Top
130°

Titanfall Should be Offered as a $30 Downloadable Title

Karam Elahi from SpawnFirst writes: "Now before everyone’s presumptuous nature involuntarily bubbles up, I might as well get this out of the way: Titanfall is one of my most anticipated titles of 2014. Respawn Entertainment has created something special. A shooter so different, yet oh-so familiar, imbibed with the Call of Duty heart of perfect controls, satisfying gunplay, rip-roaring action, all wrapped up in an AI and mech-filled battlefield – March cannot come soon enough. So what’s the point of this article? Well…Titanfall, in spite of all of its offerings, feels like it should be released as a $30 downloadable title instead of a full-priced, standard Xbox One game."

Read Full Story >>
spawnfirst.com
The story is too old to be commented.
miyamoto1436d ago

Don't count on it if your talking about M$.

Remember Halo ODST?

iamnsuperman1436d ago

Well EA but they aren't known to be generous

hakeem09961436d ago

Everyone got an opinion about how much a game should cost because all of you are aware of how much it cost to make a game of course . You know the exact budget,the exact man hours,the salaries of everyone working on the game and how good the game is or isn't .
Verdict nothing more than $30

Bravo to all of you ,i didn't know i was surrounded by industry leaders .SMFH

georgeenoob1435d ago

$30? You do realize Titanfall has broken the record as being the most awarded game to release, and is considered the most anticipated title of 2014 by most, yet we have Sony fans like Maria posting articles like this. Keep trying.

AngelicIceDiamond1436d ago

Respawn has been working 3 years. To undermind their creation is pretty harsh.

Considering we haven't played the thing yet.

We simply haven't played it yet. What are people basing this off a of a freakin player count?

Come on people.

TheXgamerLive1436d ago

Haha an obvious game of the year contender for 30 dollars oh never mind your a sony troll.

NeoTribe1436d ago

Goty contender? Doughtful. Same gen graphics, cod gameplay with mechs, and a horribly low player count. Ea doesnt make goty games. Well leave goty to sony titles like always. Uncharted 4 anyone?

Godmars2901436d ago

Or rather a $40 DL game. Given that its multiplayer only, requires XBL gold, and will have DLC.

bessy671436d ago

Every single player only game should also be discounted then.

Godmars2901436d ago

Not if effort goes into making an in-depth SP story with supporting mechanics.

No matter how you dress up a FPS, it boils down to a room or arena where shoot things. Its half developed entertainment rather than anything more in depth. That's why developers began putting elements from other genres into as they got tired.

But they're still more dependent on what the player brings into them.

torchic1436d ago (Edited 1436d ago )

games should not be $60 (€70 for us in Europe) in the first place.

with that said, that argument is weak as the amount of effort put into making a good single player in most cases is far more than the effort put into a good multiplayer.

the team utilised for the single player portion of a game is almost always much larger than the dudes handling the multiplayer portion. that is why Respawn can get away with working with such a small team, as it's an MP focused game.

bessy671436d ago

So tacked-on multiplayer in single player focused games is bad but tacked-on single player in multiplayer focused games is necessary? Why?

dantesparda1436d ago

@ bessy

Cuz its btter than nothing. I also do not like MP only games. They just dont feel like full games to me

bessy671436d ago

@dantesparda

So because you personally don't like MP games there shouldn't be any MP only games? Do you think World of Warcraft should have a single player game mode as well? What about Planetside, or Warframe, or DCUO?

ginsunuva1436d ago

Then we'd have more tacked-on multiplayer.

dantesparda1435d ago (Edited 1435d ago )

@bessy

I know that reading comprehension is not the strong point of many on this website, but seriously guy, reread what i wrote. No where in there did i say that i dont like MP games, but but rather that i dont like when they dont have SP component to them. And to answer your question, yes, yes and yes.

And just so that you realize the hypocrisy in your response, you said to me that just because i dont personally like,... well just cuz you dont personally like SP only games....

bessy671434d ago

Nope, I love a lot of single player only games. The hypocrisy comes from your end saying that these single player only games do count as full games and should be full price but multiplayer only games are not full games and should be discounted.

dantesparda1434d ago

From "my end"? oh yeah thats right, you're a MS fanboy, so to you anybody who isnt sweating MS must be a Sony fanboy, right? I own a 360 kid, and i dont sweat either company, i call it like i see it. But single players games have always been full games. And yes, MP only games are seen as half games by most people. And it aint a Sony fanboy thing, so deal with it

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1434d ago
theWB271436d ago

The hyperbole around this game now is hilarious. It's just showing how desparate journalism and the new lets cry about everything under the sun way of doing things is.

Now it should offered as a 30$ dollar DL game ONLY after the news about player count comes out.

It's funny the best selling MP game from last gen, Call of Duty, didn't have an absurd player count and it launched as an un-optimized mess on every platform. The 64 player battles in BF is all but unplayable on every platform.

But one of the most anticipated titles this year should be 30 bucks based off player count. Shame...

karamsoul1436d ago

Not just the player count. Read the article.

theWB271436d ago (Edited 1436d ago )

Reasons...
1. Multiplayer- Doesn't hold up to me. Why? Because two of the most popular shooter franchises around, COD&BF, offer 4-5 hour campaigns that allot people consider to be fluff. I've heard, more than enough, that BF should drop its SP altogether and just focus on Mp.

2. Gameplay- Goes back to player count. The actual gameplay wasn't discussed here. The actual gameplay that's been praised to the high moon by everyone that's had hands on time.

3."More for less" I hate that argument...more for less. That's purely subjective. Should Skyrim cost more than 60$ because it packs hundreds of hours worth of content? How about Mass Effect? The Division won't have SP and will be always online...what should the pricing be there? I don't get that argument at all.

4. Graphics- Wow...pricing a game based off graphics now too? COD isn't a graphical marvel. Should it cost 20 bucks now..that's two strikes...low player count, SP campaign almost nonexistent, not a graphical benchmark. Sorry that's 3 strikes. COD should cost 15 bucks now.

5. Growing pains- You have no idea how it will hold up, but you still dock points. Uh..no.

As my comment said...it's hyperbole and sensationlist gaming "journalism" at its finest. The big thing is to find anything and make it bigger than it is. Right now Titanfall is in the crosshairs of shoddy "journalism."

Can't wait to see what game is next.

karamsoul1436d ago

1. Yup. And I fully agree with you. BF and CoD need to drop the tacked on SP, and focus on multiplayer. And yes, as a consequence, the cost of any future games NEEDS to be reduced.

2. Player count is an issue here. Don't try to re-direct the fire. It's not a tactical game; it's a fully-fleshed chaotic MP game. Nevertheless, this is the most weakest argument out of all the points. Once we actually play the game we'll find out just how well it works.

3. More for less DOES matter. Otherwise, people will feel cheated. Skyrim at $60 is an amazing deal, still, $60 is the maximum amount that publishers should ask from their customers. Halo 4 and Reach are also filled to the brim with content. And with Titanfall, we get a multiplayer title only, with NO OTHER MODES to fall back on.

4. I actually agree with you. Strike off the campaign in CoD and just charge us for the multiplayer. At $30 - $40, CoD multiplayer would do quite well.

5. Hopefully it won't happen, but as history shows us, there will always be problems when a brand-new multiplayer game is thrown into the wild. And the point is, if it does happen, you'll be left with a game that you paid $60 for that you can't play. Watch N4G explode on Titanfall's launch day if this actually is the case.

theWB271436d ago (Edited 1436d ago )

Fair enough Karamsoul. Thanks for the valid retort..unlike what I'm recieving from TORCHIC who wants to make this about Xbox and fanboyism that clearly isn't anywhere in my replies.

@dantesparda
That's that dumb ish right there. Good job.

dantesparda1436d ago

Its only anticipated by ms fanboys. Nobody else really cares for the game. And the preorders certainly dont show this anticipation. Its nothing more than another fps with a low player count, whoop-di-doo

dantesparda1435d ago

@WB

So, telling the truth is "dumb ish"?! Delusional, "that's that" delusional! Good job!

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1435d ago
torchic1436d ago

EA force the devs at DICE to make a single player portion in Battlefield games so they can charge $60.

people always mentioned how they wanted to pay less for CoD because they only play MP.

the article talks about this "MP-only" debate which has gone on forever, regardless of game or platform so stop being such a fanboy, you look silly. oh and read the article next time.

theWB271436d ago

My reply is there. The root of these articles against Titanfall is the MP count. Fanboy...that word has all but lost its meaning. I don't even know its context here.

torchic1436d ago (Edited 1436d ago )

the root of the article stems from the 6v6 argument because your fanboy eyes see it that way. there were 5 reasons, with one outstanding, consistent argument but you picked one that suits your agenda.

EVERY multiplayer focused game must be priced lower than a normal SP / SP + MP game. that argument is long standing but hey your green eyes with tiny "X" signs in the middle will completely glide over that.

theWB271436d ago

The hell are you talking about? The root of the Titanfall outcry came from the announcement of the 6vs6 player count. Now there are articles, like this, popping up questioning the title.

My green eyes. What? Have fun turning this into something about Xbox and not about Titanfall. The Xbox has nothing to do with this. It's about Titanfall against other titles. I clearly compared it to other titles NOT exclusive to the Xbox platform.

So..IDK what you're trying to get at. Oh, you're pricing is STUPID. A MP only game should be priced lower than even a SP only game? Even if you get more gaming from the MP title than the SP? SP games should be priced the same as SP+MP games too? Ok I guess.

dcj05241436d ago

How much was BF2 when it came out? $50 right. That was MP-only. Why is it that SP Only cost $60 but if it's MP-Only ( Classic Battlefield,MAG,Warhawk,Guild Wars 2) then people want to pay less. I don't get it.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1436d ago
Gabenbrah1436d ago

But Knack at $60 was fine... Journalism is a joke today.

bessy671436d ago

Spawnfirst is more of a PS fanboy blog. They're not journalists.

xJumpManx1436d ago

Gee hard to believe fan boy aritcles would be on this site I mean you hardly ever see fanboy post from PS users on this site.

..Signed a blind man..

ginsunuva1436d ago

Games will all soon drop to their equilibrium price.

Even if they start at $60, they'll end up selling at a stable price at which customers think it's worth it.

Show all comments (46)