SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I'm part of the problem. Had a blast with the game but it never managed to pull me in like CoD and BF.
I don't play many online games, but when I played CoD Ghosts and it had that many people online (Wii U peaked at about 2500 when I was playing) it felt very empty and choice of games wasn't very good. Anything except the basic game modes were impossible to get going.I just got off on XBO about 20 minutes ago. There were 2500 in my region (US Midwest), and like 2900 worldwide.
Something isn't right on your end.
MS just need to make it the Nov Games with Gold free download. Playerbase will rocket. Thats what they need to do to get people hyped for the eventual sequel. If players enjoy it, they will get the DLC.
November isn't a good month to do that. Sunset Overdrive will have just released and Halo MCC is coming out that month.
Yea, but that only makes it unlikely. It's not something that can't happen. Usually I wouldn't be so pedantic about your choice of words, but you were just going at BruiserBear for stating something as fact... impossible is very rarely a fact.
9k players is pretty bad.
26,163 29,800 Counter-Strike (1999)
17,328 18,918 Counter-Strike: Source (2004)
I don't play many online games, but when I played CoD Ghosts and it had that many people online (Wii U peaked at about 2500 when I was playing) it felt very empty and choice of games wasn't very good. Anything except the basic game modes were impossible to get going.
3000 players feels "dead", especially when there are multiple game modes breaking everyone up. Are FPS games commoditized now?
You could make this argument about any statement from any person or company. I decide to go with the facts presented and stated. When looking at what has been said so far it is factually impossible. Could they theoretically change their minds down the road? Yea sure but that doesn't change what we know right now and according to that it is impossible. I don't see what is wrong with my use of the term when it considers and applies all the facts we currently have.
I quoted him letting him know but I did go onto say that I hope respawn works out a deal with EA to add it to EAA so you might have just skimmed my post and saw that.
I think it's somewhat likely that it gets added to EAA, I mean it just seems like a waste of time otherwise to have ranked play, horde mode and all these updates coming out now when the population is about to drop off due to MCC/Cod next month. Respawn will want people to play these updates, the game isn't selling any more and most people who own the game probably won't bother going back to it with MCC and CoD coming out.
So I think it's likely that we will see either 1) Free with GWG 2) GOTY edition or 3) Added to EA access once ranked play etc is available to the public
#1 is probably safe to say it's not going to happen, #2 I can't see many people buying a GOTY edition at this stage especially at full price so the only real option left is #3... or to release a huge update like this that only a small amount of people will play.
I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't get added though, but I do think there is a decent chance of it happening aswell.
I don't think they have said that, have they? I thought it just said "titanfall is excluded from EA access" in the small print?
You are really fixated on this EA Access thing man. Swap out EA Access with GWG and everything I said earlier still applies. Titanfall isn't "dead" and won't be for a long time. In fact, GWG will add way more players than EA Access ever would, so it will have an even bigger impact.
You could make this argument about any statement from any person or company. I decide to go with the facts presented and stated. When looking at what has been said so far it is factually impossible. Could they theoretically change their minds down the road? Yea sure but that doesn't change what we know right now and according to that it is impossible. I don't see what is wrong with my use of the term when it considers and applies all the facts we currently have.
Yea, we could do this all day, but you would still be factually incorrect about it.
If you've got something that won't happen unless something else happens... and that something else actually can happen, then it's not impossible... at any point in time. Unlikely? Sure. Impossible? No.
"It's impossible for them to selll the Xbox One without Kinect". Nope, not impossible (evidently).
"It's impossible for EA to change the terms of EA Access from what they explicitly state it is today". Nope, not impossible.
I used the second one especially for you btw, because it's an example I think you can relate to. I recall you being all "noooo don't trust EA, you never know how they're gonna switch shit up on you if EA Access takes off...", yet here you're saying it's impossible for them to even open the service up to a partner game? Biased dialogue indeed.
I just played the PC version, its worse, much worse... Hard Point had 40 players or so, the first two expansion packs had 0. A few hundred in Attrition and the new horde mode.
So in your mind people couldn't ever use the word impossible because companies can change their minds. So you couldn't say
"It's impossible for Bloodborne to come out for PC or XB1."
Or
"It's impossible for Smash Bros to com to XB1"
Because it is technically possible for those companies to change their minds despite having a historical precedent that would show otherwise. These scenarios are just as likely to happen because they exist for the same reason: IP Ownership.
And yes I was/am/will likely always be skeptical of EA because they have a historical precedent of anti consumer dickery which is exactly what makes their altering an established program to include games they don't own at high cost to them in order to benefit the consumer about as likely as making a cheese factory on the moon. But by all means let's dismiss my argument on the grounds of my having a healthy skepticism for EA and it's frequent shenanigans.
Saying my use of impossible is factually incorrect is an argument of semantics where as Bruiserbear's statement was incorrect due to actual readily available facts. Do you see the difference there? One is factually wrong and the other could theoretically be wrong some day if the company in question breaks every historical precedent in recent memory and actively goes against their previous statements to the consumer. The likelihood of them "changing their minds" is small enough and the current evidence is concrete enough to use the word in my opinion. That is unless you want to argue that "impossible" can never be used in conversations about IP ownership because "they can (theoretically) change their minds."
That's kinda sad. Every once in awhile it get in the mood to pick the game back up - it's a good game. But then I keep hearing posts like this.
You're really invested in this argument for a game you seem to have no interest in, from a publisher you think is evil.
It's not a bad game it just lacks the content most expect out of a AAA release these days. It's problem is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum and has to compete with so many other games with significantly more/newer content available.
At this moment on PC with CS : GO
Current Players Peak Today
220,480 234,616 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
So in your mind people couldn't ever use the word impossible because companies can change their minds. So you couldn't say
"It's impossible for Bloodborne to come out for PC or XB1."
Or
"It's impossible for Smash Bros to com to XB1"
Because it is technically possible for those companies to change their minds despite having a historical precedent that would show otherwise. These scenarios are just as likely to happen because they exist for the same reason: IP Ownership.
And yes I was/am/will likely always be skeptical of EA because they have a historical precedent of anti consumer dickery which is exactly what makes their altering an established program to include games they don't own at high cost to them in order to benefit the consumer about as likely as making a cheese factory on the moon. But by all means let's dismiss my argument on the grounds of my having a healthy skepticism for EA and it's frequent shenanigans.
Saying my use of impossible is factually incorrect is an argument of semantics where as Bruiserbear's statement was incorrect due to actual readily available facts. Do you see the difference there? One is factually wrong and the other could theoretically be wrong some day if the company in question breaks every historical precedent in recent memory and actively goes against their previous statements to the consumer. The likelihood of them "changing their minds" is small enough and the current evidence is concrete enough to use the word in my opinion. That is unless you want to argue that "impossible" can never be used in conversations about IP ownership because "they can (theoretically) change their minds."
Synth not you and the response is in direct response to her criticisms of my use of the word "impossible."
This is funny considering how much MS advertised this as a true next gen game changer.
The bots killed it for me, felt like I saw them way more than actual humans. Won't even bother with the sequel if those aren't axed.
Yea, it is semantics... up until the point where you respond to me restating it continuously even with the added context. You meant "unlikely", "very unlikely" or whatever... not impossible.
Like I said, I wouldn't usually bother to questions something so nitpicky, but you put so much emphasis on facts that it's weird that you'd argue such a non-factual statement so strongly. It's not even similar to your other examples as it's not like EA is a platform owner, and we're talking about porting the game to a rival platform. This would simply be standard business affair between EA and Respawn, much like their current publishing agreemnt.
My issue with your stance on EA is that whent talking about the same service (EA Access) you are on one hand saying that we should definitely take what they say at face value, whilst on the other hand saying we should remain skeptical of the thigs they say... depending on which angle you're arguing at the time. Should we trust what EA says about EA Access? Yes or no?
Apologies I assumed because of your avatar my mistake.Not a "her"... I think I need a new avatar...
Titanfall is fun, yet people largely ignored it. The BF series gets a pass time and time again.
I am sure that TF2 is coming but MS need to expand the fans now.
Oh vey. Now we're comparing low spec PC games, meaning the potential userbase dwarfs the XB1 userbase by leaps and bounds.
Oh vey. Now we're comparing low spec PC games, meaning the potential userbase dwarfs the XB1 userbase by leaps and bounds.
yeah, I think you are...fact is, the game is nowhere near as popular as it was marketed it to be and has a small community.It's only in the most popular list every week on xbone.
Seems like sometimes some people post threads just so the thread title will be visible.
Maybe I'm looking too much into it.
A better comparison is BF3 (talking PC here), consider the fact BF3 looks as good and requires similar hardware, it was released 2+ years earlier, it has a sequel already out (BF4) - and it as of right now on PC has 22.043 players worldwide.I'm comparing two very old games to one new, high profile multiplayer game. Besides, it's partly to also compare it to the PC version too. Titanfall on PC has low minimum requirements, obviously not as low as those two CS games, but still very low. In fact, games like CSGO (with 240k average peak players) isn't far off the minimum requirements of Titanfall.
Titanfall has low numbers regardless of how you look at it.
Yep, its a pretty good game in terms of its gameplay, it just released way to soon with to little content.it is what it is, a solid game with not enough content.
It's only in the most popular list every week on xbone.
That is the problem, the only active play lists are the same boring play lists since day 1It's as if some people need Titanfall to fail or something.
"nobody is playing", yet for some reason I never have any trouble loading up the variety or attrition playlists on Xbone.
Mark for death was recently added in, and Fronteir Defense is on right now. They switch certain playlists every month or so.That is the problem, the only active play lists are the same boring play lists since day 1
Yeah but for a game with no single player, defense should have shipped with the gameMark for death was recently added in, and Fronteir Defense is on right now. They switch certain playlists every month or so.
My statements in regard to EA Access announcement were actually about the things they were not saying or not clarifying and arguing that you should be skeptical of them in regards to those things. I also argued that they could incorporate DLC and other things into the device in the future because they said nothing that explicitly ruled it out whereas in this situation they have explicitly stated it will not happen. The two are not the same. Skepticism is merited when they are being vague, dismissive or simply not commenting at all. Arguing that it should be used to disavow the use of the word "impossible" when they have explicitly stated as much makes no sense. So to sum up: in the absence of explicit statements skepticism is indeed merited in the presence of explicit statements regarding policy they should be taken at face value unless vague, dismissive, or conflicting with other known statements/policies. I assumed this was common sense but apparently not.
Furthermore, whether or not you agree, the example statements I made are in fact related as they are all concerning IP ownership which is the crux of the issue with EA Partners games on EA Access. If EA wanted to include an EA Partners game on EA Access they would have to pay the IP owner a significant sum of money; something that they do not need to do with their own titles. The process for them adding IPs they don't own to their own service platform is essentially the same as console platforms securing IP rights. Both entail the exchange of money for the use or exclusivity of an IP. They aren't exactly the same but the principals and transactions involved as well as the end results are definitely analogous.
The reason emphasized "factual" with Bruiserbear's comment was because it was factually wrong. There is no arguing otherwise. Statements prove it was completely incorrect. Somehow my pointing this out seems to have bothered you. Why? Why is my correction of his comment of sick concern for you that you are insistent upon debating insignificant semantics if word usage which are completely irrelevant to the original post or the conversation at hand? Clearly we disagree about my use of the word "impossible." I think it's valid you think it isn't but either way it's a pointless conversation and as such if you want to debate it further let's do so over PM because it contributes nothing to thread.
Apologies I assumed because of your avatar my mistake.
The reason emphasized "factual" with Bruiserbear's comment was because it was factually wrong. There is no arguing otherwise. Statements prove it was completely incorrect. Somehow my pointing this out seems to have bothered you. Why? Why is my correction of his comment of sick concern for you that you are insistent upon debating insignificant semantics if word usage which are completely irrelevant to the original post or the conversation at hand? Clearly we disagree about my use of the word "impossible." I think it's valid you think it isn't but either way it's a pointless conversation and as such if you want to debate it further let's do so over PM because it contributes nothing to thread.
It's only in the most popular list every week on xbone.
Seems like sometimes some people post threads just so the thread title will be visible.
Maybe I'm looking too much into it.
This year was full of disappointments, Titanfall is one of them. Glad I had rented the game before going out on launch day and wasting my money.
Why do people act like this is the only game in existence like this?Is this game's community on life support? I can see myself putting this in occasionally and having a blast but with such low numbers I am certainly not likely to buy any map packs. I worry about finding a game a year or two from now.
Edit: these are worldwide numbers, not the server I'm on.
I think the point is even after the new DLC/mode the game peaks sub-10k users per day.Why do people act like this is the only game in existence like this?
Fuck, should I post "Nobodies playing Chromehounds!"
I get into games just fine, what's the point of this thread?
Whatever excuses you want to throw at it, Titanfall still has respectable numbers compared to BF4 and Ghosts on XB1. Yet we have people declaring Titanfall dead in this thread.......