Titan fall season pass announced

#11bessy67Posted 3/5/2014 7:56:47 PM
ZEROthefirst posted...
@bessy67 (Went to quote, but forgot to quote and don't feel like adding it in lol)
How is it a stupid argument? Look at every other multiplayer only game, they go anywhere from F2P-$30 (the later usually has sub fees). Why should this online only multiplayer game be $60+? And why should a single player game be $25 only? When the servers for Titanfall go down you have a pretty coaster, when the serve- oh wait, I still have a playable game.

So you're OK spending $60 for a game with a 10 hour campaign and nothing else, but you're not OK spending $60 for a game that will offer many times that amount of gameplay? Why?
---
"Immigrants. That's all they do, you know. Just driving around, listening to raps, shooting all the jobs." - Malory Archer
GT: Bessy67
#12Orange_ApplesPosted 3/5/2014 7:59:46 PM
That is probably going to mean it will be practically impossible to play once the first DLC hits...
#13Mvsevm_of_SkinPosted 3/5/2014 8:05:30 PM
Orange_Apples posted...
That is probably going to mean it will be practically impossible to play once the first DLC hits...


Dat map pack.
---
Squeeze your mother's neck... 'til the kicking stops... the memories stop!
#14ZEROthefirstPosted 3/5/2014 8:12:04 PM
bessy67 posted...
ZEROthefirst posted...
@bessy67 (Went to quote, but forgot to quote and don't feel like adding it in lol)
How is it a stupid argument? Look at every other multiplayer only game, they go anywhere from F2P-$30 (the later usually has sub fees). Why should this online only multiplayer game be $60+? And why should a single player game be $25 only? When the servers for Titanfall go down you have a pretty coaster, when the serve- oh wait, I still have a playable game.

So you're OK spending $60 for a game with a 10 hour campaign and nothing else, but you're not OK spending $60 for a game that will offer many times that amount of gameplay? Why?


Most single player games these days have an optional online mode to them so even if the campaign's short there's an OPTIONAL online as well. And so what if a single player games campaign only lasts maybe 10 hrs. (I could argue about Titanfalls online campaign, it's a shooter so at most it might last 3 hrs.) You had fun with it and you're more than likely to come back to it, especially in the case of RPG/JRPGs where you can spend about 60-80 hrs. alone on your first playthrough and then play through multiple times after that. I still play a lot of my SNES, PS1, GC, Xbox, etc. single player games and most of these don't even have a multiplayer option to them.

My point is that while I get Titanfall will be fun (I've played the beta at a friends, it's fun, but not a big shooter fan so I can't sink a lot of hours into something like it) the fact that it is an online only multiplayer game bugs me. You're going to spend $60+ or at this point $80+ for a game that you won't even be able to play a few years down the road. You know once the next entry comes out this game's servers won't last much longer and then when the servers go down, then what? You can't play the game a few years down the road for fun, you can't sell it because no one will want to pay to use something that's basically become a fancy coaster, you can't do anything with it. That's why it bothers me that people are willing to spend that money on a game that they won't even be able to touch a few years down the road (you can't say people won't want to play it because people still want to play FPS' on things like the PS1, Doom and so on).
---
Nintendo Network/PSN ID: ZEROthefirst
3DS Friend Code: 1306-6232-5350
#15jovhany11(Topic Creator)Posted 3/5/2014 8:18:16 PM
i sure the split in community wont be bad
---
Gtag: Theweatherman03
#16That_Damn_KidPosted 3/5/2014 8:20:36 PM
Sounds like better value than paying $60 for COD Ghosts and the season pass for another $50. Ghosts only has a 4 hour campaign, and is mainly focused on multiplayer.
---
I'm not a kid, I just act like one
GT: ITS DAT DAM KID --- PSN: Lamburghini89///PS4, X1, Wii U, 360, 3DS
#17Xeeh_BitzPosted 3/5/2014 8:25:52 PM
spacejamjordanz posted...
No cross-buy for dlc. Kinda lame, but that's EA for you.


Yeah, I had to buy premium for bf4 twice, once for pc and once for ps4
---
3770K | 780 Ti x 2
Steam: Xeeh Origin: TurboPeasant
#18lazycomplifePosted 3/5/2014 8:37:22 PM
lol, EA
Name them worst company in america 2x in a row then buy their money-scamming season passes. If they really even cared about the consumer, they wouldn't announce additional content before the game even came out. They would just delay the game and include the content. Or better yet, have free patches.
---
Official Swinub
3DS Friend Code: 0602-6783-9027 - Friend safari: ICE type: Delibird, Bergmite, Dewgong
#19MastaMugenPosted 3/5/2014 8:54:46 PM
bessy67 posted...
ZEROthefirst posted...
@bessy67 (Went to quote, but forgot to quote and don't feel like adding it in lol)
How is it a stupid argument? Look at every other multiplayer only game, they go anywhere from F2P-$30 (the later usually has sub fees). Why should this online only multiplayer game be $60+? And why should a single player game be $25 only? When the servers for Titanfall go down you have a pretty coaster, when the serve- oh wait, I still have a playable game.

So you're OK spending $60 for a game with a 10 hour campaign and nothing else, but you're not OK spending $60 for a game that will offer many times that amount of gameplay? Why?


My time with Halo 2 single player was 1/100 compared to the amount of time i played MP. I put years on that game before the server's wen't down so using that as an excuse is kinda lame. With that game I KNOW I got my $60's worth even if i never touched SP. After playing the beta I know this will be the same. I probably wont get 4-5 years out of it but even 1 good year of fun with friend's on here kill's any comparison to a 10 hour single player, no matter how good.

This only being $25 is pretty cool. It's nice to see this won't be to expensive. Anyone with a 360 still (or Ps3/Steam) who are still on the fence, South park SoT is great... Help's the wait till Monday night easier.
---
http://kotaku.com/5938996/the-worst-internet-trolls-might-be-mentally-ill
http://www.destructoid.com/fact-ps3-fanboys-are-the-worst-149259.phtml
#20geodANGERPosted 3/5/2014 9:01:56 PM(edited)
ZEROthefirst posted...
bessy67 posted...
ZEROthefirst posted...
@bessy67 (Went to quote, but forgot to quote and don't feel like adding it in lol)
How is it a stupid argument? Look at every other multiplayer only game, they go anywhere from F2P-$30 (the later usually has sub fees). Why should this online only multiplayer game be $60+? And why should a single player game be $25 only? When the servers for Titanfall go down you have a pretty coaster, when the serve- oh wait, I still have a playable game.

So you're OK spending $60 for a game with a 10 hour campaign and nothing else, but you're not OK spending $60 for a game that will offer many times that amount of gameplay? Why?


Most single player games these days have an optional online mode to them so even if the campaign's short there's an OPTIONAL online as well. And so what if a single player games campaign only lasts maybe 10 hrs. (I could argue about Titanfalls online campaign, it's a shooter so at most it might last 3 hrs.) You had fun with it and you're more than likely to come back to it, especially in the case of RPG/JRPGs where you can spend about 60-80 hrs. alone on your first playthrough and then play through multiple times after that. I still play a lot of my SNES, PS1, GC, Xbox, etc. single player games and most of these don't even have a multiplayer option to them.

My point is that while I get Titanfall will be fun (I've played the beta at a friends, it's fun, but not a big shooter fan so I can't sink a lot of hours into something like it) the fact that it is an online only multiplayer game bugs me. You're going to spend $60+ or at this point $80+ for a game that you won't even be able to play a few years down the road. You know once the next entry comes out this game's servers won't last much longer and then when the servers go down, then what? You can't play the game a few years down the road for fun, you can't sell it because no one will want to pay to use something that's basically become a fancy coaster, you can't do anything with it. That's why it bothers me that people are willing to spend that money on a game that they won't even be able to touch a few years down the road (you can't say people won't want to play it because people still want to play FPS' on things like the PS1, Doom and so on).


I spent 300 hours playing black ops one multiplayer and 250 hours playing black ops 2 brought both to max level.

I think its safe to say 80 bucks is totally worth it to a lot of people.

the game is an exclusive, servers will be up for years. every one is still able to play halo 3 multiplayer and that game is 7 years old I think its safe to say servers will not be down in a few years.

I only own a select few of single player only games because once they are done its over especially if achievements are done, you sell them back and get a new one.

Games like this are the games you keep. I plan on getting it digitally so don't have to put the disk in all the time and save space in my cabinet.
---
http://bfbcs.com/stats_360/geodanger25
http://bfbc2.statsverse.com/stats/360/geodanger25