Sections

Titanfall beta “definitely” being thought about at Respawn

Tuesday, 10th December 2013 12:06 GMT By Dave Cook

Titanfall got a paid of hard-hitting trailers during the VGX awards over the weekend, and Respawn co-founder Vince Zampella has said that the team is “definitely” thinking about a beta trial before the game drops on March 11.

If you missed them you can check out the Titanfall VGX trailers through the link. They show off the new Ogre and Stryder mech classes.

Speaking with Gamespot, Zampella basically said of a possible Titanfall beta, “We’re definitely thinking about it.” Pretty basic stuff really.

Elsewhere, he said that Kinect didn’t fit the game.

That’s it, no more to see here and yes, it’s a slow news day.

Would you like to participate in a Titanfall beta? Should it happen? Let us know below.

Via CVG.

Latest

25 Comments

  1. Bam007

    I’m sure Respawn definitely thought about bringing Titanfall over to the PS3 and PS4 too. That turned out well, when it was made pretty clear that EA didn’t bother informing Respawn of the deal they penned with Microsoft.

    Don’t believe anything until EA make the announcement.

    #1 9 months ago
  2. fengato

    Would I like to be in a beta? Yes please – especially as Destiny beta has been delayed for the best part of half a year. :-(

    Being a new studio, they’re going to need one in my view. Can’t just roll out the old COD net code.

    #2 9 months ago
  3. AmiralPatate

    “Should it happen?”

    Of course it does, because mechs. ’nuff said.

    #3 9 months ago
  4. G1GAHURTZ

    @1:

    They said themselves that they wanted to go on PS, but Sony wouldn’t cut them a deal for dedicated servers, and MS did.

    If they could have afforded it, they probably would have done it from day one. Nothing to do with an exclusivity deal that wasn’t made until very, very recently.

    #4 9 months ago
  5. Takeshi

    I would definitely be interested in trying out its gameplay. Bring it.

    #5 9 months ago
  6. DrDamn

    @4
    They said MS offered them a good deal. I don’t think they ever said Sony wouldn’t cut them a deal. Just that they spoke to both and went with MS.

    #6 9 months ago
  7. Major Mayhem 70

    I hope a beta is in the works. Game comes out March so a beta could be out by January.

    #7 9 months ago
  8. Arcnail

    @6 They said Sony wouldn’t provide dedicated servers, MS would. Google it.

    #8 9 months ago
  9. DrDamn

    @8
    Plenty of Google results on why they went with MS, can’t find anything official or verified on Sony refusing to provide dedicated servers though.

    #9 9 months ago
  10. G1GAHURTZ

    @6:

    This is something I have worked on for years now, since coming to Respawn. A developer like Respawn doesn’t have the kind of weight to get a huge price cut from places like Amazon or Rackspace. And we don’t have the manpower to manage literally hundreds-of-thousands of servers ourselves. We want to focus on making awesome games, not on becoming giant worldwide server hosting providers. The more time I can spend on making our actual game better, the more our players benefit.

    I personally talked to both Microsoft and Sony and explained that we need to find a way to have potentially hundreds-of-thousands of dedicated servers at a price point that you can’t get right now. Microsoft realized that player-hosted servers are actually holding back online gaming and that this is something that they could help solve, and ran full-speed with this idea.

    The Xbox group came back to us with a way for us to run all of these Titanfall dedicated servers and that lets us push games with more server CPU and higher bandwidth, which lets us have a bigger world, more physics, lots of AI, and potentially a lot more than that!

    http://www.respawn.com/news/lets-talk-about-the-xbox-live-cloud/

    They spoke to MS and Sony, and it was MS who got back to them with a solution. That means that even though they tried to work with Sony, they weren’t able to come up with a solution on the same level as MS.

    What was the solution? Very cheap (now free, since this was written) servers for the game.

    So basically, MS provided cheap servers, Sony didn’t.

    Like he said, they’re a small, startup studio, who can’t afford to rent servers and worry about maintenance. If Sony helped them out, I’m sure we would be looking at Titanfall on PS3 and PS4, too.

    #10 9 months ago
  11. DrDamn

    @G1GA
    No that just means MS came up with a better deal. It doesn’t mean Sony refused to do dedicated servers. You are just implying that.

    I could imply that MS said they would only provide the servers if they had exclusivity. It doesn’t make it fact though does it?

    And it’s “free-ish”.

    #11 9 months ago
  12. G1GAHURTZ

    When did I say that Sony “refused to do dedicated servers”? That’s your own interpretation of my words that I never implied.

    I didn’t say anything like that.

    All I said was that “Sony wouldn’t cut them a deal for dedicated servers, and MS did.”

    MS came up with a deal, like you say, and Sony, according to the official words written above, didn’t do the same thing. Those are Respawns words, not mine.

    I personally talked to both Microsoft and Sony and explained that we need to find a way to have potentially hundreds-of-thousands of dedicated servers at a price point that you can’t get right now.

    The Xbox group came back to us…

    They asked for a discount, MS gave them a discount. Nowhere did anyone from Respawn, at any time before the EA announcement, mention anything about exclusivity.

    They were saying for a long time that they wanted to bring it to PS, and even gave a disappointed sounding tweet when they got the news about the ‘lifetime of the product’ exclusivity deal.

    Besides, that would make no sense at all…

    How could Sony and MS both offer the exact same deal, but MS say that they wanted exclusivity? They could just go to the Sony platforms, and release on X1 in a year or two’s time, when the game is topping online charts.

    Which, IYAM, is exactly what they wanted to do with the PS versions.

    #12 9 months ago
  13. G1GAHURTZ

    Watch this video, too. They say that there’s no reason why they won’t go multiplatform in the future, but that they’re being pragmatic about their current situation.

    http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/06/26/how-titanfall-taps-the-power-of-the-xbox-one.aspx

    I don’t see why they would make such a point of saying that, if they already had exclusivity lined up.

    #13 9 months ago
  14. DrDamn

    @12
    It still doesn’t say Sony refused to cut them a deal – just says MS did. Play with the words all you like, you are implying those things, just like I can imply MS would have cut a better deal in exchange for (at the time) limited exclusivity.

    #14 9 months ago
  15. Dragon

    MS paid for exclusivity, AAA exclusives only exist for that reason.

    #15 9 months ago
  16. DrDamn

    @15
    G1GA’s point was more when exclusivity was paid for. All out exclusivity was paid for more recently. I believe at the early stages MS saw that Respawn were stretched and it would suit them to limit platforms initially and made a good deal for them based on essentially getting at least time based exclusivity. Slightly different. That’s just what I believe – it’s fairly logical though.

    #16 9 months ago
  17. G1GAHURTZ

    It still doesn’t say Sony refused to cut them a deal

    It doesn’t have to. If Sony had given them one, they would have taken it.

    There’s no ‘playing with words’ necessary.

    Bsides, that still makes absolutely zero sense…

    Respawn: Hi MS and Sony… We need cheap servers.
    Sony: OK.
    MS: OK, but we want exclusivity!
    Respawn: Ummm… Sure, we’ll restrict ourselves to you, MS, because…? It’s a nice idea…?

    No, that’s nonsense. It’s just grasping at straws to try and make MS seem like they stole something from Sony, when that’s clearly not the case.

    Just people upset at the idea of Sony being ‘dissed’.

    Respawn are a small company. They only have 13 engineers, according to their own words.

    They have piles and piles of cash, having just settled out of court with Activision, and they’re making games for themselves, on their own terms, in their own time.

    If they want to focus on one platform, like they said, they can do it. They don’t need to be paid off, or go chasing deals. EA didn’t even give them any time frame, whatsoever, for their first game.

    They approached both MS and Sony. MS came back. It doesn’t take the twisting of words, implications, an explicit quote, or a genius to figure out that it was Sony who didn’t offer them what they were looking for.

    MS are continuing to offer free servers to all devs, right now. Exclusive or not.

    Are Sony?

    #17 9 months ago
  18. G1GAHURTZ

    @16:

    That’s fair enough. Nothing wrong with that theory.

    Here’s mine…


    Respawn went to MS and Sony.

    MS said ‘We’re the FPS guys. We have azure. We loved what you did with Call of Duty. Let’s work together.’

    Sony said ‘Well, we already have our own first party FPS IP. We love what you guys did with Call of Duty. Show us what you can do with your new game, and we’ll talk.’

    Respawn decided to go MS platforms, with the intention of going Sony after a year or two.

    I don’t think that’s unreasonable…

    #18 9 months ago
  19. DrDamn

    @17
    MS came back with a better deal, no where does it say Sony came back with no deal.

    Again “Free-ish” ;)

    #19 9 months ago
  20. DrDamn

    @18
    Possible yes. Sony could have been happy with what they have. MS did *need* something for March-ish next year. They haven’t got much else have they? Kinect Sports Rivals. Everything else they have looks to be latter half of the year at best.

    Just to re-iterate I’m not saying you are wrong, but there is no hard evidence to back up what you think happened, just why they went with MS, not why they didn’t go with Sony. We can only say for sure the offer from MS they felt was better at the time. Not sure they would agree with that now considering their reaction to the full exclusivity deal.

    #20 9 months ago
  21. G1GAHURTZ

    Yeah, of course it’s impossible to say, with 100% certainty, what happened without having actually seen or heard what was said at the time…

    I’m just going by what they’ve said publicly so far, and a number of other things, like the fact that they will have a huge amount of determination to take CoD out as the number one FPS, for a start. Add to that the push that they’ll almost certainly be getting from a publisher, whose former CEO openly talked about wanting to see CoD “rot from the core”, and taking up an exclusivity deal that will see your sales limited to 3 formats, while CoD is on more, makes little sense.

    That’s why I’m convinced that they would have gone PS if Sony truly had matched the MS deal.

    But yeah, I wasn’t there, so I can’t say for sure.

    #21 9 months ago
  22. DrDamn

    @21
    I didn’t think Sony matched the deal, probably a little way off it. I just don’t think they wouldn’t have tried to negotiate. I think MS just put a better deal on the table at that point.

    #22 9 months ago
  23. Djoenz

    What about the servers on pc?

    #23 9 months ago
  24. TheWulf

    The PlayStation thing seems incredibly fishy to me, honestly. It seems like a cover story for exclusivity that they planned all along, honestly.

    Here’s the part that raised alarm bells:

    Microsoft realized that player-hosted servers are actually holding back online gaming and that this is something that they could help solve, and ran full-speed with this idea.

    That’s nonsense. I’m sorry, but it is. If that were true in any way, shape, or form, then both Team Fortress 2, Counterstrike GO, and literally hundreds of other popular multiplayer games with player owned and hosted servers work absolutely fine. The fact is is that your players can and will provide infrastructure for you in spades, for free.

    So, yes. it’s either a cover story, or they’re just being control freaks. Either way, it’s done a lot to hurt whatever interest I had in this game.

    Edit: And if there weren’t imbecilic brand-politics involved, then they could have set it up as a multi-platform game where a player-owned server could host games for console users as well as PC users.

    There need be no animosity there. It’s all so bloody ridiculous.

    #24 9 months ago
  25. TheWulf

    @23

    That was my concern. Apparently it’s going to be servers owned by Microsoft — so we can expect hiccupts, disconnects, and a profound lack of any sort of community. Essentially the opposite of Team Fortress 2 and games which have player owned servers.

    That’s done much to just shatter any hopes I had for it.

    #25 9 months ago

Comments are now closed on this article.