No Titanfall 2 Season Pass, No “Hidden Costs”
“All Maps & Modes Will Be Free”, Say Respawn

It’s a sign of how quickly expectations change that Respawn Entertainment’s announcement that Titanfall 2 [official site] will not have a Season Pass for post-release content is something of a surprise. The new normal for big releases, particularly those with multiplayer, seems to include a pass that costs as much as the base game, promising oodles of extra maps, modes, and other DLC bits and pieces across an entire season. A season, like a piece of string, is of indeterminate length.

Titanfall 2 is having none of that: “No season pass required: all maps & modes will be free in Titanfall 2 Multiplayer”, it says on the site, bold as brass.

Respawn had declared their intention of providing free DLC earlier this year, saying that the cost of keeping a team working on post-release content might be paid for using sales of cosmetic items. There’s no confirmation whether or not that’ll be the case, though in their new explanation of the DLC policy, there is no mention of cosmetic items at all:

This means no splitting up the community and it all starts with the legendary Angel City map, remastered from the original Titanfall. This means once you’ve purchased Titanfall 2, your investment includes a full single player campaign, the full multiplayer maps and modes, and long-term support with no hidden costs. You can pre-order the game to play 3 days early, but it will never cost you extra.

I can’t argue with that, so I won’t. Even my beloved Civilization VI pulled a shady move by locking the Aztecs down as a pre-order timed exclusive. Good on Respawn for bucking wallet-punishing trends.

Of course, this isn’t an act of generosity as such. A game without the potential to fragment its own playerbase should benefit Respawn, the intent being to create a game with long-term appeal, which should be good for both players and studio. All the free maps and modes in the world won’t help if the game itself isn’t up to scratch though and over on the same page where the post-release plans are outlined, you can read all about the movement, the titans themselves, the tone, and the singleplayer campaign’s bossfights and variety of challenges. We’ll be the judge of all that in the coming days, as we stomp and shoot through the game, holding hands with our favourite robot

Titanfall 2 is out tomorrow.

From this site

37 Comments

  1. BlackeyeVuk says:

    Fool me once, shame on you.
    Fool me seven or eight times, shame on me. I think.

  2. shaydeeadi says:

    Looking forward to this, the first one was some high quality casual fun and making all the maps free is a smart move as it should help the game stay busy for longer. I might even buy a sombrero for my titan when the time comes.

  3. Regicider 12.4% says:

    Interesting times we live in when big budget projects have to announce that they won’t be interactive store fronts (for now, online only EULA/TOS experience may change bla bla etc etc).

  4. dahools says:

    Next you will be telling me they will be releasing it on steam too!

    • mepto says:

      Look, I’m the last person to support proprietary DRM storefronts and store-binding/exclusivity, but why do gamers expect these corporations to just give another corporation free money when they can get all the money themselves? Why should it matter if having just one store is “comfortable”? They’re all DRM anyway, why should one of them be lucky enough to also monopolize the market?

      • dahools says:

        I hear what your saying, but not releasing on as many platforms as possible (not just steam) is “not getting all the moneyz yourself” and cutting off your nose to spite your face by sticking to your own platform DRM or not.
        There is no doubt it would sell more copies if it was on more platforms you are not giving money away you are selling more copies but admittedly at a slightly reduced rate.

        If I thought I could sell 10 things for 10 moneyz on my own or sell 30 more aswell by letting others help at a reduced rate I know what I would do.

        • shaydeeadi says:

          It’s barely a platform, just a different launcher. It takes seconds to load Origin, you can even launch it from within Steam if that’s what you want to do. I don’t understand why people get so upset over a game not being on Steam.

          PC is the platform. Steam, like Origin; is just a shop and launcher.

          • Anti-Skub says:

            Because if everyone does it, it’s worse than no one doing it. If every fucking dev sticks a storefront launcher in front of their game you end up with as many launchers as games on your system. I currently have Uplay for The Division, Origin for Battlefield, Xbox Live for Gears of War 4, BattleNet for Overwatch and Steam for Doom.

            The whole bloody point in these programs is to serve as a store/games library. When they refuse to make their games available to each other, the launcher software just becomes a burden.

          • wengart says:

            Steam launches when I launch my computer. Steam has the vast majority of my games. Steam has the community features that I use on a daily basis.

            Origin doesn’t launch when I turn my PC on because I have few games on it, because I don’t use the community features.

            I’m bored and I’m considering playing a game. Games I have on Origin I don’t necessarily think about. I definitely don’t notice that 3 of my friends have booted up the same game. That happens on Steam though.

            My friends buy games when they notice that a good number of us are playing. Doesn’t happen with Origin. I can easily join my friends when they are playing a game on Steam. Doesn’t happen with origin.

            Games outside of Steam don’t effectively utilize Steam’s community features in a way that is beneficial to me. I absolutely don’t need to play Titanfall 2. I have too many games and not enough time. So I shrug my shoulders and don’t buy it because it creates a burden upon me. Sure I add the launcher in Steam, but then that update hits and I don’t know about it. I try to launch the game after I get off work and I get to sit there and wait for it to update.

          • dahools says:

            Your right platform was perhaps the wrong word to use but you get the point. If you sell food and decide not to put it on the shelves of the biggest supermarkets don’t be surprised when it doesn’t sell as much as you wanted at just your local store. I know they want to push their own but like what is mentioned above how many apps/storefronts are we going to need open to keep all our games up to date if everyone decided to so the same.

      • Raoul Duke says:

        I’m with you.

        Origin actually has a nicer interface and better download speeds in my experience, as well as being much more lightweight (in the sense that when I open it, it doesn’t sit there doing “stuff” for ages like Steam).

        Yet some people on here act like Steam is some sort of open source nirvana, whereas Origin is satan. In fact, they are both mini-satan, and both not that bad other than the philosophical objections which can only be overcome via something like Good Old Games.

  5. Premium User Badge

    Topperfalkon says:

    Well, if this is true, good. It means they finally recognised the main cause of death of the first game.

  6. grimdanfango says:

    It’s a fine step (back) in the right direction.

    It struck me that this still smacks of the usual crap though:

    saying that the cost of keeping a team working on post-release content might be paid for using sales of cosmetic items

    – oh, how noble of them! Scraping by on only cosmetic DLC sales. Not like there’s any other revenue stream to draw on, now they’ve caved to demand and given up season-passes/paid DLC, the only things that made them any real money.

    How about they use some of the goddamn money from all the £50 sales of the actual frigging game?

    Great that they’re trying to change tack, but it’s going to be really annoying if they feel that entitles them to praise and adoration simply for *not* punching people in the face.

    It’ll be even more stupid and tellingly hollow if, in the event the game happens to not sell 6 million copies, they subsequently decide this new “strategy” doesn’t work, and go immediately back to the pay-to-fee model.

  7. The Sombrero Kid says:

    Full Priced games that ask for more money in any way shape or form, in game, whether it’s cosmetic or not, can fuck right off. Especially if it’s added in a post review patch. There’s simply too many good games that charge a reasonable price to play that missing out on these mediocre, yearly iteration, shills is not an issue.

  8. Freud says:

    If you want to milk your customers, you can always make character/weapon skins for money.

    It never made any sense to me to fracture your player base by having maps be purchasable.

    • SaintAn says:

      It’s fine if they want to sell map expansions. Not okay to sell skins. Don’t know why you pro-microtransaction types keep trying to say cosmetics are okay to sell. They’re not.

      • grimdanfango says:

        I’m pretty much entirely anti-everything when it comes to Triple-A corporate bullshit, and even I consider cosmetics reasonable enough. Just my opinion of course, but I actually like the fact that they’re often clearly delineated as cosmetic, as it means I can easily completely ignore their existence and just play the game.

        I understand they niggle some people, and it’d be ignorant of me to suggest there’s no argument against them, but I have to say, I don’t consider them objectively *wrong*.

        That is of course, provided a game isn’t *designed* at a mechanical level around selling them. At that point, the game is losing out to greed.

        • dahools says:

          I kinda have to agree, as long as the player base all have access to the same maps, guns and ammo, I don’t see a problem with letting someone who wants to personalise their game a little pay to do so. A unique dog tag, gun skin, outfit etc. . .

          If people want to pay for those customisations then you would be a fool not to take their money to do so at no cost to the standing player base. I personally am not interested in this as i am usually more than happy with the original character design that is in theme with the game being played.

      • klops says:

        Why selling skins is not ok? You get the whole content with a single purchase, which is ideal approach and there’s no hidden cost. I’m not pro microtransationist, on the contrary, but if you want to spend your money in decorating your character, I see no trouble in this. Just as long as there’s no pay to win.

        -Edit- Grifandango already said it better.

      • Banyan says:

        That sounds an awful lot like an opinion.

      • Steven Hutton says:

        Why not?

      • Raoul Duke says:

        You position makes no sense.

        Selling skins in harmless, because only morons will pay for something like that and it doesn’t affect the actual gameplay at all.

        Selling maps is harmful, because anyone who doesn’t buy the newest maps is immediately locked out of most multiplayer sessions.

  9. SaintAn says:

    “using sales of cosmetic items”

    That would be a hidden cost, especially if that’s their plan and they are not mentioning it yet.

  10. Phantom_Renegade says:

    As long as it’s not random crates, I’m okay with cosmetic stuff. I absolutely hate random crates. Every time I log onto Swtor and I see a nice looking costume or whatever and I’m like, sure I’ll put down some money for that. But no, I can’t, since it’s in a fucking random crate. Fuck that noise.

  11. CidL says:

    We moan, often rightly, that we get ripped off by games and their dubious DLCs. On this occasion, if the game’s as good as most reviews suggest it is and they’re providing new maps etc for it for free, in at least the short to medium term, reckon we gotta just say fair play to Respawn, and thanks. There will be lots more games for us to be cynical about.

  12. Katsabas says:

    It’s good that they are getting the word out cause even though they announced this a couple of months back, there are TONS of people who do not know this.

  13. Inu says:

    Wasn’t even considering this game… now i *might* consider it.

  14. myhandleonrps says:

    They already sell a +$20 premium edition…

  15. AlienMind says:

    learnt something from overwatch ey?

  16. fish99 says:

    Good news, and I don’t see how anyone could complain about this. Only question is why didn’t they announce this a month ago, then I might have bought this over BF1. The timing makes me wonder if they’re seeing low preorders. Probably wasn’t a good idea to release this right next to BF and COD.

    I might still buy it though.

  17. Koozer says:

    An excellent move, but not enough of an incentive to buy full price. I just wish BF1 did the same.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>