Machiavellian on 05 June 2014
| pokoko said: The suggestion that Titanfall would not have been made without Microsoft's support is naive. The game was being made. It's not like it was in pre-production and they were looking for funding to get it off the ground. In an environment where venture capital firms are actively looking for games to back, I'm supposed to believe that the people who made CoD big can't get enough money to finish a game? No, what Titanfall shows is the negative side of playing it safe. EA bounced back and forth between Sony and Microsoft looking for the best deal. Convincing Microsoft to back Titanfall took the risk out of publishing the game but it also cut their eventual profits in half. Just imagine how pretty EA would be sitting if they'd had enough faith in Titanfall to fund it themselves. The return would have been staggering. |
Projects get shelved all the time and development studios also close all the time due to no money. No on really know how Respawn would have turned out without MS support. No one knows how Titanfall would have turned out without that extra money. You are right that the project might have still be done but without funding, it probably would be in a state and quality level well below what EA and Respawn wanted to deliver.
As a new company, Respawn have no choice but to play it safe. A new IP does not mean instance success and Titanfall could have easily bombed. Risk is a very much conditition to most game development and with EA swimming in the red finiacially with a game thats not theirs well they went for the safe bet.
