Respawn Game Director Steve Fukuda joins the show this week to talk Titanfall. For some this multiplayer maven will determine whether or not gamers support Microsoft’s next generation console, The Xbox One.
Steve answers the tough questions, like why this big budget game….doesn’t really have a traditional campaign and what they’re planning on doing to ensure the game runs smoothly past launch.
What are the ethics of expending massive amounts of capital, energy, and man hours on not even a worse version of a game from 30 years ago, but a vague impression of it? These are the questions PCGamer's Ted Litchfield pondered after having gotten motion sickness playing a game for the second time in my life with Microsoft's Copilot AI research demo of Quake 2.
Well I hope nobody wanted to go to school to learn programming games with hopes of working their way up. Microsoft is hell bent on destroying gaming.
That really does look like a bad rip-off of Quake, just because you could do something, doesn't mean you should. Plus, it that demo video looked stuttery to me.
Microsoft posted and removed a new Xbox UI image with Steam games listed.
STEAM is DEFINITELY coming to Xbox consoles!!!
Now I´m more than HYPED for my Next Gen Xbox CONSOLES!!!
LETS GOOOO
but how would that even work tho.
are ms hoping that players might play these steam and epic dtore games on their consoles?
wouldnt there be alot of licensing and all that stuff be necessary?
and would that be even profitable for ms? cause if i buy games on steam, they wont get that money ha
the idea itself is great but the execution is alot more complicated than they might think. especially on consoles.
Seems cool but at the same time nothing would change on my end. Good for Xbox only gamers I suppose.
Because they couldn't get PlayStation games and with PlayStation releasing their games on Steam, this is how Phil Spencer feels like he wins. He wants PlayStation quality games on his console and he can't achieve that so by doing this, he figures he can now get his loyal Xbox fans to get God of War, Spider-man, Helldivers II, etc. He doesn't care about Steam otherwise, this is getting PlayStation quality games and PlayStation games on his console to move hardware.
PlayStation, we told you to keep it off the competition. Nintendo hasn't posted anything to PC or anything other than a Nintendo console for that matter, because they're confident in their hardware. By turning the Xbox, literally, into a PC, you can install Steam and make your Xbox a PlayStation, Xbox Xbox makes money for the hardware. PlayStation, you shouldn't have gone to PC to begin with. It's painfully obvious what the objective of this is
the only way i see it working, is steam is allowed to put its storefront on xbox but a % will go to microsoft, instead of steam getting 30% they will split that with microsoft and both will get 15%, so the next xbox could have multiple storefronts
The prospect of the next Xbox Series X is not Microsoft-ing me crazy.
The only thing a console should excite anyone about is its role as a middle-of-the-road solution: a cheaper entry point than a PC but with fewer features and worse graphics/performance; more expensive than streaming but with the benefits of native gaming.
Anything else is either gone or extremely reduced from what it once was. Innovative controllers? Not really. Nintendo still tries something, but overall, they have aligned more with traditional designs. Exclusives? They still exist to some extent, but fewer games than ever before are exclusive. Most of Sony's titles eventually end up on PC, and while the Switch had a solid run, a good chunk of its 'exclusives' were just Wii U ports. I doubt they will be able to repeat that with the Switch 2.
Ease of use? The more features they try to incorporate, the less user-friendly they become. Even something as basic as finding a good game on their store without an external resource is a pain. Standardized experience? Not anymore. Now we have at least three different performance modes, plus whatever exclusive mode the 'pro' console will introduce.
Physical media? PlayStation still supports it, but many games are now digital-only. On the Switch, it’s already a coin toss whether the full game is on the cartridge or if you’ll need to download a large portion of it. With the Switch 2, I fully expect that to get even worse. And with Xbox, they might as well not exist as the games are rarely on the disc.
I say that's exactly what they want, because they want us to go to streaming. Native hardware and game is necessary and online match, streaming is the worse. My wireless mouse is still laggy as fk and that's local
I think there is a very good point underlying here that as consoles have adopted more and more PC features (updates, installs, user selected visual modes and features) then what has made consoles unique and easier to use than a PC has sort of been lost.
For me, the trade off of consoles compared to PC was that I was paying maybe more for the hardware and software based upon a certain level of convenience that the console just worked, I could drop in a game and just play it immediately in a format that a developer had decided was a best compromise which I was happy with. Now if I buy a new game it’s 30 mins to install from the disk, plus about the same again to download a 20gb+ update (100gb+ if wanting to go back to a old COD single player campaign) then making decisions about frame rates and visual fidelity, textures, shadows etc.
I understand that many want the choice and the flexibility, but the old timer in me feels I already made that choice and that’s why Ive kept choosing console instead of PC over 35 years. If game streaming gives me any hope, it’s that some of that console simplicity can come back (but with different trade offs about ownership and preservation).
Sure there seems to be even less of a rational to buy an Xbox than ever before with there first party being ported over to playstation and Nintendo (I've never owned one). But there remains a small community of gamers that will always chose a Microsoft/xbox console because they like their ui/ ecosystem.
Saying it's the best shooter ever made is a gross overstatement. It's a fun game, but it certainly does not reach the ranks of games like GoldenEye or Perfect Dark. Not by a long shot.
He doesn't have to explain. Most people that play this game can tell why. It has the best MP maps I've ever seen. It combines all the good aspects of Mech Assault, COD, Mirror's Edge/Brink, and even a little Halo...without all the bad aspects. Over the last few years, MP games seem to have felt that they constantly have to introduce new features every time and that seems to cause more problems. Titanfall has simplified things in areas that have gotten out of control, while expanding the areas that needed it. It's provided new innovative ways to discourage camping, gotten rid of quick scoping, and found ways to constantly keep the game feeling epic.
It won't be for everyone, if you don't like MP games or FPS's then it may not change your mind...but anyone that does like those games and has an open mind should have no issue admitting they love it. It's fun, plain and simple
I disagree, Peter North is the best shooter ever.
In my opinion MW1 and bf4 is better, i have the game on pc, and i really don't see the hype this game is getting.
It's a fun game, but not the best shooter ever made. MW1 is in my books better because it had a very good singleplayer campaign and also great multiplayer. Titanfall does a few new things, but it also borrows heavily from other games particularly CoD.