Support NeoGAF

[-tetsuo-]

The notion that a multiplayer only game isn't worth full price is just as silly as the notion that a single player only game isn't worth full price which is just as silly as every game needs to have single, multi and co-op to be worth full price. Would Battlefield 4 have been more or less valuable without that campaign? I can assure you it would be more valuable. More time spent making more maps and getting it ready to ship as opposed to the throwaway campaign and assload of bugs we got.

It is this mentality that leads to situations like this. You hear from this forum all the time that adding multiplayer will ruin the single player or something similar. Well, this goes for both sides of the coin. Respawn set out to make a multiplayer shooter and, mechanically, they hit the ball all the way out of the park. The game plays top of its class. If you want to complain about something, complain about how there can be more multiplayer options, since that is the field that it dwells in. Don't bring up that it didn't cram in a bullshit campaign just to check some box so people wouldn't feel robbed of 5 whole hours of gameplay.

And Battlefield 2 was full retail price when it came out, $50. I was working at Fry's Electronics then and put the game out on the shelf.

 

[kinoki]

I find positive reviews a drag to read. I always read the reviews with the lowest scores to find some truth behind the hype. Yet to see a negative review of Titanfall. Hoping for one in the coming days. Reading positive reviews is only something I do when it's critically panned games.

 

[Moneal]

Would I have preferred 20 maps instead of 15? Sure.

However, I would like to know what this "certain level of expected content" for a $60 FPS is. COD:Ghosts only came with 14 maps and the same old modes COD has always had.

"But it has a campaign," I hear someone saying, to which I just laugh. COD campaign is nothing more than a bolted on piece of crap that simply uses the multiplayer maps and assets. Sure they give some obligatory rendered cutscenes, but that's it. I actually give Respawn some kudos for abandoning the ridiculous pretense. No one goes out of their way to buy COD or Battlefield (except maybe BF: Bad Company) for the campaign. If they do, they're wasting their money on what amounts to maybe a tenth of the total game.

its that way to you. but some people like me enjoy the campaign and don't see it as bolted on crap. this game is asking me to pay the same price as those games yet giving me less content. thats where the problem arises for me and some others. its great that you think its enough for you, but others think differently and neither is truly wrong. we just have a different view of what a game's value is.

 

[megabytecr]

Gamespot was not going to give it less than a 9. They got adds all over the place in Metacritic site.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

The notion that a multiplayer only game isn't worth full price is just as silly as the notion that a single player only game isn't worth full price which is just as silly as every game needs to have single, multi and co-op to be worth full price. Would Battlefield 4 have been more or less valuable without that campaign? I can assure you it would be more valuable. More time spent making more maps and getting it ready to ship as opposed to the throwaway campaign and assload of bugs we got.

It is this mentality that leads to situations like this. You hear from this forum all the time that adding multiplayer will ruin the single player or something similar. Well, this goes for both sides of the coin. Respawn set out to make a multiplayer shooter and, mechanically, they hit the ball all the way out of the park. The game plays top of its class. If you want to complain about something, complain about how there can be more multiplayer options, since that is the field that it dwells in. Don't bring up that it didn't cram in a bullshit campaign just to check some box so people wouldn't feel robbed of 5 whole hours of gameplay.

And Battlefield 2 was full retail price when it came out, $50. I was working at Fry's Electronics then and put the game out on the shelf.

Church.

I find positive reviews a drag to read. I always read the reviews with the lowest scores to find some truth behind the hype. Yet to see a negative review of Titanfall. Hoping for one in the coming days. Reading positive reviews is only something I do when it's critically panned games.

Or, the game experience is splendid? You have a bunch of GAFers here that are having a fucking blast, with maybe one or two exceptions that got bored with the game. Maybe...just maybe...critics, GAFers, and everyone else that have said the game is good were...right?

 

[Synth]

And Battlefield 2 was full retail price when it came out, $50. I was working at Fry's Electronics then and put the game out on the shelf.

Fuck that then, I ain't conceding shit! lol

 

[lastflowers]

If I could switch the current paradigm where people want SP games for 20$, and MP games for 60$, I'd gladly do it.


As it is, I mostly wait until the SP games are 20$ or less for me to buy them. Steam has enabled this easily for PC SP games.

 

[kinoki]

Or, the game experience is splendid? You have a bunch of GAFers here that are having a fucking blast, with maybe one or two exceptions that got bored with the game. Maybe...just maybe...critics, GAFers, and everyone else that have said the game is good were...right?

I think you misunderstand me. I don't think the game is bad. From what I've seen it seems right up my alley. But I want to know the not so good stuff. I want to prepare for the worse. I want to lower my expectations.

The last time I went in with high expectations was Mass Effect 3 and the only redeeming feature there was the multiplayer. The more I know about the game and especially the grimy bits the more I can realistically gauge the rose-tinted media hype.

If this game has legs I'll pick it up in a month on PC.

 

[Steffen]

I find positive reviews a drag to read. I always read the reviews with the lowest scores to find some truth behind the hype. Yet to see a negative review of Titanfall. Hoping for one in the coming days. Reading positive reviews is only something I do when it's critically panned games.

Or... maybe the game is really just a good game and all the minor engine issues are blown out of proportion?

 

[jryi]

Arthur Gies writes like he's really trying to impress someone with his breadth of videogame knowledge and opinions. I personally can't stand any of his writing.

What I found bothering was the fact that he was drooling all over this game for weeks before the launch and he even said in RebelFM "I can't wait to review this game".

Not saying it's not cool to be all enthusiastic and all, but you should probably tone down the hyp'o'meter when you're the guy in charge of reviews for a games site.

 

[Moneal]

I think you misunderstand me. I don't think the game is bad. From what I've seen it seems right up my alley. But I want to know the not so good stuff. I want to prepare for the worse. I want to lower my expectations.

The last time I went in with high expectations was Mass Effect 3 and the only redeeming feature there was the multiplayer. The more I know about the game and especially the grimy bits the more I can realistically gauge the rose-tinted media hype.

If this game has legs I'll pick it up in a month on PC.

I do that with every potential product i look at buying. I check negative reviews first. if they are over minor issues or they seem to nitpick i can guess the product is good. if they talk about things that can be major red flags then i know to stay away.

 

[NullPointer]

The notion that a multiplayer only game isn't worth full price is just as silly as the notion that a single player only game isn't worth full price which is just as silly as every game needs to have single, multi and co-op to be worth full price.

I couldn't disagree with this more.

In a competitive multiplayer game the core content is the other players. Your enjoyment depends upon a rich community of players, decent servers and a decent connection. On the consoles you have to pay for an additional subscription above and beyond the full game's price to actually play the online modes. And communities, servers and playlist hoppers get split as new premium DLC hits. To keep up with the community and playlists and have the same unrestricted experience that you got on day one you'll need to pony up for the DLC. How much you'll feel compelled to do this will depend upon the size of the community and how playlists and DLC is managed though.

Even with all of that settled your experience can easily be ruined by glitchers and exploiters who seek to ruin your day. Or maybe the servers will be undergoing maintenance, or hell, get disconnected entirely once the publisher feels they've had enough of a run leaving you with a coaster instead of a game disk.

Single player offline games have none of these drawbacks or additional costs. None.

I'll agree only that shoehorning single player into a game not designed for it is as bad as shoehorning multiplayer into a singleplayer game not designed for it. But the value propositions are completely different, both at release and down the road.

Now I can definitely see people saying they'll get hundreds of hours of fun out of a game with only a multiplayer mode so that's worth the full price - but I could just as easily see people saying the exact same things for any of the recent CODs - *if* those CODs dropped their single player and co-op modes entirely. The fact remains that Titanfall could very well set a precedent where multiplayer games offer up less content than ever, for full price. Why not? Their multiplayer focused fans would still find those hundreds of hours of fun.

To be sure, I'm not advocating anybody vote with their wallet one way or another or judging people for their choices, but its foolish to think that this game isn't going to be analyzed by the big publishers in terms of content-creation to price. It'll be interesting to see the numbers this game puts up at release and after the first DLC drops. Maybe a multiplayer content/price shift will happen, and maybe it should happen.

 

[Massa]

Now I can definitely see people saying they'll get hundreds of hours of fun out of a game with only a multiplayer mode so that's worth the full price - but I could just as easily see people saying the exact same things for any of the recent CODs - *if* those CODs dropped their single player and co-op modes entirely. The fact remains that Titanfall could very well set a precedent where multiplayer games offer up less content than ever, for full price. Why not? Their multiplayer focused fans would still find those hundreds of hours of fun.

To be sure, I'm not advocating anybody vote with their wallet one way or another or judging people for their choices, but its foolish to think that this game isn't going to be analyzed by the big publishers in terms of content-creation to price. It'll be interesting to see the numbers this game puts up at release and after the first DLC drops. Maybe a multiplayer content/price shift will happen, and maybe it should happen.

This is exactly why Titanfall being successful would be amazing for the gaming industry. The mentality that games need to have as much content as $100 million budget productions to even be considered is what leads to fewer games and less risk taking. Hopefully what we'll see here is that offering quality is still valued by the consumer.

 

[Avid Reading Horse]

I'm sure if EA's market research showed that they'd make a ton more money pricing on it at $40 MSRP that's what they'd do. Sweet jesus, if you don't want to pay the price of the game, then don't. Respawn is not under any obligation to make the game that you personally want, and EA is not obligated to price it at whatever price you think is appropriate "because COD and also Battlefield 2".

A game is not a 9.0 at $40, and an 8.0 at $60. Judge it on its own merits as a game for crying out loud (which should be a 10.0 for the record).

 

[Synth]

I couldn't disagree with this more.

In a competitive multiplayer game the core content is the other players. Your enjoyment depends upon a rich community of players, decent servers and a decent connection. On the consoles you have to pay for an additional subscription above and beyond the full game's price to actually play the online modes. And communities, servers and playlist hoppers get split as new premium DLC hits. To keep up with the community and playlists and have the same unrestricted experience that you got on day one you'll need to pony up for the DLC. How much you'll feel compelled to do this will depend upon the size of the community and how playlists and DLC is managed though.

Even with all of that settled your experience can easily be ruined by glitchers and exploiters who seek to ruin your day. Or maybe the servers will be undergoing maintenance, or hell, get disconnected entirely once the publisher feels they've had enough of a run leaving you with a coaster instead of a game disk.

Single player offline games have none of these drawbacks or additional costs. None.

I'll agree only that shoehorning single player into a game not designed for it is as bad as shoehorning multiplayer into a singleplayer game not designed for it. But the value propositions are completely different, both at release and down the road.

Now I can definitely see people saying they'll get hundreds of hours of fun out of a game with only a multiplayer mode so that's worth the full price - but I could just as easily see people saying the exact same things for any of the recent CODs - *if* those CODs dropped their single player and co-op modes entirely. The fact remains that Titanfall could very well set a precedent where multiplayer games offer up less content than ever, for full price. Why not? Their multiplayer focused fans would still find those hundreds of hours of fun.

To be sure, I'm not advocating anybody vote with their wallet one way or another or judging people for their choices, but its foolish to think that this game isn't going to be analyzed by the big publishers in terms of content-creation to price. It'll be interesting to see the numbers this game puts up at release and after the first DLC drops. Maybe a multiplayer content/price shift will happen, and maybe it should happen.

I don't really disagree with what you're saying in general, however I feel that it does overlook a few elements.

It's true that the much of the added value of a multiplayer is provided by the other players playing. However, this doesn't necessarily make the developers task easier. The game's multiplayer mode still needs to be curated in order for it to survive and maintain a healthy players base.

If we envision a Street Fighter game designed primarily single player gaming then there would be quite a few design shortcuts the team would be able to take which are not available as a multiplayer focused game. Firstly there's characters. Now we all know about the infamous SNK bosses, or how much people think Jinpachi and Alpha 152 were BS right? The main cause of this is that these characters were not designed to be played as by human players, and as such you could shortcut the balancing in order to make them challenging. With other characters it's required to ensure that they both have the necessary tools to compete against every order character, but also that none of their tools can be used to easily shut another players game down unfairly. The more focused your game is on multiplayer, the more strict the requirement of ensuring the game can't be ruined by easily discovered exploits becomes. A fighting game that was designed to be played alone could simply be filled with Jinpachis, Alphas, and insta-Flash Kicking Guiles, because their mechanics need never be exposed to the player.

When creating a single player game, it's more difficult to ensure your audience receives an experience that matches the one you envisioned, than it is for other mediums such as a book, a movie or music. This is because you have less control of how the game will be played, and so need to put in additional work to prevent the players interactions with your product destroying the experience. For a multiplayer game this is significantly more difficult than it is for a single player game, and is the reason why most single player games are left alone after launch, whilst many multiplayer receive additional support and tweaks to ensure it continues to be enjoyable. If someone right now told me I had to either attempt to make the next Virtua Fighter, or the next Tomb Raider.. I know which I'd pick to feel I had the easier task.

Also, if a game is going to be online only, that increases the running costs of the game for the entirety of it's lifespan, as you can essentially assume that every sold copy means another person on your servers. I'm not if publishers receive assistance with these costs from subs such as XBLG and PS+, but due to online not being paid on the PS3, and still not on the Wii U, I'm going to assume they don't. So in a way, you'd be asking that they lower the price on a product that may cost more for them over time.

 

[iJudged]

IGN, eurogamer, giantbomb, get on with it already!

 

[Gestault]

The important part of what I meant though is that BF2 sold for the same price as comparable PC games that had both a SP and MP mode (whilst also having mods, before that comes up again). Some games are made to be exclusively single player, some exclusively multiplayer, and some both. Metroid Prime shouldn't have to be sold cheaper than Prime 2 due to no multiplayer, neither should Bioshock to Bioshock 2 or Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2.

Virtua Fighter 2 shouldn't have to be sold cheaper than Tekken 2 due to having less characters. Ridge Racer 6 shouldn't have to be sold cheaper than Forza 2 due to having less cars and so on. Content creation isn't the only area of game development that incurs a cost. Respawn could have easily doubled Titanfall's map count simply by putting less effort into each one. Or could have spent time creating some throwaway single player scenarios rather than spending time ensuring that the multiplayer was balanced and could stand up over time providing longevity (something that the majority of multiplayer modes tacked onto SP game fail at spectacularly).

If we're at the point where it more important to hit a bunch of checkboxes on paper rather than to actually design the game as you envision, else you can't charge the same amount, and thus can't pay the same people, then our industry is fucked sadly.

Well put.

 

[Gestault]

I find positive reviews a drag to read. I always read the reviews with the lowest scores to find some truth behind the hype. Yet to see a negative review of Titanfall. Hoping for one in the coming days. Reading positive reviews is only something I do when it's critically panned games.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

welp, copy just got dropped off.

see you guys later. lol

 

[NullPointer]

So in a way, you'd be asking that they lower the price on a product that may cost more for them over time.

I'm not really asking pubs to lower the price, I'm more asking aloud what the expectations are for the price, both at release and months and even years down the line.

And I just wanted to answer the comparison to single player games, as that one has been stewing in my head for a while now. I would've preferred to polish the post up a bit more, but I'm on cold medicine right now, so that'll have to do ;P

 

[Neuromancer]

Ok, I'm willing to concede the price point, as I wasn't actually sure what it was over there (I'm in the UK). I just recalled this point coming up before in the 6v6 player count thread and people there seemed to agree on BF2 being $50 at launch... actually nah..

The important part of what I meant though is that BF2 sold for the same price as comparable PC games that had both a SP and MP mode (whilst also having mods, before that comes up again). Some games are made to be exclusively single player, some exclusively multiplayer, and some both. Metroid Prime shouldn't have to be sold cheaper than Prime 2 due to no multiplayer, neither should Bioshock to Bioshock 2 or Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2.

Virtua Fighter 2 shouldn't have to be sold cheaper than Tekken 2 due to having less characters. Ridge Racer 6 shouldn't have to be sold cheaper than Forza 2 due to having less cars and so on. Content creation isn't the only area of game development that incurs a cost. Respawn could have easily doubled Titanfall's map count simply by putting less effort into each one. Or could have spent time creating some throwaway single player scenarios rather than spending time ensuring that the multiplayer was balanced and could stand up over time providing longevity (something that the majority of multiplayer modes tacked onto SP game fail at spectacularly).

If we're at the point where it more important to hit a bunch of checkboxes on paper rather than to actually design the game as you envision, else you can't charge the same amount, and thus can't pay the same people, then our industry is fucked sadly.

I don't really disagree; however, if this game fails to meet sales expectations because of the price and its online only, competitive multiplayer only focus, then MS/EA/Respawn will have no one but themselves to blame.

 

[Fletcher]

I'm not really asking pubs to lower the price, I'm more asking aloud what the expectations are for the price, both at release and months and even years down the line.

The expectations are the same with any game purchased ever. To get enjoyment out of your product. That should ever be the only expectation.

 

[Synth]

I don't really disagree; however, if this game fails to meet sales expectations because of the price and its online only, competitive multiplayer only focus, then MS/EA/Respawn will have no one but themselves to blame.

Yea, I can agree with this. Although if it does fail to hit expectations, I think that says more about their expectations then anything else. If they didn't think they were going to lose some sales from requiring players to be online, whilst having data that shows that around half of their consoles last gen were used offline, then I don't know what to say.

 

[tassletine]

The real problem here is Microsoft pushing this price model onto us with such large amounts of publicity. This will cause a lot of people to buy the game without even realising it's multiplayer only.
It's the same sort of smoke and mirrors tactic they used with the xbone launch and it is getting the same sort of negative reaction. People aren't dumb.
Microsoft clearly want to test this as their new get rich quick business model, but instead of dipping their toe in the water they decided to deploy the Navy Seals. Subtlety is not their strong suit.

Multiplayer games in particular need to find their audience. No company should just force a product onto it's consumer base in the way Microsoft does, especially at this price point.

I'm sure a lot of people here will get 100 hours plus enjoyment from Titanfall but that holds no water as an argument, just in the same way as Pixar DVD's being no more expensive than regular DVD's does. Pixar DVD's are watched by kids endlessly but it doesn't mean that they should be more expensive because they are viewed more.

Any argument about price has to factor in the value that package offers, including subscription fees, and needs to be compared directly to existing titles in that genre and what they offer. The price hike makes Titanfall out to be something exceptional, and seeing as it most certainly is not, Microsoft now needs to tread carefully.
You can't just bully the general public into submission by shouting how great your game is, although I'm sure some xbox fans will give it their best shot.

 

[OzzMejia]

I find positive reviews a drag to read. I always read the reviews with the lowest scores to find some truth behind the hype. Yet to see a negative review of Titanfall. Hoping for one in the coming days. Reading positive reviews is only something I do when it's critically panned games.

Lately, we've been the dissenting view on certain games, so surely we'll be the dissenting view on Titanfall, too, right?

Sorry. (Not sorry)

Shacknews: 9/10

 

[Synth]

The real problem here is Microsoft pushing this price model onto us with such large amounts of publicity. This will cause a lot of people to buy the game without even realising it's multiplayer only.
It's the same sort of smoke and mirrors tactic they used with the xbone launch and it is getting the same sort of negative reaction. People aren't dumb.
Microsoft clearly want to test this as their new get rich quick business model, but instead of dipping their toe in the water they decided to deploy the Navy Seals. Subtlety is not their strong suit.

Multiplayer games in particular need to find their audience. No company should just force a product onto it's consumer base in the way Microsoft does, especially at this price point.

I'm sure a lot of people here will get 100 hours plus enjoyment from Titanfall but that holds no water as an argument, just in the same way as Pixar DVD's being no more expensive than regular DVD's does. Pixar DVD's are watched by kids endlessly but it doesn't mean that they should be more expensive because they are viewed more.

Any argument about price has to factor in the value that package offers, including subscription fees, and needs to be compared directly to existing titles in that genre and what they offer. The price hike makes Titanfall out to be something exceptional, and seeing as it most certainly is not, Microsoft now needs to tread carefully.
You can't just bully the general public into submission by shouting how great your game is, although I'm sure some xbox fans will give it their best shot.

Firstly, Titanfall is Respawn's game not Microsoft's. The game existed as a multiplayer focused game prior to the exclusivity deal, and was going to draw attention either way. It's from the original creators of Modern Warfare, it was never going to fly under the radar regardless of which platforms it hit (unless they made it Wii U exclusive or something lol).

Secondly, your Pixar example makes no sense at all. Pixar don't charge extra for their movies and neither is Titanfall. What you're really suggesting with this example is that Pixar should not be able to charge the same price for their movies, as let's say a Marvel movie. With this example now cleared up, would you say it makes any sense?

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

Your eyes will be knocked out of their sockets then when you see games like Witcher 3.

well, the game is coming out in 2015. I'd hope so.

 

[Jito]

The real problem here is Microsoft pushing this price model onto us with such large amounts of publicity. This will cause a lot of people to buy the game without even realising it's multiplayer only.
It's the same sort of smoke and mirrors tactic they used with the xbone launch and it is getting the same sort of negative reaction. People aren't dumb.
Microsoft clearly want to test this as their new get rich quick business model, but instead of dipping their toe in the water they decided to deploy the Navy Seals. Subtlety is not their strong suit.

Multiplayer games in particular need to find their audience. No company should just force a product onto it's consumer base in the way Microsoft does, especially at this price point.

I'm sure a lot of people here will get 100 hours plus enjoyment from Titanfall but that holds no water as an argument, just in the same way as Pixar DVD's being no more expensive than regular DVD's does. Pixar DVD's are watched by kids endlessly but it doesn't mean that they should be more expensive because they are viewed more.

Any argument about price has to factor in the value that package offers, including subscription fees, and needs to be compared directly to existing titles in that genre and what they offer. The price hike makes Titanfall out to be something exceptional, and seeing as it most certainly is not, Microsoft now needs to tread carefully.
You can't just bully the general public into submission by shouting how great your game is, although I'm sure some xbox fans will give it their best shot.

What on earth on you even talking about? Bullying the general public? MS pushing a new price point? Man you people are really delusional in this thread. All Respawn have done is release a cool game at RRP and you're making conspiracy theories about MS lol

 

[kinoki]

Thank you for not reading and instead knee-jerking. Did I offend you? I said nothing other than my preference in reading reviews. Drive-by comments that only serve to marginalise people that you only think are commenting on something you don't agree with even though they don't is not healthy behaviour.

 

[dab0ne]

Did anyone get the collectors edition statue? What's it made of? Is it a light weight hollow plastic or something heavier?

 

[Blimblim]

I've just uploaded 2 videos from the Xbox One version, at 1080p60 of course.
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_xbox_one_titanfall_videos-15101_en.html

 

[mbmonk]

I've just uploaded 2 videos from the Xbox One version, at 1080p60 of course.
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_xbox_one_titanfall_videos-15101_en.html

*insert Michael Jordan laughing gif*

It's doesn't run @ 1080 native and the framerate sure isn't 60 for me on Xbone. =P

EDIT: I am sorry if my comment came off as rude. I love Gamersyde actually

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

Respawn can easily add in a 5hr long SP expansion for $30-40 if they wanted to.

I'd get it.

 

[Rizsparky]

Respawn can easily add in a 5hr long SP expansion for $30-40 if they wanted to.

I'd get it.

I'm thinking they have some SP DLC lined up already.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Would I have preferred 20 maps instead of 15? Sure.

However, I would like to know what this "certain level of expected content" for a $60 FPS is. COD:Ghosts only came with 14 maps and the same old modes COD has always had.

"But it has a campaign," I hear someone saying, to which I just laugh. COD campaign is nothing more than a bolted on piece of crap that simply uses the multiplayer maps and assets. Sure they give some obligatory rendered cutscenes, but that's it. I actually give Respawn some kudos for abandoning the ridiculous pretense. No one goes out of their way to buy COD or Battlefield (except maybe BF: Bad Company) for the campaign. If they do, they're wasting their money on what amounts to maybe a tenth of the total game.

thats still big for some players though. I only play single player and dont ever touch multiplayer when i play fps games

 

[Synth]

Respawn can easily add in a 5hr long SP expansion for $30-40 if they wanted to.

I'd get it.

I'd much rather see a horde/firefight style co-op mode against waves of monsters personally.

thats still big for some players though. I only play single player and dont ever touch multiplayer when i play fps games

Then there are plenty of games with single player campaigns for you follow instead then. This never had a single player mode to catch your interest in the first place really. Anything other than what they have actually shown would simply be your imagination for a game that never existed. There are plenty of games I'd be all over if they existed (like an MMO Forza set in a world like TDU2), however they don't exist... just like single player Titanfall.

 

[Memorabilia]

Just do what I did and get it for $28 and then all this debate about whether or not it's worth buying isn't necessary. Yeah I know, not possible for most buyers...but as to the game's "value" I think this is a very subjective thing. I make a very nice comfortable income and can easily afford just about anything I want, yet I feel that $60 for most games is too much. Even this is subjective and based on personal taste. Something like Skyrim is easily worth $60 to me due to the sheer amount of hours of play I'll get out of it. In contrast, even a game as well done as Tomb Raider DE or The Last of Us is worth comparatively less since, for the most part, those games are "one and done" play-throughs for me. Even still, since they are incredibly well done examples of the genre I tend to pick those types of games up when they hit $30 or so. Titanfall is somewhat of a new breed in the console world in that its attempting to do what Tribes or Quake 3 did on PC a number of years ago by selling a multi-player only game at full retail. Because of my personal desire/preference for a well-done single player campaign, normally I wouldn't go near Titanfall at the launch price...but, because I snagged it for a little less than half of the $60 asking price I figured why the hell not? I'll use a Gold trial or two to figure out if I like it and then decide if its worth keeping. If not, then off it goes for trade-in value and the search continues for a reason to re-up XBL Gold.

 

[braves01]

sorry wrong thread

 

[J-Rzez]

This is exactly why Titanfall being successful would be amazing for the gaming industry. The mentality that games need to have as much content as $100 million budget productions to even be considered is what leads to fewer games and less risk taking. Hopefully what we'll see here is that offering quality is still valued by the consumer.

Yikes, that's how much it would cost for some clan support? Maybe a couple more weapons/abilities/outfits? I'm not even asking for a persistent online, which I'd like to see in more mp only games. Or something that would allow meaningful competition.

 

[Dire]

Seriously?

You're telling me a BETA had problems? A Beta that was being randomly stress tested, tweaked, patched, and messed with. All the things Betas normally go through to find and fix things...

That's an incredible revelation. Can't believe a Beta would dare not be on the level of a final build with time and patches under its belt. Inexcusable!!

Spoiler

(Sarcasm detector explodes)

A "stress test" with a whopping 2million players is enough to bring down the mighty mystical magical cloud?

It also wasn't brought down because of patches or tweaking. It was unexpected.

Lastly. It was a "beta" a bit more than a month before the game was supposed to be on store shelves. A "beta" that is by all accounts identical to the final product. Demos are now called "betas" to mislead gullible people into thinking anything that's wrong with the game will be magically fixed when its released. Read the "beta" thread and the number of people derisively attacking people who felt the AI was terrible, with similar logic as you just used above, was humorous to say the least. Needless to say - it didn't change.

And now at peak time after Titanfall is released - Live is buggered out on the XBone. Shocker! Some people just don't get it.

And this is why the reviewers who waited for launch (as opposed to somebody in this thread who literally said the servers couldn't go down unless they got bombed) before giving it a score were right on. When you purchase an online-only experience there's an implicit agreement that the side offering the online will actually be able to hold up their end of the deal! It will be interesting to see how/if this effects the scores of the sites that withheld review score for this very possibility. If IGN doesn't reflect this in their score after specifically stating that they're waiting to see how it plays out on public servers before scoring it, then it's going to be rather... amusing.

 

[miDnIghtEr20C]

The game is so great. Love it!

 

[Etnos]

I just red Giantbomb's Titanfall no-review(at least for now): I disagree with the article constant emphasis with the lack of features/content. It keeps promoting lame created consumer expectations that hinders developers to try new things.

Bloat doesn't really makes a game worth it, fun does.

 

[Miguel81]

How is the PC community in this game? I'm almost exclusively a single-player gamer but I love the Mirror's Edge parkour style. I'm 33 and don't have any friends that game, so I'll have to deal with randoms.

 

[doctorcdcs]

How is the PC community in this game? I'm almost exclusively a single-player gamer but I love the Mirror's Edge parkour style. I'm 33 and don't have any friends that game, so I'll have to deal with randoms.

For the most part I find they're okay, but I've had some recent run-ins with some real douchebags.

 

[solarus]

Would I have preferred 20 maps instead of 15? Sure.

However, I would like to know what this "certain level of expected content" for a $60 FPS is. COD:Ghosts only came with 14 maps and the same old modes COD has always had.

"But it has a campaign," I hear someone saying, to which I just laugh. COD campaign is nothing more than a bolted on piece of crap that simply uses the multiplayer maps and assets. Sure they give some obligatory rendered cutscenes, but that's it. I actually give Respawn some kudos for abandoning the ridiculous pretense. No one goes out of their way to buy COD or Battlefield (except maybe BF: Bad Company) for the campaign. If they do, they're wasting their money on what amounts to maybe a tenth of the total game.

No, that's bullshit. The call of duty campaign used to be pretty excellent, I really enjoyed call of duty 2, modern warfare and modern warfare 2's campaigns. They were definitely not just a "bolted on piece of crap". No idea if that's the case now as I stopped playing COD after modern warfare 2.

 

[NullPointer]

No, that's bullshit. The call of duty campaign used to be pretty excellent, I really enjoyed call of duty 2, modern warfare and modern warfare 2's campaigns. They were definitely not just a "bolted on piece of crap". No idea if that's the case now as I stopped playing COD after modern warfare 2.

It is now, yeah. But like you I really enjoyed it when it didn't use to be.

COD was known first and foremost for its excellent campaigns until COD4 which began a shift in focus.

 

[tbm24]

What I found bothering was the fact that he was drooling all over this game for weeks before the launch and he even said in RebelFM "I can't wait to review this game".

Not saying it's not cool to be all enthusiastic and all, but you should probably tone down the hyp'o'meter when you're the guy in charge of reviews for a games site.

It's important to remember he's also a gamer and allowed to be excited to play a game he seemingly was heavily anticipating. Being in charge of reviews of a games site shouldn't hold anyone back from being excited. That's silly.

 

[crazyprac]

How is the PC community in this game? I'm almost exclusively a single-player gamer but I love the Mirror's Edge parkour style. I'm 33 and don't have any friends that game, so I'll have to deal with randoms.

Hmm its not bad. Its the usual fanfare. Not as serious as CS or BF but not so much trolling either as of right now. Couple of aimbots. There's some groups you can join if you search the tf forums. But as usual better than the console community :O jk jk... Not really, but yes.

 

[Miguel81]

For the most part I find they're okay, but I've had some recent run-ins with some real douchebags.

They're unavoidable. I can stand a few.

Hmm its not bad. Its the usual fanfare. Not as serious as CS or BF but not so much trolling either as of right now. Couple of aimbots. There's some groups you can join if you search the tf forums. But as usual better than the console community :O jk jk... Not really, but yes.

Thanks. I'll look into that.

I've moved to the PC environment to get rid of the underage element. PC building + high minimum requirements usually helps.

 

[J-Rzez]

I just red Giantbomb's Titanfall no-review(at least for now): I disagree with the article constant emphasis with the lack of features/content. It keeps promoting lame created consumer expectations that hinders developers to try new things.

Bloat doesn't really makes a game worth it, fun does.

Clans, ladders, cosmetic and weapon customizations are bloat now? Clans and ladders add to the competitive nature which also adds to longevity of a game. You can't even put simple clan tags in here! And playing in a clan = fun to many. There's no excuse for especially an online only mp game to not have this feature. Maybe it'll come in dlc....lol.