• 85 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by ripelivejam (2786 posts) -

So Microsoft gets Respawn game as exclusive, and the rumour is that Sony is getting Final fantasy 15 as an exclusive.

Console wars have indeed begun.

LET THE GREAT EXPERIMENT BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#52 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2167 posts) -

Well I guess that's one next gen game I won't be looking forward to in future.

#53 Edited by ll_Exile_ll (1270 posts) -

Granted I haven't seen the game yet, but given a choice between this apparent online only multiplayer focused FPS and Destiny, I have way more interest in Destiny. It also helps that Destiny isn't an exclusive for a system I probably won't be buying any time soon.

#54 Edited by YetiAntics (1489 posts) -

no grain of sand, no grain of salt.

For this rumor? nothing.

#55 Posted by PolygonSlayer (416 posts) -

This game sounds like nothing I want to play, so they got to do better than signing some robot-gangbang online shooter to get me interested.

#56 Posted by Humanity (7946 posts) -

This game sounds like nothing I want to play, so they got to do better than signing some robot-gangbang online shooter to get me interested.

From a one line rumor description most games wouldn't sound appealing. Bioshock Infinite can be described as: single player story driven retro shooter with an always present companion.

#57 Posted by PolygonSlayer (416 posts) -

@humanity: Yes, you can describe any game in a boring fashion, but I was more referring to the fact that it sounds like all other future-ish FPS games out there. For me personally, no thanks. Last Call of Duty I played and enjoyed was CoD4, and that was the single player, I didn't feel anything for the multiplayer at all.
If I close my eyes I can almost see what this game looks like already.

#58 Edited by Abendlaender (2597 posts) -

The new game from Respawn is a futuristic multiplayer-centric

That's all I needed to hear to know that I'm not interested

#59 Posted by Humanity (7946 posts) -

@humanity: Y

es, you can describe any game in a boring fashion, but I was more referring to the fact that it sounds like all other future-ish FPS games out there. For me personally, no thanks. Last Call of Duty I played and enjoyed was CoD4, and that was the single player, I didn't feel anything for the multiplayer at all.

If I close my eyes I can almost see what this game looks like already.

I don't meant to sound crass or mocking - but if you can envision an entire game from "futuristic shooter" then you should get in touch with some of these dev studios as they'd love to have someone with your powers of vision aboard. Like I said earlier - I don't think anyone could imagine exactly what Bioshock Infinite would turn out to be from "single player focused shooter with companion"

I just think we should all give this game the benefit of the doubt until at least a few leaked screenshots come out. I'm not saying it's going to be groundbreaking or some amazing revolution in gaming - but everyone groaning "ugh online shooter? No thanks! This game sounds boooring!" before we have even learned ANY details seems really dumb. Although the gaming community online has grown increasingly cynical over the years so it's not that surprising.

#60 Posted by ExplodeMode (852 posts) -

EA funding an exclusive? I wouldn't bet on that until it was official.

#61 Posted by PolygonSlayer (416 posts) -

@humanity: Hey, people can be as excited for this as they want, but for me personally; an online shooter is a big no-no to start with. If Bioshock Infinite was an online shooter, guess what? I wouldn't care about it, and then when it's mixed with "futuristic" and coming from the "CoD people" then, sorry I'm not interested. How can I come to this revolutionary conclusion? By combining the little information that has come out and the track record of that part of the industry. It's not rocket science.
Could they suddenly show something that blows my mind? Sure, I just think it's very unlikely. Especially if it turns out to be a multiplayer centric FPS, because for me that is a type of game I am not interested in at all.

#62 Posted by Winternet (7936 posts) -

It sounds like a rather dumb move from EA. MS must be throwing an absurd amount of cash at them. Which if it's true, makes it a rather dumb move from MS.

#63 Edited by PenguinDust (12414 posts) -

Hmm, a sci-fi shooter with a multiplayer focus exclusive to the Xbox...so, I guess Halo is done then, right?

#64 Edited by Seppli (9736 posts) -

@winternet said:

It sounds like a rather dumb move from EA. MS must be throwing an absurd amount of cash at them. Which if it's true, makes it a rather dumb move from MS.

Well, first parties are shopping for system sellers. If Respawn's game manages to mesh mech battles with infantry combat, just imagine the scale of the maps and how detailed and interactive the environments must be, in order to accommadate for both. Also - infantry units will have to be incredibly powerful and mobile, to keep up with *agile mechs* - which should be an extremely empowering and fun gameplay experience.

I'm imagining large scale maps, full of intricately modelled architecture that is suited for infantry combat, whilst all of it is completely destructible and 100% interactive. It's just the kind of thing that's not been done before. Poised to blow minds. Don't forget it's 2013 either. Giant robots are the new zombies. At least if Pacific Rim and the likes have anything to say about it.

That said, I'm likely opting for PS4 myself, and it would make me sad, if this rumor was true - but Titan could be just the kind of thing that'll sway my purchase decision from one next gen system to the other. It's not that bad an idea for Microsoft to try and lock down a promising new franchise like that. Taking into consideration the very limited market of these next gen systems, EA is smart to go for the iron-clad returns ensured by an exclusive deal with Microsoft.

In a couple of weeks we'll see what Microsoft has already seen, and maybe it'll seem a whole lot less like a *dumb move* then.

#65 Posted by Winternet (7936 posts) -

@seppli: A few points: a) EA expects for the new Respawn game to be as successful as Modern Warfare, which going MS exclusive goes directly against that expectation. Therefore, I assume MS is giving them loads of money. b) If that's the case, then I don't think it makes much sense for MS too. Since this appears to be a launch game, it won't have that much impact. The early adopters will buy the console regardless of a Respawn game or not. Also, the game is also coming out on the 360, which will very likely sell more copies than the Durango version and MS didn't need an exclusive deal for that to happen. c) If this is coming out on 360 and Durango then the game can't be that mind blowing (unless the 360 version is being made by another developer, which also wouldn't make much sense, since the 360 is the leading platform)

#66 Posted by EVO (3780 posts) -

Hmm, a sci-fi shooter with a multiplayer focus exclusive to the Xbox...so, I guess Halo is done then, right?

Good riddance. I like Halo as much as the next guy but unless they make some major changes, I think Halo 5 will get a lukewarm response.

#67 Edited by MattyFTM (14243 posts) -

I thought Respawn were on the wall of logo's at the Sony PS4 reveal press conference. Maybe I'm misremembering.

It would also be incredibly unusual for EA to do an exclusive. It would take a hell of a lot of money from Microsoft to stop EA from releasing it multi-platform. It's possible, I suppose, but it's pretty unlikely. Until we hear something official, I'm calling bullshit on this rumour.

Also, I'm changing the title of this thread to indicate it's a rumour. It's a bit misleading as-is.

Moderator
#68 Edited by Hitchenson (4682 posts) -

Ex Call of Duty guys making another FPS?

I'll pass.

#69 Edited by Bollard (5025 posts) -

@andorski said:

@colourful_hippie said:

@chavtheworld said:

@colourful_hippie said:

You do know what another source means right? You're just linking to other articles that all cite Kotaku. Not saying what they're saying is bullshit or not but posting another article regurgitating the original one doesn't count as another source.

To be honest, that's more of a problem with how god awful games journalism is, than his fault. Everyone just blindly citing everyone without doing fact checking...

It's how this happens: http://x-surface.tumblr.com/post/41282771026/x-surface-dont-believe-everything-you-read

Wow, gross.

It's not the best example considering that IGN and Kotaku (the two major gaming press outlets that the gaming community catches doing unreliable reporting) didn't even fall for that fake rumor. The guy who created the X-Surface email tip even got angry at a CVG editor who immediately - and correctly - called him out on his shit story.

The CVG editor acted inappropriately towards him, even if he was being disingenuous. He didn't get angry at anyone.

#70 Edited by Seppli (9736 posts) -

@winternet said:

@seppli: A few points: a) EA expects for the new Respawn game to be as successful as Modern Warfare, which going MS exclusive goes directly against that expectation. Therefore, I assume MS is giving them loads of money. b) If that's the case, then I don't think it makes much sense for MS too. Since this appears to be a launch game, it won't have that much impact. The early adopters will buy the console regardless of a Respawn game or not. Also, the game is also coming out on the 360, which will very likely sell more copies than the Durango version and MS didn't need an exclusive deal for that to happen. c) If this is coming out on 360 and Durango then the game can't be that mind blowing (unless the 360 version is being made by another developer, which also wouldn't make much sense, since the 360 is the leading platform)

If it's indeed not a next gen exclusive, then it's rather baffling of course. Then again, they'll likely tone down scale a lot for the current gen version of the game, similar to BF4, which will most likely deliver content parity with PC and have the full 64 player contigent on next gen, whilst sticking to the 24 player cap on current gen consoles.

  1. EA certainly doesn't expect for the Respawn game to be as successful as Modern Warfare, that's just unrealistic.
  2. Nothing's as important as the first impression, and having a potential killer app as a system exclusive at launch is a feather in any first party's cap.
  3. Looking at BF3 as an example, the same game can be worlds apart taking almost infinitely scalable modern game engines into account.

If Respawn/EA has an actual exclusivity deal with Microsoft, then it's all about the co-marketing for them. Titan will ride the coattails of what will likely be the most expensive marketing campaign in the history of gaming. We're talking hundreds of millions, and they'll get to launch their new brand alongside that.

It makes sense overall. As a consumer, I'm not a fan of this tactic, but it's certainly not misguided.

#71 Posted by BaconGames (3128 posts) -

I guess over the course of this last generation I had become progressively more out of touch with the whole console wars and stupid exclusives wankery that goes on the marketing side of things. Nobody cares (or at least should) until or unless the product speaks for itself. Exclusives for people who actually care about video games are a means to an end for people to get games that otherwise would not have been funded or made because the capital being tossed around is greater due to the console maker's interest in the exclusive. Likewise, any competition between the console manufacturers should be under the premise that they're fighting tooth and nail over the market's attention and the only they will do that for me is by making good games.

In the mean time, I'm going to play games on my PC and wait and see what comes of the scuffle. I have to say it's to Valve and other PC digital distributor's credit that the competition while less bombastic has been constant and gradual, adding value to the platform immensely over the years.

Online
#72 Edited by Pr1mus (3512 posts) -

A shooter eh?

#73 Posted by Winternet (7936 posts) -

@seppli: The quote on the second post talks about 360 and Durango.

1. Unrealistic or not, that's what they expect. I mean, Tomb Raider sold over 4 million, I think, and the publisher said it was below expectations. This shows that publishers can have unrealistic expectations. Note, that I'm not talking about having this first iteration immediately reach Black Ops 2 numbers. But COD/MW is on the verge of losing its dominance and Activision is banking on Destiny and EA is banking on Respawn to take that role.

2. I can't say I agree with that. Launches, while important, are not the game changer. It's the follow-up that ends up resolving the "war" between consoles. Buying a console on launch is a risky proposition. And while the enthusiasts and fans will always be there to buy it day one, the common man usually waits a bit. And why shouldn't he? He has a perfectly functional 360 with many games still to play. But, after a while (let's say next holiday season), he can take the jump to the next gen. The games coming out to his 360 are decreasing and there's been enough talk about the new stuff, that he is ready to make a decision. And its at that time, that an exclusive game can actually make a great impact. Also, the people that buy the console on launch, the enthusiasts, are also the ones more likely to buy the other console in a year or 2 years time, which means they will eventually nullify their decision of buying a Durango.

3. Yes, but I'm sure BF3 sold more on consoles than on PC, right?

#74 Posted by Mrsignerman44 (1100 posts) -

I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to play it but I just don't think it's worth the hassle of owning a next gen xbox.

#75 Edited by jakob187 (21503 posts) -

RUMOR!

All of these rumors...are rumors!

@extomar: Ping Pong? That's not bro enough. BEER Pong game that uses Kinect.

#76 Posted by Brendan (7511 posts) -

I find it weird that people have so strongly written off the next Xbox already. I'm with most in that I expect more from the PS4 at this point but I'm going to at least wait until launch to make a level headed choice.

#77 Posted by Andorski (5107 posts) -

@chavtheworld: The guy who created the X-Surface rumor fired first by accusing Rob Crossley of not having reasons for his doubts on the rumor (which he relayed to him in via email in a dickish manner). Good on that editor to give him a few harsh words for trying to spread a lie that would have a negative impact on his career if he went with the report.

#78 Edited by Nodima (942 posts) -

I'm not writing off the XBox, but an exclusive FPS couldn't woo me. Bioshock Infinite is the first FPS I've loved since...Timsplitters 2? Medal of Honor: Frontline? Call of Duty 4 was great, but it didn't amaze me. It just made sense...if that makes sense (I don't enjoy FPS multiplayer, I'm a SOCOM guy that hates respawn...pun unintended).

I'll be interested to see if/how this would affect things in the #Warz, but personally I couldn't care much less. It's just a game; if I'm buying a system based on one, I'd rather have Sony's weird ideas over Microsoft's "this shit's still cool" schtick, even if a lot of Sony's weird ideas (and even more mainstream ones, like Uncharted IMO) tend to fall flat in the face of their hype, whereas Microsoft's tend to satisfy exactly what I'm told they'll be.

#79 Posted by EXTomar (4124 posts) -

On a serious note I doubt the game itself is exclusive but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they pulled yet another "exclusive content for 6 months DLC" thing. That is far less risky than taking the whole game where instead of shutting out entire platforms Microsoft slights the choice to their platform instead.

#80 Edited by xyzygy (9618 posts) -

It's an online FPS. Of course it's going to be always online, sheesh.

Man, there is a shit ton of negativity in this thread. These are all rumours. Don't believe them until it's revealed.

#81 Posted by AiurFlux (899 posts) -

In the meanwhile nobody gives a fuck about Respawn Entertainment anymore anyway.

Why care about a studio founded by two guys who were canned from their last job and their final product before being canned was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. A game so imbalanced and buggy that there are more faults with it than I have fingers and thumbs. They're one trick ponies that should be put out to pasture and put down.

As for Microsoft, good for them throwing money around. But maybe instead of doing that they should fix their terrible OS interface for both their Windows platform as well as the XBox Dashboard. And while they're at it maybe they should ensure that we don't have another debacle with build quality like was with the 360 where, for a time, every single console that was manufactured was defective with failure rates around 30% depending on the source.

But hey, dangle that carrot because you obviously think we're all retarded. DURR.

#82 Edited by rebgav (1429 posts) -

Couple things which leap out at me;

This isn't an EA game, it's an EA Partners game. EA Partners is a dead thing.

This Respawn game is always online? This EA Partners game relies on login authentication and a constant server connection? With EA's tendency to shut down servers on a whim, that sounds like a bad move for Respawn. Unless, of course, someone else is willing to provide that service.

If the EA Partners program is already dead and buried and Respawn haven't sold their game to EA then why should EA give a damn about a high-maintenance game that they don't own and can't exploit?

This rumor actually seems to almost, sort of, make sense(?) If you're Microsoft, buying out EA's stake in the game is probably a good deal for a near-finished product from a creator with some pedigree, because you have a platform to support. From EA's perspective, the cost of buying Respawn or just the rights to their game is probably quite steep and a bit of a gross gamble considering their current position - Why not take a fat check and a promise of future profit sharing (or something like that)?

Given that the rumor seems to be a scenario in which everybody wins I fully expect to hear that it's false and that EA have bought Respawn outright and are positioning their game as the next CoD killer.

#83 Edited by ez123 (1902 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

It's an online FPS. Of course it's going to be always online, sheesh.

bots/split-screen? Even without a proper campaign, a multiplayer FPS game should still have offline options.

I can't image a game from these guys being something I'm into. Fast mechs sounds alright but if they stick to what they prioritize in multiplayer FPS, it's useless to me.

#84 Posted by super2j (1610 posts) -

That description made me think of a game idea, now I want this more.

So there are a subset of players on each team that play as giant robots in an arena made for their size. And on the robots are the all the other players of that team(god of war 3 style). The robots represents part of the map for the smaller players. The robot players actively fight and are moving around the map to points with control points or the "briefcase" etc. As soon as they reach these places, the normal players can run onto this new area to retrieve the item of importance. The other team will do the same or actively attack the other robot. For example: you have the other team's normal members sneaking on to the robot to kill/steal back the briefcase. In this way you can have situations where players are stuck on the island where the control point or stuck on an enemy robot because the giant robot has to back off due to oncoming attacks by the other teams robot. For funsies we could have tower defense style kill streaks on the robots to help protect against attacks.

#85 Edited by xyzygy (9618 posts) -

@ez123 said:

@xyzygy said:

It's an online FPS. Of course it's going to be always online, sheesh.

bots/split-screen?

I don't know. I don't really see this as an issue for these types of games. These games cater to people with online connections, and the amount of people who buy CoD proves that. Single player adventure, RPG, story based games, however, are a different story.

@super2j said:

That description made me think of a game idea, now I want this more.

So there are a subset of players on each team that play as giant robots in an arena made for their size. And on the robots are the all the other players of that team(god of war 3 style). The robots represents part of the map for the smaller players. The robot players actively fight and are moving around the map to points with control points or the "briefcase" etc. As soon as they reach these places, the normal players can run onto this new area to retrieve the item of importance. The other team will do the same or actively attack the other robot. For example: you have the other team's normal members sneaking on to the robot to kill/steal back the briefcase. In this way you can have situations where players are stuck on the island where the control point or stuck on an enemy robot because the giant robot has to back off due to oncoming attacks by the other teams robot. For funsies we could have tower defense style kill streaks on the robots to help protect against attacks.

Sound like Xenoblade but with FPS multiplayer. With the playing on Titans that have maps on them thing.

#86 Posted by zombie2011 (4941 posts) -

COD 4 and MW2 were 2 of the best games this gen, so i'm really looking forward to what they come up with next.

Online