• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

The Final Hours of Titanfall Out Now - Titanfall Almost Never Happened

Principate

Saint Titanfall
Dec 17, 2011
16,590
0
570
Lack of a PS3 version, a console that ex IW guys have developed games on, suggests that its not just about "lack of PS4 information".

Because they had more than enough information about the 80 million user base of the PS3. And that version does not exist


Hence why MS funding the development makes sense. Why would Microsoft help fund a PS3 version or pay programmers to develop that version, it makes no sense.

Come on man your better than this. They did not make any current gen versions, (X360 was outsourced), they barely had the man power to create that and pc and it shows, Even if MS hadn't paid they wouldn't have made a PS3 version either way it would also likely be outsourced.
 

Into

Member
Aug 20, 2012
8,459
1
0
Come on man your better than this. They did not make any current gen versions, (X360 was outsourced), they barely had the man power to create that and pc and it shows, Even if MS hadn't paid they wouldn't have made a PS3 version either way it would also likely be outsourced.


You dont think Respawn and EA would want a 80.000.000+ userbase on PS3 to have a cance to purchase their game?

I am sorry, but that makes zero sense, none.

Being "better than this" in your case implies that i am suppose to believe they would turn down such a huge market because...they could not find another studio to port the PS3 version. That simply does not hold up
 

Principate

Saint Titanfall
Dec 17, 2011
16,590
0
570
You dont think Respawn and EA would want a 80.000.000+ userbase on PS3 to have a cance to purchase their game?

I am sorry, but that makes zero sense, none.

Did you not read my post? Much like the X360 version Respawn themselves wouldn't port the game. EA would have brought in someone like Bluepoint or Bluepoint themselves to do it.
 
Sep 15, 2011
12,984
1
0
The "key part" you're missing is the time frame. Respawn asked for this info in January of 2012, well over a year before the reveal of the console. Sony could have brought in third party developers somewhere around the summer of 2012 and still had more than enough time to make the changes that they're said to have made. Controllers can be prototyped on a small scale in a matter of weeks, dead zones are primarily just a software issue, and we already know that the 4GB/8GB choice came pretty late in the process.

Might be right there. Still something is missing. It's confusing Respawn would even be asking anyways considering they had already partnered with EA. Sounds like they needed funding which Sony was in no position to provide that level of funding. I mean EA didn't even want to fund it and was about to pull the plug. If you were running Sony/MS AT that time would you fund it knowing that?
 

Stallion Free

Cock Encumbered
Jan 21, 2009
29,933
0
0
Connecticut, U.S.
steamcommunity.com
I have the Portal one on Steam, but I grabbed this one on Ipad now that I have one of them there devices. I read the first couple chapters and it's just as well done as the Portal (and if you are old-school, Half-Life 2 one). Great work Geoff.

I'm probably gonna pick up the Mass Effect/Tomb Raider ones after I finish this since I have been craving some good games journalism.
 

Into

Member
Aug 20, 2012
8,459
1
0
Did you not read my post? Much like the X360 version Respawn themselves wouldn't port the game. EA would have brought in someone like Bluepoint or Bluepoint themselves to do it.


Yes...and?

Are you saying its not worth contracting another studio to port the PS3 version of Titanfall? If you are, why not? Its a 80 million userbase, just like 360? Is there some clause that says you are only allowed to contract 1 external developer to port your game to another system?

The more simple explanation to this is that Microsoft naturally gained some say, because they helped fund parts of the game. Thus of course a 360 version exists.
 

Mononoke

Banned
Dec 26, 2012
20,941
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
Interesting.People may not like Geoff but he puts out good stuff like this. I'll probably go ahead and pick this up.

That West story is really sad. Guess he probably has enough money that he doesn't need to work anymore though.

Geoff is a great journalist. In fact most like his work in this field a lot. He's really good at it.
However, people don't like Host/Commentator/Industry Ambassador Geoff, as it gets in his way most of the time at digging into the issues. He essentially is a PR/rep for the industry and has to walk that thin line. His job is to sell the industry to a large audience.

Then there is all the other stuff you know about. But yeah, the guy is actually really talented. Hopefully people don't pass on these because of his work as a commentator. These are fantastic.

Although I actually thought his coverage at E3 last year was solid. He went hard at a couple people and really asked the right questions and was persistent.
 

Card Boy

Banned
Aug 11, 2010
17,104
1
0
VIC, Australia
Someone should make a wall of shame of the Steam sub forum on this. Here is one based on thread title alone.



and there are 8 more pages.
 

Prine

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
13,817
0
0
You do realize Sony not biting at complete funding in 2012 (that later led to exclusivity) doesn't necessitate that they didn't show EA the number they would have had now in 2014 had EA funded and made it multiplat.

Put away the pitchforks folks.
That doesn't make sense, to show estimated lost sales on a game they (Sony) chose not to get involved with, and not knowing how much EA pocketed. It's an absurd playground statement.
 

antitrop

Member
Feb 19, 2011
46,348
4
550
35
Colorado Springs, CO
twitter.com
Wow, this art guy they brought in from the film industry seems like a right royal prick. Just coming in and bossing all the game designers around because they had to slightly change his artistic vision for gameplay purposes.
 

Principate

Saint Titanfall
Dec 17, 2011
16,590
0
570
Yes...and?

Are you saying its not worth contracting another studio to port the PS3 version of Titanfall? If you are, why not? Its a 80 million userbase, just like 360?

No I'm not. You said it had nothing to do lack of PS4 info because they could have just made a PS3 version, I implied it was partly due to lack of info because even if a PS3 was going to exist respawn themselves weren't going to make it, so it did very much matter that Sony didn't supply information to respawn for them to work on a PS4 version.

I never talked about it not being worthwhile to make PS3 version.
 

Stallion Free

Cock Encumbered
Jan 21, 2009
29,933
0
0
Connecticut, U.S.
steamcommunity.com
Wow, this art guy they brought in from the film industry seems like a right royal prick. Just coming in and bossing all the game designers around because they had to slightly change his artistic vision for gameplay purposes.

I don't think they changed it enough. I didn't feel like the visuals read well from a gameplay standpoint at all when I played the beta.
 

Solid Samus

Banned
Feb 26, 2010
7,608
1
0
Lancaster, PA
There goes any salt I may have held onto over that this didn't hit PS4. Seems like a pretty cut-and-dry Bayonetta 2 type situation. At least it's on PC. I'll tell ya what, though, if it weren't, there'd probably be an Xbox One somewhere underneath this roof. I think the game is okay but I see others like my brother playing it and getting into the thick of it and that is one hilarious, intense, action-packed game at times. It's solid but I'd been turned off by its simplicity and that it's a multiplayer only title. Good to have some real context for those things at least.
 

hodayathink

Member
Mar 13, 2013
6,450
1
490
Might be right there. Still something is missing. It's confusing Respawn would even be asking anyways considering they had already partnered with EA. Sounds like they needed funding which Sony was in no position to provide that level of funding. I mean EA didn't even want to fund it and was about to pull the plug. If you were running Sony/MS AT that time would you fund it knowing that?

If I had to guess, I think that once Respawn saw the Xbox One specs, they decided that they'd rather do a next-gen version themselves than stay with current gen (in addition to PC). So they went again to Sony basically to say, hey, we're making a next gen game, but we can't get started on a PS4 version right now without knowing what specifications we need to develop to, so let us know right now so we can get started. Sony still refused, so they said okay, full steam ahead on Xbox One (and got MS to pay for that level of exclusivity). At some point later in the year they got the PS4 specs, so they started to plan a late port (because the exclusivity was supposed to be temporary), but after the E3 showing, MS went in and bought full exclusivity, and that was that.
 

Morts

Member
Oct 6, 2004
4,611
0
0
Just bought, despite never having played the game. Sounds really interesting.

Are The Final Hours of Portal 2 and Tomb Raider not available on Android? It seems like Tomb Raider was at one point but the links I'm finding are dead.
 

Into

Member
Aug 20, 2012
8,459
1
0
No I'm not. You said it's about it nothing to do lack of PS4 info because they could have just made a PS3 version, I implied it was partly due to lack of info because even if a PS3 was going to exist respawn themselves weren't going to make, so it did very much matter that Sony didn't supply information to respawn for them to work on a PS4 version.

I never talked about it not being worthwhile to make PS3 version.


Oh no, you are right in that you never talked about it not being worthwhile to make a PS3 version, that is true.

But, so what if Respawn would not developing it, that does not answer why a PS3 version does not exist? Are you catching my drift? Respawn owns a telephone in their studio, we have to assume that, and was able to set up Blue Point to develop the 360 port.

So what i am asking is, what factor prevented Respawn from picking up that same phone and contracting another external studio to do the PS3 port? Its certainly worth it right, i mean hot game, 80 million userbase, printing money.


There is no logical sense why they would not have done this, unless they had a deal with Microsoft in place, which makes sense to me.
 

THRILLH0

Banned
Feb 15, 2010
4,133
0
0
No what they were saying was "Ha see, no moneyhat involved!", when in fact money was involved.

You are being obtuse and trying argue semantics here, money left Microsoft, and that
money went to Respawn. Period. Out of that a game popped out, that is exclusive on Xbox platforms.

Mate for someone so hell bent on condescending to people that they need to read and comprehend your posts thoroughly, you'd think that you would extend others the same courtesy.

Never mind. Thank you for so eloquently demonstrating your lack of understanding as to what people mean when they talk about "moneyhatting" or buying exclusivity.

You can have your own interpretation as to what these terms mean but when you reply to someone like Deadly Cyclone as you did in your very first post in this thread and attempt to contradict them, it is your responsibility to first comprehend their meaning and respond to it. Instead, you either failed to comprehend, or were ignorant of what Deadly Cyclone meant by "buying exclusivity".

YOU are the one who chose to come into this thread and play the semantics game by attempting to contradict Deadly Cyclone with your first and subsequent posts.

If you want to argue that what MS did was tantamount to "buying exclusivity" then fill your boots but know that you're fundamentally misinterpreting what people mean when they use those words.
 

Card Boy

Banned
Aug 11, 2010
17,104
1
0
VIC, Australia
I'm laughing my ass off at the Steam forums. Console fanboyism is one thing but DRM fanboyism is amusing to read. There are people out there that are mad as fuck and are in tears.
 

Principate

Saint Titanfall
Dec 17, 2011
16,590
0
570
Oh no, you are right in that you never talked about it not being worthwhile to make a PS3 version, that is true.

But, so what if Respawn would not developing it, that does not answer why a PS3 version does not exist? Are you catching my drift? Respawn owns a telephone in their studio, we have to assume that, and was able to set up Blue Point to develop the 360 port.

So what i am asking is, what factor prevented Respawn from picking up that same phone and contracting another external studio to do the PS3 port? Its certainly worth it right, i mean hot game, 80 million userbase, printing money.


There is no logical sense why they would not have done this, unless they had a deal with Microsoft in place, which makes sense to me.

MS paid to finish the game of course a PS3 doesn't exist. If that wasn't the case, or had Sony played a more hands on role EA would have ported it just fine, or got some more money from MS to ensure exclusivity.
 

turcy

Member
Mar 2, 2014
374
0
0
purchased.

this is amazing, love this game, certain to love this story.

edit: purchased through iTunes, as i had some credit left on there - do i need to transfer this to my iPad to read it / view it? doesn't do anything on my desktop through iTunes...
 

Jomjom

Banned
Nov 26, 2009
11,734
2
0
Los Angeles
No. There really is no reason that Sony would show the numbers. And the "insider" was most likely wrong about what happened and let his own bias dictate what he posted. I highly doubt EA cared about any missed sales. The game was not going to come out on the ps4 period. Team was too small and they just didn't have enough time. So those aren't "lost sales". You can't miss out on something that you had no chance of having in the first place.

But I can all but guarantee that it was always the plan that if the first game did well, the second would go multiplatform.

Sony wouldn't be rubbing numbers in someone elses face when they rejected the game in the first place.

I'm not saying rubbing it someone's face. I'm pretty sure these companies do share sales metrics when they are trying to convince publishers/devs to support the console. I don't see why there's no reason they would have shared things like their sales numbers, play time, ps+ subs numbers, or even social metrics.

Why wouldn't you try to make as strong a case as possible for why a game that's coming out in the future should be released on your console?


Also, does anyone know the sources for this documentary yet? I'm not saying the names of actual people, but do we know if it's just people within Respawn or people from all parties that are mentioned?

I would assume it's the latter because that's how it's done in documentary/investigative pieces. I mean take Indie Game: the Movie for instance, they didn't just interview Phil Fish and stop there. I'm not saying Indie Game is the pinnacle of documentary pieces either.
 

EmptySpace

Banned
Jul 10, 2013
5,177
0
0
I've toyed around with the idea of more video content -- it's more disruptive to the development team when you bring in lights and cameras. And I find that developers are more comfortable just chatting casually versus a big "Tv shoot." But one day I'd love to do a Final Hours documentary.


man, an hour ever 7-9 months shouldn't be a big deal to them. and really, it's gonna be casual conversation anyway when they sit down so they'll settle in just fine after 2 mins.

i just feel like out of all the press people, you have both the resources and talent to make that kind of viddoc and i feel like if you got exclusive on those especially on the really big titles like destiny, that's way more exposure for them and for you. if you're the only one who has that access and you post it online, it's gonna spread once it's there. why? it's unique content. it's not about devs talking about their game's features, and i feel like there's such a huge audience for that. people don't wanna pay $1 but they'll be okay sitting through a 30-second ad. better yet, you can even put that on psn/xblive in their media section of the stores.
 

daman824

Member
Sep 5, 2013
3,128
0
0
I'm not saying rubbing it someone's face. I'm pretty sure these companies do share sales metrics when they are trying to convince publishers/devs to support the console. I don't see why there's no reason they would have shared things like their sales numbers, play time, ps+ subs numbers, or even social metrics.

Why wouldn't you try to make as strong a case as possible for why a game that's coming out in the future should be released on your console?
Because EA likely already has those numbers. They know how well the ps4 is selling. They don't need sony telling them how many sales they lost to convince them to make the next game multiplatform.

Especially when sony refused the game in the first place.
 

Into

Member
Aug 20, 2012
8,459
1
0
Were last gen versions even planned originally? The fact that they had to ousource the 360 version points to that not being the original plan.

Apperrantly at some point only the PS3 and 360 versions existed. Which makes sense, we heard rumblings about this game quite some time ago and that it would be on PS3 and 360.

Mate for someone so hell bent on condescending to people that they need to read and understand and comprehend your posts thoroughly, you'd think that you would extend others the same courtesy.

I am amused that you lecturing me on my posts and behavior when you ended your first post with a "kthxbye"? That is the first impression i have of you and now you are giving out instructions how to behave? Terrible way to start a discussion.

Never mind. Thank you for so eloquently demonstrating your lack of understanding as to what people mean when they talk about "moneyhatting" or buying exclusivity.

You can have your own interpretation as to what these terms mean but when you reply to someone like Deadly Cyclone as you did in your very first post in this thread and attempt to contradict them, it is your responsibility to first comprehend their meaning and respond to it. Instead, you either failed to comprehend, or were ignorant of what Deadly Cyclone meant by "buying exclusivity".

If you want to argue that what MS did was tantamount to "buying exclusivity" then fill your boots but know that you're fundamentally misinterpreting what people mean when they use those words.


You know what i think it is with you. Its that you do not want to accept that money, is the reason why this game is exclusive on Xbox One and Xbox 360. Somehow, people (not me! that is for certain) have convinced you that his is a negative somehow. That the companies in question are "dirty". That this entire game is somehow ill conceived, it smells of underhanded deals, corruption, shady Microsoft run like the Sopranos family with hitmen wearing "money hats" etc. You are arguing against phantom posters that at some point must have a hit a nerve

There is nothing negative here, i am trying to tell you this, but you refuse to accept it. And you are trying to argue semantics, yet cannot see that it does not matter how the money got there, whether a check was sent, an actual money hat, helped with the marketing budget, funded the game or any other way. I have no problem with any of these, what does it matter?

Microsoft saw potential in the game, and as far as we can tell supported it financially, which resulted in talented developers being paid for their hard work, on a game that turned out pretty fucking good, didnt it? Everyone won here. Its a great story that ended well.


All you are doing is alluding to some other meaning behind what it means to "moneyhat" a exclusive game, offering very little details on how there is a "right, honorable, way" and a "wrong, scummy way". Meanwhile i am sitting here telling you that neither is scummy or honorable, its just a business movie. You dont have to defend it, you dont have to lecture me on my posting, especially with your first post here, and we arent even arguing about anything other than your perception of this whole deal.

Everyone won.
 
Dec 7, 2008
537
0
0
Looks like exclusive window was 13 months and that explains the PS4 controllers. Also, the deal for complete exclusivity of the life for the title between EA and MS was done AFTER the E3 reveal, so that could sorta explain what Pete was saying.

Yeah, mort's claims last month and this article aren't really mutually exclusive, even if he probably put a fanboy spin on this alleged EA-Sony meeting ("full apology mode" always sounded like his own interpretation of the tone of the meeting; and I doubt any meeting was specifically called to solely discuss this topic: I assume EA and Sony hold meetings regularly). It's entirely possible that EA currently recognizes that the later deal last summer changing Titanfall from 13 month exclusive to a permanent exclusive was the wrong decision in hindsight, if that's what their projected numbers indicate. Which doesn't contradict anything in this article.

(though it's honestly kind of crazy that Microsoft didn't just demand full exclusivity from the start considering their funding saved the project)

EDIT: To be clear, I'm saying EA themselves almost certainly had their own projections on what a PS4 Titanfall would have sold. It doesn't really matter if Sony has their own projections.
 

Jomjom

Banned
Nov 26, 2009
11,734
2
0
Los Angeles
Because EA likely already has those numbers. They know how well the ps4 is selling. They don't need sony telling them how many sales they lost to convince them to make the next game multiplatform.

Especially when sony refused the game in the first place.

I would think there are far more metrics than simply NPD.
 

daman824

Member
Sep 5, 2013
3,128
0
0
I would think there are far more metrics than simply NPD.
And I'm sure EA is a large enough company that they can do the kind of math needed to know or predict how well a game will sell on certain systems. They don't need Sony to tell them that their AAA franchise will sell well on the ps4.
 
Sep 15, 2011
12,984
1
0
man, an hour ever 7-9 months shouldn't be a big deal to them. and really, it's gonna be casual conversation anyway when they sit down so they'll settle in just fine after 2 mins.

An hour to you or I probably feels like seconds to a production company. Especially once every 6 months or so. I would say it would be an all day affair at the least. And the equipment needed would likely be intrusive and a distraction.
 

daman824

Member
Sep 5, 2013
3,128
0
0
Apperrantly at some point only the PS3 and 360 versions existed. Which makes sense, we heard rumblings about this game quite some time ago and that it would be on PS3 and 360.



I am amused that you lecturing me on my posts and behavior when you ended your first post with a "kthxbye"? That is the first impression i have of you and now you are giving out instructions how to behave? Terrible way to start a discussion.




You know what i think it is with you. Its that you do not want to accept that money, is the reason why this game is exclusive on Xbox One and Xbox 360. Somehow, people (not me! that is for certain) have convinced you that his is a negative somehow. That the companies in question are "dirty". That this entire game is somehow ill conceived, it smells of underhanded deals, corruption, shady Microsoft run like the Sopranos family with hitmen wearing "money hats" etc. You are arguing against phantom posters that at some point must have a hit a nerve

There is nothing negative here, i am trying to tell you this, but you refuse to accept it. And you are trying to argue semantics, yet cannot see that it does not matter how the money got there, whether a check was sent, an actual money hat, helped with the marketing budget, funded the game or any other way. I have no problem with any of these, what does it matter?

Microsoft saw potential in the game, and as far as we can tell supported it financially, which resulted in talented developers being paid for their hard work, on a game that turned out pretty fucking good, didnt it? Everyone won here. Its a great story that ended well.


All you are doing is alluding to some other meaning behind what it means to "moneyhat" a exclusive game, offering very little details on how there is a "right, honorable, way" and a "wrong, scummy way". Meanwhile i am sitting here telling you that neither is scummy or honorable, its just a business movie. You dont have to defend it, you dont have to lecture me on my posting, especially with your first post here, and we arent even arguing about anything other than your perception of this whole deal.

Everyone won.
But then the game moved to next gen. After that, were last gen versions still in the work.

It sounds like after they ran out of money, microsoft game them more cash to finish along with money to outsource a 360 version. After the move to next gen, I doubt respawn was planning on making a ps3 version.
 

Jomjom

Banned
Nov 26, 2009
11,734
2
0
Los Angeles
And I'm sure EA is a large enough company that they can do the kind of math needed to know or predict how well a game will sell on certain systems.

Well we both don't know for sure either way, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I just find it hard to believe that large software companies basically never need to meet and talk with the platform holders since they have all the information already.

Your position, as it sounds to me, is that basically they would only ever need to get together simply to sign the contract since everything is known. No presentations or anything of the sort needed.
 

Into

Member
Aug 20, 2012
8,459
1
0
MS paid to finish the game of course a PS3 doesn't exist. If that wasn't the case, or had Sony played a more hands on role EA would have ported it just fine, or got some more money from MS to ensure exclusivity.

...we agree! Microsoft paid money to finish the game. Great. What is the problem then?

Right? Its good? Isent it good? What are we disagreeing on here?

But then the game moved to next gen. After that, were last gen versions still in the work.

It sounds like after they ran out of money, microsoft game them more cash to finish along with money to outsource a 360 version. After the move to next gen, I doubt respawn was planning on making a ps3 version.

It sounds like that to me, MS saw value in the game, and was perhaps hoping it would be their "Gears" series for 360, a strong title that with Halo can carry the brand into the next 4-5 years. Makes sense to me, fits in with what we have heard, explains the Xbox brand exclusivity (and PC), explains why there is a ton of MS+TF promotional work.