Titanfall, Half a game, Same full price

Garreth said "Don’t get the wrong idea, I play Titanfall online and enjoy it’s limited modes for the most part, but where the hell is the other half of my game?! If gamers wanted to play nine maps back to back in different modes, we could just select the Variety Pack from the menu, and even then get more variety than the campaign gives us. In the past Microsoft managed to give us brilliant exclusives on the Xbox platform, such as Gears Of War, that again not only had a host of multiplayer modes, but a very engaging campaign throughout the entire series......."

[Sammy777]

no one is forcing you to buy Titanfall. If you like the style of the game , buy it. If not, don't bother

[dedicatedtogamers]

I do find it odd how MGS Ground Zeroes got a ton of flak for being "beatable in 2 hours" and even when they revealed the price would be $40/$30, many people said that's way too short.

And yet the so-called "online campaign" in Titanfall (which is terribly dull, btw) takes only two hours and no reviewer mentions it. The limited game modes and limited selection of weapons (not to mention glaring technical problems on PC and X1) get no mention at all. Moneyhats, anyone?

[ShowGun901]

agreed... if cod dropped its SP campaign, can you imagine the uproar on here if the price stayed at $60? there'd be hell to pay on the forums! but its ok as long as its their first game of the series? hypocrite much?

[No_Limit]

I can play Titanfall for hours and against other competitor online so the argument that it is 1/2 a game is garbage because you can say the same thing for Warhawk, Socom, an MAG as well, if that is the case. Single player games needs to provide length for full value because once you beat it, there is very little replay value to it. End Rant.

[AliTheSnake1]

@No_Limit It's about experience, not just how long you play. New blurays are around 40 bucks, for example. Campaigns offer epic experiences, and they are usually highly produced, with great story,epic score,script and voice acting. I usually get Call of duty, mainly to play the campaign. Looks like Titanfall is about to ruin it for everyone by starting this trend of no campaigns for full price.

[maniacmayhem]

@Dedicated

Because the main draw and focus is on the multiplayer aspect of the game. It was built with that in mind and with it comes more than 2 hours of campaign enjoyment. Even the campaign changes depending on what other players are in the game with you.

Unlike MGS Ground Zero which has no replay value at all once you beat it in two hours.

There are no moneyhats as you and others like to keep mentioning in every review of Titanfall. That supposed moneyhatting must have extended to the patrons on the games floor during events, the many awards it received, almost all reviews pre Titanfall's release and over half of the reviews now right?

It's amazing that MS or EA are still in business with all that money they had to shell out to get the good reviews.

Lets not give any credit to Respawn actually making a tight, very fun game despite the "obvious" technical problems you seem to be getting when you yourself personally play the game.

[pompombrum]

Did you seriously just compare Titanfall to MGS Ground Zero?

[Dannyh]

So does that make infamous second son a half game because it has no online

[vickers500]

"I usually get Call of duty, mainly to play the campaign."

"Campaigns offer epic experiences, and they are usually highly produced, with great story"

"Call of Duty"
"great story"

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[antz1104]

No, metal gear is taking flak for being 2 hours.....and that's it. The Titanfall campaign is short but the bulk of the game is online play which ppl are dumping days into.

Value of a game is subjective to whoever plays it.

[PONTIAC08G8GT]

How do people justify $60 COD then? Isn't COD basically the same game mechanics, just with new maps, some new guns, and a couple perks? I don't hear anyone crying paying $60 for a a new COD every year. Should Madden be cheaper because it's just roster updates and a new "tackling" engine?

The argument is, it's a MP only game. OK, Skryim is a single player only game yet that was $60. You can spend 100 hours in Skryim, but you could do the same for Titanfall.

The whole price thing, stop complaining. Those that own it know it's worth $60.

[Clogmaster]

Warhawk wasn't $60

[Boody-Bandit]

"Because the main draw and focus is on the multiplayer aspect of the game. It was built with that in mind"

The main draw and focus of COD and BF are their online component as well.

As far as money changing hands for positive feedback. Was it not MS just caught doing this with youtube reviewers, Machinima and other outlets? You guys do realize how websites work, don't you? They primarily survive through advertising dollars. Who advertises more than MS, EA and Activison in the gaming industry.

You don't think that makes it harder for media outlets to be more critical of them? Try telling that to anyone in business with their big clients regardless of what they personally think of them or their products. Try telling your boss you're going to put a big money client in his place and see how long it takes him to tell you to clean out your desk and be gone.

Sorry but in business money talks and definitely gets you favoritism and privileges most others don't.

Just look at how BF4 was rated and then it hits retail and is a broken mess for the 1st several weeks to couple months. Money talks.

@D-Du
Yeah it's amazing how times have changed. Warhawk was criticized for being online only and still till this day it was one of the smoothest online experiences, as far as low level latency to none at all, I've ever played on a console. I mean that game ran like silk online.

It's a shame it didn't take off and build a substantial audience. When I first saw TitanFall it reminded me of Warhawk. In that it's main draw was a vehicle. Now let's get one of these devs to make a crossover verion. Warhawks X Titans.

[4Sh0w]

MGSV Ground Zero= 2 hr demo.

Titanfall= online multiplayer focused game.

Big difference, if not then I see no reason why inFamous SS should not take a huge hit for lack of multiplayer like GTA5 has.

Also Warhawk had no mass criticism for online only, and the soap box ranters can't post a quote for past criticism when games like MAG were being hyped, its convenient NOW to suggest every game must have a SP campaign, while also ignoring games with no multi or giving poor excuses why one is OK and one is not when the bottom line is the avg user spends more time PLAYING multiplayer games.

[AliTheSnake1]

@vickers500 You ever played a call of duty campaign? Obviously not

[vickers500]

@AliTheSnake1

Yeah, I have. I've played and beat CoD2, CoD4, MW2 (all three on veteran), World at War, I played through 75% of Black Ops 1s campaign, and 50% of Black Ops 2s campaign (and about 20 minutes of MW3, though I couldn't stand 20 minutes of that trash).

CoD2/CoD4/MW1/World at War and parts of MW2 had sorta fun campaigns, but the story is no where near "great" in any of them, especially MW2 and everything afterwards.

I honestly wouldn't care the slightest bit if post-MW2 CoD games didn't have any single player at all, the stories are terrible, the gameplay is generic and mostly linear, the set pieces aren't very impressive anymore and it's just an overall crappy and worthlessly unnecessary experience, and I'd be willing to bet 90% of the people who still play and buy CoD would agree with me.

[DOMination-]

Infamous has no multiplayer. Half a game...

[AliTheSnake1]

@vickers500 Thanks for emphasizing, you have weird taste in campaigns. I find the older campaigns of cod 2 and 3 really boring, all you do is walk through the same environment and shoot. COD4 was fun but MW2 topped it big time. And BO1 and BO2 topped them, easily comparable, huge leap in every aspect; story, map design, Voice acting, score,dialogue, over the top action scenes, great setpieaces and twists.It's like playing a long summer blockbuster movie. I just don't understand how you think Cod 2,3 and 4 are superior to MW2,BO1 and BO2.All the people I know who play COD, love the campaign and think it's epic

@DigitalxAlchemist @DOMination- @edonus @4Sh0w
You fail miserably at comparing the two. The money spent on producing multilayer is nothing, compared to the money spent on producing a campaign. All you need is to create the maps, weapons,modes, and program and test from there.A campaign needs a story,score,voice acting, characters and character development, Environment designs, more work on AI.All of this cost a lot of money to produce. It's not all about how long you play, I'm sorry but that's a stupid way of thinking.It's like buying a set of cards for 60 bucks.

It's also about the QUALITY OF THE EXPERIENCE; think of watching 3 movies in dvd low quality at your house, vs watching a movie, possibly in 3d, on the big screen. Quantity <<< Quality.

[vickers500]

@AliTheSnake

If you like them, then more power to you, but I can't stand them, and disagree with pretty much everything you said.

As for why I like previous campaigns, they were just more memorable than newer titles.

CoD4 had the opening execution scene, the nuke scene where you crawl around looking for survivors until your death (my favorite part of the game), the all ghilled up section and I can't recall if this was mw2 or mw1, but I think the scene at the end where you either throw a knife at the last boss or shoot someone in slow mo.

MW2 I should clarify, I did like a little bit (as in I think it was worth being there), the jet ski scene and that ending scene (which I can't seem to remember which particular one it was, knife or pistol, probably knife now that I think about it) were both memorable moments that I enjoyed.

The only thing about Black Ops 1 that I remember is getting pissed off at a certain section on veteran difficulty and putting it down forever (and some very ugly graphics).

Black Ops 2 I just found boring.

Newer Call of Duty games are just a series of unimpressive set pieces to me. When you see something explode 100 times, it eventually starts to lose its appeal and wow factor.

Call of Duty 2 and World At War I liked because it gave you a real sense of being in an actual war, nothing to grandiose and over the top unrealistic like most newer cod games.

[LordDhampire]

yeah but most these reviews overscored the game, I bought it because all the high scores and while its a fun game, it is lacking content basic things like characters cutomization or emblems on mech, just small stuff what adds up. Its a good game but its not great because its lacking small things the competition has, and it doesn't feel like it will last the long haul.

A solid 8-8.5 not a 9

[Ra3030]

But Microsoft told us to buy it. They told us Titanfall is the greatest, bestest FPS game ever. They called it the Call of Duty killer, game changer they said. So now when the game doesn't meet the hype the advice changes to "if you like the style of game, buy it. If not, don't". To bad for those that took Microsofts word on what they were saying about Titanfall. The good thing is that based on sales not many were suckered. Based on sales Titanfall is no Call of Duty killer and no game changer. It's a FPS tranning game for those that suck at FPS type games. Titanfall is not even a console seller. How could Microsoft been so wrong on so many things on one game, how is that even possible. And before anyone comments on how Titanfall is only selling on PC and X1 so it can't be a Call of Duty killer. It's to late to change the story now plus there are what 40 maybe 50 million PC gamers that would be more than enough to make Titanfall a Call of Duty killer......if only it was a good enough game.

[FantasticBoss]

If you think that PC gamer numbers alone can kill COD then you are completely blind to the numbers behind why that game has been so massively popular and able to sell as many copies as it does. You think that magically the PC gaming crowd could EVER rally behind a game so hard as to outsell COD without a significant portion of the console market which is what drives it's sales in the first place? Come on man, that's just silly.

Honestly, TitanFall is a blast. Does it change everything? Not necessarily, but so what? I'm having a blast playing it. Yeah, the campaign is weak, but I payed 60 bucks for BF3 and 4 and have barely even touched their campaigns because I honestly don't care about them. At least Respawn didn't dump millions and millions into a mode I'll never play that ends up being super luke warm anyways, allowing them to put more time and money into making the best MP experience they can. They made a solid and tight playing online game with an exhilarating fast pace and a unique multi layered combat mechanic with the titans. It's fun! Do I think it can topple COD? As a franchise, very possibly, with time. However, anyone who expected this thing to immediately outsell the biggest sales juggernaut in gaming is a fool.

Also, not a console seller? X1 sales about doubled at the release of the game.

Finally, a training shooter? Really? Why, because it's soooo easy? Look, in any competitive game someone has to win and someone has to lose. The one who wins is the one who plays the game better. It is purely down to how good you are at the game. Sur, some are harder to get the hang of then others, but at the end of the day the difficulty of a match is set by the players not the game.

During the beta I had one of my gaming buddies with a big stick up his ass about COD saying how he didn't like the game because it was "too easy, blah blah blah." Not enough recoil, I'm to good at shooters for this crap yadda yadda. The guy has played on professional teams and such for various games, so he's certainly no slouch. However, when we got him playing he got his ass handed to him over and over again and then said the game is crap.

You obviously have an agenda and you are going to stop it nothing to shit all over everyone else parade. Get over it, it's a fun game and if you legitimately don't like the game, that's fine.

People like you need to stop going out of your way to tell people what they can and cannot be allowed to enjoy just because you feel like you have to save the world with ass hattery.

[Philoctetes]

I'm on PS4 so I won't be playing this game anyway, but come on. People buy online shooters for the MP, not SP. A multiplayer-only shooter is more like 98% of a game, not half a game.

[Palitera]

PS4 and XBone here, but don't have TF yet.

But yes. It is better not to have a campaign than to waste resources in a CoD-like shallow campaign mode.

-

I bet all these whiners that ask for any stupid campaign (like in the game mentioned above) are the same ones that say that games shouldn't get tacked-on MP modes.

Well, guess what? Now you're asking for tacked-on SP modes.

-

This goes both ways. If your MP or SP would be crap, don't waste time and resources on it.

[Orange Juice]

I agree, its not like they were misleading anybody otherwise. It was sold as a pure mp game for multiplayer gamers from day one, and more power to them. I dont want a tacked on sp in my mp games any more than I want mp thrown into my sp games just for the sake of adding "value". I dont play titanfall btw, but I do play warhawk and I totally disagree with this idea that both sp and mp are required to make a good game.

[SolidDuck]

Completely agree. I also wish games like battlefield would do this. Focus on mp, polish it up more, add a few more maps, weapons, ect... Ditch the sp completely. The sp are never very good, they don't hold up to good fps single player campaigns like bioshock or metro, there just a waste. The amount of games that have really good single and competative mp is tiny. Off the top of my head all I can think of is halo, and I actually enjoy both in uncharted. For the most part tho I would way rather games focus on being great in one area then ok in multiples. By the way titanfall is not my thing, not bashing it, I'm just not good at twitch shooters. But the fact that it's mp only is a good thing to me,

[_FantasmA_]

Its true that people buy shooters for the online, but even then Titanfail failed because it lacks modes, features, and other basic shooter things (like private matches WTF?) I mean if its going to be online only then it better make up for the lack of campaign with 25-30 maps, just as many modes, lots of characters, weapons, and customizations, things which it lacks. So its missing the campaign AND the features. This game should have been free to play or $25.

[Legacy212]

I stopped reading at "titan fall failed" lol your cutely delusional

[XboxFun]

Half a game? I guess single player only games are half a game too right?

the same amount of time, perhapse even more went into making this game. And its just as fun as any single player experience.

these biased, game reviewers, right n4g?

[Palitera]

Monkeys echoing a trend. Just this.

[OutlandGaMIng]

Single player games were never half before and still are not today but that all depends on which games we are talking about , open worlds are not half a game majority of the time or final fantasy games , but yes if you think about fps games with a single player only it does feel like half a game and theres reasons for that obviously , so when i see titanfall with no single player or even co-op campaign it does feel half assed from what is normally expected cause this is not OK no matter how much you enjoy the mp it is not ok for people to see this as not a problem cause if everyone takes a page from this book its gonna be bad news and @ a comment above "wasting resources ? " that would make sense if the multiplayer offered everything ! but it truly does not , I'm not here to entirely bash on Titanfall cause i enjoy it but not for hours on end and you must have pretty sold out or low expectations set for your gaming if you can really convince yourself your enjoying something new everytime you jump into a match in that game it really does need more and not dlc !!! ALL THE MP CONTENT SHOULDA BEEN INCLUDED FOR 60$

[GTgamer]

Games started without online MP so your saying every game we played in the passed was half a game :/ frankly I prefer offline MP classic slipt screen especially in racing games but now i cant even play a game in together in the same room with my brothers thanks to online MP. Oh and FYI TF is half a game not for the SP only but for small number of games modes/features i mean the game doesnt even have private Lobbies or private matches/Limited Customization/ and the thing about online only games is without intertent that game is rendered completely useless now that's why MWN review said the game is the beta With more Maps and your paying a full $60 for it.

[woodytheone]

agree want sp campaign :/

[Chug]

If it was $40, I'd probably pick it up on PC.

[hiptanaka]

Well said.

[GSKerns]

I think the reviews have been pretty fair... Titanfall is fun to play but is definitely not a killer app or does anything that makes the game feel "next-gen". Towerfall Ascension released on the same day and has higher review scores... that says a lot.

[vandal GAB]

TitanFall is extremely fun to play but does lack a lot of the features that other shooters have, it does feel like a striped down game .

[IanVanCheese]

I enjoyed Titanfall's campaign a damn site more than any of the recent Call of Duty's.

No one is forcing you to buy it. Vote with your wallet. I'm quite happy paying the £40 Titanfall cost me, I've already sunk 30+ hours into it, far more entertainment than most single player games can offer.

[Immorals]

Agreed. Worth every penny. On battlefield and cod (except w@w,that was a good all round game) I only play sp for the achievements, once I'd completed it, it was like it never existed.

[Debaitable]

It's a multiplayer focused game like BF4, get over it. Either you shit on them for not having a campaign or when there is a campaign, it's not good enough and it's a waste of resources. There are plenty of other single player games if that's what you're looking for.

[insomnium2]

Usually online only games are more affordable. Starhawk and Warhawk were below 60 dollars for example. Same with Socom. It's not the content people bitch about it's the price.

@edit below

I think you might be right. MAG was 60 bucks but it was butchered in reviews for that price.

[Ducky]

Starhawk and Socom weren't online only. They had a campaign.
They were also priced at $60. (I believe Socom came with a headset though, kinda like Warhawk)

An online-only game would be MAG, which was also $60.

[Wikkid666]

Come on... the average person is going to spend well over 50+ hours playing this game. How is that a bad value?

[insomnium2]

A game with either more content or a cheaper price is better value. That's the point.

[Ducky]

Any game with more content or a cheaper price is better value.

Again, what's the point?

[insomnium2]

Point? I guess the point is that this game is of less value to gamers than other games. But hey as long as the MC average is good it's all good.....right?

[Jag-T1000]

I already traded the game at Gamestop. ($40) I bought it thinking there was more to the "campaign" mode, but was very disappointed. If multiplayer is your thing, then this is your game, but don't expect much else.

[Jubez187]

But why would you think the campaign was going to be anything great? Do you go on video game sites? No one ever spoke of campaign...

[Duke19]

Not sure what people were expecting when they bought this game for a Campaign mode.

Do some research and if an online only multiplayer title isn't for you then don't buy it.

Im loving this game at the moment and honestly think it deserves alot of the praise it gets. That said, when I pickup Infamous, im not going to be like "Where the hell is my multiplayer - This game sucks!"

[AliTheSnake1]

Apples and Oranges. Quantity vs Quality.
Wanna buy a 60 Dollars set of cards, since it gives you unlimited time of "fun" ?

[gedden7]

Ive been saying this for MONTHS NOW... NO ONE WANTED TO BELIEVE ME...

THEY SAID ITS A BETA WHAT DO YOU EXPECT....

Now look at you, paid $60 for a shallow game, tards!!!

I still got my $60 in my pocket...

[xfear2diex]

the poor thing has 60$ in his pocket while the players play the game and having fun i don,t have the game thought have a crappy connection but people having fun with the game mean that the 60$ worth it if you think about it the first game was multiplayer game which was bong i believe so don,t tell me a signal player game deserve the 60$ and mp game dose not

[Jubez187]

I pay 60 for shooters with SP/MP and I never touch the SP. The MP usually gives me 30+ hours of enjoyment guaranteed. When's the last time a good shooter campaign was out? Like a MUST PLAY? I can't even remember. If you're still talking about SP in games like Titanfall, CoD, or BF then you have backwards thinking to begin with.

[Immorals]

Battlefield got my money. But then it was a mess, and it got traded in. The time they spent on sp could have been spent making sure that the mp actually worked. Shame, because I had such a good time on bf2 and the bad companies.

[Akira2020]

I think it's great that Titanfall was released only on Xbone/PC as a practice run. When Titanfall 2 gets released on all platforms next year, it'll actually be a completed game worth paying $60 for.

No more 6v6, Multiplayer only, and limited game modes.

[xfear2diex]

the game was designed around the 6v6 and why do you think it will be better with more players?
it will be mess with over 12 titans run around the map just think about its not about the console power it about the design and it will get more modes with the future you are just little kid with narrow mind

[Akira2020]

Well, I'm actually a big kid with a mind as vast as Omega Centauri.

Thanks for using poor grammar whilst attempting to call me a diminished centered juvenile. It was like being hit with a soft pillow carried by the wind.

[Wingsfan24]

Half a game. Hah.

[mhunterjr]

I don't get how an MP only game can be considered half a game, but a SP only game doesn't get the same criticism. Depending on a particular individual's play habits, the MP only game might be the one that gives him more bang for the buck.

Are games that have both SP and MP consider 1.5 games?

Bottom line is, not all games are created equally. Some games have both modes and aren't worth the disc they are burned on. Other games have one mode, but offer several dozens of hours of fun (or more) Personally, I decide how much I'm willing to spend on a game based on how many hours that game will keep me entertained. Typically, Anything less that 60hrs, and I won pay full price for it. I've made a few exceptions... TitanFall will easily keep my attention for over 60hrs, so buying it was a no brainer

[kryteris]

there is this part of the game called a campaign. That is where the problem lies, that and the limited modes.

[Hicken]

Because games started off as singleplayer only, for one. Because singleplayer games usually come with more than enough content and replayability to justify their prices.

Because the so-called campaign in Titanfall is lacking, as is the overall amount of content.

It's seriously not a difficult concept to understand.

[mhunterjr]

Again, that's going to boil down to the individual gamer. Not all $60 SP games offer a ton of replayability or play time. God of War is a great game, but you aren't going to spend as much time with it as you would spend playing Skyrim. Both SP only, both worth $60 at launch. The amount of playing time the average Titan fall player will get will be in between the two (and certainly way more than God of War), So again, how is it also not work $60?

The idea that single player games offer more replayability is patently false, especially once you consider most gamers don't even finish SP games.

[antz1104]

That's not true. Average single player games run 12-15 hours, then you're done. This isn't all, but most. Subsequent walkthroughs don't offer anything different in the story.

Multiplayer games, if that's your thing, can last 60+ hours if you enjoy it and play out a million different ways on a single map you've played a hundred times.

Once again, content is subjective...that's seriously not a hard subject to understand.

[DawnOfDon]

Playtime wise I get way more out of a multiplayer game than any single player game. I have probably 800+ hours total on Gears 1,2, and 3. I play a single player game maybe once than maybe go back to it a year or so later. I am not big on replaying games, that is why I only buy open world games mostly, when it comes to single player because you can get more out of it because you can explore.

I have no time paying $60 for a single player based game that I will get more time out of than a 10-15 hour single player game

Titanfall might lack guns and game modes but that is to it being rushed in my opinion, stuff will come in dlc (which I don't mind paying for a multiplayer title as long as it seems worth it

[Zombro]

If titanfall is a half a game same can be said about infamous put them together and you have a full game quit crying

[kryteris]

No one is forcing you to buy it! Muahhahaha. Stfu. Yes the game is great, and yes it is half a game, I find myself annoyed that I paid full price for this half baked crap. Fortunately the other half is amazing. EA, and MS are probably to be blamed.

[Doletskaya]

Arguing that a copy of Titanfall is only worth half the price of a full game is just as stupid as arguing about review scores. You can write a 20-page report about Titanfall needing a campaign to justify a 60 dollar price tag or how Infamous Second Son is repetitive, but at the end of the days, it's the consumers who decide the truth or vote with their wallets. So if tons of people buy Titanfall and Infamous and have like 20 hours of fun playing both of them, your argument to say otherwise only proves what a fool you are.

[SixtyNine]

You knew what you where getting before purchasing the game, a multiplayer only title. Where are the articles stating infamous seconds sons is half a game because it doesn't let me versus my friends using smoke powers online, or coop. Is infamous half a game too?

If you don't support multiplayer only titles. Don't bother writing articles, speak with your wallet.
But hey, let's get our own share of hits while Titanfall is still relevant.

[kevinsheeks]

Exactly the journalist knew what kind of audience he was pandering to angry fanboys

[JustInTlME]

Picked it up day 1 for $37. Not hard to find deals everywhere nowadays. I haven't paid retail for a game in years….

Regardless even if I had paid retail Titanfall is without a doubt worth the $60 price tag. Its just plain fun. All that matters.

[RoseSapphire]

You can't have a discussion about a game in a less than positive light if you also enjoy it. Why? Because the internet said so.

Regardless, I also feel that not only is Titanfall too expensive for what you receive but it is missing so many basic features that games made over a decade ago are laughing at it.

[Coach_McGuirk]

can't please everybody

[assdan]

I think that most multiplayer only games should cost $40. They usually do...

[mayberry]

I pay $60 for games with sp/mp and always play the sp. Titanfall is fun to play,but im wondering if Killzone Shadowfall was online only, whast would people say? The new free maps on sf are amazing btw! Online on sf is also a blast to play and very deep, so, I like both, but the spelling adds more to the story in mp, imho.

[GoodnessGreatness]

This game is too hyped up. The campaign mode is obviously rushed, while the multiplayer will get boring long after. Not really worth $60 for that.

[nerdman67]

I dont like this whole "half a game" argument.
By the same logic, there should never been single player only games either, because it is incomplete.
Flawed logic.
Back to inFamous, excuse me