Woo-Fu
Banned
Could be anything. It is safe to assume that there will be new maps. I don't think it is safe to assume that there will be nothing but new maps.
Titanfall Season Pass Confirmed
- Thread starter E92 M3
- Start date
Could be anything. It is safe to assume that there will be new maps. I don't think it is safe to assume that there will be nothing but new maps.
Revolutionary
Member
Lmao @ Collector's Edition buyers
$37 for the game has never felt more justified.
Seriously though, I mentioned in the CE reveal thread that $250 is outrageous unless it included the inevitable Season Pass. Sucks for them, unless they really, really like light up statues.
$37 for the game has never felt more justified.
Seriously though, I mentioned in the CE reveal thread that $250 is outrageous unless it included the inevitable Season Pass. Sucks for them, unless they really, really like light up statues.
I feel concern over this issue stems from people who have never had to work with deadlines before.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
How are you not getting a complete game? Explain this please.
Would you rather they launch the game and then never come out with any new content for it ever? Wouldn't you want new maps to keep a MP-only game fresh 5 months from now? I guess by your post we should just axe the concept of DLC entirely. No more post-launch content for any game, ever.
What?
Apparently currency now derives it's value from the gaming industry. Okay, mate, stop pouring whiskey in your cup of tea.
I've never understood why people have a problem with premium post-launch DLC, especially map packs which keep the game fresh and adds variety. Surprise surprise, developing new content costs money and so of course it is going to come with a price tag.
If you're happy to pay your $60 and never have new content, then fine - you have that choice.
If you're happy to pay your $60 and never have new content, then fine - you have that choice.
Effigenius
Member
We still don't even know how many maps are shipping yet for sure, do we? I hope it really is 15 like the old thread suggested, that would be a reasonable number for a game with no single player.
gothamghost
Member
Maybe I am naive but do people really think developers finish a game and then say "let's take these bits out to sell later down the road."? With all we hear about how much effort they spend at the last minute to get games out the door it seems more likely that once the game goes gold they start working on fleshing out ideas they couldn't get in at the last minute.
It might not just be maps. If they plan to do a Campaign MP thing, the maps could be in sets that make up episodic content. New sides to the battle, new characters and scenarios. Sure you can play the maps in any of the modes but the DLC could actually be that fusion of SP and MP content.
Hell, they could throw in a new third faction that weaves into the overall lore of the game and let things keep expanding...
...or it could just be some maps that people play for 60+ hours.
Because 10 years ago, Epic gave away what would now be DLC as free patches for Unreal Tournament 2004.
But that was 10 years ago. The industry has changed. We have to deal with it.
Portugeezer
Member
Season passes are fine, DLC is a given, if someone wants it enough they can get a better deal and EA gets your money early and guaranteed.
However it's more of a win for EA than it is for you saving a few bucks over a year of content.
As long as it's not a rushjob like BF4...
However it's more of a win for EA than it is for you saving a few bucks over a year of content.
As long as it's not a rushjob like BF4...
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
It's how project management for software development works. You create a scope, timeline and budget, hope you meet everything, then make concessions at the end when you inevitably fall short.
TheCanisDirus
Member
Now look what you've done... you typed it... you've gone and jinxed it!
Dee Dah Dave
Member
Have those 15 leaked maps been confirmed to be included in the initial game yet or are Respawn still not speaking about final content, native resolution etc?
I think 15 maps for a $60 multi player only game is reasonable but if it ends up being less with some held back for DLC then that would be a little disappointing.
I think 15 maps for a $60 multi player only game is reasonable but if it ends up being less with some held back for DLC then that would be a little disappointing.
Sign me up! I want my new maps and Titans, keeps the game fresh.
For the complainers, it is obvious you have never worked on a consumer product before. Even more obvious you have never worked on a piece of software before, nor managed a project of any kind or had any role within a corporation which involves innovation and product distribution.
For the complainers, it is obvious you have never worked on a consumer product before. Even more obvious you have never worked on a piece of software before, nor managed a project of any kind or had any role within a corporation which involves innovation and product distribution.
If the beta is anything to go buy, the servers are stable and the netcode is great, so ready way better than the current version of BF4.
I think this absolutely happens for some games (the anonymous DNF dev said this was the case for that game), but I think it's ridiculous to assume that it's the case for every game and that the developers have malicious intent with their DLC.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
You can't play single player games without the correct hardware, that doesn't affect the value of the product. That's an entirely arbitrary distinction. The only real difference is servers, which wouldn't even be an issue if they let users host their own on pc.
Some 11 million people used to subscribe to WoW on top of a retail box, if that doesn't tell you the argument multiplayer games must be cheaper than single player games holds no water then nothing will.
Woo-Fu
Banned
If the beta is anything to go buy, the servers are stable and the netcode is great, so ready way better than the current version of BF4.
DICE bit off more than they could chew and then EA made them swallow long before they were done chewing.
Titanfall on the other hand looked really good in beta and has a much narrower scope. I wouldn't worry about it having any big problems.TheFurizzlyBear
Member
The companies want something there day one to sell because that seems to be when DLC sells best and a lot of people want DLC to come later cus they get the impression that it was cut from the game if it comes out too close to launch. Seems to fill this gap.
I just don't get the hate, I could understand hating a particular season pass afterwards but hating one before seeing the content (in the case of Titanfall: Multiplayer maps) seems backwards and prejudice to me.
I just don't get the hate, I could understand hating a particular season pass afterwards but hating one before seeing the content (in the case of Titanfall: Multiplayer maps) seems backwards and prejudice to me.
There are almost certainly pieces that were developed before the game went gold that were either intended to be DLC all along or eventually got shunted off the shipped game for inclusion as DLC later. And that should be fine.
It shouldn't matter when a specific piece of content was developed. All that should really matter is the value proposition of the initial package or of a piece of paid DLC. As nice as it would be, we don't get some arbitrary right to everything the developers thought of before date X just because we gave them 60 dollars for the original game.
old
Member
Didn't Capcom get burned for shipping on disc DLC?
You cant play any games without the correct hardware according to that logic, whats your point? All I'm saying is it isnt hypocritical to say I dont like games that are online only and I like games that are single player only.
EDIT: I think I'm getting your arguement with the original poster confused with my own distinction, I do apologize if this is the case.
Complaining about $60 for a game that provides 100s of hours of entertainment is a little silly when placed against history. Even if you use minimum wage as a marker in my youth it was 5.25/hr and games were 50. Now they are 60 and minimum wage is 7.25.
Regardless it is a fact 60 is worth less now than it ever has been and 60 is not too much to ask for a AAA experience. It's just not and complaining about it sounds ridiculous unless you have always thought games were too expensive since they are cheaper now than they ever have been really.
Expansions were pretty common for online games though. The only reason they were more meaty than todays map packs is that distributing them online wasn't an option and they had to go through retail.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
It's because some of us played Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, and other shooters and never had to buy a game twice to get all the available content.
dugdug
Banned
This was probably the saddest response in the thread.
This. Forever and always this.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
Did you play Battlefield 2 and buy expansion packs? Or any other game that had them?
Seems like it's not a "I hate the season pass" thing going on here, it seems like it's "I hate all paid DLC." That's an entire other issue.
Don't forget how substantial expansions actually were back in the day. BF2 had mod tools too. The games that keep on giving.
This is the way it HAS to be if they want to get out new content within any kind of reasonable timeframe. If they waited until the game was completed, it could take too long for the DLC to come out, in which case people would whine about the new content taking too long to be released.
Yes, and those substantial expansions cost a lot more. A lot of DLC prices are in the range of 5-15, which is a lot less than what expansions cost back in the day (I'd say it was more in the range of 25-35).
Principate
Saint Titanfall
That's fair enough it's when you start complaining about multiplayer only games existing and that they should be cheaper than single player only games just because that's where I call people hypocritical because some of the same people that complain when a company tacks on multiplayer do the expect the the exact same thing when they complain against the addition of a tacked on single player. I understand they don't like those games but you can't complain about tacking on something and then ask for those companies to tak something n and not be called a hypocrite.
.
edit: pointless rant over missconceptions lol.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
I bought expansions, sure. But not every game had them and those games often had tremendous support from developers as well as mods. I buy some DLC, too. However, given that TF is MP only and is highly dependent on new maps to keep it fresh, it seems selling more at $60 and never discounting but giving free DLC would be a better model.
I agree, the season pass should've been thrown in. Like mentioned, earlier, the season pass might have been a last minute decision. Also, the CE seems to be pretty rare - 35k is not a huge number compared to the millions this game will sell.
ComputerMKII
Banned
Yeah, or if you make new content, give it for free. Letting people mod your game would be cool, too.
I do apologize about that, the "Also" made me think it was an entirely seperate statement rather than a build. Mah bad!
Yes I can agree with this, I should have seen thats where you were standpoint wise to begin with.
The only season pass I bought was for BLOPS2 (or some other COD maybe?), and it was probably the worst gaming-related purchase I've ever made since I got bored/pissed with the game in less than a month and never played it again. So sorry Respawn, I like your game and I've already pre-ordered it but I don't think you'll see any DLC money from me, much less any season pass money.
I've done my part. The only map pack I bought all of last gen was for Rainbow Six Vegas, and then it was revealed they accidentally listed it and then took it off the marketplace. I then got my money back and still had the map pack. The other map pack for RBSV was also free.
The idea of a season pass is pretty dumb, it amounts to blind faith and hoping the majority of the content is good. DLC is another issue and has to do with value. I'll never understand the obsession with getting new maps, if a game is designed well enough you should be able to perfect play or try new strategies on any default map for a long time.
Played 20 days of hours for CoD 4, never felt the need for new maps. Played 10 days of hours for CoD Black Ops, never felt the need for new maps. Maybe some people have a obsession with getting all the content to "complete" their game. Would be very interesting to get data on how long people play multiplayer games in comparison to how many of those people buy DLC.
Course they do, they'll have to have a rough plan. The game will have been content complete for a while. What are those folks meant to be doing, twiddling their thumbs? The run up to launch will be a decent amount of time bug fixing and polishing.
jakonovski
Member
Why are you making this weird argument, it's not like economic deflation will make games any better (or worse). Also, the AAA experience is not $60 anymore, it's $60 plus all the DLC. Games haven't gotten any meatier because of DLC, quite the opposite.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Good. Definitely will purchase.
UT3 got the black edition patch and that was 5 years ago.
outunderthestars
Banned
So anything you don't personally find value in is a bad thing? You do understand that value is purely subjective right? I find PS 1 games to not be worth the money Sony is charging for them on PSN. Therefore, Sony should offer people the option to purchase them.
See how silly that is?
I think that was more because UT3 was kind of a failure. That seemed more like a desperation move, to me. If UT3 was as successful as Gears of War, they probably would have charged for it.UT3 got the black edition patch and that was 5 years ago.