450°

Respawn admits Titanfall’s original Xbox exclusivity was “a bit of surprise”

GamesRadar - When the original Titanfall first arrived on Xbox One there was a window of uncertainty surrounding it’s exclusivity. Many thought it might be timed but that was soon shut down, confining the game to Xbox.

Read Full Story >>
gamesradar.com
Errorist763007d ago (Edited 3007d ago )

Seems it was a bit of a mistake as well.

XisThatKid3006d ago

Honestly I think they just bet on the wrong horse. judging on the success in the U.S. of 360 they expected the team's to follow through they go to X1 exclusivity thinking they won't be missing much no one really guessed this much of a blow out in sales either. Especially coming off the heels of CoD there really was no incentive our clues that going the Xbox route wasn't the right call. They we just wrong. It happens glad they're correcting that issue.

nX3006d ago

Well it seemed like a win-win situation at that time, Microsoft needed an exclusive shooter until Halo, the biggest shooter crowd was always on Xbox and EA just likes any form of extra cash.

miyamoto3007d ago (Edited 3007d ago )

That is EA for you.
And Microsoft money can convince them that the sky's color is green and not blue.
LOL!

medman3007d ago (Edited 3007d ago )

lkk

Cindy-rella3007d ago

"Seems it was a bit of a mistake "

It was a mistake to release it exclusively on a console thats not selling well

DLConspiracy3007d ago (Edited 3007d ago )

Not a mistake. They ran out of money. What this article fails to do is provide any of the other facts that lead EA to this decision because Respawn kept running out of money to create the game LONG before the consoles released. Which is also why We never saw a Single Player campaign and they only made it Multiplayer. ALL of which are fully detailed in the Geoff Keighley report called "The Final Hours of Titanfall". I have provided pictures in the link from that report to back anything I say.

http://imgur.com/a/8kgYZ

1. Sony wasn't willing to divulge ANY information about the PS4 and Xbox already let them in on Project Durango (Xbox One). Xbox wanted their opinion on some things. One of the Devs in Respawn went to dinner with one of the Sony people to try and URGE them to share with them about PS4 before plans were made. "It Didn't work Sony wasn't ready to talk PS4"

2. Respawn didn't have enough money to make a full game and was hot off the heels of a LARGE lawsuit from Activision. Respawn kept asking EA for money to keep the project going. They almost closed up shop Numerous times. EA spent oodles already but they Didn't own the IP of Titanfall and was not about to spend anymore without owning the IP.

3. Xbox and MS kept the program alive by putting their money into the project which was Originally only a 13 month Exclusivity with Xbox One. Xbox put MORE money into it to continue to keep it alive and felt they had put enough in to consider "Full Exclusivity". At least EA felt so.

So this "Surprise" that EA signed with Xbox as Full exclusivity seems a bit off in my opinion. Perhaps they felt that EA should have spent the money instead of signing a deal, but that's what happens when EA doesn't own the IP. Regardless, the second one is launching and I hope PS4 only fans enjoy it.

donthate3007d ago (Edited 3007d ago )

There was actually another thing that wasn't discussed either, MS was the only one that provided cloud infrastructure so that Respawn actually could make the game. Instead, Sony wanted Respawn to make a PS Vita game. What an insult!

I think the mistake was to not make it an exclusive. We may have never seen Titanfall 2 going down a different path!!!

MS pretty much bankrolled and took the risk for this game, so we should be grateful!

WeaseL3007d ago

The real reason was EA thought XB1 was going to kill PS4 in sales

DLConspiracy3007d ago (Edited 3007d ago )

@don't hate

I was one of the people disappointed that Titanfall didn't come to PS4. I wanted the game and the developer to be as successful as they could be. Especially with the whole Activision lawsuit. I am a fan of the game and the new developer. Turns out Titan fall was successful enough with xb1, 360 and PC. Now they can afford to bring it to all platforms and make a single player campaign too.

That won't stop people hating the game or anyone involved because that's how gamers are these days. They don't care about games they care about consoles. Both sides are so completely up their own backsides.

@weasel

It's sure possible but when you make business partners and one of those partners believes in a game that just so happens to need money all the time.Well Sony could have asked and been just as involved but they werent. So it's a bit different. Doesn't matter if it was because of betting on the wrong horse. Sony didn't even get back to them so it doesnt matter. why not support the group that's interested?

Rude-ro3007d ago (Edited 3007d ago )

So how is it that it was announced exclusive so close to release and respawn had no idea?
That is the kink in your words.
For if it was all funding than the deal would have been made first.
The money would have gone to respawn not ea. Why would EA collect money that respawn was begging for?
Microsoft does not just hand out money and then say, you know what, you have enough that we think it should be exclusive. Business does not work like that.
Plus, they had code for the PS3/ps4 versions.

DLConspiracy3007d ago (Edited 3007d ago )

@rude

As far as Respawn not knowing I'm sure they didn't but MS was throwing money at this game long before it released. They had to cover their employees and expenses for the small team. They fully planned on releasing on PS4 13 months after launch. Although I wonder would it have even been fully exclusive if Sony had taken a larger interest in the game and provided a ps4 dev kit earlier on. We probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

It was only rumored that they had code for PS4. If you care to read the report I gathered any of this information from you can. They may have very well had code for PS3 because that wasn't a secret but as it says in the report they did NOT have any info on the PS4. In the photos I provided. "It made sense for such a small team to focus on one platform and maybe PC to start"

My point is that people are treating Respawn like they were NOT a new developer. Sure they all worked on games previously but respawn is an entirely new developer. They don't have several IPs that they have made money from. This was their first IP. In the report they mention numerous times borrowing more money from EA to make the game. Don't take my word for it. Read it yourself. Until then. Im pretty sure I have provided more than most have on this subject. It's far too easy to assume unless you read it.

Rude-ro3007d ago

What you pieced together was proven to be false. That article did not coincide with facts that were already out on the Internet from their own tweets.
When money switches hands, contracts are made.
You are saying Microsoft gave out money in good faith than dictated after the fact? Does that truly make sense to you?
And you are saying respawn needed the money, asked ea and ea said no more but went and asked Microsoft for money, then ea gave it to respawn?
If this makes sense to you, I am always looking for a new business partner.
Then THE developer can not act shocked that the game is exclusive with a release date in place, that would mean they were going to code in a matter of two months for the ps4?
I understand you pieced together some words and believe them but, there does need to be logic.

DLConspiracy3007d ago (Edited 3007d ago )

@rude

I never argued that they weren't surprised. I said it "seems a bit off to me". As in its not as simple as people make it. It's not like they are gonna spit on their distributor. I also never argued that EA didn't make the deal either. Obviously they made the deal. So I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. All I said was there were a lot more factors at play than what people in the comments allude to. Especially since there are a lot of people bitter it didn't come to PS4 and also just so happen to not like xbox. I presented those factors with some screen caps. I'm not going to capture and post the entire 30 page book. So if you care to read what I have and the entire story that goes along with it then please do. Instead of these general articles that never delve deeper than the report I'm drawing my conclusions from. it's all just assumption. If people would read the whole thing it wouldn't be a mystery or presumed bias on my part. I'm merely telling it like I read it. It's not about piecing words together. It's about me actually reading what others havent. So until you read it your words really mean nothing. Read it and then we can talk.

I'm sure PS would have had a port had they jumped on it like MS did. There was money needed and MS secured it. Because they were interested far long and far more than PS. It's just business.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3007d ago
dirkdady3007d ago

I guess that's what rise of tomb raider and quantum break have in common with Titan fall.

DeadManMMX3007d ago

That's not why the game wasn't successful. It had a string of negative sentiment about it only being 6 vs 6 with bots and having no single player campaign. The game was also on PC and didn't do any better. It was a fun solid game but those things hurt it with public perception.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3006d ago
objdadon3007d ago

I remember them saying they were surprised.

ziggurcat3007d ago (Edited 3007d ago )

the full exclusivity thing only happened about a month before the launch of the Xbox One. up until then, the plan was for it to be a timed exclusive.

edit: so, yeah... it was a surprise to them for sure.

cleft53007d ago

Yeah they said that previously when this initially was announced.

ziggurcat3007d ago

well there you go... the first titanfall was originally a timed exclusive after all like i've been saying since before it was ever released, and even after it was made a full exclusive because of the overwhelming evidence that suggested that it was never meant to be a full exclusive.

ninsigma3007d ago

Yeah Respawn weren't even part of the deal. EA made it without them if I remember correctly and Respawn didn't have a clue until after it was done.

3007d ago
stuna13007d ago (Edited 3007d ago )

The only surprise to Respawn was how many zero's was on the check Microsoft handed them (EA that is of course!)

As many copies that were sold between PC,Xbox 360 and Xbox1. Looking in hindsight I'm sure Respawn would have second guessed the decision to go exclusive in lue of what they have no doubt missed out on, especially factoring in the instant success the PS4 has become.

There's no doubt in my mind that the PS4 version would have likely outsold the PC,Xbox 360 and Xbox1 versions combined, or came damn near close to it.

I think deals like these are a constant reminder to developers of being careful of whose bed you lie down in, or you just might wake up with bed bugs!

GameBoyColor3007d ago

Microsoft cut that check for EA. EA gave respawn the scraps. Probably... Well, most likely as it is EA.

donthate3007d ago

Is that why Respawn came back to EA for a sequel?

They wanted more scraps? Must have been some really good scraps!!! o_0

donthate3007d ago

Sure, TF would have sold well on PS4, but it would likely have never been made without MS. EA needed funding, and MS actually made TF possible in the first place by offering Azure Cloud. Sony didn't even bother responding, and wanted world famous developers to build a PS Vita game. What an insult!

remixx1163007d ago (Edited 3007d ago )

Lol I love how you keep saying "what an insult" and "azure cloud".

Lemme ask you a question dude, what did the cloud actually do for titanfall that wasn't possible on other platforms. I mean TF 2 is coming to ps4 so did the "cloud" really have that big of an impact especially seeing as though ps4 fans will have access to third party "cloud".

I remember you clowns saying it won't co.e to ps4 because of cloud power yet now we're just finding out that it was supposed to come to ps4 but a last minute deal between ms and ea switched that.

Sony wasn't trying to insult them with the vita version, they just weren't ready to divulge info about the ps4 yet.

iceman063007d ago

Respawn joined EA as part of their support program for indie developers, IIRC. So, there was probably a limit placed on the funds. However, after seeing the results, EA very well could have fully funded the project if they wanted. It's not like they were hurting for cash. But, they took the less risk averse path and let MS fund the rest. That's a win-win scenario for EA. For MS, it was basically a chance to sweep on and secure a title that had started to generate tons of buzz. This wasn't some altruistic attempt by MS to save a struggling game. It was a crude business decision that briefly provided MS with some momentum.
All in all, it was a good move for MS (in the short term), it was a decent move for EA (little risk and decent reward), it's Respawn that probably felt it the most because they missed out on more sales by not getting to the PS4.

FPS_D3TH3006d ago (Edited 3006d ago )

Lmao the magic secret sauce of "the cloud"? Ya that's not a console feature exclusive to Xbox...

rainslacker3006d ago (Edited 3006d ago )

Game didn't go exclusive until a few months before release. You really think this game wasn't going to get made without MS? You know how many millions of dollars had been poured into it by the time it was winning all those "best game of E3 awards"? The game was like a month from going gold by the time the deal was announced, and likely the deal was set in motion about a month before...if not right after E3 after MS saw how much hype it was getting. You really think they needed the cloud...for what? Some bot AI? Was that necessary to complete the game? Seems that was one of the most loathed features of the game.

So what did MS provide? They provided a check to mitigate EA's risk, which is why EA made it exclusive to X1, which is why the devs were surprised.

Sony didn't respond because they either didn't want to provide funding, or MS got to EA first, For all you know, Sony made a bid, and MS outbid them.

I've seen development financing deals from several different angles from several different publishers and developers, and everything that was said by respawn and EA at that time just sounded like BS PR marketing to me. There was absolutely no way TF wasn't going to release, with or without MS help. EA wasn't just going to drop one of the most hyped launch window games and lose tens of millions of dollars. EA may not have been willing to fund any more money into it, but given when the money came in, not much extra was provided because of that deal going through.

donthate3005d ago (Edited 3005d ago )

Rainslacker:

Unfortunately, your (anonymous person on internet whom knows a lot about game contracts) "experience" is incorrect in this case. The history of Titanfall is well documented, Titanfall as it is wouldn't have been made without MS providing cloud servers via Azure. The cost to run those servers would be too high to make Titanfall as it was released. A timed exclusivity was inked long before the full exclusivity happen.

Finally, the exclusivity was actually documented by Geoff Keighly in the book "Final Hours of Titanfall" where he says:

"In order to make the economics work and keep Titanfall alive, EA needed a first-party publisher to invest. Xbox was willing to step up and save the project, which turned out to be a wise bet. Xbox now has one of the biggest games of the year as an exclusive to its platforms, although it lays no claim to any sequels."

https://medium.com/@geoffke...

Also, Respawn found out about the deal in the summer of 2013, which means full exclusivity was at least inked 9-months in advance if not more as documented here:

"The way Respawn saw it, the developer had never agreed to full exclusivity for Titanfall on Xbox platforms, only an exclusive window of up to 13 months. Zampella maintains that the team only found out that EA had turned an exclusive window deal into permanent exclusivity in the summer of 2013, weeks after the game’s spectacular showing at E3."

So please spare me the BS!

MS did save Titanfall from conception to release! You should thank them, because now PS4 owners get to enjoy this great game too!

rainslacker3005d ago (Edited 3005d ago )

And you don't find it odd, that EA, one of the largest and most successful publishers on the planet, wouldn't have been aware that the economics of Remedy's design wouldn't work out for actual release?

Are you so naieve to think that EA just dropped tens of millions of dollars without scrutinizing every single aspect of Remedy's development and financing plan? They scrutinize the hell out of projects that cost less than $100K.

I'm sorry, but if the game released as originally intended, and wasn't changed mid-development by Remedy itself, EA would have committed for the full term. If Remedy decided to change it at some point, then EA may have gone and sought 1st party publisher support, but either way, what's being said about the "well documented" development of Titanfall sounds extremely incomplete, and makes both Respawn and EA sound completely incompetent with figuring out how to both design and fund a game.

I may be an anonymous person on the internet, but so are you. You take those words as gospel to support your argument, yet you ignore everything about it that just doesn't add up. As far as me being a random person, that doesn't mean that I haven't been through the publisher funding process. I have a decent enough portfolio to know that publishers don't give you a dime unless you account for every aspect of your game design, from the first concept is thought of all the way to ongoing support costs.

If you think investors just drop money without that information, then you are more gullible than I would have believed.

The only thing I may be off on is the timing of the deal, when it started between EA/MS, and exactly what Respawn knew about it. But they surely would have known that EA would be seeking exclusivity, because Respawn owns the IP, and would have to give permission to do such a thing, or be given the option to buy out their contract to prevent it.

donthate3005d ago

@Rainslacker:

This isn't like an internal IP owned by the publisher, but a single game that EA had the rights to publish for. EA has no idea if this IP will sell, and when these deals are discussed, this is well in advance of the release date. It could be anywhere from 1-2 years in advance combined with the poor state of the game.

Do you really think that games aren't cancelled all the time?

After publishers/stakeholders put lots of money into it and find that it's not going well, doesn't look like it will go well and they cut their losses. This is clearly documented as well.

It's not like it is with Capcom, and SFV where it is a franchise that has a history of doing well, owned by the publisher, and is one of the most successful IPs that development is entirely controlled by publisher. SFV would have certainly been made by Capcom without Sony.

You can argue whatever "belief" and rose tinted glasses you want, but this is documented by a third party with unprecedented behind the scenes access whom are unaffiliated with either EA or Respawn, and corroborated by the developer.

Also, to get your facts straight, the developer is called R-E-S-P-A-W-N, not Remedy.

ziggurcat3005d ago

"Also, Respawn found out about the deal in the summer of 2013, which means full exclusivity was at least inked 9-months in advance..."

sorry, but you don't tweet at the end of October that you've "recently found out" about the full exclusivity deal if it was established in the weeks following E3. i'd take the timing of the actual tweet from a co-founder of the studio developing the game over a 3rd-party account from the Doritos Pope.

donthate3005d ago

ziggurcat:

You do know that "recent" is a term that doesn't specify a real time frame right. For some 6-months can be considered recent.

That said, if anything I trust the 3rd party source, because he has no reason to lie, but the dev does to try and appease customers. But hey, some people are gullible enough to believe otherwise.

Christopher3004d ago

EA needed funding? I didn't know EA was hurting so much that they suddenly needed funding in one of their major game releases.

ziggurcat3004d ago

@donthate:

Recently is often referring to something that has happened within a few days to a few weeks (at most, one month). No one considers "recently" to mean 6 months.

Zampella had no reason to lie. Keighly had very reason in the world to bend the truth here.

donthate3004d ago

Chirs:

Contrary to belief, companies do have an internal budget to control expenses. Even MS has a limit to how much they spend.

With any project that is not owned by EA, they are going to take far less interest in investing more into unless they are certain they can get a better return. For instance, if TF doesn't do well, well EA doesn't own the IP so they can't profit necessarily from the 2nd or 3rd release. On the other hand, if they owned the IP, sure they are far more willing to take that risk and invest.

That is just common sense!

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 3004d ago
Aloy-Boyfriend3007d ago

I'm more surprised the 2nd one is coming to PS4. Wasn't it only possible with the imaginary cloud☁?

n4rc3007d ago

Yup.. and that's why they spend big money on Amazon and Google cloud services (presumably for ps4 and pc) and still using azure for Xbox

Vince mentioned them in a e3 interview

DLConspiracy3007d ago

I just posted that video. Good catch. I caught it too.

DLConspiracy3007d ago (Edited 3007d ago )

actually.. the PS4 version WILL be using cloud. Just not Azure. He talks about using Amazons "Cloud" in order to play the game in this interview. So not "imaginary" at all. SMH for anything Xbox. Facts don't even matter now.

https://youtu.be/kfMP_gLqNC...

Looks like all the disagrees are people who don't believe in facts. Go figure. I provide proof in the video and people still can't swallow the fact pill. Fanboy nonsense continues. Just goes to show you how biased people are on N4g. Congrats. :)

donthate3007d ago

It was and still is!

Still cloud backed!!!

It is only imaginary and magical to people that do not understand cloud technology.

Show all comments (65)
90°

15 Underrated FPS Games You May Want to Try

Popularized by Doom in 1993 and still making video game haters gnash their teeth today, first-person shooter games are the best thing to happen to gamers since pizza rolls. So here are 15 underrated first-person shooter games you may have missed.

Read Full Story >>
ghettogamer.net
Jiub747d ago

Although the late 2000s Turok wasn't my favorite, I would love a new entry. Open world survival with shotguns and dinosaurs. Not sure how we'd get the fusion cannon, but that would be pretty sweet too.

MadLad747d ago

Lol

All of these games are pretty much universally praised. Outside of Timeshift I literally own all of these.

Venoxn4g747d ago (Edited 747d ago )

XIII, The Darkness 2, Far Cry: Blood Dragon, Timesplitters: future perfect, Bulletstorm are awesome games

gurp147d ago

I played them all, they are all good in their own way
I used to be obsessed with FPS games

60°

An ode to Titanfall: The last twitch shooter I'll probably ever enjoy

Windows Central: "Titanfall 1 is being sunset, taken off storefronts by EA. While the servers remain live for now, one has to wonder just how much time it has left. I look back and pay tribute to the last "twitch"-styled shooter I ever truly loved."

Read Full Story >>
windowscentral.com
90°

Respawn Entertainment is Discontinuing Sales of Original Titanfall

Sales for the original Titanfall are being discontinued.
It will be pulled from subscription services on March 1, 2022.

Ethereal1028d ago

Physical media. Unfortunately the way games are going these days game servers will eventually be shut down and you can stare at the menu and wish you could play the game again.

littletad1028d ago

This is why reading is so important. Nothing to do with digital or physical media. The game, which is online only, is being delisted because of DDOS and other hacker attacks. The case got so bad that only six players in the world log on. For PC. Rather than fix it, they continued to sell the game, broken as it is, and only now just decided to call it quits. But please, go on thinking what you will.

Ethereal1026d ago

I'm aware of the DDOS attacks and that this case is not typical. This game would eventually have it's servers shutdown regardless of the current situation so that is a moot point. My comment was in a general sense and that there are instances in which games can be preserved physically when official support ends.

Let's recap your first sentence. I said, "the way GAMES are going these days" indicating a broader stroke than just this game. I agree, reading IS important. I was simply stating the obvious downsides of the digital marketplaces and online only trends in games these days. I could even make the argument that the online only offering which has allowed hacker manipulation has impacted the preservation of this great game. My comment is valid in the general sense and thank you for your permission to continue to think what I will.