It's because people see this as not only a rip-off but also, like the article said, likely set a bad precedent. Trying to be vocal about it to raise awareness of the problem is only beneficial to us as gamers and more importantly consumers.
The way game companies have turned our beloved hobby into money making schemes is downright disgusting. If this sells well it sends a message that it's OK and you can bet all $40 and then some...
Let me guess, you don't like MP only games?
The mechs and parkour would mean that it doesn't play just like COD though, wouldn't it?
Let's put it this way. Has there been a game that has matched Call of Duty in terms of success or influence? Nope. Like it or not, Call of Duty set a bench mark for online MP and has influenced tons of games after it and yet none of the games it has influenced has matched it.
Take any hate of the franchise out of the equation and this is undeniably true.
Titanfall is expected to be the next game to do this.
He's saying the only way to fix it is releasing it every 2 years and I'm saying that there is a different COD title, with a different story being released every 3 years. Why is it best to wait every 2 years? How is not releasing one every year from a different developer going to "fix" it?
Uhm. IW and Treyarch do release their COD games every 2 years. Now it will be every 3 for each studio.
And this means it's half a game, why? But to argue your point, COD 4 was played for years, and had a constant community until modders F'd it up. Even now people are still playing it though.
Also, by that time the next game will be out so it won't really matter.
Also games like Counter Strike still have tons of people playing it. It's not a concern for those people and it shouldn't be.
Not worth $60 confirmed!
I mean this is only half a game, right? You know, since Titanfall is only half a game, right? This is like, the same thing, right?
Sooooo 37 PS4 reviews vs 13 Xbox One reviews.
He's been wrong more than once. He talked about Mirror's Edge being shown at the MS E3 conference. It wasn't.
There are more, but I'm not in a position to dig them all up, but that right there shows he's not always correct.
I put little to no stock into what anyone says that isn't confirmed. NeoGAF has a weird god-like worship for the "guy" because he's obviously been accurate more often than not...
He's been wrong quite a few times. And what if he's right about 16 maps?
A lie by omission is still a lie.
Because Respawn isn't owned by EA, and they are simply publishing. Using Frostbite means they would have to license it. Sure, the licensed Source, but it probably made more long-term financial sense for the upstart.
Right, because they only created the most successful franchise of the past generation. Clearly they've done something right as "below average developers."
And Jason West hasn't been at Respawn for well over a year.
I chalk this ignorance up with the same people that were surprised it had no single player campaign and no split-screen.
Google "Titanfall" and "Source" together and you will see this information dates back to before E3.
It was a known thing. Can't help others' wilful ignorance.
This was a known thing since the reveal in June.
You, sir, need to calm down.
I don't like fanboys, but how are comments on a news story, regardless of how accurate, "DESTROYING THIS INDUSTRY?"
I'm no Nintendo fan, but there seems to be a whole heap of context missing from that quote.
This makes more sense to me. EA most likely got on board with MS's bad policies and wanted to force Sony into going the same route.
Glad that blew up in their face but I hope this doesn't adversely affect Respawn.
That was a very poor decision regardless, then. Even if PS4 only sold 2 million units, that's 2 million potential sales they wouldn't be getting.