Report: EA secures rights to Titanfall 2

[theyarecomingforyou]

Come on now, Titanfall is being touted as X1's next big game. The 360 version is delayed and rumoured to be sub-par compared to the X1 version, who knows if its even running dedis.

The X360 has a dramatically larger install base. Of course the X360 version isn't going to be as good as the XB1 version - it was never going to be. But the same was true of Battlefield 4 and yet the X360 and PS3 versions outsold the XB1 and PS4 versions:

 

[JonnyLH]

The X360 has a dramatically larger install base. Of course the X360 version isn't going to be as good as the XB1 version - it was never going to be. But the same was true of Battlefield 4 and yet the X360 and PS3 versions outsold the XB1 and PS4 versions:

 

It's a fair fair argument, but I really doubt with how this has been marketed that it'll sell more on the 360. Who knows though.

[Houtei]

I think guessing if titanfall 2 is going to be exclusive or not is pretty stupid at this point.  Even COD has a 2 year turnaround it only comes out every year because 2 company's are working on 2 different games at the same time.   I get tired of hearing people say anyone can use the same servers for other systems like ps4.  No they cant.  Yes they can use azure but not the optimized and purposed Xbox Live Cloud that people are confusing for azure.

[Showan]

This is true.. Sony could also swing it and say "good enough for Microsofts customers, made for ours".  My point was though.. that Azure isn't a closed off so only MS can use it.   As long as it is licensed by a customer it is valid. I'm sure that a good marketing team could make the choice of using it a null point. 

 

 

I get what you are saying and this is true...  But Microsoft owns and controls Azure.  they are the gate keeper.  They could make it EXTREMELY pricey for a competing platform, who wants in on the dedicated servers.

 

I think all 3rd party Server Providers are gonna try (key word here is try) and "RIP" Sony off.  They will look at the numbers, and try to swindle Sony. They will pay attention to the numbers and want a bigger slice of pie from Sony...

[Hedon]

Come on now, Titanfall is being touted as X1's next big game. The 360 version is delayed and rumoured to be sub-par compared to the X1 version, who knows if its even running dedis.

 

http://www.shacknews.com/article/79892/titanfall-uses-xbox-live-cloud-on-xbox-360-and-pc

 

 

 

While "the cloud" has useful applications, the explanation offered by Respawn makes us question why it's a feature touted by Microsoft as exclusive to Xbox One, when any internet-connected device could take advantage of cloud computing. Even Shiring points out that "Titanfall uses the Xbox Live Cloud to run dedicated servers for PC, Xbox One, and Xbox 360."

[BajiRav]

Wasn't this always known or inferred? :/

 

This is true.. Sony could also swing it and say "good enough for Microsofts customers, made for ours".  My point was though.. that Azure isn't a closed off so only MS can use it.   As long as it is licensed by a customer it is valid. I'm sure that a good marketing team could make the choice of using it a null point. 

 

I get what you are saying and this is true...  But Microsoft owns and controls Azure.  they are the gate keeper.  They could make it EXTREMELY pricey for a competing platform, who wants in on the dedicated servers.

 

I think all 3rd party Server Providers are gonna try (key word here is try) and "RIP" Sony off.  They will look at the numbers, and try to swindle Sony. They will pay attention to the numbers and want a bigger slice of pie from Sony...

 

If Microsoft's new CEO is smart*, he would roll out red carpet for Sony/PSN. Raising prices won't make any difference because Sony can just walk next door to Amazon/Google/Rackspace.

Besides that, they have a business relationship and selling Azure is probably more important that preventing a few million TF2 sales.

 

 

*I am sure he is smart, smarter than me at least.

[HawkMan]

What is stopping others from using Azure platforms? I mean any company that wants to use Azure as a base server system can... it's not only MS.

Nothing is stopping them, but they still need to write the back en and management and dev tools and API for it. Since Sony had no plans for cloud, even if they started doing this last summer, you're looking at at least another 1,5 years of work.

[HawkMan]

So you've ignored my other points to better suit your argument and then claim I have "no case". EA are one of the most notorious Micro-transaction fest publishers in the industry. I didn't mention mobile games because almost everybody nickel and dimes mobile players, EA are just the same as everyone else in that regard, maybe even worse in regards to their recent Dungeon Keeper release, in which you have to wait days to mine a single block unless you pay for it. Paying for better weapons you'd normally have to unlock is Pay to Win. Just because players can still be effective with base weapons doesn't change that. Need for Speed: Most Wanted made it so several cars in the game could only be bought as Micro-transactions, even though they were already in the game to begin with. Mass Effect 3 multiplayer is either "grind for hours or buy your way to victory". As I mentioned earlier Mass Effect 2 and 3 storymodes were plagued with "buy these overpowered guns for money". And ME3 even shipped with day 1 DLC in which you had to pay extra to simply unlock part of the original story that was supposed to be there in the first place. EA even admitted their games will feature micro-transactions as they have before, they "justified" it by saying "Mobile gamers expect them". EA have a terrible track record for this.

I didn't ignore your points, non of your points backed up your original claim of pay to win.

Ea is no worse on micro transactions than say Ubi, heck I'd say they're better than Ubi, better than SOE, better than activision/Blizzard, now THERE's pay to win.

Either way micro transactions don't equal pay to win.

Also I NEVER during playing ME 2 or 3 saw any "buy for money" spam. Neck when playing I didn't even know you could buy anything but the expansions.

As for DK. It operates the same way all those kind of games do. I don't like it, but again it's a mobile game and a separate issue anyway.

And yes, when the base weapons are as effective or in many cases more effective than the ones you can boost to. It does change the fact, since it's not pay to win. If it was " bug this BFG9000 that kills every enemy on the battlefield and you don't even have to aim" THEN it would be pay to win. Boosting to get your favorite weapon because it's a weapon you like faster, even though it doesn't make you better, is not pay to win.

And actually the NFS cars where add on cars path at weren't part of the base game package, you could buy all of them as a single expansion package as well. Sure they where in the game, but they whereat part of the price you paid( though I actually believe they where added in a later patch, but either way). As a developer you release a game for a certain price that pays for the development, sometimes more content has been developed for an expansion, but economically releasing that with the same base game for no extra price means a loss, then you have to release it as a day one add on.

Either way. You have yet to prove they have any pay to win in their pc/console games, only that they have micro transactions.

[McKay]

I didn't ignore your points, non of your points backed up your original claim of pay to win.

Ea is no worse on micro transactions than say Ubi, heck I'd say they're better than Ubi, better than SOE, better than activision/Blizzard, now THERE's pay to win.

Either way micro transactions don't equal pay to win.

Also I NEVER during playing ME 2 or 3 saw any "buy for money" spam. Neck when playing I didn't even know you could buy anything but the expansions.

As for DK. It operates the same way all those kind of games do. I don't like it, but again it's a mobile game and a separate issue anyway.

And yes, when the base weapons are as effective or in many cases more effective than the ones you can boost to. It does change the fact, since it's not pay to win. If it was " bug this BFG9000 that kills every enemy on the battlefield and you don't even have to aim" THEN it would be pay to win. Boosting to get your favorite weapon because it's a weapon you like faster, even though it doesn't make you better, is not pay to win.

And actually the NFS cars where add on cars path at weren't part of the base game package, you could buy all of them as a single expansion package as well. Sure they where in the game, but they whereat part of the price you paid( though I actually believe they where added in a later patch, but either way). As a developer you release a game for a certain price that pays for the development, sometimes more content has been developed for an expansion, but economically releasing that with the same base game for no extra price means a loss, then you have to release it as a day one add on.

Either way. You have yet to prove they have any pay to win in their pc/console games, only that they have micro transactions.

 

Pay to win doesn't literally mean that, it means the game let's you pay for better weapons etc that you'd normally have to grind for. Giving you an advantage. Just because base weapons are still effective doesn't mean having an even better weapon isn't putting you at an advantage. In the kind of situations where 2 players start shooting at each other and both players land hits, the player with the better weapon will come out tops. Micro-transactions that put you at an advantage to non paying players are pay to win. Micro-transactions that don't give you an unfair advantage, e.g cosmetic skins aren't.

 

I never said Mass Effect spammed you, I said it was there. Overpowered weapons and armour you can buy with real money, and I never said other companies don't do it. I just said EA are one of the worst companies for doing it. Which is why I said I suspected Titanfall 2 will be rushed and crammed with micro transactions that give players advantages over people. Look at their track record. Happened to Dead Space, Mass Effect, Dragon Age. Battlefield. 

[Showan]

Wasn't this always known or inferred? :/

 

 

 

If Microsoft's new CEO is smart*, he would roll out red carpet for Sony/PSN. Raising prices won't make any difference because Sony can just walk next door to Amazon/Google/Rackspace.

Besides that, they have a business relationship and selling Azure is probably more important that preventing a few million TF2 sales.

 

 

*I am sure he is smart, smarter than me at least.

 

 

I did not mean for Titanfall alone.  Yes I would open up the door to others too.  But if it's a market we both compete in, you are going to have to "PAY" for it.  

 

Titanfall running this smoothly on Azure out the gate, IMHO has rattled the FPS world a tad bit.  Battlefield 5, CoD, or whatever else can't constantly crash out any longer, can't feel like the same game but with a different number next to the title.

 

Titanfall is a great game.  It is.  But for Microsoft, this was about Titanfall but also online play bragging rights.  

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Fully expect MS to throw a big bag of cash at EA to keep this one on the Xbox One too

 

 

The only way I can see that happening is that MS throws as much to EA as they think they will lose on PS4 sales on Titanfall 1. Any less and a port is incoming.

 

 

That wouldn't be hard for them, they're hardly strapped for cash

 

Didn't work for Mass Effect...

 

History has shown MS would rather chase exclusive DLC rather than IP.

[Showan]

Didn't work for Mass Effect...

 

History has shown MS would rather chase exclusive DLC rather than IP.

 

 

It seems Microsoft approach is this: Buy "timed" exclusive rights, for a lengthy time set.  Once enough time has gone by, people will just associate (insert title here) with Xbox.

 

CoD 2 - Black Ops II is a Xbox Game in most peoples eyes (at least sales wise).  Either known these games have sold pretty well on Playstation as well.

 

Mass Effect sold rather well on Playstation despite coming late to the platform.. But when most see Mass Effect, their minds will probably be programmed with "Gotta get a Xbox for this"  either known there is a Playstation variant as well.

[Boz]

Yeah, Sony wins again.

Pretty clear that MS was going to lose this exclusive.

A third party developer is just leaving too much money on the table to stay on one console.

 

Such a silly way to look at it.

 

There are a couple of things why EA simply won this release and Microsoft won as well.

 

1. You had to invest a ton of money for this game to happen (Sony didn't want to dish out money, Microsoft did)

2. It wasn't certain Titanfall will be great. Well it is, and Microsoft wins as people will be buying Xboxes to play Titanfall.

3. Microsoft just gained a competitive advantage for a year, more Xbox One sales, more fans using Titanfall on Xbox platform as a primary platform and EA wins because they launched the first installment of the game with huge success, made a ton of money plus taking the title of the best shooter on the market from Activision and all that with minimal risk.

 

Titanfall could have bombed and EA would have still gotten money out of it due to MS deal. 

 

Knowing the guys from Respawn and what they have done with Infinity Ward/MW2 - Titanfall 2 will be bigger and better then anything you can imagine. Titanfall is just the beginning, Titanfall 2 will be insanity. Guaranteed.  But here's the kicker, the original audience for this game will again be on Xbox, just like it was for COD on Xbox as well and Microsoft even though it won't be an exclusive maybe, it will still be preferred on Xbox One due to better Azure/AI support. This game is built on the Microsoft's Azure cloud to handle massive amounts of AI processing while keeping the GPU/CPU free to do other stuff. It is most likely that while transfered to Sony's platform it will still outperform it on Xbox One natively. 

 

But let's not speculate. The point is that Microsoft certainly didn't lose anything, quite the contrary.. EA + Respawn + Microsoft all WON and Sony lost due to the success of Titanfall.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

It seems Microsoft approach is this: Buy "timed" exclusive rights, for a lengthy time set.  Once enough time has gone by, people will just associate (insert title here) with Xbox.

 

CoD 2 - Black Ops II is a Xbox Game in most peoples eyes (at least sales wise).  Either known these games have sold pretty well on Playstation as well.

 

Mass Effect sold rather well on Playstation despite coming late to the platform.. But when most see Mass Effect, their minds will probably be programmed with "Gotta get a Xbox for this"  either known there is a Playstation variant as well.

 

Sure mindshare has it's part. MS1 and 2 sold 7 million to April 2011 on PS3 apparently (just Googled) so definitely worth porting. If you have 1 system you don't care that it's associated with the other, you buy what is available to you. CoD/BF etc didn't sell more because they started on Xbox, it was no doubt because of XBL/console prices and number of other reasons.

 

The reason why MS1 had a stronger connection with 360 for some was probably the game save features. Not an issue for most games let alone a MP only shooter when stats don't carry between releases.

[Boz]

Didn't work for Mass Effect...

 

History has shown MS would rather chase exclusive DLC rather than IP.

 

Well the point is about money right? It's not that they are not interested in the IP, they are go and buy stuff that makes logical sense money wise. 

 

DLC is cheaper than the IP and original IP is very risky.. so they could have afforded to buy exclusivity of Titanfall because it was a risky title and uncertain reception among the customers. It could have easily bombed and that money would have been wasted.

 

In addition, Microsoft has their own game studio/s for making IPs as well so they would probably go in on an IP like Titanfall where the risk is higher and the payment is lower. DLCs and timed exclusives are otherwise a more reasonable solution for them.

[HawkMan]

Pay to win doesn't literally mean that, it means the game let's you pay for better weapons etc that you'd normally have to grind for. Giving you an advantage.

But they don't let you boost to a weapon that gives you an advantage, it's a weapons that's different, but not better. That's where your argument falls apart. I've repeatedly told you they're not better, you've agreed, and then you turn alright around claiming they're better again...

They're not, they're different. All the stuff that ACTUALLY gives you an advantage you have to grind.

[McKay]

But they don't let you boost to a weapon that gives you an advantage, it's a weapons that's different, but not better. That's where your argument falls apart. I've repeatedly told you they're not better, you've agreed, and then you turn alright around claiming they're better again...

They're not, they're different. All the stuff that ACTUALLY gives you an advantage you have to grind.

 

How is letting you buy weapons that have higher damage, higher fire rates and better accuracy "not better"? The attachments only benefit the stats slightly. The bulk of the difference is the actual weapon. I never agreed that the weapon unlucks weren't better. Not to mention that's only the guns. They let you unlock the class related gadgets that you'd have to grind for too included in those paid packs.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

How is letting you buy weapons that have higher damage, higher fire rates and better accuracy "not better"? The attachments only benefit the stats slightly. The bulk of the difference is the actual weapon. I never agreed that the weapon unlucks weren't better.

 

He's right Hawkman, the stat increases are most noticable between the weapons themselves, not the attachments.

[HawkMan]

He's right Hawkman, the stat increases are most noticable between the weapons themselves, not the attachments.

Except the stats balances out.

A gun with a high rate of fire will have lower damage per bullet or be less accurate.

The guns aren't realistic. They are created and artificially balanced so that all in all, they're all equal.

That is in the hands of someone good with them all. But some people do better with rapid fire low damage guns, while some people prefer G3 like slow semi auto guns with high damage per hit.

But all in all the attachments will give a higher bonus to your stats than any gun change. A good scope a good forward handle or something spending on your style. These are what actually makes the weapons better. Not the balanced base stats.

Hence why a lot of people play with epithet the base weapon or one of the first weapons they unlock, they do just as well with them and it's the weapon they prefer and they kill as many if not more people with them as the people with the top level unlock gun.

Heck look at the LMGs the base LMG is actually one of the best in the game and one most people prefer to use.

[LaP]

 

 

 

 

If Microsoft's new CEO is smart*, he would roll out red carpet for Sony/PSN. Raising prices won't make any difference because Sony can just walk next door to Amazon/Google/Rackspace.

Besides that, they have a business relationship and selling Azure is probably more important that preventing a few million TF2 sales.

 

 

Can't agree more. I think the best in the upcoming years for MS is to let all its entities to be mostly run independently. It's not 1990 anymore. MS is not alone in this market these days. MS is fighting big companies who wont hesitate to take all the place left by Microsoft.

 

If it makes sense internally for the Office team to release Office 365 for iOS then let them do it. If it makes sense for the Azure team to give a good service to Sony with competitive price then let them do it. If you don't let them do it other big companies like Apple or Google will fill the gap eventually.

 

I mean that would be like Sony making their TV and Sound System not work with the XBox One. That would be totally dumb and stupid.

 

Microsoft is not only an OS anymore. It's a service company too and you got to offer your services to customers who are willing to pay.

 

 

Titanfall running this smoothly on Azure out the gate, IMHO has rattled the FPS world a tad bit.  Battlefield 5, CoD

 

Your exp playing games on PC is totaly different than mine.

 

I played the hell out of Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2, CS, CS Source, TF 2, Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, WoW etc etc etc

 

For the most part the perf were always good.

[trooper11]

Can't agree more. I think the best in the upcoming years for MS is to let all its entities to be mostly run independently. It's not 1990 anymore. MS is not alone in this market these days. MS is fighting big companies who wont hesitate to take all the place left by Microsoft.

 

If it makes sense internally for the Office team to release Office 365 for iOS then let them do it. If it makes sense for the Azure team to give a good service to Sony with competitive price then let them do it. If you don't let them do it other big companies like Apple or Google will fill the gap eventually.

 

I mean that would be like Sony making their TV and Sound System not work with the XBox One. That would be totally dumb and stupid.

 

Microsoft is not only an OS anymore. It's a service company too and you got to offer your services to customers who are willing to pay.

 

If they let their groups run independently, then they are doomed to die thanks to a lack of collaboration, and lack of vision that stretches across all groups.

 

If they really do intend to just let each group put out services/software as they please, then they really need to get out of the device business.  Dump Xbox, Surface, and WP.  Heck, even selling a Windows OS becomes problematic as other groups like Google or Apple are able to sell a one stop shop for the customers. 

 

There has to be some level of pride in your own stuff from all of these groups.  They must be motivated to make sure their devices/OS gets the best and most update attention.  That does not mean ignore other platforms, but it does mean that you prioritize your platform first.  If you don't do that, then your own platform slowly dies.  You can't grow the popularity of your own devices/OS if you are not willing to work really hard at making sure your services/apps work at least as good and are updated first on your own platforms.

[McKay]

Except the stats balances out.

A gun with a high rate of fire will have lower damage per bullet or be less accurate.

The guns aren't realistic. They are created and artificially balanced so that all in all, they're all equal.

That is in the hands of someone good with them all. But some people do better with rapid fire low damage guns, while some people prefer G3 like slow semi auto guns with high damage per hit.

But all in all the attachments will give a higher bonus to your stats than any gun change. A good scope a good forward handle or something spending on your style. These are what actually makes the weapons better. Not the balanced base stats.

Hence why a lot of people play with epithet the base weapon or one of the first weapons they unlock, they do just as well with them and it's the weapon they prefer and they kill as many if not more people with them as the people with the top level unlock gun.

Heck look at the LMGs the base LMG is actually one of the best in the game and one most people prefer to use.

 

Except many guns are noticeably better than the starter in every regard. The point remains, EA still let you BUY the higher ranked weapons and gadgets instead of earning them.EA has a terrible history of releasing half a game, and then charging for you the rest that's still on the Disc. And then offering players shortcuts to the high ranked weapons and equipment in multiplayer games. That's why I said Titanfall 2 will probably suffer the same fate, if it doesn't then Titanfall 3 most likely will if they make a new one (which they will if Titanfall 2 sells well). You can't seriously try and pretend that EA does none of this. You can't try and justify that other people grinding to unlock a few attachments means the people who bought all the equipment and high ranking weapons aren't at a disadvantage? Think about it, when the game is new, you're running around on Battlefield with no equipment, no C4, no medkits, no ammo packs, no defib. No mines. You're unlocking attachments for your base gun. Meanwhile someone spends an extra $10 and is running around with you, with all that equipment just handed to him, and he's now unlocking attachments for a gun he shouldn't have access to until he reaches a much higher rank, often something he wouldn't touch until hours and hours and hours of effort. He has that advantage over players who didn't pay to have them unlocked prematurely.

 

They did something similar in BF4 except they gave it away to Premium members as part of "player appreciation month". They let you unlock ALL the grenades, handguns, shotguns, DMR's, I've seen people who grinded for hours a day for weeks trying to unlock the .44 Magnum, and suddenly players got handed it. My friend raged after grinding for days and days trying to unlock the more powerful shotguns, Shotguns that can erase people from time and space from 100M away, compared with the starter shotguns that have the range of a handshake and take 3 days to fire a second shot. Compare the later PDW's in Battlefield to the starter, it's a whole other plane of existence. They can clear rooms of entire squads with a single clip while the starter PDW struggled to drop 2 people at point blank on a single clip. All the addons in the game won't close the gap between the vast gulfs between those weapons. Pretty much the only starter weapon in the whole of BF4 that is favoured is starter carbine rifle, even then there is one near the bottom of the list that edges out the stats slightly in every field. The other weapon categories the difference is night and day. Nobody uses the starter LMG in BF4, the 2nd/3rd unlocked LMG are favourites generally. With the story-unlocked one also being a favourite. 

[HawkMan]

From your wall of text of nothing that backs up your argument, it seems like you haven't actually played the game.

[Showan]

Can't agree more. I think the best in the upcoming years for MS is to let all its entities to be mostly run independently. It's not 1990 anymore. MS is not alone in this market these days. MS is fighting big companies who wont hesitate to take all the place left by Microsoft.

 

If it makes sense internally for the Office team to release Office 365 for iOS then let them do it. If it makes sense for the Azure team to give a good service to Sony with competitive price then let them do it. If you don't let them do it other big companies like Apple or Google will fill the gap eventually.

 

I mean that would be like Sony making their TV and Sound System not work with the XBox One. That would be totally dumb and stupid.

 

Microsoft is not only an OS anymore. It's a service company too and you got to offer your services to customers who are willing to pay.

 

Your exp playing games on PC is totaly different than mine.

 

I played the hell out of Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2, CS, CS Source, TF 2, Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, WoW etc etc etc

 

For the most part the perf were always good.

I usually try and leave PC out of this (usually (usually) superior place to place)... I meant this in regards to picking up controller and flipping a console.

[HawkMan]

Here's a comparison between the base AK12 and the L85 that everyone loves.

 

http://symthic.com/bf4-compare?AK-12_vs_L85A2

 

They're different , but none of them is really "superior" or even "better".