The Official Xbox One Thread

[Anubis]

Well that's disappointing - Titanfall has no single-player campaign:
http://penny-arcade.com/report/arti...single-player-so-you-cant-rush-through-levels

I was looking forward to playing this on PC, but my gaming hours are irregular enough that I almost never play co-op or other multi.

thanks for posting that, now i know i wont be getting it

 

[cmdrdredd]

thanks for posting that, now i know i wont be getting it

Probably me too, I'll just wait for Destiny

 

[smackababy]

thanks for posting that, now i know i wont be getting it

I'd prefer them completely focusing on multiplayer, than "split" development and having one or the other suffer.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I'd prefer them completely focusing on multiplayer, than "split" development and having one or the other suffer.

I tend to agree with this.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I'd prefer them completely focusing on multiplayer, than "split" development and having one or the other suffer.

Problem I have with this is that they claim it's "expensive". That's a BS excuse IMO.

There is story and a campaign, you just have to play it online. So they are actually forcing you to have XBL Gold and connect online to play this.

 

[Anubis]

for me the game simply does not look that interesting. So if i had gotten it I would have based it on how the games was. however being MP only its just not for me

 

[sze5003]

for me the game simply does not look that interesting. So if i had gotten it I would have based it on how the games was. however being MP only its just not for me

So is it an online only campaign?

 

[ImpulsE69]

You can bet many companies are going to do this considering both consoles are pay for online now. Sounds like a scam to me. Never liked consoles going online, and this is why. Any company trying to tout that a single player game/portion of a game needs to be online is full of it and I will not support it. You want an online game, make an online game, otherwise....

 

[cmdrdredd]

So is it an online only campaign?

There's only MP but there are strong NPC and story elements. So it basically does have some type of a campaign, similar to some MMOs.

They've just locked it behind the online service instead of allowing you to play it solo. Supposedly they will have bots to play against but not the story portion.

 

[sze5003]

Sounds cool to play a campaign with others online. But if others want to screw around that would piss me off. Bf 3 is great online and even it had a campaign, not great but it was available. It better be very good for online only. I too don't go online much but I think with the ps4 I'll just get the psn cards at a store for the months I want to play online. With work and everything I don't do much online gaming.

 

[BladeVenom]

Just make bots for it for single player. They can also be used to supplement multiplayer games when you just have a small group of friends playing. That worked for previous versions of Battlefield and Unreal.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I'd prefer them completely focusing on multiplayer, than "split" development and having one or the other suffer.

Me too, I'd just want the single player development while you want the MP.

I'm just more interested in a game like Bioshock Infinite than Battlefield 4, possibly because I'm getting older and can't compete against gun-toting tweens

 

[cmdrdredd]

Just make bots for it for single player. They can also be used to supplement multiplayer games when you just have a small group of friends playing. That worked for previous versions of Battlefield and Unreal.

Those games were made without any story though. You just play through levels with bots. This game has story so it's not quite the same idea but I know what you're getting at.

 

[sze5003]

What will happen when people stop playing it and someone wants to get through that online campaign? That's where bots would be useful.

 

[cmdrdredd]

What will happen when people stop playing it and someone wants to get through that online campaign? That's where bots would be useful.

I guess like with Destiny's concept (but more competitive oriented) they want you to group up with people and go on your quest from the NPC.

With Destiny they've said that you can be playing and start a quest line and as you are moving through an area you link up with people and can join forces with them and they can help you with your quest. Then you can part ways and you go back to what you were doing.

So I assume that this works in a similar way.

 

[smackababy]

Those games were made without any story though. You just play through levels with bots. This game has story so it's not quite the same idea but I know what you're getting at.

Wasn't Section 8 similar to that? Bots in single player, but it had a "story" and objectives you had to continue through? I only saw someone playing it, so I'm not for sure.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Wasn't Section 8 similar to that? Bots in single player, but it had a "story" and objectives you had to continue through? I only saw someone playing it, so I'm not for sure.

Well, yes and no. It had a single player story but it took place on the same maps used for MP. You got objectives to complete and it served as something of a tutorial for the MP.

From what I understand of titanfall it's an online only game that has story in it to go through as well as the competitive MP aspect. The bots will only serve to fill up slots that are unused by actual players.

There's not a ton of info out there as to how it will work. So far everything we have seen has been demoed in controlled conditions.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It probably won't shock anyone, but MS charges the publishers to use AwesomeCloud, including for dedicated servers:

http://www.respawn.com/news/lets-talk-about-the-xbox-live-cloud/
"Most importantly to us, Microsoft priced it so that it’s far more affordable than other hosting options – their goal here is to get more awesome games, not to nickel-and-dime developers. So because of this, dedicated servers are much more of a realistic option for developers who don’t want to make compromises on their player experience, and it opens up a lot more things that we can do in an online game."

That means:
- both users and publishers are paying MS for you to go online.
- once a game stops selling, expect the AwesomeCloud dedicated hosting and any other features to be killed. So if you want to play a game 5 years after release, you'd better hope that AwesomeCloud was not used for anything important.

Maybe by then MS or publishers will offer some way for people to pay to keep the AwesomeCloud server instances running for a game, but that's doubtful.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It probably won't shock anyone, but MS charges the publishers to use AwesomeCloud, including for dedicated servers:

http://www.respawn.com/news/lets-talk-about-the-xbox-live-cloud/
"Most importantly to us, Microsoft priced it so that it’s far more affordable than other hosting options – their goal here is to get more awesome games, not to nickel-and-dime developers. So because of this, dedicated servers are much more of a realistic option for developers who don’t want to make compromises on their player experience, and it opens up a lot more things that we can do in an online game."

That means:
- both users and publishers are paying MS for you to go online.
- once a game stops selling, expect the AwesomeCloud dedicated hosting and any other features to be killed. So if you want to play a game 5 years after release, you'd better hope that AwesomeCloud was not used for anything important.

Maybe by then MS or publishers will offer some way for people to pay to keep the AwesomeCloud server instances running for a game, but that's doubtful.

Honestly this sounds like it'll only be used for online portions of a game. Any single player offline capability will remain untouched. I cannot say for certain though. In the case of Titanfall it's online only to begin with.

 

[erwos]

What's your point? Sony's got the same scheme for the PS4, too... just without unlimited dedicated servers on demand at a cheap rate.

 

[cmdrdredd]

What's your point? Sony's got the same scheme for the PS4, too... just without unlimited dedicated servers on demand at a cheap rate.

Except...sony isn't telling you how good the "cloud" will be like it's some sort of magical voodoo. When the reality of this is, in an undetermined amount of time you end up with an unplayable game.

If this game starts strong but loses player base in a year there's nothing to prevent the servers from being taken down and the few people still left are out of luck. It's the risk you take with games that can only be played when connected online.

 

[erwos]

Except...sony isn't telling you how good the "cloud" will be like it's some sort of magical voodoo. When the reality of this is, in an undetermined amount of time you end up with an unplayable game.

If this game starts strong but loses player base in a year there's nothing to prevent the servers from being taken down and the few people still left are out of luck.

Which is exactly like any other dedicated server scheme. This one is just cheaper, more flexible, and scales better in the long run. Microsoft IS delivering a superior service to devs and publishers, and they are right to brag about it.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Which is exactly like any other dedicated server scheme. This one is just cheaper, more flexible, and scales better in the long run. Microsoft IS delivering a superior service to devs and publishers, and they are right to brag about it.

Brag about what? Look...this is a way to DRM your game and make it seem like you're getting some fancy cloud features. Unless your game is online only like Titanfall with servers doing calculations for stats, NPCs, keeping the world alive 24/7 etc. You aren't getting much special from it.

Don't get me wrong I'm buying an XB1 but don't think for one second I buy into the "cloud computing" stuff they're trying to sell. Like I said it's a risk buying into a game like this. At least it doesn't have an MMO style subscription too.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Which is exactly like any other dedicated server scheme. This one is just cheaper, more flexible, and scales better in the long run. Microsoft IS delivering a superior service to devs and publishers, and they are right to brag about it.

MS was promoting AwesomeCloud for adding "4x the computing power" of the X1 by itself, and trying to say it will be used for other things in-game besides just dedicated servers. As one demo they had it calculating object motion in the solar system for a space simulation.

So if for example Crackdown 3 actually used the cloud for (say) enemy AI, then as soon as they stop paying the server bill that AI support evaporates.

Basically, if the hype MS was putting out ever actually came true then the usable life of even single-player games will just be a couple of years.

 

[erwos]

I am not arguing they didn't overhype the cloud. Sony, MS, and Nintendo all have a lovely history of overhyping, so I take no offense. I am saying that Titanfall demonstrates a real advantage of it.

Look...this is a way to DRM your game and make it seem like you're getting some fancy cloud features. Unless your game is online only like Titanfall with servers doing calculations for stats, NPCs, keeping the world alive 24/7 etc. You aren't getting much special from it.

So you're essentially arguing you don't get much from dedicated servers unless there's game world persistence. Let's tell all those PC FPS folks how misguided they've been... or not.

Here's how the cloud benefits you over a more traditional dedicated server infrastructure in Titanfall's case:
1. Cheaper: devs are more likely to use the dedicated server feature instead of shunting you to P2P hell
2. More flexible: less chance (no chance?) of day one fails because servers get overloaded. In a non-cloud architecture, you are limited to your hardware. In the cloud, you have de facto limitless hardware (sorry, but you're not overwhelming Azure, Amazon Cloud, or any of the other major players. They're simply too big now.).
3. More scalable: there's no point where server maintenance costs for a single server running just a few games become too high. In the cloud, you simply keep renting less and less CPU time and memory. I find it ironic that you guys whine about things turning off - this level of scalability makes it way more likely they will continue for longer periods of time than in a traditional dedicated server architecture, because there's no fixed cost at the bottom end.

SimCity fell over because they were NOT doing this, FYI. Seriously, read the damn article and then respond. They do an amazing job of laying out the advantages in this particular use case.

Oh, and as for the hypothetical single-player game using cloud functionality, that would already make it online-only, and we'd be whining about that. Seems clear to me that sane devs will have fallbacks when there's no server or internet connection, and it's hardly something to blame MS for.