Top
320°

Titanfall: $60 Price Justified For The Xbox One Multiplayer Only Game?

Titanfall is Respawn Entertainment’s next big title coming out for the Xbox One and PC sometime in spring 2014. The game makes use of the aging 10-year old Source engine with some updates made by the Respawn team to bring the title out for the next gen.

Read Full Story >>
gamer.blorge.com
The story is too old to be commented.
greenpowerz1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

Many of the biggest next gen games are online only. These types of games justify their price more than any other types.

The replay value in these new cloud based online games on all platfoms is sick. Change the game on the fly and add to it? I mean come on.

Rather spend my money on games like The Divsion and Destiny than Tomb Raider(don't get me wrong TR was one of the best offline games of this gen)

dazzrazz1066d ago

I'm wondering what you gonna say 2-3 years from now when they gonna turn of the servers for that "sick cloud based game" of yours because it will not sell or something... and all you gonna be left with is a useless coaster

Enemy1066d ago

Pretty sure Destiny and The Division aren't multiplayer only. They both have solo campaigns. I'd like to know what these "many" are that greenpowerz speaks of.

Tony-A1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

No, I'm sure TitanFall will sell just fine, especially when they announce it's PS3 and PS4 debut (obviously) because of the install base and bigger audience present on those platforms.

I mean, come on... it's so obvious that the game isn't exclusive that it might as well say "look out for the PS4 version coming next month!" on the back of the XBO version.

Oh, and as for this topic. I'm not entirely sure. I'd have to play it more to see if it's justifiable, but Warhawk was a great online-only title. It was, however, $20 cheaper, which I believe is the sweet spot for those games.

s8anicslayer1066d ago

Two or three years from now people will be playing titanfall 2 or 3.

corvusmd1066d ago

If the game gives me enjoyment for 2-3 years and then goes P2P...I think it will have been worth $60

Corpser1066d ago

What awful company is going to turn off servers for a multi player only game so soon after release?

it would be like if Sony turn off servers for MAG in 2014, 4 years after the game release

/sarcasm

JoySticksFTW1066d ago

Gotta love it when gamers say they don't mind this, but when Warhawk released earlier this gen, people were all up in arms over paying full price for a multiplayer only game (that even came with a Bluetooth earpiece).

Some journalists were even deducting points off their review scores due to pricing; and not due to the quality of the game itself.

Sony couldn't catch a break back then. Shame too. Warhawk was one of my favorite gaming experiences this gen and deserves a proper sequel ( Warhawk 2; NOT Starhawk).

H0RSE1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

@dazzrazz

Not if it has bot support...

HammadTheBeast1066d ago

@Corpse

More like MS shutting down every Xbox original server 5 years after the release.

joab7771066d ago

Not a great argument. If I spend $60 on a game that is gonna b amazing...look at all the awards it is getting...and I play it for months to a yr, I am gonna b happy with my purchase. Developers and publishers have already thought about this. If in 3-5 yrs no one is playing an online only game...similar to mmos...it will go f2p somewhere and then eventually it will die. This will have no impact on whether I spent $60 on it yrs ago! I would rather battlefield do no sp at all and focus resources on the multiplayer. Some games would b better with 8 more maps and modes (like CoD). By the time most online only games die...their sp counterpart would cost $5 at gamestop.

Narutone661066d ago

I see a SimCity joke somewhere.

ohiostatesman1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

This game is the next big thing. It's gonna sell millions on Xbox One and 360. I hope MS makes this series exclusive to the Xbox One like they did with Epic's gears of war series. That would be fantastic.

Gamer19821066d ago

Destiny is a fully evolving world you pay for that this game is an online shooter you cannot compare.. This will be the very first ever premium online only shooter. This is to pay for those MS servers as Respawn wasn't gonna pay for them were they?

trafalger1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

"I'm wondering what you gonna say 2-3 years from now when they gonna turn of the servers for that "sick cloud based game" of yours because it will not sell or something"

then i guess i'll have to go back to the bank when i want to buy a new game to play and ask for another loan, stretched out for 36 months. hopefully i get approved.

hmmm. 10,368 hours of online fun versus an average 10-14 hour single player game. you're right, $60 is asking way too much.

malokevi1066d ago

"2-3 years from now when they turn off the servers"

lol. I hear this ridiculous statement again and again so that Sony's faithful can have justification against Always-online and online-only games.

So, tell me, what source was it that stated these games would be taken offline in a matter of years?

Because I still play R6 Vegas 1 on my Xbox360 years later.... seems to be chugging along quite nicely.

Lets obviously selectively and conveniently forget the fact that MS has invested billions in a cloud service that offers servers and unbelievably low prices to all of its developers, and can sustain them for as long as they see fit.

Would they see fit to take a title, that by all counts is going to be a system selling and unit moving showpiece title, offline after a few years?

Seems like wishful thinking on the part of a few butthurt Sony zelots.

Get your fix, fellaz, because when this thing drops everyone is going to stop listening to you.

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 1066d ago
Tw1tch3D1066d ago

Wow,

you've just done yourself a no no...

how the division or destiny came into the picture, IDK!

Anyways, $60 is more than worth what this game is going offer. Ask yourselves, you didn't literally buy the BF or CoD for it's single player, right?!

Good_news_every11066d ago SpamShow
Tw1tch3D1066d ago

And why you have two bubbles good sir...

kayoss1066d ago

I only play cod mainly for the single campaign. To me the multiplayer is just icing on the cake.

showtimefolks1066d ago

greenpowerz

destiny and division both have solo campaigns

my thing is let's wait and see how titanfall delivers, let's not judge a game before its release. it has single player story elements mixed in to MP

Narutone661066d ago

I see, greenpowerz already received his white XBox 1. Too bad you only has one bubble left. Maybe you could use your alternate accounts.

Shadonic1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

add to it but theres probably going to be a price to pay for DLC expansions and stuff, I mean really MS invented DLC right? whose to say they wont push on that again.

1nsomniac1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

No! This is exactly whats wrong with the industry, silly naive people think the price should be based on replayability So devs think they can get away with it. Where normal sane people understand that price is be based on content as with every single other industry or product available in the world.

This is just proof of the immaturity that still runs strong in the gaming industry & the people who allow it to go on.

iamnsuperman1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

I bubbled you up for this (I hope others do). This is a big problem in the gaming world. The price should be based on content not re-playability (especially when a lot of that re-playability comes from paid DLC). If re-playability was a factor in price then Logoz quiz, Score, angry birds, temple run (all mobile games) should cost £100 because I managed to sink in hundreds of hours into these games (especially when I went away to a third world country for 6 months). Those games had a lot of re-playability

Gamer19821066d ago

Exactly I been banging on about this for years now. Companys using multiplayer to sell a game. The great thing about that is your using other gamers to do your job for you essentially.

rainslacker1066d ago

So, it's OK to disregard those of us that prefer a single player campaign, and might like to go online once in a while? Seems this gen publishers had no problem taking on MP to every SP game out there, which not do the same in reverse next gen?

There are plenty of SP gamers out there, and our $60 is worth as much as the MP $60. If they don't want my money, so be it. I can find value in a good SP game to warrant spending $60, I've never found that value in a MP only game, barring an MMORPG, which tend to be quite repetitive after a while in content. Cloud may fix that, but given that most MMO's don't have content change that often, I doubt any publisher wanting to make money is going to push out new content on a frequent basis. They can't even do that now when they sell that added content. All the more reason why I'm skeptical of all this MP only trend.

trenso11066d ago

"The game makes use of the aging 10-year old Source engine with some updates made"

why is no one bashing them for this? Any COD article will have at least one comment about the engine, but since respawn is doing it is ok? Not being a troll fanboy or what ever label you would like to use, just wondering about this double standard.

caseh1066d ago

Because Titanfall is a clean build from the ground up, it isn't a sequel. If they can build a new game based on that engine then why shouldn't they?

If Titanfall sequels are built on the same engine then you will no doubt see the game geting the same treatment as CoD. take into account, it took 3-4 iterations of CoD before people complained about it being a cut & paste job.

iamnsuperman1066d ago

I do agree with you. Also no one is bashing the apparent twitch control scheme. From what I have read and understood this is a twitch based shooter. I love that (one of the reason I like COD) but the countless times I see people discrediting COD because of its twitchy gameplay. You can't have it both ways. I am interested in Titanfall but I don't hide the fact I like COD and its gameplay

Baka-akaB1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

"why is no one bashing them for this? Any COD article will have at least one comment about the engine, but since respawn is doing it is ok?"

Because for their first forray with source engine Titanfall is already looking way better than Ghosts ? And only time will tell if there will be small incrementations of quality as seen with cod , or actual graphical upgrades ?

And because hiding behind the 60fps excuse will not that easily works next gen with most announced running at 60 fps anyway ?

FamilyGuy1066d ago

This isn't an MMO, it's just online only, like Warhawk, yet Warhawk launched at $40. Titanfall is launching at $60 because that's how much they want to launch it at. It has enough hype for them to get away with it too.

That's just all there is to it. If they release tons of free DLC I can see it being "fair" otherwise it's just price gouging.

caseh1066d ago

MAG released at the same price point that Titanfall will launch for.

It's price shouldn't be dictated by the fact it is online only but by the game itself. I poured in about 800 hours on MAG, how many hours are you putting into your single player games to justify the price tag hmm?

FamilyGuy1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

MAG, with 256 players in a single game, is on par with MMOs.

"how many hours are you putting into your single player games to justify the price tag hmm? "

This, however, is a very significant statement. I definitely get more hours from playing a game online but the argument is for the fact that those games STILL HAVE A SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN.
I may still play them online but the story mode gives the back story and usually has some extra production value behind it.

Having actors voicing roles, the motion capture for cut-scenes, writers for the story etc all cost money. A game coming out at $60 without having to pay for any of that is basically price gouging.
It's costing them a lot less to make the game so they should in turn charge less.

Either way it's all about perceived value, Titanfall looks fun so people will pay the price.

vickers5001066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

"MAG, with 256 players in a single game, is on par with MMOs."

How so? Just because it has 256 players that means it's on par with an MMO? Player count is all it takes to make a game 'on par' with an mmo?

I'd think that the content itself would determine that fact, not the amount of players possible in the game, and although I only played MAG for a few hours, I don't think it has quite as much content as your average MMO.

"I definitely get more hours from playing a game online but the argument is for the fact that -->those games STILL HAVE A SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN<--"

Simply saying something like that doesn't really mean anything, as it doesn't say anything about the QUALITY of the game one way or another. It seems your implication with that phrase was basically to say "it doesn't have single player, so clearly it's an automatically inferior game", which isn't true, it's simply your opinion.

"Having actors voicing roles, the motion capture for cut-scenes, writers for the story etc all cost money."

I don't know about you personally, but I don't think most people attach value to something based on all those individual factors, at least not all the time with every game. Therefore it's not really right for you to say for a fact that the game is an attempt at price gouging. For you that could certainly be the case and that's fine, but don't state your opinion on it for yourself as if it is a fact, because it isn't.

All those things are nice (great voice acting, mo-cap, good cutscenes, good story), but they mean absolutely nothing to me if I don't find the game fun, and if I don't find a game fun at all, the games value is absolutely worthless to me.

People pay for the amount of fun they believe they will have and also length. If one of the more detailed elements are lacking (crappy voice acting) it's not a lesser value game to them (well, not to ME anyways).

"It's costing them a lot less to make the game so they should in turn charge less."

I don't think you are in a position to claim that the game costs less than other games to make, (neither am I or anyone not involved with the development of the game for that matter), because we simply don't know. We haven't even seen all or even most of the game yet. There could be aspects of the game that are just as expensive or even more expensive than some other games.

"Either way it's all about perceived value, Titanfall looks fun so people will pay the price."

That is true. Unfortunately it's also true that if Titanfall were to launch below $60, the general public, and even a large amount of gamers themselves, would automatically see Titanfall as a lesser game, because generally that has been the case for sub 60 games.

Back to the value point, I will say this to you, if Titanfall does for online fps what COD4 did for online fps back in the day, then it will be worth every penny to me, and nothing you can say will change that reality for me personally, just as nothing I can say will change the reality for you that no single player means a lesser experience. Value is subjective, it's just not something that can be determined by checking off some boxes on a pre-determined list that equates to X amount of value.

The value of a product isn't something that you can decide for others, it's something you can only decide for yourself.

kickerz1066d ago

from article "While the game looks fun, the graphics are a bit lacking when compared to other next gen titles..."
Reading sH#t like that really pi$$es me off sometimes. if its really fun then who cares, honestly. still looks amazing to me. Hey guys instead of reading this rubbish how about read this - http://au.ign.com/articles/...
opions from people who have actually played this game

Shadowsteal1066d ago

Dude don't be like that. No one praises COD's graphics so so what if he mentioned Titanfall looks like crap? If you follow the mindset "it looks fun, who cares about graphics" then get a Wii U or get the 360 version of Titanfall if you really don't care.

kickerz1066d ago

Sorry I lost my cool a bit there. To me the game looks awesome and plays awesome buying it the day it's realeased on Xbox one

LiQuiZoN1066d ago

Any online only games are games I will not be buying. Last thing I need is more MMO wannabes. They suck your life out of you and years later you realize how much time you wasted on a game which had zero positive impact n your life. Obviously I speak from experience being 30 now.

I'm sure younger people will eat it up but don't say I didn't warn you when your at the bottom of the food chain when you get older!

-LiQ

iMixMasTer8721066d ago SpamShow
+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1066d ago
Bigpappy1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

Sure starting to look like it? There are already a huge amount of gamers who only play certain games online.

I prefer single player, but appreciate that online only has its upsides for a lot of gamers. This game in particular, allows for a lot of options. Your strength seems to be: How well can you use the options at your disposal? This is a game where you need to keep moving. More like Halo than Gears but a lot faster than Halo, because you can fly at anytime.

NatureOfLogic1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

Simply put, no online only game should cost $60. No matter how over hyped the game is.

Tw1tch3D1066d ago

Even if it that's what gives it's value through replayability?!

Having more gaming stamina than single player, shows me my $60 worth. IT'S A FPS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

nature of logic...?

HammadTheBeast1066d ago

If it's MP only, there better be a hella lot of content for multiplayer.

Mario181066d ago

Warhawk was 60$ and it was so worth it. (it also came ith a bluetooth mic)

Jeff2571066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

You could also download it at launch for 29.99 or buy it at retail without the headset for 39.99. But including the headset at that price was a good move. It was also something Sony did with SOCOM Confrontation and MAG. Both released as stand alone for 39.99 or with the newer headset for 59.99.

ginsunuva1066d ago

No it was technically $40

ZBlacktt1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

Well, you have to consider these guys are Call of Duty. Most all COD fans talk about how their single player is only 5 to 6 hours long. But the real reason they buy COD is for the multiplayer of course. So knowing who these guys are, they are going to get their asking price most certainly for this game. In fact, they won't even have a hard time selling it. Just like SOCOM's huge fanbase. This is what COD fans are just waiting on to come out.

urwifeminder1066d ago (Edited 1066d ago )

Yeah its fine I don't really play single player anymore same stories meh, I do love co op it helps me be bothered to finish the story.