GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Get Titanfall PC for 40% discount in Origin Flash Sale

Battlefield 4, SimCity, Need for Speed, and many more are also on sale.

By on

124 Comments
No Caption Provided

If you’re not one of the people who already bought Titanfall and helped it become the top selling game for the second month in a row, you can now get the PC version of the game from Origin for a 40 percent discount, bringing its price down from the normal $60 to $36.

The Flash Sale, which ends on Sunday, May 18 at 12 p.m. PDT, also offers Battlefield 4 Digital Deluxe Edition for $36, SimCity Digital Deluxe Edition for $24, Need for Speed Rivals for $30, and many more. You can find the full list of all the games that are currently on sale on Origin’s website.

The discounted version of Titanfall will not include the game’s first DLC pack, Expedition, which was released earlier this week. You can, however, take advantage of the game’s companion app, which was released for free, also earlier this week.

If you’re still on the fence about Titanfall, be sure to check out GameSpot’s review and previous coverage.

Click To Unmute
Titanfall - Video Review
  1. Mortal Kombat 1: Definitive Edition - Official Launch Trailer
  2. Silver Palace - 10 Minutes Of Official Gameplay | Showcase Trailer
  3. Silver Palace - "The Golden Age of Detectives" Official Reveal Trailer
  4. Helldivers 2 - Galactic Emergency Trailer
  5. TEKKEN 8 - Season 2 Update Overview and Fahkumram Reveal Trailer
  6. NicsNite: Game Prep vs. Real Life - No Respawns IRL
  7. New VIRTUA FIGHTER Project - Wolf Hawkfield Character Teaser Trailer
  8. Soulframe: Preludes - Gameplay Spotlight Trailer
  9. The First Descendant: Breakthrough | Hover Bike Teaser Trailer
  10. Virtua Fighter - Full Spring 2025 Direct Update Video
  11. DOOM: The Dark Ages | Official Launch Trailer
  12. Overwatch 2 x Street Fighter 6 | Animated Collaboration Reveal Trailer

Want us to remember this setting for all your devices?

Sign up or Sign in now!

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Titanfall
PC
Join the conversation
There are 124 comments about this story
124 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for thegamegod
thegamegod

199

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

thegamegod

<< LINK REMOVED >> I can't even begin to understand what you just said in this post.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for thegamegod
thegamegod

199

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

thegamegod

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> Just from your sheer insanity, you've made my night. Good luck on your hunt for the holy trinity of resolutions.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for maltnut
maltnut

379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

maltnut

<< LINK REMOVED >> My last post seems to have been deleted since I tried putting a link to wikipedia there, but you are aware that 16:9 is an aspect ratio and 1080 is a resolution, right?


640x360 is very much not 1080.

10 • 
Avatar image for maltnut
maltnut

379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

maltnut

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >>

Essentially a higher refresh rate on your monitor is irrelevant unless the input can take advantage of it.


a 120hz refresh rate is not going to make a difference for a movie or tv show that only has 24 frames per second.


The liquid movement you're talking about is probably a post processing technique in the television software. It essentially adds artificial frames into the signal to smooth out the picture. It generally doesn't have anything to do with the hertz.


Hertz is not the power they put through the system, it's the cycle rate, so 60 hertz means 60 cycles per second, which means the pixels can turn on and off 60 times each second.


I say that you should only need 120hz if you're planning on using it for 3d since what happens is that every other frame is angled for either your left or right eye, which means that in order to get a smooth 60fps motion you need 120hz since the cycle rate is being divided between your two eyes.
Upvote • 
Avatar image for maltnut
maltnut

379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

maltnut

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >>60hz is fine unless you're planning on 3d.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for maltnut
maltnut

379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

maltnut

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >>

Not as far as resolution goes.

It's all the same, the only advantage is pixel density depending on the physical size of the screen.

A 900p might look slightly better than a 900i depending on what is going on.

So you have more pixels per square inch if you've got a 1080 screen at 20 inches than if you had a 1080 screen at 40 inches. That's why a smartphone with a resolution of 720 can look sharper than a full size television with a resolution of 1080.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for maltnut
maltnut

379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

maltnut

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >>

again, 16:9 is an aspect ratio

that means that for every 16 pixels horizontal, there are 9 pixels vertical.

It's an x and y axis thing.

As for your progressive and interlaced question, if there are 30 frames in a second, with a progressive scan system every single line is refreshed every second, meaning each line refreshes 30 times in a second, in an interlaced system every other line refreshes each frame, meaning each line only refreshes 15 times per second, it essentially allows the system to use fewer resources while maintaining the same resolution, and the human eye can't really pick out the minute differences anyway, though a progressive picture is generally crisper.

and yes, 1600 x 900 is a 16:9 aspect ratio with a resolution of 900, but whether it's progressive or interlaced is a separate process.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for maltnut
maltnut

379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

maltnut

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >>The p just stands for Progressive Scan, that just means that every pixel line is refreshed every frame as opposed to interlacing, where every other line is refreshed in a frame.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for maltnut
maltnut

379

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

maltnut

@shinjuki That doesn't really make sense. You do know that 16x9 is an aspect ratio and 1080p is a resolution meaning that there are 1080 vertical pixels and they refresh all lines every frame, as opposed to 1080i where they refresh either even or odd lines.

640x360 is very much not 1080p


<< LINK REMOVED >>



Upvote • 
Avatar image for berserker66666
berserker66666

1754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

berserker66666

<< LINK REMOVED >> 1920x1080 is standard now. 2560x1440 is picking up now as the new norm but it'll take a while for everyone to adept to that resolution cause that resolution eats up a lot of FPS.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xcollector
xcollector

1359

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

xcollector

<< LINK REMOVED >>

Aspect Ratios like 16:9, 5:4, 3:4, etc. are just the shape of the display image. The shape can be a square or a rectangle or anything in between.

Resolution like 640x480(4:3), 854x480(16:9) 1280x720(16:9), 1280x1024(5:4), 1920x1080(16:9), etc. are the measurements of the image shape.

You can have a box that is the size of 2' x 2' or a box that is the size of 4' x 4'. They will both have the same square shape proportion, thus have the same Aspect Ratio, but they are not the same size. The 4'x 4' box is obviously bigger and can hold more. And if you had a box that was 4' x 2' that would obviously not be the same shape. It would be a rectangle instead of a square and also hold a different amount.

Likewise a 1920x1080 screen image can hold more visual information than a 1366x768 image because it is a bigger size.This extra information can make it look better.


The resolutions you listed are all the same "box shape" (aspect ratio). But they are not the same "box size" (resolution). Box shape is measured by Aspect Ratio. Box size is measured by Resolution.

BTW, 1366x768 isn't a true 16:9 aspect ratio. Its close but not exact. Think of a slightly bent warped box that isn't perfect and thats what you have.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for cratecruncher
cratecruncher

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

cratecruncher

EA games...meh....

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Psycold
Psycold

608

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

Psycold

I don't know why people rushed out and bought this, I played the demo and could tell immediately it wasn't worth buying. I guess to each their own.

5 • 
Avatar image for seanwil545
seanwil545

217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 4

seanwil545

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >>

If you started playing FPShooters back in 1999 on PC...you probably wouldn't think so.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for berserker66666
berserker66666

1754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

berserker66666

Lost me at Origin.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for NightmareP3
NightmareP3

259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

NightmareP3

The game is fun, for about a week or so and than you kinda forget about it and go back to the previous multiplayer game you've been playing for months or years.

I wouldn't really recommend it at this price point, get it when it drops to about 15 euros and than it's worth it, you'll get about 30 hours of gameplay untill you get bored of it since it's lacking content and no spewing out 15 Euro DLC Map Packs is not good enuf, actully it damages the game's multiplayer since i usully like to avoid games that do that type of overpriced DLC map pack bullshit that splits the community apart.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for johnny_pay
johnny_pay

204

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

johnny_pay

go to origin mexico and its $23.99/£14.20

Upvote • 
Avatar image for normanislost
normanislost

1748

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

normanislost

oh EA trying to charge $60 for PC games

2 •