Anyone know if Titanfall specific Nvidia drivers are planned / will drop before release?
Man I hope so. Not being able to use VSync was killing me.
Was the Vsync on the PC beta not the entirely standard Vsync of 60 FPS for PCs? Because I just started playing AC4 and it's a definite irri-fucking-tating thing to me when the in-game Vsync is locked to a worthless 30 FPS and I have to futz around with stupid external programs to fix the issue. Though at least Titanfall definitely uses multiple cores, which, for some absolutely insane reason, is more than AC4 does on the PC.
Ugh, I genuinely feel bad for Respawn with this whole mess, because it's EA that's set them up in this stupid mess of server issues thanks to moneyhatting. Respawn also doesn't get any say in where Azure backbones go either, so they can't even set places up with local servers without having to get Microsoft to make a major investment.
Not a good situation overall for Microsoft to show off the "power" of the Azure network, considering that if you aren't in the right place, you just don't get support, as opposed to people just being able to rent/buy local servers the old-fashioned way.
Huh?
Vince has said multiple times that they partnered with MS because of Azure, as it's much, much cheaper and far, far less hassle than trying to handle it themselves.
Anyway, thanks to my brother buying my regular controller of me I was able to walk out of Gamestop today with. Titanfall edition controller and $60 worth of MS bucks. Now all I need is a bottle of booze and I'm all set for Monday night.
EA would be fools not to treat respawn with silk gloves. Activision hit one of the most lucrative teams in the world and drove them away. EA just got handed a golden goose and I would be very surprised to hear Respawn mistreated or held back in any way. You can't have a better reference than MW2, that game made so much money it would make any investor drool.
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Ugh, I genuinely feel bad for Respawn with this whole mess, because it's EA that's set them up in this stupid mess of server issues thanks to moneyhatting. Respawn also doesn't get any say in where Azure backbones go either, so they can't even set places up with local servers without having to get Microsoft to make a major investment.
Not a good situation overall for Microsoft to show off the "power" of the Azure network, considering that if you aren't in the right place, you just don't get support, as opposed to people just being able to rent/buy local servers the old-fashioned way.
Huh?
Vince has said multiple times that they partnered with MS because of Azure, as it's much, much cheaper and far, far less hassle than trying to handle it themselves.
Anyway, thanks to my brother buying my regular controller of me I was able to walk out of Gamestop today with. Titanfall edition controller and $60 worth of MS bucks. Now all I need is a bottle of booze and I'm all set for Monday night.
Must've missed those posts, didn't know they wanted the Azure network.
Still, the whole Azure network thing probably needed some more cooking before somebody went at it whole-hog like this. The Australia/New Zealand region covers some 70 million people, which is not a small number of people to leave out in the cold.
My guess is, going off stuff Vince has said on twitter and in interviews, that EA told Respawn "In exchange for exclusive publishing rights we will give you a giant check with which to make whatever game you want." That's not a bad deal if you can get it.
As for Azure, it sucks that some folks are kind of screwed with no data center near by but it's not like it's deliberate. I'm sure MS would love to have them all up and ready to go everywhere. But I have to assume these data centers are neither cheap nor easy to get set up.
XBL: That Stone Dude
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Anyone know if Titanfall specific Nvidia drivers are planned / will drop before release?
Man I hope so. Not being able to use VSync was killing me.
Was the Vsync on the PC beta not the entirely standard Vsync of 60 FPS for PCs? Because I just started playing AC4 and it's a definite irri-fucking-tating thing to me when the in-game Vsync is locked to a worthless 30 FPS and I have to futz around with stupid external programs to fix the issue. Though at least Titanfall definitely uses multiple cores, which, for some absolutely insane reason, is more than AC4 does on the PC.
Vsync caused some problems for me (and others, it sounds like) when there was smoke/dust on the screen. The mouse would act up, couldn't turn, framerate tanked, etc. It was a weird thing, but there wasn't a single setting I could change to fix the problem.
And without Vsync on, the game tears like a motherfucker.
My guess is, going off stuff Vince has said on twitter and in interviews, that EA told Respawn "In exchange for exclusive publishing rights we will give you a giant check with which to make whatever game you want." That's not a bad deal if you can get it.
As for Azure, it sucks that some folks are kind of screwed with no data center near by but it's not like it's deliberate. I'm sure MS would love to have them all up and ready to go everywhere. But I have to assume these data centers are neither cheap nor easy to get set up.
Azure and dynamic server creation definitely has some seriously great potential, but yeah, the fact that getting the service would require an expensive data center in the region is certainly a drawback. There's only a handful of Azure datacenters around the world, and I doubt they can get put together fast or easily.
But I do find it encouraging that the Azure issue that originally gummed up the PC beta (where dynamic servers weren't being created) was resolved within, what 36-48 hours of the issue showing up? That's a pretty blazing-fast turnaround for a fix for an information system on that scale.
FPS devs just love splitting there player bases by selling maps don't they?
you keep saying that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. if you buy the game with intent to play it for months to come, chances are you will be interested in more content! but with a game like this, there will be plenty of people to play with, maps or no maps. it's never a problem to find games in the base disc maps in big titles like CoD, Halo, BF, etc. DLC "splitting the playerbase" means nothing really except in smaller ganes where there's a shortage of players (which won't be a problem for Titanfall...)
Devs are kind of in a bind when it comes to DLC for online shooters as there's really only maps or weapons they can try and sell, and selling DLC weapons is an argument waiting to happen.
FPS devs just love splitting there player bases by selling maps don't they?
you keep saying that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. if you buy the game with intent to play it for months to come, chances are you will be interested in more content! but with a game like this, there will be plenty of people to play with, maps or no maps. it's never a problem to find games in the base disc maps in big titles like CoD, Halo, BF, etc. DLC "splitting the playerbase" means nothing really except in smaller ganes where there's a shortage of players (which won't be a problem for Titanfall...)
This is my first post in this thread.
And sure in the first month there'll be plenty of players, after that there's always a drop off. I don't see titanfall keeping the cod/bf4 crowd for much longer then that.
FPS devs just love splitting there player bases by selling maps don't they?
you keep saying that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. if you buy the game with intent to play it for months to come, chances are you will be interested in more content! but with a game like this, there will be plenty of people to play with, maps or no maps. it's never a problem to find games in the base disc maps in big titles like CoD, Halo, BF, etc. DLC "splitting the playerbase" means nothing really except in smaller ganes where there's a shortage of players (which won't be a problem for Titanfall...)
This is my first post in this thread.
And sure in the first month there'll be plenty of players, after that there's always a drop off. I don't see titanfall keeping the cod/bf4 crowd for much longer then that.
Dunno, the general impression I've been getting is that once people play this game it puts them off entirely of regular FPS games because they don't offer the freedom of movement. Lots of posts about people finding both BF and CoD alike just boring after experiencing this combat.
Don't CoD and BF do the whole "buy extra maps" thing as well anyways? I know when I played BF3 I just played on the vanilla maps, of which there were plenty of servers running so I never really felt like I had to buy the extra maps.
I don't see how this is any different than that.
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
I wasn't specifically calling you out on the phrase, I just hear "split the playerbase" every other page, and after the buzz this game has going post-beta, I don't think it will be an issue. this game is heralded as a "CoD killer" which seems unlikely since it's only on PC/Xbox, but it really does feel like the first "next gen" FPS.
FPS devs just love splitting there player bases by selling maps don't they?
you keep saying that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. if you buy the game with intent to play it for months to come, chances are you will be interested in more content! but with a game like this, there will be plenty of people to play with, maps or no maps. it's never a problem to find games in the base disc maps in big titles like CoD, Halo, BF, etc. DLC "splitting the playerbase" means nothing really except in smaller ganes where there's a shortage of players (which won't be a problem for Titanfall...)
This is my first post in this thread.
And sure in the first month there'll be plenty of players, after that there's always a drop off. I don't see titanfall keeping the cod/bf4 crowd for much longer then that.
Dunno, the general impression I've been getting is that once people play this game it puts them off entirely of regular FPS games because they don't offer the freedom of movement. Lots of posts about people finding both BF and CoD alike just boring after experiencing this combat.
Don't CoD and BF do the whole "buy extra maps" thing as well anyways? I know when I played BF3 I just played on the vanilla maps, of which there were plenty of servers running so I never really felt like I had to buy the extra maps.
I don't see how this is any different than that.
The point was mainly that the "plenty of players" would evaporate after the first month, cod and bf get away with it because they're incredibly popular have player retention and there's a new one every year at least. Over the years I've learned to take gamers hyped on the next best thing with a huge grain of salt, I mean just go read any new mmo thread right here all those excited people ready for there new mmo home will historically speaking not be anywhere to be seen until the next upcoming mmo. They're all back where they were.
I guess I'm not invested enough to care to much though, this isn't an issue I'm willing to go to bat for. I only really play fps games casually, 2-3 rounds any given day at best usually. Maybe it's also worth putting forward that you aren't banned from enjoying a game if you don't approve of some of the business decisions behind it.
you can and absolutely should be critical of some of their decisions and are free to dislike maps/DLC/season passes. I personally just don't think, in Titanfall's case, that "splitting the playerbase" idea will affect this one. it's destined to be a system seller, blockbuster franchise. on both console and PC it should be easy to find a game, even without a season pass. several valid criticisms include lack of AUS servers, not launching in South Africa, exclusivity deal done questionably by EA, outsourcing the 360 versions, etc.
FPS devs just love splitting there player bases by selling maps don't they?
you keep saying that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. if you buy the game with intent to play it for months to come, chances are you will be interested in more content! but with a game like this, there will be plenty of people to play with, maps or no maps. it's never a problem to find games in the base disc maps in big titles like CoD, Halo, BF, etc. DLC "splitting the playerbase" means nothing really except in smaller ganes where there's a shortage of players (which won't be a problem for Titanfall...)
This is my first post in this thread.
And sure in the first month there'll be plenty of players, after that there's always a drop off. I don't see titanfall keeping the cod/bf4 crowd for much longer then that.
Dunno, the general impression I've been getting is that once people play this game it puts them off entirely of regular FPS games because they don't offer the freedom of movement. Lots of posts about people finding both BF and CoD alike just boring after experiencing this combat.
Don't CoD and BF do the whole "buy extra maps" thing as well anyways? I know when I played BF3 I just played on the vanilla maps, of which there were plenty of servers running so I never really felt like I had to buy the extra maps.
I don't see how this is any different than that.
The point was mainly that the "plenty of players" would evaporate after the first month, cod and bf get away with it because they're incredibly popular have player retention and there's a new one every year at least. Over the years I've learned to take gamers hyped on the next best thing with a huge grain of salt, I mean just go read any new mmo thread right here all those excited people ready for there new mmo home will historically speaking not be anywhere to be seen until the next upcoming mmo. They're all back where they were.
I guess I'm not invested enough to care to much though, this isn't an issue I'm willing to go to bat for. I only really play fps games casually, 2-3 rounds any given day at best usually. Maybe it's also worth putting forward that you aren't banned from enjoying a game if you don't approve of some of the business decisions behind it.
You are comparing two completely different things. The reason people bail on an MMO is typically because of a lack of content, there is a finite amount of content created and it is consumed at a very rapid pace (it is much easier to play the content than it is to create it), an FPS is primarily user created content (the "content" is the competition with other players), and has a lot more staying power if the core mechanics are solid enough.
Not all game types are alike, and games that focus primarily on player vs player interactions tend to have more staying power by their very nature.
You could very well be right though, the game could flop, the mechanics could turn off the playerbase, it could be incredibly buggy, there could be horrible balance (none of these things have shown up in the beta however) , but your example is a pretty bad one as it doesn't really relate.
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
Modern Warfare and MW2 (the last games a lot of these folk worked on) handled DLC maps pretty well. If you had them it matched you with others who also had them and they were just part of the map rotation. If you didn't you got put with folks who didn't. As someone who at various points had and didn't have certain map packs I never saw any problems getting matches either way.
FPS devs just love splitting there player bases by selling maps don't they?
you keep saying that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. if you buy the game with intent to play it for months to come, chances are you will be interested in more content! but with a game like this, there will be plenty of people to play with, maps or no maps. it's never a problem to find games in the base disc maps in big titles like CoD, Halo, BF, etc. DLC "splitting the playerbase" means nothing really except in smaller ganes where there's a shortage of players (which won't be a problem for Titanfall...)
This is my first post in this thread.
And sure in the first month there'll be plenty of players, after that there's always a drop off. I don't see titanfall keeping the cod/bf4 crowd for much longer then that.
Dunno, the general impression I've been getting is that once people play this game it puts them off entirely of regular FPS games because they don't offer the freedom of movement. Lots of posts about people finding both BF and CoD alike just boring after experiencing this combat.
Don't CoD and BF do the whole "buy extra maps" thing as well anyways? I know when I played BF3 I just played on the vanilla maps, of which there were plenty of servers running so I never really felt like I had to buy the extra maps.
I don't see how this is any different than that.
The point was mainly that the "plenty of players" would evaporate after the first month, cod and bf get away with it because they're incredibly popular have player retention and there's a new one every year at least. Over the years I've learned to take gamers hyped on the next best thing with a huge grain of salt, I mean just go read any new mmo thread right here all those excited people ready for there new mmo home will historically speaking not be anywhere to be seen until the next upcoming mmo. They're all back where they were.
I guess I'm not invested enough to care to much though, this isn't an issue I'm willing to go to bat for. I only really play fps games casually, 2-3 rounds any given day at best usually. Maybe it's also worth putting forward that you aren't banned from enjoying a game if you don't approve of some of the business decisions behind it.
I legitimately wish to know, and I want to convey this in a manner that is not meant to be confrontational, so I apologize if I come across this way.
Why does the size of a playerbase matter in games like Titanfall (beyond the bare minimum required to fill a lobby)? How does this affect you?
I don't care if literally everyone on Earth plays Titanfall. When I talk about the player base being split I'm talking about my friends. Half of them buy the DLC and half of them don't. If I buy the DLC I can't play it with half my friends. If I don't buy the DLC I can't play with half my friends. That's the split I care about and it makes my fucking blood boil. Maps should be free. Sell other shit.
I don't care if literally everyone on Earth plays Titanfall. When I talk about the player base being split I'm talking about my friends. Half of them buy the DLC and half of them don't. If I buy the DLC I can't play it with half my friends. If I don't buy the DLC I can't play with half my friends. That's the split I care about and it makes my fucking blood boil. Maps should be free. Sell other shit.
Map packs have been around for ages. Hell, I remember getting expansion packs with them for BF1942. Dunno why people are so salty about them now that they're called DLC instead of expansions.
Apparently MW has this problem solved by not loading the DLC if some people in the lobby don't have it and seeing as how these are the same guys I'm sure Titanfall will handle it the same way.
well since this game is online only you're basically paying $60 for 15 maps. those aren't free either. why should you feel entitled to more content for free? you can still play base maps with your friends. if they refuse to play with you, get better friends.
I don't care if literally everyone on Earth plays Titanfall. When I talk about the player base being split I'm talking about my friends. Half of them buy the DLC and half of them don't. If I buy the DLC I can't play it with half my friends. If I don't buy the DLC I can't play with half my friends. That's the split I care about and it makes my fucking blood boil. Maps should be free. Sell other shit.
If you buy the map pack you can still play with the other half of your friends. It's not as if you lose all of your other maps upon purchasing it.
If you don't buy the map pack you can still play with the other half of your friends just not quite as often because chances are they still want to play with everyone else too.
+1
Psychotic OneThe Lord of No PantsParts UnknownRegistered Userregular
I really don't mind DLC in general and plan to get the Titanfall season pass as well. From everything I've seen this is a game I can play for a whole season (year? Depends on the game cycle). I generally get my money worth out of season pass stuff like this. In Black Ops, even if I can't find maps with the new stuff, I and my friends got our monies worth out of the Zombies content. And I want more Extinction content from Ghosts. That and the Titanfall pass is $25 dollars for 3 content packs? I really don't think thats all that bad of a deal. Its not like Battlefield where you are paying an additional 50 dollars for more maps. This is a fraction of the cost of the game for 3 new content packs. I can easily justify that cost.
DLC maps aren't really going to segment the playerbase all that much. You might not be able to play the new maps with friends who haven't bought the maps yet, but it doesn't keep you from playing with them. I've been on both sides of the equation through my Call of Duty career and it has never been an issue. Sure, you might be the butt of some derision if you don't have the new DLC, but you were probably going to get made fun of anyway.
Just like the game itself, I have high hopes for the DLC. I know they can do more than charge us 15 bucks for 4 new places to play. It would be really cool if they added to the campaign with each update. I want them to flesh out this world to some crazy degree.
I don't care if literally everyone on Earth plays Titanfall. When I talk about the player base being split I'm talking about my friends. Half of them buy the DLC and half of them don't. If I buy the DLC I can't play it with half my friends. If I don't buy the DLC I can't play with half my friends. That's the split I care about and it makes my fucking blood boil. Maps should be free. Sell other shit.
Map packs have been around for ages. Hell, I remember getting expansion packs with them for BF1942. Dunno why people are so salty about them now that they're called DLC instead of expansions.
Apparently MW has this problem solved by not loading the DLC if some people in the lobby don't have it and seeing as how these are the same guys I'm sure Titanfall will handle it the same way.
All these posts and nobody has asked the obvious question here:
I don't see titanfall keeping the cod/bf4 crowd for much longer then that.
Why?
Because Titanfall is fun and COD/BF players need to be hardcore bros/kiddies and only COD/BF offers that.
Seriously, I have FUN in Titanfall, win or lose. When I used to play the COD/BF games, if you were losing, it fucking blew hard in that you can't even touch the other players so what is the point of playing? At least with Titanfall, there are NPCs to kill, Titans to kill, and then getting to your dropship.
Psychotic OneThe Lord of No PantsParts UnknownRegistered Userregular
As a long time COD player I can say that Titanfall can bring in a large percentage of the COD community pretty easily. A good portion of the dedicated COD Commentator community like Ravage, Xbox Ahoy, and Drift0r all seem pretty on board for Titanfall. The only aspect of the COD community I could see not being totally invested would be the MLG crowd. Outside of Last Titan Standing there really isn't a S&D aspect for them to latch onto. But I love the fast paced gun play and the thematic elements they've added. The evacuation at the end of a round is a lot more fun than just the standard "you lose" screen we've been treated to for generations.
FPS devs just love splitting there player bases by selling maps don't they?
you keep saying that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. if you buy the game with intent to play it for months to come, chances are you will be interested in more content! but with a game like this, there will be plenty of people to play with, maps or no maps. it's never a problem to find games in the base disc maps in big titles like CoD, Halo, BF, etc. DLC "splitting the playerbase" means nothing really except in smaller ganes where there's a shortage of players (which won't be a problem for Titanfall...)
This is my first post in this thread.
And sure in the first month there'll be plenty of players, after that there's always a drop off. I don't see titanfall keeping the cod/bf4 crowd for much longer then that.
Have you played this game? It's hard to go back to BF4, and that's a totally different game. There's no way you can go back to CoD after playing this.
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
The only aspect of the COD community I could see not being totally invested would be the MLG crowd.
Most of my experience with MLG was with tedious-as-fuck Halo MLG gametypes in several Halo games, so I can pretty safely say that, should MLG not pick up on Titanfall, I will be very happy. You see, Titanfall is lots and lots of fun, and the standard approach of MLG is to find settings and restrictions that suck all the damn fun and character out of a game, then call it "competitive".
As for the DLC packs having weapons included, I sure as hell expect that to be a thing. Obviously maps will be in there, but new weapons and combat items are the sort of thing that really change the game experience, and just because they're different doesn't mean they'll need to be better. Just from the beta, we already couldn't agree on whether the smart pistol, shotgun, SMG, or carbine was really the best weapon, which means there's a solid level of balance in place.
And if people are going to be unhappy over weapons coming in with DLC packs, I can't say I'd have much sympathy there if the weapons are balanced additions. As long as DLC weapons don't have undue advantages, well, the game industry isn't a charity and people will just have to cope with the notion of not getting access to new stuff if they aren't willing to pay for new stuff. New items/maps these days require more than a couple of enthusiasts knocking something together in a couple weeks, so the modern DLC situation isn't even really comparable with the days when making a new map took relatively no time at all.
I mean, do people even remember what that old stuff looked like? Look here at the famous Desert Combat mod from BF1942 (made by two amateurs), with a shot of BF4 (made by a whole slew of trained folks) below it:
Yeah, BF4 had a slew of issues, but one of those looks like a screenshot from a online in-browser game, and one looks like something that took a fulltime staff to produce. Naturally, one of them is also a lot more expensive to make new stuff for. Now, whether or not companies are releasing new content at reasonable prices? That's something I can see as debatable, and frequently object to it myself. But charging for new content? I don't even blink at the thought of that, because new stuff is damned complicated to make these days.
Ninja Snarl P on
+3
Psychotic OneThe Lord of No PantsParts UnknownRegistered Userregular
The only aspect of the COD community I could see not being totally invested would be the MLG crowd.
Most of my experience with MLG was with tedious-as-fuck Halo MLG gametypes in several Halo games, so I can pretty safely say that, should MLG not pick up on Titanfall, I will be very happy. You see, Titanfall is lots and lots of fun, and the standard approach of MLG is to find settings and restrictions that suck all the damn fun and character out of a game, then call it "competitive".
As for the DLC packs having weapons included, I sure as hell expect that to be a thing. Obviously maps will be in there, but new weapons and combat items are the sort of thing that really change the game experience, and just because they're different doesn't mean they'll need to be better. Just from the beta, we already couldn't agree on whether the smart pistol, shotgun, SMG, or carbine was really the best weapon, which means there's a solid level of balance in place.
And if people are going to be unhappy over weapons coming in with DLC packs, I can't say I'd have much sympathy there if the weapons are balanced additions. As long as DLC weapons don't have undue advantages, well, the game industry isn't a charity and people will just have to cope with the notion of not getting access to new stuff if they aren't willing to pay for new stuff. New items/maps these days require more than a couple of enthusiasts knocking something together in a couple weeks, so the modern DLC situation isn't even really comparable with the days when making a new map took relatively no time at all.
I mean, do people even remember what that old stuff looked like? Look here at the famous Desert Combat mod from BF1942 (made by two amateurs), with a shot of BF4 (made by a whole slew of trained folks) below it:
Yeah, BF4 had a slew of issues, but one of those looks like a screenshot from a online in-browser game, and one looks like something that took a fulltime staff to produce. Naturally, one of them is also a lot more expensive to make new stuff for.
I agree fully on the MLG part. They take everything that makes a game unique and strip it down bare bones so its not as fun. Its like people who claim In Smash Brothers "Final Destination - No Items" as the only acceptable rule. Part of the game was the unpredictability of the items and the stage events. Instead they strip the game of its identity and turn it into a basic brawler.
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I remember how there were always MLG gametypes in the Halo games, and any time they ended up in standard playlists they always pissed me off because they did stupid, boring things like turn off shields, give everybody headshot weapons, and have no equipment but sprint. If they wanted to play Counterstrike, then why didn't they just go play Counterstrike instead of trying to turn another game into it?
Not to mention that it was the bitching of the "pro" players, a small minority of the Halo community, that got stuff like the Armor Lock ability removed because they insisted it was unbalanced, so Halo 4 didn't get to have a really fun, awesome piece of equipment to placate a handful of players who don't know how to have fun if you can't spell it with "K/D ratio".
I feel like Titanfall has competitive potential, but in such a way that the boring tryhards can't strip out the best parts. Which is great, because if MLG were given the choice, they'd probably turn off the wallrunning as their first move because it wouldn't be fair to snipers or some silliness like that.
FPS devs just love splitting there player bases by selling maps don't they?
you keep saying that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. if you buy the game with intent to play it for months to come, chances are you will be interested in more content! but with a game like this, there will be plenty of people to play with, maps or no maps. it's never a problem to find games in the base disc maps in big titles like CoD, Halo, BF, etc. DLC "splitting the playerbase" means nothing really except in smaller ganes where there's a shortage of players (which won't be a problem for Titanfall...)
This is my first post in this thread.
And sure in the first month there'll be plenty of players, after that there's always a drop off. I don't see titanfall keeping the cod/bf4 crowd for much longer then that.
Being one of the cod crowd, and anecdotally or whatever, I politely disagree. I haven't played ghosts in months, but I will be playing this every night if the gameplay is like the beta was.
Posts
Was the Vsync on the PC beta not the entirely standard Vsync of 60 FPS for PCs? Because I just started playing AC4 and it's a definite irri-fucking-tating thing to me when the in-game Vsync is locked to a worthless 30 FPS and I have to futz around with stupid external programs to fix the issue. Though at least Titanfall definitely uses multiple cores, which, for some absolutely insane reason, is more than AC4 does on the PC.
EA would be fools not to treat respawn with silk gloves. Activision hit one of the most lucrative teams in the world and drove them away. EA just got handed a golden goose and I would be very surprised to hear Respawn mistreated or held back in any way. You can't have a better reference than MW2, that game made so much money it would make any investor drool.
Still, the whole Azure network thing probably needed some more cooking before somebody went at it whole-hog like this. The Australia/New Zealand region covers some 70 million people, which is not a small number of people to leave out in the cold.
As for Azure, it sucks that some folks are kind of screwed with no data center near by but it's not like it's deliberate. I'm sure MS would love to have them all up and ready to go everywhere. But I have to assume these data centers are neither cheap nor easy to get set up.
Vsync caused some problems for me (and others, it sounds like) when there was smoke/dust on the screen. The mouse would act up, couldn't turn, framerate tanked, etc. It was a weird thing, but there wasn't a single setting I could change to fix the problem.
And without Vsync on, the game tears like a motherfucker.
FPS devs just love splitting there player bases by selling maps don't they?
Azure and dynamic server creation definitely has some seriously great potential, but yeah, the fact that getting the service would require an expensive data center in the region is certainly a drawback. There's only a handful of Azure datacenters around the world, and I doubt they can get put together fast or easily.
But I do find it encouraging that the Azure issue that originally gummed up the PC beta (where dynamic servers weren't being created) was resolved within, what 36-48 hours of the issue showing up? That's a pretty blazing-fast turnaround for a fix for an information system on that scale.
you keep saying that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. if you buy the game with intent to play it for months to come, chances are you will be interested in more content! but with a game like this, there will be plenty of people to play with, maps or no maps. it's never a problem to find games in the base disc maps in big titles like CoD, Halo, BF, etc. DLC "splitting the playerbase" means nothing really except in smaller ganes where there's a shortage of players (which won't be a problem for Titanfall...)
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
This is my first post in this thread.
And sure in the first month there'll be plenty of players, after that there's always a drop off. I don't see titanfall keeping the cod/bf4 crowd for much longer then that.
Dunno, the general impression I've been getting is that once people play this game it puts them off entirely of regular FPS games because they don't offer the freedom of movement. Lots of posts about people finding both BF and CoD alike just boring after experiencing this combat.
Don't CoD and BF do the whole "buy extra maps" thing as well anyways? I know when I played BF3 I just played on the vanilla maps, of which there were plenty of servers running so I never really felt like I had to buy the extra maps.
I don't see how this is any different than that.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
Don't put DLC in map rotations when not everyone in the lobby has the DLC.
Bam, fucking problem solved.
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
The point was mainly that the "plenty of players" would evaporate after the first month, cod and bf get away with it because they're incredibly popular have player retention and there's a new one every year at least. Over the years I've learned to take gamers hyped on the next best thing with a huge grain of salt, I mean just go read any new mmo thread right here all those excited people ready for there new mmo home will historically speaking not be anywhere to be seen until the next upcoming mmo. They're all back where they were.
I guess I'm not invested enough to care to much though, this isn't an issue I'm willing to go to bat for. I only really play fps games casually, 2-3 rounds any given day at best usually. Maybe it's also worth putting forward that you aren't banned from enjoying a game if you don't approve of some of the business decisions behind it.
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
You are comparing two completely different things. The reason people bail on an MMO is typically because of a lack of content, there is a finite amount of content created and it is consumed at a very rapid pace (it is much easier to play the content than it is to create it), an FPS is primarily user created content (the "content" is the competition with other players), and has a lot more staying power if the core mechanics are solid enough.
Not all game types are alike, and games that focus primarily on player vs player interactions tend to have more staying power by their very nature.
You could very well be right though, the game could flop, the mechanics could turn off the playerbase, it could be incredibly buggy, there could be horrible balance (none of these things have shown up in the beta however) , but your example is a pretty bad one as it doesn't really relate.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
I expect the same sort of system with TF.
I legitimately wish to know, and I want to convey this in a manner that is not meant to be confrontational, so I apologize if I come across this way.
Why does the size of a playerbase matter in games like Titanfall (beyond the bare minimum required to fill a lobby)? How does this affect you?
Why?
Map packs have been around for ages. Hell, I remember getting expansion packs with them for BF1942. Dunno why people are so salty about them now that they're called DLC instead of expansions.
Apparently MW has this problem solved by not loading the DLC if some people in the lobby don't have it and seeing as how these are the same guys I'm sure Titanfall will handle it the same way.
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
If you buy the map pack you can still play with the other half of your friends. It's not as if you lose all of your other maps upon purchasing it.
If you don't buy the map pack you can still play with the other half of your friends just not quite as often because chances are they still want to play with everyone else too.
Just like the game itself, I have high hopes for the DLC. I know they can do more than charge us 15 bucks for 4 new places to play. It would be really cool if they added to the campaign with each update. I want them to flesh out this world to some crazy degree.
Because Titanfall is fun and COD/BF players need to be hardcore bros/kiddies and only COD/BF offers that.
Seriously, I have FUN in Titanfall, win or lose. When I used to play the COD/BF games, if you were losing, it fucking blew hard in that you can't even touch the other players so what is the point of playing? At least with Titanfall, there are NPCs to kill, Titans to kill, and then getting to your dropship.
Tumblr | Twitter | Twitch | Pinny Arcade Lanyard
[3DS] 3394-3901-4002 | [Xbox/Steam] Redfield85
Have you played this game? It's hard to go back to BF4, and that's a totally different game. There's no way you can go back to CoD after playing this.
As for the DLC packs having weapons included, I sure as hell expect that to be a thing. Obviously maps will be in there, but new weapons and combat items are the sort of thing that really change the game experience, and just because they're different doesn't mean they'll need to be better. Just from the beta, we already couldn't agree on whether the smart pistol, shotgun, SMG, or carbine was really the best weapon, which means there's a solid level of balance in place.
And if people are going to be unhappy over weapons coming in with DLC packs, I can't say I'd have much sympathy there if the weapons are balanced additions. As long as DLC weapons don't have undue advantages, well, the game industry isn't a charity and people will just have to cope with the notion of not getting access to new stuff if they aren't willing to pay for new stuff. New items/maps these days require more than a couple of enthusiasts knocking something together in a couple weeks, so the modern DLC situation isn't even really comparable with the days when making a new map took relatively no time at all.
I mean, do people even remember what that old stuff looked like? Look here at the famous Desert Combat mod from BF1942 (made by two amateurs), with a shot of BF4 (made by a whole slew of trained folks) below it:
I agree fully on the MLG part. They take everything that makes a game unique and strip it down bare bones so its not as fun. Its like people who claim In Smash Brothers "Final Destination - No Items" as the only acceptable rule. Part of the game was the unpredictability of the items and the stage events. Instead they strip the game of its identity and turn it into a basic brawler.
Twitch Wed-Sun, 2-5pm CST
Not to mention that it was the bitching of the "pro" players, a small minority of the Halo community, that got stuff like the Armor Lock ability removed because they insisted it was unbalanced, so Halo 4 didn't get to have a really fun, awesome piece of equipment to placate a handful of players who don't know how to have fun if you can't spell it with "K/D ratio".
I feel like Titanfall has competitive potential, but in such a way that the boring tryhards can't strip out the best parts. Which is great, because if MLG were given the choice, they'd probably turn off the wallrunning as their first move because it wouldn't be fair to snipers or some silliness like that.
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
Twitch Wed-Sun, 2-5pm CST
Being one of the cod crowd, and anecdotally or whatever, I politely disagree. I haven't played ghosts in months, but I will be playing this every night if the gameplay is like the beta was.