Schreier + others regarding Titanfall 2: Respawn chose their own release date

ThereAreFourNaan · Feb 2, 2019

This is something that got buried in the recent Titanfall BR stuff, but it's common knowledge that Titanfall 2's release date was a disastrous one, sandwiched between much larger games. What is not common knowledge, but what I've heard vague rumblings of before, is that it was Respawn's leadership that chose to launch where it did. As per this Twitter exchange, I now have somebody reputable backing this up.

(Context tweet)

(Jason's reply)

EA as a publisher catches shit for this in a lot of threads, but it seems that Respawn's higher ups were very confident in it's product. It was a great game and reviewed well so I could see how that would happen. Something not mentioned in this exchange, but which I heard before (very very very) indirectly was that West and Zampella (the founders) have fairly sizeable egos, which considering their role in the creation of Call of Duty and the MW subseries is at least partly justified.

Please note I'm not an insider or anything close to it, it's just shit I hear around and that came from the same folks who are themselves also not insiders and who might have just heard it from Jason on a podcast at some other point in time or something.

Edit:

Straight from the horse's mouth

jschreier said:
My understanding is that Respawn wanted that late October/early November slot to go up against Call of Duty.

Battlefield 1, on the other hand, wasn't supposed to come out in the same month. I believe it was originally planned for earlier but had to be delayed, and by then it was too late for Titanall to move.

vestan · Feb 2, 2019

So the narrative that EA sent this game out to die is now dead, huh?

AHA-Lambda · Feb 2, 2019

But why would they do that then?! O_o

poklane · Feb 2, 2019

EA should have told Respawn that they're crazy and moved it themselves. No matter how good the game is, releasing 1 week after Battlefield 1 and 1 week before Infinite Warfare was pure insanity.

Juan29.Zapata · Feb 2, 2019

AHA-Lambda said:
But why would they do that then?! O_o

They thought that "From the creators of Call of Duty" would give them more sales plus good quality, probably.

ThereAreFourNaan · Feb 2, 2019

AHA-Lambda said:
But why would they do that then?! O_o

The theory that I heard floating around was basically that the founders have egos and were very confident in their (admittedly very good) game. They thought they could stand strong as a result. Not like, destroy CoD and Battlefield or anything, but at least avoid being crushed.

AndyVirus · Feb 2, 2019

Did they know Battlefield 1's date when they did so though?

Chris. · Feb 2, 2019

I thought this was common knowledge since before the game even launched....

mescalineeyes · Feb 2, 2019

the funniest part about this is that the hubris is almost justified, Titanfall 2 is incredible.

Eoin · Feb 2, 2019

AndyVirus said:
Did they know Battlefield 1's date when they did so though?

Even if they didn't know the exact date (and presumably EA would have been happy enough to tell them), they shouldn't have expected anything much different.

Aokiji · Feb 2, 2019

So they let their ego decide the release date of their game and not business logic? Sounds like a great plan

Darkwing-Buck · Feb 2, 2019

Kayotix · Feb 2, 2019

Titanfall 2 was better than both games too... Its a Shame more ppl didn't play it.

But yeah.. They should of waited 2 months later for ppl to realize BF and CoD was more of the same and maybe grab folks looking for something different.

TheLastOne · Feb 2, 2019

If this is the case you would've thought EA would've been able to stop it considering they foot the bill.

Lazybob · Feb 2, 2019

That's really baffling if that's the case. Everyone knew it was fucked before it came out.

Remark · Feb 2, 2019

Idk I feel like in that case EA should of sat them down and been like "If you release this game here it's not gonna do so hot".

Maybe they thought with the game going multiplat the game would take off in sales but that obviously didn't happen.

Sargerus · Feb 2, 2019

Doesn't EA have the final word though?

NightShift · Feb 2, 2019

Well it's better to think Respawn were overly confident in their game (which they had all the right to) than thinking EA are so evil to sabotage a studio like that. This is one of the few instances where I am willing to blame "gamers" for this situation. Fucking gamers.

RecRoulette · Feb 2, 2019

That's wild, I get having faith in your product but that's unfortunate

TheDanimal · Feb 2, 2019

I'll always regret buying battlefield 1 on launch over Titanfall 2. Titanfall is superior in every way

BrassDragon · Feb 2, 2019

Huh, Zampella suggested Respawn was taken by surprise that they were releasing on top of Battlefield 1 in a Glixel interview (PC Gamer link, original article seems to be removed.)

Glixel said:
Zampella is then asked how he felt about Titanfall 2 releasing a week after EA's WW1 shooter, Battlefield 1. "If the question was, 'Would I rather have this window to myself?' Well, of course," he says. "I'm not foolish. I'm not foolish that way, anyway. In other ways, probably."

The release window was known by Respawn in advance, but "the exact timing", they didn't know that, he reveals.

Glixel also ask whether Respawn were worried, going up against Battlefield 1, if EA could show them enough publishing support while also marketing their own shooter. "It's always a concern," Zampella says in response. "That's what I'll say. Especially when you have two games on top of each other."

So yeah, they may have chosen the date but still got buried in the market by their publisher so something is still off.

Meg Cherry · Feb 2, 2019

vestan said:
So the narrative that EA sent this game out to die is now dead, huh?

Oh people will keep pushing that till the sun explodes.

Fuck, EA genuinely out more effort into marketing this game than most other titles this gen. They had branded partnerships with Mountain Dew, Doritos, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Target, consistent online advertising, and all the expected press. Lack of awareness isn't why the game flopped - it just put itself out there into a too-crowded shooter market.

Deleted member 268 · Feb 2, 2019

Well that was monumentally stupid.

They would've dominated in the summer.

scitek · Feb 2, 2019

A good example of why most game developers shouldn't be doing things like choosing release dates, or handling practically anything when it comes to PR or marketing.

RumbleHumble · Feb 2, 2019

Talk about an inflated ego. Don't get me wrong TF2 was my GOTY, but to think that your precious little miracle stood a shot in between those two behemoths is just silly.

Caiusto · Feb 2, 2019

So they chose for suicide huh?

Paquete_PT · Feb 2, 2019

I don't get it. This decision would never make sense. Even if TF2 was a 10/10 game and considered the best FPS ever, it was still the new player going out against the two biggest FPS franchises of the time. That would always lead to the loss of potential sales

scitek · Feb 2, 2019

RumbleHumble said:
Talk about an inflated ego. Don't get me wrong TF2 was my GOTY, but to think that your precious little miracle stood a shot in between those two behemoths is just silly.

I wonder if going up against Call of Duty was something they specifically really wanted to do.

Especially since it was a game made by Infinity Ward.

Lant_War · Feb 2, 2019

Juan29.Zapata said:
They thought that "From the creators of Call of Duty" would give them more sales plus good quality, probably.

Also, IW was getting a ton of hate online. They probably thought they'd steal all of COD's fanbase.

ThereAreFourNaan · Feb 2, 2019

BrassDragon said:
So yeah, they may have chosen the date but still got buried in the market by their publisher so something is still off.

The release dates for both Battlefield and Call of Duty are fairly consistent, so by choosing that date they knew they would be within a month of CoD and probably within 2 weeks of Battlefield at most, even if they did not know precisely how close. Titanfall 1 launched in April by comparison, so they undoubtedly intended to "compete" with these games, even if they did not intend to launch within 5 days of Battlefield necessarily.

carlsojo · Feb 2, 2019

God EA are just like the worst at managing their studios.

Edge · Feb 2, 2019

Respawn picked it? Then I hope the person who picked it is fired by now, because that was f'n stupid and he had no idea what or why he did it.

M. Wallace · Feb 2, 2019

They wanted to die...and respawn

HotHamBoy · Feb 2, 2019

poklane said:
EA should have told Respawn that they're crazy and moved it themselves. No matter how good the game is, releasing 1 week after Battlefield 1 and 1 week before Infinite Warfare was pure insanity.

Sounds more like hubris to me

Edge said:
Respawn picked it? Then I hope the person who picked it is fired by now, because that was f'n stupid and he had no idea what or why he did it.

Came for the big dogs and expected to eat their lunch, got left on the curb with the dumpster scraps

Papacheeks · Feb 2, 2019

Wow, they chose poorly then....

Nocturnowl · Feb 2, 2019

Like activating nuclear self destruct on your titan and only catching yourself in the blast while the other titans just walk away.

BrassDragon · Feb 2, 2019

ThereAreFourNaan said:
The release dates for both Battlefield and Call of Duty are fairly consistent, so by choosing that date they knew they would be within a month of CoD and probably within 2 weeks of Battlefield at most, even if they did not know precisely how close. Titanfall 1 launched in April by comparison, so they undoubtedly intended to "compete" with these games, even if they did not intend to launch within 5 days of Battlefield necessarily.

That's a fair point. We also also have a quote from Respawn producer Drew McCoy talking to Playstation Lifestyle that the date was locked in for a long time before release:

PSLS: How satisfied are you with Titanfall 2's release date? Was EA the decision maker with that, or did you guys have a say in that?

Drew: I actually don't know where the decision came from. I just know it was locked in a long time ago and there was no changing it. I'm not really worried about it. We tried not to [worry] really…When you care about what other games are doing, when they're releasing [, you worry]. At the end of the day, we're releasing a game that we're happy with, and we enjoy playing, that we're proud of. As long as we're doing that, I think we're gonna find an audience. It doesn't really matter when it comes out. A good game gets noticed.

Anthony Hopkins · Feb 2, 2019

Maybe Respawn wanted to beat cod and Battlefield.
Which although I think revenge or competitiveness is a silly reason, if Respawn where compelled to go down that path, there product was up to the task, but the brand and marketing was not.

Jakisthe · Feb 2, 2019

I was so let down with the MP compared to TF1...what a game that one was.

Procheno · Feb 2, 2019

Lowrys · Feb 2, 2019

What a stupid decision. Doesn't matter how good it was, it was always going to get buried with that release date.

Schwinner · Feb 2, 2019

There is also an article with Vince Zampella on Glixel back after it launched, he explained they made the decision for the window but did not know the exact timing.

More here: https://web.archive.org/web/2018020...creator-on-what-makes-a-great-shooter-w450709
Can't seem to find the original link though.

jschreier · Feb 2, 2019

My understanding is that Respawn wanted that late October/early November slot to go up against Call of Duty.

Battlefield 1, on the other hand, wasn't supposed to come out in the same month. I believe it was originally planned for earlier but had to be delayed, and by then it was too late for Titanall to move.

Deleted member 268 · Feb 2, 2019

Titanfall 3 should go for a summer release.

It would kill.

Ascenion · Feb 2, 2019

I'm continually surprised that given all the intelligence present in a Dev studio that stupid ass decisions like this make it through. Why the fuck would EA even let them do this to themselves?

breadtruck · Feb 2, 2019

Hopefully lessons were learned. Bring on T3!

Cantaim · Feb 2, 2019

That's actually not the first time I heard that. Don't remember if it was an insider or Jason himself. But back on Gaf I remember someone in the know talking about how Titanfall 2's date was entirely a Respawn decision. And that they didn't want to change it due to problems with marketing.

poklane · Feb 2, 2019

jschreier said:
My understanding is that Respawn wanted that late October/early November slot to go up against Call of Duty.

Battlefield 1, on the other hand, wasn't supposed to come out in the same month. I believe it was originally planned for earlier but had to be delayed, and by then it was too late for Titanall to move.

Zampella really has a thing for (attempting) to kill his old franchises huh?

Oxyrain · Feb 2, 2019

jschreier said:
My understanding is that Respawn wanted that late October/early November slot to go up against Call of Duty.

Battlefield 1, on the other hand, wasn't supposed to come out in the same month. I believe it was originally planned for earlier but had to be delayed, and by then it was too late for Titanall to move.

So BF was the last date to be locked-in and EA decided to Titanfall would be the game to be sandwiched rather than COD.

Hailinel · Feb 2, 2019

ThereAreFourNaan said:
The theory that I heard floating around was basically that the founders have egos and were very confident in their (admittedly very good) game. They thought they could stand strong as a result. Not like, destroy CoD and Battlefield or anything, but at least avoid being crushed.

Zampella and West would have had massive egos, I imagine.

Schreier + others regarding Titanfall 2: Respawn chose their own release date

#REFANTAZIO SWEEP

▲ Legend ▲

One Winged Slayer

победитель победитель куриный ужин

User requested account closure

Classic Anus Game

A King's Landing

Alt Account

Press Sneak Fuck

User requested account closure

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer

Shamed a mod for a tag