Zero Punctuation: Titanfall - It's Got Big Stompy Robots

[RealRT]

Full price and no singleplayer?
Maybe I'll get it on the Steam Summer Sale.

Wait, it's Origin only?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HA
HA
HA
Are they fucking serious?

 

[Darth_Payn]

That sounds like way too much to pay for a multiplayer only game! I would think the fees for using whichever multiplayer service would have it covered (LIVE on X-BOX ONE, Origin on PC), but I wouldn't expect anything less than that from EA.
I remember the Back to the Future ride from when I was a kid, & I think my parents paid more than $80 to get in to Universal Studios Orlando.

 

[Jandau]

And Yahtzee pretty much summed up why I have almost zero interest in Titanfall. The game looks cool, the gameplay seems awesome, it really looks like something I'd play the shit out of - but there's too little of it. No meat on the bones. And it's kinda sad, really. A splendid core game with nothing to flesh it out. And the asking price? Fuck that noise...

 

[Magmarock]

This video perfectly encapsulated how I feel about Titan Fall. $80 for a multilayer only game without bots or anything is kind of a jock, and I'm not laughing. It seems that Vavle too looking to go down this road of abandoning singleplayer all together. This industry is on the verge of collapse

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

From a purely content + variety point of view, Battlefield 4 completely blows Titanfall out of the fucking park offering vastly more weapons, vehicles, maps (bigger maps too), modes AND a 4-5 hour singleplayer campaign (shitty, but a campaign nonetheless).

Titanfall is an neat little game that's definitely fun to play, but it should NOT have cost more than $20-30 max because it comes across as more of a mini-game or a pet project with no long-lasting appeal.

The worst thing is that Titanfall has set the example that a multiplayer-only game lacking in content can sell for $60.
Watch what EA do with this. Just fucking watch.

 

[gamegod25]

Translation: It's enjoyable if somewhat lacking in content.

 

[KDR_11k]

Kinda seems like it should have been a 15$ downloadable game but instead they thought they have big names so they gotta go full AAA. Then again even Section 8 Prejudice had a token SP campaign and full bot support.

 

[Waddles]

To all the Americans complaining that a multiplayer only game is $60, its 90 to 100 here in Australia. Thats 83 to 92 in your money. You still have it much easier than most.

 

[braincore02]

I would think the fees for using whichever multiplayer service would have it covered (LIVE on X-BOX ONE, Origin on PC)

I don't recall paying any fees for Origin. Their games are priced as high as they think they can get away with, but no monthly fees like on consoles.

 

[Arawn]

Yeah, Angry Joe made more or less the same points as you, Yahtzee. To be fair, by playing the game you realize it's true: the game has excellent movement and the titans do feel like an upgrade but not a game breaker. With appropiate maneuvering you can down a titan on foot.

In the end, it needs more polish though. Maybe more maps and better integration with the story. What it doesn't need is yearly (or bi-yearly, or nth-yearly) sequels.

Yeah I noticed alot of the "better" reviewers hit those same bullet points. Those lavishing mountains of praise sound abit too enamored with this game. No, I'm not saying this game is bad or complete crap. What I'm saying is that it's an above average shooter with high level of hype. The mechs (Titans) are cool and all, but I had more fun fighting against them on foot than actually piloting them. Kinda reminded me of playing Tribes the was I could zoom along the battlefield. But yeah, I wouldn't play full price for it. Feel sorry for my friend getting it right away. I guess with the new maps they promise getting it later won't be such a bad idea.

 

[SecondPrize]

Come on Yahtzee, if we were talking about Battlefield you'd be saying they SHOULDN'T have made a single-player, and I don't think anyone would complain if Battlefield went back to charging full price for a multiplayer-only experience.

They probably wouldn't complain if it had longevity like BF2. Not so much I think for the more recent BF releases.

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

Come on Yahtzee, if we were talking about Battlefield you'd be saying they SHOULDN'T have made a single-player, and I don't think anyone would complain if Battlefield went back to charging full price for a multiplayer-only experience.

Judging by the responses in this thread, it sounds like a lot of people would complain about paying full price for multiplayer-only.

Typical Escapist members will complain. Anyone who actually wants to play a multiplayer shooter would applaud the decision though.

Too bad few people here are likely to accept that there's any hypocrisy in calling Titanfall "half a game" since it's multiplayer only when they'd never even dream of saying the same of a game because it's singleplayer only.

Well, to be fair, the problem with a multiplayer-only title is that when the players move on to something else, the game dies. A single-player only game can be played 5 years from now, and it will still be the same.

You do make a good point though - whenever Yahtzee reviews a Battlefield or CoD game and mocks the campaign, the comments are filled with people piously declaring that developers shouldn't even bother making single-player content. So now that a developer has taken that advice, they have to find a new angle to complain about.

Kinda seems like it should have been a 15$ downloadable game but instead they thought they have big names so they gotta go full AAA. Then again even Section 8 Prejudice had a token SP campaign and full bot support.

I'm no expert on development costs, but it doesn't seem likely that Respawn could have offered the same level of gameplay polish in a $15 game. This kind of tech ain't cheap, especially when you're a new startup company with one, solitary, make-or-break title.

 

[t850terminator]

Eh, playing the game, I found it kinda bland but solid... kinda balanced, but I really didn't find much fun besides jumping off the Titans (which I thought kinda lame, when compared to mechs that can CLOAK in Hawken)...and kicking (because the foot just never gets old for some reason)... And the price is also a gripe for me, the game kinda just feels like a HL2 mod with a bigger budget...Also the lack of singleplayer is a big factor for me when its full-price.....
Personally, it would have been more reasonable with a $24.99-$14.99 price point...(and on Steam instead of only Origin on PC)

 

[Shameless]

So you cannot sell multiplayer only games for full price anymore ? Don't developers work on these just as hard as single player games ?

 

[Thanatos2k]

This video perfectly encapsulated how I feel about Titan Fall. $80 for a multilayer only game without bots or anything is kind of a jock, and I'm not laughing. It seems that Vavle too looking to go down this road of abandoning singleplayer all together. This industry is on the verge of collapse

where did you find out Valve is going multiplayer only? just asking because after having read what you said I'm considering abandoning my trust in Valve.

Well, what is the last single player game that Valve has made? Because of the last six they've made five have been multiplayer only (TF2, Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2, Dota 2, Alien Swarm. Portal 2 being the game with single player)

 

[Steve the Pocket]

All serious though, I played it on a friend's console. I asked if this was basically a single PVP map from any MMORPG. He said yes.

Actually that brings up a good question that Yahtzee didn't address. Is this a game with a map rotation, or is it just a single map like in DOTA-style games?

I think it is safe to say that there is only one game to have done multiplayer only FPS correctly. *COUGH*TF2*COUGH*

I'd put in a tentative vote for Counter-Strike at second place. I managed to get into the CS:GO beta, and despite my misgivings, I enjoyed it pretty well. Granted, I still had no interest in buying it once it came out of beta and they started letting the rabble in. Counter-Strike has the single worst player base of any game ever, and since Valve are too lazy to implement a proper moderation system, that's probably not ever going to change. Plus I hear it's full of hackers now, which doesn't surprise me at all.

Well, to be fair, the problem with a multiplayer-only title is that when the players move on to something else, the game dies. A single-player only game can be played 5 years from now, and it will still be the same.

Which is why I kind of support the idea of subscription-based multiplayer. The game is essentially free; you pay for access to the servers; your money goes towards the upkeep of said servers and constant patches and balance tweaks; if the playerbase dries up you can just stop paying; the threat of people no longer paying encourages the developers to keep maintaining the game and occasionally adding new features to keep people interested.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

So you cannot sell multiplayer only games for full price anymore ? Don't developers work on these just as hard as single player games ?

Anymore? What do you mean anymore?

 

[Kyrdra]

All serious though, I played it on a friend's console. I asked if this was basically a single PVP map from any MMORPG. He said yes.

Actually that brings up a good question that Yahtzee didn't address. Is this a game with a map rotation, or is it just a single map like in DOTA-style games?

I'm sure there are 15 maps or something around that. At least I remember something around that. The biggest problem are for me that we have 5 standard playmodes and that is it.

 

[DrOswald]

Titanfall is the only multiplayer shooter I have enjoyed enough to play on a regular basis since the original Halo. I enjoy playing Titanfall, in limited amounts, more than I would enjoy replaying Super Mario World for the 15th time. On my scale that makes if pretty great.

Also, why is everyone complaining that this game has not single player campaign? We all rail against single player focused games shoehorning in a multiplayer mode, why do we demand a multiplayer game shoehorn in a single player mode? The shitty campaigns we usually get are not an actual value add. They are all bad and we know it.

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

Well, to be fair, the problem with a multiplayer-only title is that when the players move on to something else, the game dies. A single-player only game can be played 5 years from now, and it will still be the same.

Which is why I kind of support the idea of subscription-based multiplayer. The game is essentially free; you pay for access to the servers; your money goes towards the upkeep of said servers and constant patches and balance tweaks; if the playerbase dries up you can just stop paying; the threat of people no longer paying encourages the developers to keep maintaining the game and occasionally adding new features to keep people interested.

Yeah, that's more or less the World of Warcraft model. In theory, it's a great idea for the reasons you state - it incentivizes players to play and developers to support, and with the proper pricing structure it would be a good deal for all concerned. The problem with the World of Warcraft model is that it basically only seems to work for World of Warcraft. Nobody else has seen market success with that setup.

I like the idea of a subscription model too, there's an honesty to it. The game is a service rather than a product: we pay for it, they provide it. Especially when the alternative seems to be free-to-play things that rope you in with a free game, then nickel and dime you to death with microtransactions. So instead of the World of Warcraft model, we get the "schoolyard drug dealer" model.