In reality, they should.

Microsofts problem these days is the amount of pies they have fingers in. Too many pies, not enough fingers. They're trying to branch out in a million different directions. Couple this with the in-fighting between the various fractured departments, and you just end up with a mess. Autocratic leaders doing whatever they want doesn't help either.

They've lost their focus. In the last ten years, they catch onto trends too late in the day, or if they come too early, they don't seize the opportunity and market and let it stagnate until someone competent comes along and plugs the gap. In the last decade - 15 years, Microsoft has come to each endeavor SECOND or THIRD, and it's already too crowded by then.

Ballmer was jaded and outmatched by opposing leadership. Nadella looks like he could apply some direction to the company. I wouldn't say he is averse to the idea of flogging the Xbox brand. It would probably be better for all involved.

But who the hell would buy it?

Honestly, if it performs well, that price is accurate, and you have unlimited access to a robust selection of games, that's an excellent price.

Peanuts per month.

What, you thought they bought Gaikai for 360 Million and we going to offer the service for a Euro a month? Get real, the above price is more than reasonable.

Who's defending EA? They're only throwing money at this game, their role in actually developing it is pretty negligible.

Ohhh, you're good. Well played.

Haha, mad babblings, alright.

YES!!! Literally NOBODY has mentioned that!!!!

Haha, right you are, ancient one. Keep preaching.

Indeed, maybe Battlefield would be a better example of wrongly distributed resources. I was just referring to my own group of mates, who wouldn't be big gamers, but play all the usual tosh sometimes. Not one of them is interested in the single player. Save for a couple of times where we lashed through the Spec Ops in MW2 (such glorious memories, got every single star).

I just doubt that if CoD lacked a single player, sales would stall or even be noticeably affected. It's a nice bonus to have, but not really a cornerstone of the titles.

Haha, I like you.

OP with another troll topic, designed to get a rise.

16 maps is not low.

Who the actual **** cares about single player in a game like this. How many people complete the single player mode in CoD? I'd say it's on the wrong side of 15%. Furthermore, of that 15% or less, who thoroughly enjoys the lackluster campaign? Fewer than 20%, probably. Obviously, I'm pulling those numbers out of my backside, but nobody buys CoD for the single player.

I know many on this board have expressed that they wish they would do away with such an insignificant part of the game and focus on the aspect that does matter: Fast, competitive, enjoyable online Multiplayer. All the let's plays of similar games on Youtube and Twitch don't showcase the linear campaign, they cast a spotlight on the balls-to-the-wall mental Multiplayer. That's where the action is, literally.

It's 60 quid for a title that will last you ALL YEAR LONG and beyond, that's pretty cheap entertainment if you ratio it up (money spent):(dozens/hundreds of hours played).

6 vs 6? How is player cap an indicator of quality? Why does that matter? Not all games follow a strict template in game design. Some work better with dozens, others prefer a smaller, streamlined approach. This point should be struck out of the OP.

Graphics haven't looked incredible, but it appears more than adequate. Shouldn't be an issue. If you want to look at pretty walls, take your ass elsewhere.

I won't even be buying Titanfall, but I can still come to the conclusion that it'll be an incredible game.

tl;dr, Just another troll post by TC, as he is so fond of doing, and holds himself in such high regard when he thinks he succeeds . Shake My Head.