• 101 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by Haruko (299 posts) -

I think it's a great idea. Cutting the fat from the already multiplayer focused modern fps. I hope they take the full price tag into account into the games life cycle. Possibly free DLC. I certainly hope it's more wallet-friendly than most of the other micro-transaction laden garbage that comes out.

Seeing that it's still full price I instinctively feel that there should be more maps or an extremely lenient DLC plan.

That being said, this game would have been undeniable if it were $40.


I am willing to bet fucking anything I own there will be NO FREE dlc for this game, other than maybe the special launch first printing comes with an extra gun camo or something.

For amount of content looking at what I consider value if they have I'll say 25+ maps at launch I could be cajoled into saying that's not a bad value anything under 20 is a damn rip off for the price.

That and if it was $40 I wouldn't even blink at the value proposition.

#52 Posted by Zaccheus (1794 posts) -

MAG anyone? That was the best online shooter ever made, I don't care what anyone else says. RIP Zipper.

#53 Edited by crithon (3266 posts) -

uhhhhhh

15 sound nice..... considering how much EA willl do with it

#54 Edited by joshwent (2207 posts) -

@haruko: Doesn't it all depend on what you're basing the value on? If it has anything to do with the amount of time you can play the game for, I'd argue that folks who like it will be able to play Titanfall for tons more hours than even some open world RPGs. So by that "constant entertainment that you can squeeze out of a game" metric, it seems easily worth full price.

Also, calling it "multi-player only" is a pretty loaded way of looking at it. They made the game they set out to make. It's not separate from the whole of other $60 games just because you play it with people. Questioning if it's "full featured" is only because it lacks a feature that you personally want. But that's just as skewed as criticising any game that doesn't have multiplayer because it's "single-player only".

(to be clear, I don't really like FPSs and I don't even plan on getting Titanfall, so I'm not trying to defend this game, just the concept.)

#55 Edited by Sergio (2130 posts) -

I'm not interested in Titanfall because I don't care for multiplayer. Even if I think it's overpriced, I'd say the price will be set at whatever the market will bear. If a lot of people want to spend $60 for a multiplayer-only experience, then so be it. If not, don't buy it until it's on sale.

#56 Posted by NMC2008 (1237 posts) -

I think it's stupid but we'll see soon won't we? I play COD/FPS games Single Player only, lots of people probably do, if the next COD was just multi I would be curious of how much the sales would drop.

#57 Edited by Guesty_01 (348 posts) -

No, it isn't ballsy in the slightest. It doesn't matter what the game consists of, multiplayer, single player, or mix of both, as long as the final product is worth your money.

#58 Posted by PatODay (220 posts) -

Aren't there going to be AI characters playing in matches also? It's possible that if someone wanted to continue playing Titanfall if there was no online community left for it they could play bot matches much like what the Gears of War games offer.

#59 Posted by Hunter5024 (5688 posts) -

If it's good and it works then I don't think it's unfair for them to charge that. It does make the game a much tougher sale for some people though. I would probably consider getting Titanfall if it had a good single player or was cheaper.

#60 Posted by pyrodactyl (2043 posts) -

@haruko said:

@excast said:

@themanwithnoplan said:

That's definitely a frequent reality of games these days. I look at stuff like destiny and the division and wonder where they'll be at in 10 years. There's definitely fun to be had in the mean time, but the modern reality is that some of these games will eventually become obsolete in one way or another. More and more of these games are meant to be experienced as they come out and the conservative mindset we as a fandom have can't always be satiated in this modern setting of games design.

An important difference is that games like Destiny and other MMO type experiences are generally supported over the long haul. I don't think you will see a Destiny 2 in 2016. You very well may see a Titanfall in that same time period, because at the end of the day it is just another multiplayer shooter int he vein of COD.

You actually will see a new Destiny in 2016 if you remember the document leaks from the CoD trial it stated that there will be three games in the Destiny series one every 2 years with a big dlc dump inbetween releases.

Maybe they'll be expansions of sorts? I seem to recall in some bungie vid doc that they planned to support the game over 10 years or so.

Activision can't charge $60 for an expansion. They'll charge $40 for an expansion in 2015 and $60 in 2016, rince and repeat. That's the whole buisness plan for those games and the 10 year support is just them promissing they won't shut down the servers anytime soon and will be constantly working on the franchise, not the first game.

#61 Posted by tourgen (4503 posts) -

If it's good enough then $60 is fine.

PvP with some AI junk enemies thrown in does seem a little thin but I haven't played it. A co-op team mode would have been cool. maybe that will be in there?

#62 Edited by AndrewB (7621 posts) -

Call of Duty's single player campaign has been such a joke for so many iterations now. If I was as interested in a multiplayer shooter as I used to be, and given the hype for Titanfall I've seen from people I trust, there's no reason to balk at the pricetag. In fact. much like how many singleplayer games include multiplayer modes as a stingy attempt to justify the price and pad out the attach rate to prevent reselling of the game, the same sentiment would apply to a game with a multiplayer focus. Skip the half-assed attempt to tack on something superfluous and focus development energy towards perfecting one goal.

#63 Edited by billymagnum (827 posts) -

ballsy? yes. but if everyone bites, we'll have a new industry standard! success!

#64 Posted by MegaLombax (391 posts) -

I hope at least there's going to be bots if its going to be multiplayer only. I tend to enjoy the single-player portion of FPS games more than multiplayer.

#65 Edited by SomeDeliCook (2341 posts) -

Charging 60 bucks for it isn't ballsy at all because people are going to buy the shit out of it.

#66 Posted by Korwin (2866 posts) -

If it makes you feel better it will be $100-$120 off the shelf at retail in Australia, and they won't even have local servers online at launch. So you know... a half functional multiplayer only game at twice the price!

#67 Posted by Belegorm (406 posts) -

Isn't a quality multiplayer shooter what people are looking for from titanfall, and it's what they're offering? Why waste time, talent and money on something that clearly isn't meant to be part of the core experience? (single-player).

This doesn't just apply to shooters. I paid $60 I believe for Street Fighter IV; sure there's a single-player mode, but no one cares about those in fighting games, especially SF.

#68 Posted by mikey87144 (1775 posts) -

I'm really surprised by how many people are taking issue with the fact that titanfall is multiplayer only. I'm not talking about the people who read these forums. I'm talking about the less informed. I keep hearing that the fact that it's multiplayer only means no buy for them. I've even gotten into arguments with some of them because I know for a fact they only play the multiplayer portion of COD. It's weird.

#69 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3847 posts) -

No. It has been done before.

#70 Posted by Chaser324 (6552 posts) -

I hope at least there's going to be bots if its going to be multiplayer only. I tend to enjoy the single-player portion of FPS games more than multiplayer.

If that's the case, then this game might just not be for you.

Moderator
#71 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

I know opinions and such, but I'm one of those that usually finds the good old "read a book" or "watch a movie" if you want a good story accurate. Videogames are difficult medium for stories plus the market reality makes so hard for developers to push interesting ideas. Even stuff like Bioshock Infinite, is bad, really bad.. pales in comparison to a good modern sci-fi novel, I give props to Rational because they try but man no .. just no..

Long story short I rarely play a story driven game, I prefer mechanic based games like Diablo or Multiplayer stuff like Mobas and Competitive FPS, Arma, DayZ and such..

So no I don't think it is ballsy at all to charge $60 dlls for multiplayer game I probably going to play a lot.

#72 Posted by The_Tolman (433 posts) -

This game is the ONLY reason I'm even considering buying a XboxOne and the more I see of the game, the less interest I have. It seems like CoD with Mechs (to be fair mechs are pretty cool), without the single player. It'll probably be fine, but it won't get me running out and buying an X1. I'll stick with my PS4 and highly successful WiiU, thank you very much.

#73 Edited by TheSouthernDandy (3872 posts) -

I don't think it's that crazy. They're devoting their entire effort to make a badass mp game and if they deliver that's totally worth full price. I get wanting a campaign, I like campaigns but if that's all you want from a shooter this isn't your game.

#74 Posted by geirr (2574 posts) -

I just spent 60usd on EverQuest Next: Landmark which is purely online, so I'd say no.

Of course I'll never give EA money again whatever the case, so for them it might be ballsy or just plain ignorant.

#75 Posted by Bloodgraiv3 (2712 posts) -

A little bit, I think as long as there's enough content to support it I don't see a problem.

#76 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@geirr said:

I just spent 60usd on EverQuest Next: Landmark which is purely online, so I'd say no.

Of course I'll never give EA money again whatever the case, so for them it might be ballsy or just plain ignorant.

Is not an EA game thou, they don't own Respawn nor any Titanfall property, they just distributing the game trough their partner's program.

#77 Edited by Encephalon (1262 posts) -

They wouldn't have bothered with their whole "multiplayer with campaign moments" schtick if they weren't at least a little bit concerned.

#78 Posted by xyzygy (9996 posts) -

Considering that many people buy CoD and BF just to play Multiplayer, I'd say no.

#79 Edited by big_jon (5730 posts) -

Lol. The same could be said about a single player only experience with this sort of logic.

#80 Edited by MonkeyKing1969 (2775 posts) -

I don't see this as an issue. The game is WORKING as intended, the main mode of the game is multiplayer...that's teh point playing the game. It is either $60 worth of multiplayer or it isn't.

#81 Posted by isomeri (1278 posts) -

Due to the high demand for games on these next-gen systems I bet that publishers could easily charge 80 bucks for games and we should all just be glad that they don't.

#82 Edited by pyrodactyl (2043 posts) -

This game is the ONLY reason I'm even considering buying a XboxOne and the more I see of the game, the less interest I have. It seems like CoD with Mechs (to be fair mechs are pretty cool), without the single player. It'll probably be fine, but it won't get me running out and buying an X1. I'll stick with my PS4 and highly successful WiiU, thank you very much.

I have the exact same setup. I wouldn't call my WiiU ''highly successful'' though, since it's been a monster hunter machine for me and I haven't touched it in 6 months. Let's hope X is good and they announce 1 other interesting game at E3 instead of endless plateformers and lazy sequels.

#83 Posted by SharkEthic (1049 posts) -

How is spending hundreds of hours playing, let's say, MAG not worth $60? Would a 6 hour shit show of a campaign really make a better value proposition? Your sense of entitlement is the only old school thing about this.

#84 Edited by Dezztroy (796 posts) -

@slaegar: Please tell me which part of the stream that is from. I need to know.

#85 Posted by crithon (3266 posts) -

sooooo uhhhh how many levels, chapters or campaigns are in this always multiplayer game then? Is it like Left 4 Dead where it's replayable? When you replay do you have previous load outs? There's still a lot of unanswered questions about this game. So why not ask why isn't there single player? Maybe I would like to stare at the models without being shot at like the end of Modern Warfare 2?

#86 Edited by hermes (1487 posts) -

No, it is not.

Based on the price/value ratio that people seems to use to justify these kind of questions, a multiplayer game with potentially infinite replay value has more "value" that a short single player game with little replay value.

#87 Edited by CatsAkimbo (626 posts) -

I was so mad when Dice put singleplayer into Battlefield 3. It was bland and boring and I wished they had put that time/energy into multiplayer and kept it multiplayer only like BF2. The same thing happened with Bioshock 2, but vice versa. Tacking on a game mode just to "sell more" is ridiculous if that mode doesn't have the full attention it deserves, so I'm very excited for Titanfall just based on the fact that it is multiplayer only.

#88 Posted by sodapop7 (234 posts) -

I'd say if this was announced just 2 or 3 years ago it'd be much more ballsy. The prominence of MOBAs and shit have made people much more comfortable with multiplayer only titles (I know those are free but the idea of multiplayer only is what I'm getting at).

#89 Posted by phantomzxro (1577 posts) -

No, i don't think its a big deal anymore. Call of duty and battlefields single player stories are 5 hours at most and are fairly average stories that don't really add much value when you think about it. Its nice to have a content packed game but if they can pull that off in a different way i'm down to give it a shot.

#90 Posted by xaLieNxGrEyx (2605 posts) -

I'd rather pay $60 for a solid, well crafted multiplayer than $60 for an adventure-line single player and completely broken or poorly balanced multiplayer.

#91 Posted by RazielCuts (2955 posts) -

@slaegar:

Also the collectors edition is $250, now that's ballsy.

#92 Posted by Onomatopoeia (101 posts) -

It's ballsy to charge $60 for a fucking game these days.

#93 Edited by ProfessorEss (7377 posts) -

@xeiphyer said:

They have the pedigree to get away with it easily. Especially when all the "From the makers of Call of Duty..." trailers start hitting the TV.

I bet they use "From the CREATORS of Call of Duty".

They got some big expectations to live up to and this game would be judged primarily on its multiplayer regardless so I think it's smart for them to focus 100% on it.

#94 Posted by Onomatopoeia (101 posts) -

@xeiphyer said:

They have the pedigree to get away with it easily. Especially when all the "From the makers of Call of Duty..." trailers start hitting the TV.

"From the CREATORS of Call of Duty".

"They present a game that totally isn't Call of Duty, with ROBOTS!"

#95 Posted by chilibean_3 (1642 posts) -

No. Like, not at all. Holy crap no. There a so many people who never even touch the single player of games like Call of Duty. The last couple Battlefields shouldn't have wasted their time with the single player. It's smart.

#96 Posted by Lunnington (183 posts) -

I want to say "no" because I hate it when they throw in single player to justify the price, but on the other hand I really wish games were cheaper.

#97 Posted by lowestformofwit (211 posts) -

We've been paying $60 for multiplayer only games for a while now. Basically the entire Battlefield franchise, most of post-Call of Duty 4 CoD games might as well be multiplayer only at this point..

If it is a good game, its worth the money.

Exactly.

I'd much rather see developers focusing on one or the other. Bill me full price for a single player game or a multiplayer only game but don't develop both single and multiplayer components and pretend to me that the same amount of quality will shine in both products.

#98 Posted by spraynardtatum (2972 posts) -

depends on how many maps there are. Titanfall is awesome but theyre being very quiet about how many maps there are

#99 Edited by Crysack (317 posts) -

It's ballsy to sell a multiplayer-only game for $80+ in a country where there are no local servers.

#100 Edited by RVonE (4638 posts) -

@crysack said:

It's ballsy to sell a multiplayer-only game for $80+ in a country where there are no local servers.

Agreed.