would benefit from such a campaign. As it is, they don't even make justice to the barebones lore: by making both factions identical in technical prowess, weapons, resources, etc; they are not presenting a faction as an scraped militia and the other as a well-founded army.

My other point is that, while Titanfall is a team based, multiplayer game, it is not persistent (as far as I know). If the world doesn't change when the player is not playing, then it is not persistent. Persistence doesn't mean having a user account, it means that the world around changes with time, or by the actions of other players while you are not connected.

Since most MMO have a shared world between several players, they are the best examples of persistency, by having events that affect everyone during or after their game. For example, World of Warcraft had events like Cataclysm, which changed the layout of the map. It happened independently of your character actions and didn't even need you to reach some point of the story. If Titanfall world doesn't have a status of its own that changes outside of the instanced multiplayer matches, and it might change the experience for someone that plays now from someone that played at launch (outside of whom you where matched with), then it is not persistent, the same way Battlefield or Call of Duty are not.

This is not a critique over Titanfall. It is just to distinguish what it is and what it is not.

Having lore is not what makes game a MMO. i agree that Titanfall lacks lore, it does not however disqualify it as a MMO, merely makes it a MMO people who want lore will dislike.

Persistence is not necessary for a MMO. it is traditionally included in MMORPGs, but thats about it. Far from all MMOs have persisten worlds. Did you knew that there are maps where WoT teams fight for land which earms them gold over time? Is that not an example of your "word that players change"? Oh and before you start speaking about WoT is not TitanFall - the core gameplay that is team deathmatch is very similar and WoT is very close example for a game.

Events that affect everyone during and after game is hardly a MMO trait. even then, both TItanfall and World of Tanks had those. And players didnt even have to pay for them so everyone got affected.

Beside, this entire discussion started about expecting singleplayer campaign from multiplayer only games. Perhaps i should have used LoL instead of WoW and things would ahve gone smoother.

Ok, perhaps I confused this argument with another one that also mentioned Titanfall, but I still don't see why you keep referring to Titanfall as an MMO.

As far as I know (I only played the 48 hours timed demo), it is not an MMO, other than by having multiplayer. But that is not all that is required for a game to be an MMO, otherwise Doom, Unreal Tournament, Call of Duty, Battlefield and any number of games with an online team deathmatch component would be considered MMO.

And about the topic at hand, I don't think a multiplayer game requires a campaign, but I sure think its absence is a massive drawback to its value, to the point I don't think the game is worthy at full price.