By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Titanfall PS3 and PS4 mention in PC texture files

gergroy said:

you got a link for that?  I certainly never heard that

"We were kind of interested in Source early on because it’s very familiar to our designers," said Richard Baker, a software engineer at Respawn who previously worked on Call of Duty 2, Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2. Source also suited Respawn’s desire to hit a constant 60 frames per second on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3, where other third-party engines weren’t up to the task. "The ironic thing is that we wanted an engine that would work on PS3, because that’s the riskiest platform in current gen. When Portal 2 came out and it seemed to be a pretty decent PS3 game, that was the point when we decided to go with Source. And then we stopped supporting PS3."

http://www.polygon.com/e3-2013/2013/6/12/4419110/titanfall-respawn

They choose Source due PS3 and the game supported PS3 until E3 of this year when they stopped to support it.



Around the Network

Further confirmation that rather than funding a game that would've otherwise never would have existed, Microsoft instead went out of their way to pay to make sure a game DIDN'T come out on consoles it otherwise would have.

Just another anti-consumer practice Microsoft needs to stop if they don't want to be seen as anti-consumer.

As much as I dislike Nintendo and as anti-consumer as they are in so many other regards, Bayonetta 2 is an example of a 3rd party exclusive done right.



ethomaz said:

gergroy said:

you got a link for that?  I certainly never heard that

"We were kind of interested in Source early on because it’s very familiar to our designers," said Richard Baker, a software engineer at Respawn who previously worked on Call of Duty 2, Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2. Source also suited Respawn’s desire to hit a constant 60 frames per second on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3, where other third-party engines weren’t up to the task. "The ironic thing is that we wanted an engine that would work on PS3, because that’s the riskiest platform in current gen. When Portal 2 came out and it seemed to be a pretty decent PS3 game, that was the point when we decided to go with Source. And then we stopped supporting PS3."

http://www.polygon.com/e3-2013/2013/6/12/4419110/titanfall-respawn

They choose Source due PS3 and the game supported PS3 until E3 of this year when they stopped to support it.

interesting.  I always thought it was odd that they went with source.  So yeah, you are right that they chose source with ps3 in mind, but it sounds like it was dropped long before E3.  They moved it from a current gen title to a next gen title and then dropped ps3 (and technically 360, but EA pushed that to another studio).  



gergroy said:

interesting.  I always thought it was odd that they went with source.  So yeah, you are right that they chose source with ps3 in mind, but it sounds like it was dropped long before E3.  They moved it from a current gen title to a next gen title and then dropped ps3 (and technically 360, but EA pushed that to another studio).

I guess it was PC/360/PS3 to PC/360 (MS paid for that)... so when they announced Xbone they moved to PC/360/Xbone

Titanfall is being developed since 2011 or before that.



dsp333 said:
Further confirmation that rather than funding a game that would've otherwise never would have existed, Microsoft instead went out of their way to pay to make sure a game DIDN'T come out on consoles it otherwise would have.

Just another anti-consumer practice Microsoft needs to stop if they don't want to be seen as anti-consumer.

As much as I dislike Nintendo and as anti-consumer as they are in so many other regards, Bayonetta 2 is an example of a 3rd party exclusive done right.

except  it almost guaranteed to fail to sale and will be a big hit to their profit margins... 



Around the Network
ethomaz said:

gergroy said:

interesting.  I always thought it was odd that they went with source.  So yeah, you are right that they chose source with ps3 in mind, but it sounds like it was dropped long before E3.  They moved it from a current gen title to a next gen title and then dropped ps3 (and technically 360, but EA pushed that to another studio).

I guess it was PC/360/PS3 to PC/360 (MS paid for that)... so when they announced Xbone they moved to PC/360/Xbone

Titanfall is being developed since 2011 or before that.

I was under the impression that the MS deal wasn't in place until after E3.  

http://venturebeat.com/2013/10/29/titanfall-boss-we-only-found-out-recently-about-the-microsoft-exclusivity-deal-we-will-make-playstation-4-games/



gergroy said:
dsp333 said:
Further confirmation that rather than funding a game that would've otherwise never would have existed, Microsoft instead went out of their way to pay to make sure a game DIDN'T come out on consoles it otherwise would have.

Just another anti-consumer practice Microsoft needs to stop if they don't want to be seen as anti-consumer.

As much as I dislike Nintendo and as anti-consumer as they are in so many other regards, Bayonetta 2 is an example of a 3rd party exclusive done right.

except  it almost guaranteed to fail to sale and will be a big hit to their profit margins... 

Done right for the consumer, I mean. Who cares about Nintendo's bottom line?



I wouldn't even care if it did come to Playstation. It looks like COD with mechs to me. FPS is a tired genre at the moment



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

well i guess we'll have to settle for the PC version of this "game world changing" FPS. feel bad i wont be able to see and enjoy the superior xbone version.



Where does it mention PS4?!