Titan Falls: Titanfall Error 503 Stops Players From Playing

By Graham Smith on March 12th, 2014 at 11:30 am.

Update: Servers now seem to be functioning again.

Original story:

If you’re wondering why we don’t have a review of Titanfall yet – or why, to their credit, so many of the write-ups out there don’t yet have scores attached – it’s because review events hosted by EA are a poor way of experiencing EA games. It’s far more useful to wait for them to hit general release, so we can see how Origin and EA’s servers perform under the weight of new players.

The answer is, so far, not so great. Players currently trying to connect to Titanfall’s servers, myself included, are getting an error. “Lost Connection To Server Disconnect: ORIGIN error retrieving player data from storage – code 503.”

From the time I spent in the beta, and the time I spent playing it last night, Titanfall seems pretty great. It’s an adventurous, fast-paced multiplayer shooter, with parkour and robots. It’s inventive in a way multiplayer games often aren’t. I’ll write a proper WIT later this week, but my opinion hasn’t changed much since the beta.

But it’s a real shame that I can’t, you know, play it right now. The game isn’t yet out in the UK, but if you’ve just paid £40 for the game, a high price, you might be perturbed by error messages that prevent you from doing anything in a game which has no offline campaign or offline mode of any kind.

If posts on Reddit and the EA forums are any measure, the problems are widespread, although EA are at least aware of the issue and working on a solution. I’ll keep trying to get into a game and will update this post when it’s fixed.

In the meantime, nicest man alive Owen Hill draws my attention to Reddit user mattmanlex and his suggestion for replacing your Titanfall cover within Origin with something more appropriate.

__________________

« | »

, , , .

91 Comments »

  1. Bull0 says:

    I’m trying hard not to do the low-effort “New online game in bad launch shocker” comment but really, people saw this coming. I’m quite interested in the game but I didn’t bother pre-ordering, because what’s the point? You aren’t going to get near the thing for a week, and when you do it’s going to be bug central. This is EA we’re talking about.

    • FenixNoT says:

      As much as I hate to say it you’re right. I’m getting tired of people automatically bashing games for shaky launches but for a company this size when they can anticipate the kind of traffic they’ll be getting there really is no excuse for not having a stable launch. And EA definitely needs to take a leaf out of CDPR’s book and delay their games until they’re READY instead of firing them out ASAP.

      • basilisk says:

        Um, when has CDPR been appointed the messiah of gaming? They’ve had their fair share of bugs to patch, like just about everyone else these days. Also, multiplayer-only and singleplayer-only games are entirely different categories of fruit and as such not very good for making comparisons.

        Anyways, underestimating the load on their servers again, eh? Has there ever been a truly solid launch of an online-only game?

        • bills6693 says:

          My theory is that EA et al. simply don’t care.

          They have two options:
          1) They know there will be huge numbers of players so they buy more servers or rent more server space to deal with the increased load for a month or so, which will drop off after this initial period into what they can handle with their existing servers or within their planned gradual expansion.

          2) They don’t spend the money on a ‘buffer’ of extra servers for launch and save the money. People go ‘oh no shaky launch’ but those people either A: Already bought the game or B: will buy the game when the servers stabalise. I doubt anyone was going to buy the game, heard of these issues and decided to never buy the game now.

          Thus they don’t lose any sales from option 2, they simply delay some of the sales. And they DO save money on getting extra servers for the launch period. Quids in. Profit. Money.

          • derbefrier says:

            I believe you hit the nail on the head.

          • doodadnox says:

            Ladies and gentlemen, to your left you’ll notice someone who understands how businesses operate. (Thank you!)

          • Sunjumper says:

            Having worked for companies big enough to have these sort of problems and rich enough to chose option one, I have always seens option 2 being chosen because while people would complain neither the sales nor the reputation of the company would be hit in a way significant enough to care about that. These were not game companies but the general thought process behind these kind of actions are the same.

          • SuicideKing says:

            Well, I fall in to that category of people that stopped buying EA games largely because of how BF3 launched.

          • fdisk says:

            Unfortunately gamers are an opinionated and self-entitled bunch; I didn’t play Titanfall on launch at midnight because I figured this would happen. My friends did and were disappointed; however I came home last night from work and played all night long completely uninterrupted.

            It’s easy to say “EA has the money for more servers, blah blah blah!” but as much as I hate EA I understand they are a business and these demands would only serve to ruin their profits which is the whole point of a business…

            The game is fantastic and after just a few hours EA was able to stabilize the shit out of it so it perfectly playable by anyone; it’s honestly by all accounts a successful launch and a really fun game.

          • bills6693 says:

            @SuicideKing Yeah, that category of people does exist. TBH I don’t think I’ve bought anything EA since SimCity but that wasn’t because of launch issues, it was because it was a bad game. I will probably pick up something in the future though.

            @fdisk I agree. Gamers are entitled, and to some degree fairly (as the consumer) but it is taken a bit far sometimes. And at the end of the day EA is a business. In my comment I wasn’t really attacking EA for it particularly (no more so than ‘they chose the option that inconveniences gamers more’).

            I fully understand why they do it – they could buy more servers but they’d only be needing that extra capacity for maybe a few days around each major launch window, which is what – 4 games a year maybe? Its really not worth it fiscally to upgrade their servers so much. And to rent the extra capacity – if such a thing is even possible (I have no idea, but I have doubts) would probably be just too expensive to be worth the bother.

            Honestly my personal opinion is that these issues will always be a part of online play at major releases because its just not financially viable to have such infrastructure to be able to support everyone at that one bottleneck of about a day or two at launch. I think people need a little more patience – I understand their frustration but the alternative is an even more staggered launch, or a potentially higher game price. Who really wants to see customers get their game in waves over a three-day period, or pay an extra $10, so you can play the game the instant you get it rather than a day later?

          • battles_atlas says:

            It’s ‘self-entitled’ to expect something you paid £40 on to work from the moment of purchase? Is it? Is it really?

            The morally defensible, non-expensive option would be to stagger start times. ie be honest about the economics of meeting an opening surge. Don’t pretend that you will cater to five million simultenous downloads. Hell, Bastards in Suits, why don’t you offer first access to the highest bidder? Buy the premium package and get one of the first download tickets!

            At least thats honesty, a demonstration of a modicum of respect for customers.

            [but also yeah, if you preorder such a game and expect it to work on launch night you're a naive fool]

          • GSGregory says:

            Wait… we are entitled because we want what we paid for? You take it out of the gamer realm and getting what you paid for IS FUCKING GETTING WHAT YOU PAID FOR. You buy something and you get it, when you were supposed to get it and it works if not you either are returning it, raising hell why it doesn’t work or reporting it for fraud for not working.

            But your right. Gamers are entitled bastards who wrongly expect what they pay for to be quality made and work as described.

            Why is there even an issue?! Online only the future of everything. Because online only is the best and works great and and and… Sucks balls and only works until ea pulls the plug on the game in a few years.

          • battles_atlas says:

            @bills6693
            You’re rather dismissing how the buyer-seller relationship is supposed to work, which is transparently. Thats like the basis of free market theory.

            “I think people need a little more patience”

            EA and their like, with the support of the media, invest a great deal in whipping up hype about their games. I think you’re letting them off the hook to put the blame on the purchaser who has been convinced to drop £60(!) on a product. Companies are compelled by their profit motive to stiff the customer when the opportunity presents itself, your ‘the customer should live with it’ is a recipe for exploitation.

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            This is one situation where I will agree with the publisher tbh. The amount of players week one can probably be at least three times the expected long term player base. Buying a ton of extra servers for one week of the games lifespan is frivolous spending that absolutely no sane person could justify no matter how big the company. If you ran a company in the same position you would do exactly the same.
            Saying “Well their goal is only money” is stupid, ofc it is. They can’t operate if they don’t think about profit, look how many game companies are going bust because they didn’t care enough about their spending.

            @battles
            By all accounts this game does work fully after maybe a day. This is why people talk about entitlement, people going berserk because a server was down for a short while. Any service of this kind is liable to need some downtime at launch to work out problems, things break uncontrollably, things need restarting. To react in the way some people do when their product is already working fine is stupid and exactly why people talk about entitlement.

          • aepervius says:

            “entitled” ? LOL. Pretty much gaming is the only industry where one sells a service, and is not expected (or even is downright *excused* from) to provide a service from the moment the object was sold and available. As long as there will be people excusing the initial launch, it will be that way. There are plenty of other solution, staged launch by game key, staged launch by region, more server, etc… But hey, since there is “useful idiot” excusing the chaos at launch, why change ?

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            Guaranteed when a game does do a staggered launch all the people not in at the first wave will still be raging 1 hour after the game goes live bitching about how they can’t play the game when others can. How is this any different than some people being unable to play the game due to busy servers?

          • MacTheGeek says:

            Thus they don’t lose any sales from option 2, they simply delay some of the sales.

            In the short term, this may be true. But as launch after launch experiences the same problems, some portion of the buying market will get gunshy and start avoiding new releases altogether.

            Better virtualization would allow EA to dynamically reallocate server resources to the games that need it most, without having to buy additional hardware for the short term. Pull CPU/network slices from the other online games, with constant monitoring to ensure that loads are distributed as evenly as possible. EA shouldn’t have to serve any 503 errors until the total system load is so heavy that all games are affected. And at that point, it’s clearly time to expand.

          • Reginald XVII Archduke of Butts says:

            >Buying servers.

            Yeah, about that. It’s 2014 and renting extra server capacity is ludicrously cheap.

            How cheap? If you know how cheap, you’re probably NDA’ed (I sure am). That’s how cheap.

          • hamburger_cheesedoodle says:

            @fdisk
            Entitled? Are you kidding me?

            I usually don’t comment on the ‘entitlement creep’ where any sort of complaint these days has become entitlement, and for the most part, that’s because a lot of the issues being complained about are fairly minor, and I do think it’s silly to be fretting about them, though they generally don’t constitute any sort of entitlement.

            But really, if you paid for a game on (or before) launch day, and it comes out and just doesn’t work, as in literally you can not play the game or do any of what the game is supposed to do, you actually are allowed to complain. If you bought anything else and it didn’t work right away, would you just sit around, maybe say, “Well, I haven’t given the manufacturer a fair shake yet, I’ll call the repairman for my new thing before taking it back?” EA knew this was going to happen because this happens on every single title they launch, and they chose to allow it to happen to save a couple thousand dollars. And because they’re money grubbing twats, now no one can play the product they paid money for.

            When paying money for something and expecting it to work becomes entitlement, I’m just not sure what isn’t.

    • tomek says:

      I have been playing it all saturday, sunday, monday and yesterday with no issues whatsoever.

      Wait i lied, there has been some work involved in getting into a game during saturdays “early access phase”…

      • Bull0 says:

        Glad to hear it, and hope you have fun with it / hope we’ve seen the last of the trouble.

    • Shooop says:

      I like to think of it as a more accurate IQ test.

      If you preordered this game you’ve failed.

      • Nogo says:

        Well, you’re quite the pill, aren’t you?

        Beta was free, so it wasn’t really a pre-order. I got $20 off for buying early. And by waiting a whopping 14 hours I’ve managed to avoid server frustrations.

        Get your sense of superiority elsewhere, please.

        • Shooop says:

          It’s human nature to try and defend one’s decisions, no matter how poor they are.

    • Moraven says:

      The problems are really being overstated by the media. The problems have been at most a hiccup, not total shutdown for everyone.

      I ran into a hiccup monday night, could not play for 15-20 minutes as others were joining at midnight.

      Not a single problem last night, other than on 2 maps for 10 seconds, players in the match got “Reconnecting to server” popups.

      Its like everyone in the media were expecting it to have a big problem at launch. And since it has only had minor problems, every media outlet is making it out as a bigger problem than it really has been.

      • Bull0 says:

        Well, it was news, so they reported it. It’s not like they wait until a month after launch, and then go well, overall that was mostly OK, let’s not use our time machine to report on it at the beginning because they fixed it pretty quickly.

        And they updated the post to say it was fixed anyway.

        So, all in all…

    • DarkLiberator says:

      Not sure if we can even blame EA for this. RPS seems to be misinformed, the servers are managed by Microsoft Azure. EA doesn’t even run the servers for it, unlike BF4.

      In any case, the issue has been fixed.

    • hemmingjay says:

      I think the biggest issue with the game is the size. At nearly 50Gb it should come on a SSD.

    • Ridolfo says:

      EA / Origin, otherwise I would have probably bought the game. I am not paying good money to put up with that. If they want DRM put it through steam.

  2. mikmanner says:

    I’ve been playing it early on EU servers following this article and have had no issues so far apart from the fact nobody seems to be playing the campaign. http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2014/03/11/titanfall-early-unlock-heres-how-to-bypass-the-regional-launch-restrictions/

  3. derbefrier says:

    Hmm my brother has been playing and hasn’t had a single issue(I have to wait till payday) must be localized to certain areas

  4. guidom says:

    Reminds of the spectacular Battlefail launch, ah those were the days…

  5. Seiniyta says:

    The issue just seems to have resolved. I’m able to login again! yay!

  6. Zorlan says:

    Titanfail.. nuff said

  7. Jumpy-B-L says:

    I’m having trouble seeing the value. $60 ($80 with “Season Pass”) for Titanfall, a MP-only, generic game-mode FPS with mechs added in. Versus Skyrim’s $60 release price, chock-full of thought out content, a game I’ve spent 200+ hours with and continue to play to this day. I’m interested in Titanfall, but I can’t justify the purchase at $60-80. Titanfall should be priced to match its content, say $40, or $60 with the “Season Pass” added on. Thoughts?

    • derbefrier says:

      Value is relative. I loved the beta and have no issues shelling out 60 bucks for a high quality AAA multiplayer game. I don’t usually do season passes I will wait on that I don’t like buying things without knowing what I am getting.
      Also while it does borrow a lot from past shooters it doesn’t feel generic at all to me. I don’t know if you played it. I have so I already know what I am getting into.

    • LevelHeaded says:

      Not that I think Titanfall is great, but anything that has actual gameplay is better than Skyrim’s empty floaty questmess.

      • Jumpy-B-L says:

        I did play TF’s beta. As for Skyrim’s game-play, like it or not, you have to admit that a lot more time and imagination (read, $$$$$) went into that compared to a game like Titanfall.

        • LevelHeaded says:

          Titanfall is a real-time multiplayer shooter; you can’t judge development costs by its assets. The core systems are much more complex than something like Skyrim, which is basically a camera-sliding-around-near-the-ground simulator surrounded by a ton of fanfiction.

          • Bull0 says:

            I feel like you must be being sarcastic if you’re saying Titanfall is a systems game and Skyrim isn’t

          • LevelHeaded says:

            You think Skyrim’s core gameplay costs as much to develop as one for a twitch-based multiplayer shooter, including the networking subsystem, etc?

          • Bull0 says:

            I think it’s probably fairly equivalent. I also doubt they have to rewrite their netcode every time they make a raycasting shooter game.

          • LevelHeaded says:

            You’d be wrong that they are fairly equivalent. Are you a developer?

            Also, Respawn being ex-Infinity Ward devs probably means they were forced to rewrite much of Source to get it to feel like Call of Duty.

            ALSO #2 not to mention the much higher maintenance costs of an online game compared to Skyrim, which just has to stagger releases of premade content and maybe patch an asset every now and then.

          • Bull0 says:

            Okay, prove it, get me the work breakdown structures of the two games and send them over. Since you’re an expert and everything. Or alternatively stop being so combative and aggressive… Whatever works for you.

            Saying “you’re wrong” at people doesn’t make it so.

            Arrogant *Q&!”$

          • KDR_11k says:

            The core systems aren’t that much more complex than, say, Armored Core: Verdict Day which was designed as a multiplayer-first game but still had a substantial amount of SP content and equipment and whatnot. Also it was slightly less than full price…

          • LevelHeaded says:

            So you’re saying you’re not a developer.

          • Bull0 says:

            I’m saying my last comment stands, if you’re such an expert write it up for us, put your money where your mouth is and show us the evidence instead of telling us our opinions aren’t valid because we aren’t developers (incidentally I am a developer but not in games. Not that it matters a jot). And your choice of tone does you no favours.

          • LevelHeaded says:

            So you made a website once?

          • TWChristine says:

            I’ve never seen you post before maybe 3 days ago, and in that time I don’t think I’ve seen you post anything that isn’t coming off as antagonistic. As several other people have said, perhaps you just have trouble expressing yourself, but geez guy, you’ve got me wanting to block you and I haven’t done that to anyone yet.

          • Bull0 says:

            @LevelHeaded Nope, I don’t “make websites”. Try again. Actually, it’s none of your business what I’ve made. What have you made? You’re trying to get us to believe you while refusing to provide any credentials of your own. Tell us what you’ve done. Better yet – do what I asked and back up your claim with evidence, show us your estimation of the WBTs for Skyrim and Titanfall. Or apologize for being a tit. Either way.

        • mattevansc3 says:

          Umm no, they are both generic art design wise but whereas Titanfall actually adds design elements not seen or used in FPS multiplayer Skyrim removed more inventive design choices from Oblivion and replaced them with MMORPG tropes that were ten years out of date.

          Skyrim was the epitome of bullet point additions.

      • The Random One says:

        “Better than Skyrim?” Talk about damning with faint praise.

    • Bishop says:

      Personally while Skyrim has a ton of content, the core game mechanics are always laughable, immersion destroying and usually end up inbalanced. (e.g., pick pocketing someone’s entire set of armour, being able to silently summon rocks made out of lightning which the NPCs don’t treat as anything but a normal day, etc). A game like Titanfall however, with the added randomness of other people makes it playable for ages. Think of how much time gambling addicts will spend at a slot machine, none of them are complain “This slot machine is rubbish, I’ve already played 5 that had melons as one of the icons”. It’s content is small in comparison but it’s more replayable and immersive.

      • Shooop says:

        When the scale is cut down as small as it is in Titanfall, there’s much fewer possibilities than you seem to think.

        How many times can you jump on someone’s mech and make it overload before it becomes routine? The bare-bones inventory for the machines has allowed EA to do what many thought impossible: make giant robots boring.

    • tomek says:

      I cant play singleplayer games anymore since i hooked up my pc via a 15m wire to the phone jack downstairs and had to explain the 800deutsche mark bill to my parents at the end off the month. Its been years since i managed to finish and actually enjoy one :/

      Id rather have the scripted stuff as a introduction to multiplayer matches (just watch the beginning:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqBKbt1pjO0&list=UUlMXf2oP5UiW_V4dwHxY0Mg) than those god-awfull cod and bf4 singleplayer campaigns. While i was amazed at the scripts in cod:mw the stuff got old with mw2 already.

      Even the added audio in non-campaign gameplay is a BIG plus for me. So yeah, loving it.

    • Shooop says:

      Skyrim definitely wasn’t worth it at $60. The base game is fairly awful. It relies entirely on the modding community to make it, but at least that’s actually an option for it.

      I don’t know if it’s more a credit to Skyrim modders or demerit to Titanfall’s sheer monotony how much superior value Skyrim offers today.

      • prian says:

        This just goes to prove that value is subjective and relative.

        Plus how one feels about a game is also subjective and relative.

        I think it’s safe to say that there is a direct correlation between what value is placed on a game and what one thinks of it.

        Personally, I liked skyrim and thought it was worth the price of admission upon release. I bought it upon release and haven’t regretted that decision. To me, it was a great game (I really enjoyed it!) and, as such, it was worth it.

        Titanfall will definitely be worth it to a lot of folk especially folk who are used to console game pricing. I played the Beta for Titanfall and it totally tempted me to get the game. The game is -fun- and lot of fun. They’ve made the game incredibly well. To me, is the value proposition there? That depends on what is part of the game upon release over the Beta. I tend not to play fast paced multiplayer centric games but I did play Tribes a lot back in the day. So, the potential is there.

        Anyway, all that to write: I think Titanfall will totally be worth it at the asking price for a lot of people. For others who aren’t fans of this type of game Titanfall wouldn’t be worth it at $10 USD… but since they aren’t the target audience does that matter? :p

        • Shooop says:

          If by “incredibly well made” you mean “copy and pasted the code for shooting mechanics from Modern Warfare 2″ you’re absolutely right.

          • derbefrier says:

            i guess his post went over your head or you are just trying to troll.

          • xao says:

            Shoop trolls every Titanfall post on this site, with the same “ITSCODITSCODITSCOD” routine, despite having been proven wrong over and over again.

          • Shooop says:

            Care to say where I’ve ever been proven wrong there junior? Or are you just trying to convince yourself?

          • xao says:

            Oh, let’s see, just about every Titanfall post on RPS? The massive list of gameplay, engine, and thematic differences between CoD and Titanfall is well-documented. You just conveniently ignore them every time.

            Let’s spray our magic Shoop-away dust: So, Shoop, if you’re going to claim that Titanfall is like CoD, when was the last time you seriously played Call of Duty? What exactly is your basis for comparison?

            Now we sit back and listen to the crickets.

    • Dude (Darloc) says:

      Value is relative to what you get out of it, I have no issue spending £40 on a game I will probably spend at least 100 hour playing, it is all relative to what you are looking for. And generic shooter it is not to be honest, for a AAA title it does a lot of thing very differently from the other two big titles, which is great. As far as nay sayer goes they are the CoD with mech argument, which is true to an extend and the too small to be interesting. The first one is true in that the gun play is very CoD like, everything else is very different, the amount of movement the players has is far from what you get in CoD and it will be were the skill will lie at the end. The second argument I do not really get, there are a lot of maps and the gameplay is more varied than what I see in BF4, each soldier is a swiss army knife when it comes to take on a situation, you are not boxed into a class like in BF4. I am not sure it will be as deep though but it is not shallow like some person think. And with the addition of the wall running and double jumping the map fell bigger in my opinion.
      Anyway I am having fun, is not what is important in the end?

    • AngelTear says:

      While I’d argue that 60$ is too much for any game of any kind, when comparing game prices there are multiple variables to consider:

      1) How much *justified* development costs there are e.g.: I don’t expect to pay the same price for the fairly small Gone Home and the huge Skyrim or GTA or Saints Row, regardless of quality, it’s obvious that it took a much bigger effort in the latter case. Server costs for MP are also part of this category

      2) How much time you’re likely to spend with it – honestly the metre I like the least because it assumes that as long as you’re “distracted” everything goes. Instead, there’s another factor that matters more—

      3) The quality of what you’re getting – obviously a highly subjective value, but it’s different, and IMO much more important than n° 1 and 2. E.g.In retrospect I’d gladly pay 30$ for Gone Home because I cherished every moment of it, it provided me with what I deem to be high quality time. I’d pay 5$ for Skyrim because I simply don’t value the time I’d spend with it.

      I hope you get my point instead of arguing against my examples based on subjective taste.

    • KDR_11k says:

      I have bought full-price FPSes that are effectively MP-only (Battlefield 2, the various UTs, Section 8, …) but what they all have in common is bot support so when the servers bug out/get shut down/you just don’t feel like playing online you can just throw some bots into your game and off you go. Games without SP or bots tend to be in the 15€ or less category (which is also why I’m wary of Strike Vector).

  8. jezcentral says:

    Isn’t 503 a permissions error? If the game isn’t out yet, isn’t that what you would expect?

    Admittedly, I ask out of pure ignorance. I have no idea when people are allowed on the servers, what with the Beta and all.

  9. studenteternal says:

    For whatits worth I played about three hours last night without any issues. Its fun, titans are a great joy to drop, and multiplayer campaign… is a neat idea even if it doesn’t really add much I’m this case. That all said of course this is a spiritual decendant of battle field 1942/unreal tournament/tribes. If you judge a game s worth only by its story/charachters/dialouge then yes, you are going to be dissapointed.

    You should have a pretty good idea going in if you like online shooters, comparing this to say, skyrim, is just silly.

    • Bull0 says:

      Yeah, that was a particularly poor comparison. A better one would probably be to compare it to Battlefield or ArmA.

    • Moraven says:

      I still am not sure what happens after the Demeter mission.

      You miss so much of the story since you are actually playing the game.

  10. Darth Gangrel says:

    Strike one (Simcity), strike two (BF4), strike three (Titanfall) – you’re out!

    (Un)fortunately it doesn’t work that way in this business. Like any game with a heavy online focus, this was to be expected, but it’s still surprising that EA has gone through three failed launches in a short amount of time. The game at least seems good, when it’s playable.

    • Moraven says:

      Strike Three, the problems being overstated by the media!

      This is far far far from being a failed launch. If you were actually playing the past 2 nights and not just reading reddit, you would know the problems have been very low. Especially compared to SimCity.

      • LionsPhil says:

        There’s also the very slight difference that SimCity has historically been a fairly solitary game, yet they broken even playing it solo. This is a fundamentally multiplayer game, so at least depending on someone else’s server is an understandable technical requirement.

  11. Maxheadroom says:

    The metacritic scors for this (the user ones anyway) infuriate and entertain me in equal measure.

    A plethora of 0′s clearly posted by petulant PS4 owning children which is then countered by Xbox kiddies giving it 10′s

    (I bought it off the back of the beta that I thoroughly enjoyed and agree with the mid 80′s of the critical reviews. It’s not going to change my life, but it’s a very fun diversion).

    I imagine we’ll see exactly the same when Second Son is released

  12. DarkLiberator says:

    I played like 6 straight hours earlier and had zero issues. The servers themselves are pretty smooth. Pretty good launch actually.

    Gameplay wise, the game is pure fun. Nothing beats parkouring around the map, then rodeoing onto a Titan, destroying it then blast the guy with your shotgun when he ejects.

  13. St33l_Battl3_Li0n says:

    From a gamers point of view is this really a surprise to anyone that has bought into EA hype in the past 5 years? The only way this sort of shoddy release behaviour will stop is if everyone STOPS PRE-ORDERING!!!!! Do not under any circumstances pre-order from EA. When they stop getting the money in from an unfinished game before a so called ‘release’ they will realise they can’t keep treating their customers like this.

    EA will only listen with their wallets, please for the love of the future of gaming just don’t do it.

    For smaller upstarts and Indie Devs I’ll happily give them the benefit of the doubt (for the first couple times), but please I’d rather wait a little for a finished working game that I enjoy rather than go off the hype, get all excited and be epically let down.

    It can’t just be me with this sort of opinion? Can it?

    Please excuse that stupid MLG picture, it was for the lulz once upon a time ago

    • Moraven says:

      The launch has been rather smooth and EA and Respawn have responding quickly to assist players who did run into issues.

  14. Carlos Danger says:

    I couldn’t make it through the tutorial before I decided to stop playing in the beta. It was either the self aiming pistol or the Neo Titan that puts up its hand to stop bullets that put me off. Maybe later in the game it gets better but not sure how as it seems a fairly pedestrian in all aspects save hype.

  15. Lagwolf says:

    Titanfall is quite a cool game just not sure it is worth $60+ on the PC. It seems, from the TB review, it is quite light on the content. Might be one to wait for in a sale (like Thief).

    • geldonyetich says:

      Of course, by the time the game hits a more reasonable $30, you’ll be up against Titanfall players who have had about 6 months of practice.

      This is assuming anyone still plays it at all in 6 months. Alas, poor Section 8, a game forever undeservingly short on adequate players in the crowded arena shooter genre. This is why AI opponents are needed.

  16. thefinn says:

    Oh look another EA launch shot to shit… Who would’ve thunk it ?

  17. TheTedinator says:

    Hmm, maybe I just have been lucky enough to not be playing during the outages, but it’s been fine for me. Some hiccups in the first hour after launch, but after that it’s been surprisingly smooth sailing. People only post on the internet to complain, though.

  18. Dale Winton says:

    Calm down guys it was down for two hours

    Bought the game on Monday for £20 (russian place) , no problems getting on using the VPN thing

    Some games get released in a bad state (BF4) but sorry this is not like that at all. Very well polished , looks beautiful and has great gameplay

    This will be my shooter of choice for a good while

  19. MkMax says:

    reading this is starting to make me less miserable knowing i have it and i cant play it until the weekend because of that damn 64bit requirement

    although im surprised to see it, i had no network trouble at all with the beta, i hope the pings remain the same or is this a origin problem unrelated to the titanfall servers ?

  20. hayesmaker says:

    relax, you can always clear a few blocks on dungeon keeper while you wait for it to get fixed

  21. LawL4Ever says:

    The biggest problem I really have with the game is that it won’t let me change the language to english, so I have to play it in german (does anyone know how to change it? Quick google didn’t yield anything that worked). Though I have to admit the translation isn’t as terrible as I feared (unlike, um. CoD). They actually managed to realize that some words just sound ridiculous when translated into german, so you may just leave them in english, in todays world everyone is going to understand those few words anyway.

  22. marklester611 says:

    Finally! I can now play Titanfall again. I am really confident that EA will soon release a workaround for this issue. I also find useful information here: http://www.techyv.com/questions/titanfall-disconnect-error-code-503