Best for MS pushing xbox ones, yes. Best for EA and Respawn ( the publisher and dev), No. MS has nothing to do with the publishing or making of Titanfall.
and the xbox one has taken off, 4 million-ish sold. Best xbox launch to date.
Because the majority of 360 owners ( as stated before) are not early adopters. If you stop supporting the 360 they are far more likely to move to the PS3 which has a large abundance of games and a more reasonable price point than a next-gen console. Double edge-sword, nope. You're forgetting that it is lack of game support making them jump
Seems you;re just throwing out comments to try to and support your original opinion rather than looking at it more logically from a differing opinion. If even MS discontinued the 360 there is no guarantee that the xbox one would receive a significant up-tick in sales
When is it coming ? and Halo fans make up a very small portion of xbox gamers
I respect your opinion. I just think you're wrong.
Well, yeah. I'm sure they tried, but the cost would likely have been high, and Respawn have already shown their disinterest in a one platform franchise.
When is it coming ? and Halo fans make up a very small portion of xbox gamers
The xbox and 360 are very different. The xbox only had software to make money from. 360 had a billion dollar a year service and could make money on hardware too.
Yes they do, but cutting off a perfectly good hand to help another perfectly good hand is not smart. MS do not need to do this. They do not need to put the revenue from 360 at risk to help push a console that is doing extremely well and the only thing slowing it down really is overall cost. I would wage that the losses from a $100 price drop would be less than those lost from abandoning the 360.
Getting too tired to be bothered with multi-quoting and i'm about to go to bed so here goes.
I'm sure the price was high for Titanfall, so they probably did the right thing in the end but who knows. When i gamble i'm an all in kind of gambler. So i probably would have pulled the trigger and lived with the consequences. To me, Titanfall would have been a game changer like Halo: CE was for the original Xbox and it'll still help the One. I'm sure of that.
it is only unfortunate circumstance that sees it only appear on xbox, and again, ignoring an 80 million consumer base makes little business sense for an upstart company.Titanfall also should have been multiplatform
Oh yeah, it s a big pool. But the difference between 40 million and 80 million is just as big
I think this is nothing more than extra development time being required for what I also think is going to be a crappy port. I'm sure MS don't mind the delay either as it gives the X1 more time in the spot light.
yes I'm a developer - 20+ years - and yes I'm fully aware of Scrum and Agile methodologies... I manage a team following these (and other methodologies in the past) it on a daily basis....
Let me clarify - I didn't say they wouldn't be able to make some changes or improvements within 2 weeks..... I simply outlined that (at this particular stage - considering how close they are to release) there wouldn't be any significant/major updates to the code within that 2 week span (as noted - if there are - then there will be further delays)...
Depending on which methodology you follow - at a high level - Development is done in X week sprints (say 2) with smaller and more achievable goals ("stories") to accomplish within that time period by the team. They may or may not make that timeline - and they'll usually know up front... which is a possibility for the delay...
Even then - it depends on how they're setup with regards to their Development and QA cycles - add to that their production release cycle ... so taking into consideration the 2 week delay - that typically means that a team, for their respective deliverable items/tasks/"stories" are 4-6+ weeks back before actual production runs/deployments are executed - depending on their active deployments - even though there are 2 week sprints - those are delivered to QA for testing - and subsequently, upon approval, code is typically delivered into production on very set and defined schedules - typically within tight timelines (anywhere between 4-24 hours depending on the size of the production implementation)..
My point to all of this is - they *should* have all of the major deliverable code in production *NOW*... this delay of 2 weeks is simply either a small modification to the code, or it could entirely be other issues (i.e. infrastructure, configuration, hardware, data center, networking, etc. - not code related at all), or as previously discussed, simply some additional time being provided to the team to finish up the code (based on lessons learned from the X1 deployment) while providing the additional time in the market to sell more systems...
Anything's possible..
I'm was a scrum master..... unfortunately!
On the delay, given that there was two, and that it seemed to be pushed in a set pattern it really struck me as patch work, which is leading me to think that 1) this game will have a day patch, and 2) it's gonna be a crappy port.
I'm was a scrum master..... unfortunately!
On the delay, given that there was two, and that it seemed to be pushed in a set pattern it really struck me as patch work, which is leading me to think that 1) this game will have a day patch, and 2) it's gonna be a crappy port.
Lol, you guys cracked me up. No one here knows the actual reason. Pure speculation. It could be any of those reasons. I guess conspiracy theories are more fun
Lol, you guys cracked me up. No one here knows the actual reason. Pure speculation. It could be any of those reasons. I guess conspiracy theories are more fun
