For those referencing Gears of War, it's generally believed that Microsoft had a multi-game deal in place with Epic from the beginning. Pachter said that he believes Epic regretted that deal. Epic denied that they regretted anything but who knows, it's not like they would ever admit it publicly.

Still, that multi-game deal possibly cost them millions in profit. It's hard for me to imagine a publisher like EA not taking that into consideration.

If Titanfall will be a big success, this would be too expensive. We are talking about some hundred million less revenue if it is only on one console and Ps4 has a bigger userbase and will probably have a bigger userbase. If Xbox One would have a decent sales advantage against PS4 I could believe it but not if PS4 will have like 2x as many sold consoles (something I obviously don't know)

If anything it will be much easier for Sony to pay for exclusivity deals this gen since developers won't lose to many sales without an Xbox One version. 

I find this a little unlikely. Many of the 360's exclusives were only timed or went multi with later installments, plus I don't think EA will be able to resist the lure of more than twice the install base to sell to.

It is true that a big enough moneyhat could in theory tempt EA to leave it where it is, but as has been pointed out keeping hold of such an enormous game (and say what you like about it, TF is extremely likely to be one of the gens biggest games, IMHO) would be enormously expensive for MS and unlike Gears, MS aren't the publisher so they have less influence over what happens with Titanfall

I suspect the deal was made before it became apparent that this gen seems to be swinging to Sony at this very early stage, had they known I think EA would've hedged their bets and gone multi from the beginning. It makes sense - COD and BF all sold best on 360 and until MS started making umpteen PR disasters and revealed the price, there was little reason to assume that that would change this gen, but when it did EA were caught in this slightly awkward position

May explain why they made Judgement at a time when all MS's other 1st and 2nd parties had moved on from 360 - a reaonably quick, good enough game to fulfill the terms of the deal so they can go and do something else. Plenty of bands/other artists do it with record deals, a quick album or b-sides collection so that the deal runs out and they can sod off somewhere else

You need to see the whole picture here, the problem is within the price, like I said this game needs to be no more than 30 bucks, but they asking 60 dollars ?, not only that, they go and create a Ultimate edition with a action figure inside for 200 bucks ? seriously. You think thats right ?, look at BF4 the games also cost  60 bucks, but it has one impressive looking campaign is not that long but damn, imo the SP was stunning, same goes for KZ SF, one stunning looking SP campaign the story not that good but an awesome SP is there, and also both of this games MP are fun as hell.

Creating SP player experiences must be the most difficult thing to do, since it has to have good story, and overall good gameplay mechanics(fun to play). a MP game in my opinion is the easiest since the only mechanic is to kill each other, and practically thats it!. 

The price from whatever angle you see it can't justified for Titanfall, maybe the only way it can be justified is to create the most visually impressive MP game to date!!!, but we all know thats not the story here.  

Agree :P

I know this is false because either Rod Ferguson, Mike Capps, or Cliff Bleszinki mentioned about a year ago that every Gears of War game they sat down with Microsoft before releasing it and MSFT always made it worth it.  Cant remember which one said this though.  But no it wasnt a multi-year deal. A deal was made seperately in each game.

I couldnt find the comment as i cant remember how it was worded but this is when Gears 3 came out.

Cliffy B

"I would love to work on new IP, I'm a big believer in just creating new universes," he told GameTrailers. 

"We have a great deal with Microsoft. It's a great setup, I mean multiplatform games... Call Of Duty's huge, right? But the way that we have our setup with Microsoft, when you combine the marketing benefits, the usability benefits, them helping out with dedicated servers... it just makes more sense [to us] for Gears Of War to remain an Xbox exclusive for the foreseeable future."

lol @ bad for the industry.

And lol @ price. $60 for some amazing, genre defying MP action? Hell yes please.

You actually have it the other way around. Once Titanfall drops at $60, all other games need to drop to $20 or $30. It defies logic to have such trash retail for the same price as Titanfall.

But seriously, bad for the industry? What a joke. Do you have any logical reason why it's bad for the industry, keeping in mind that plenty of PC games retail for full price and are online only, and loads of shooters come out on consoles with 4 hour throwaway campaigns that are irrelevant?

And why on Earth would a MP only game $60 be so awful and terrible, yet it would all be ok if the game just had amazing graphics?

Just like it happened with Mass Effect am i right? /rolleyes

Depends. Who does the IP belong to?

Is it owned by MS and is just being developed by EA? Or did MS just gave EA some money and told them to make a game.