Battlefield 4 Announced in Medal of Honor: Warfighter Trailer

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Battlefield 4 Announced in Medal of Honor: Warfighter Trailer

Battlefield 4's beta window has been set for "fall 2013."

In a new example of cross-pollination between EA's biggest FPS franchises, EA has officially announced the existence of Battlefield 4 in a trailer for upcoming spec-ops outing Medal of Honor: Warfighter. The trailer, in addition to dropping details regarding Warfighter's multiplayer, invites players to note that a pre-purchase of the "Limited Edition" version of that game will grant them access to Battlefield 4's beta, set for launch in "fall 2013."

Details on the exact nature of Battlefield 4 are scarce, though safe bets would probably involve the inclusion of tanks, guns, and maybe the occaisional chest-high wall. Announcing the beta, EA promised that more details on the game will be "revealed at a later date."

Frank Gibeau, President of EA Labels, sounds pretty pleased with the whole thing. "Though Battlefield and Medal of Honor: Warfighter each offer players a completely unique experience, they are united by their underlying technology base - Frostbite. These are two of the hottest shooters, coming together to deliver a one-two punch of action, intensity and shooter entertainment," he said in a statement.

Medal of Honor: Warfighter (and its charitable side) will be released for PC, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and in the US on October 23, and on October 26 in the UK. If you'd like to get a better idea of its multiplayer right this minute, check out our hands-on multiplayer coverage from E3.

Permalink

Heh, the day after EA says that these franchises serve different audiences.

Edit: Actually, they may be right. I actually WANT to play Warfighter.

Might not be getting this one. There's only so much you can do with modern military games and anything you can add or change with Battlefield 3 can easily be done within the current game. No need to update it so soon unless they plan to overhaul the engine.

Waaghpowa:
Well given how soon the Beta is, I think I can safely say that EA has adopted the annual CoD model. Guess I wont be getting this one. There's nothing they couldn't update that they haven't already done through expansions.

wat

Battlefield 3 came out in 2011, and since the beta for BF4 starts late in 2013 it'll likely come out in 2014. That's like 2.5 years apart at least.

OT: Bleh. I prefer the days when every shooter was set in WW2 rather than all this generic MODURN WURFURR crap. Medal of Honor had the genre all to itself, and decided to be a fucking lemming and go along with everyone else.

Waaghpowa:
Well given how soon the Beta is, I think I can safely say that EA has adopted the annual CoD model. Guess I wont be getting this one. There's nothing they couldn't update that they haven't already done through expansions.

Umm you dont actually know when the beta is. All they are saying is that you will eventually get access to the Battlefield 4 beta. I have gotten beta invites from games where the beta was still six months or a year away.

People still play Medal of Honour?

J. Mazarin:

Waaghpowa:
Well given how soon the Beta is, I think I can safely say that EA has adopted the annual CoD model. Guess I wont be getting this one. There's nothing they couldn't update that they haven't already done through expansions.

wat

Battlefield 3 came out in 2011, and since the beta for BF4 starts late in 2013 it'll likely come out in 2014. That's like 2.5 years apart at least.

Mis read 2013. It's early. It's also still too early to be releasing a new multi player game based on the modern military. What could they honestly add or change that can't be done with the current game anyway? Battlefield 2 was released in 2005 and people were playing it right up until 3 was released.

Yo dawg I heard you like generic shooters so I put a generic shooter in your generic shooter so you can generic shoot while you generic shoot.

hazabaza1:
People still play Medal of Honour?

Maybe it's escaped your mind that people like different things. But I will remind you that people do in fact like different things. No need to thank me for telling this piece of information but it's sure to come in handy when you keep posting.

As for this, well I'm not mad or anything. Just want to see what DICE does with it.

Waaghpowa:

Mis read 2013. It's early. It's also still too early to be releasing a new multi player game based on the modern military. What could they honestly add or change that can't be done with the current game anyway? Battlefield 2 was released in 2005 and people were playing it right up until 3 was released.

Ok, lets hold off ANY game until the previous game is completely dead and when no one is playing it. That'll make the fans happy as only then it would be worth moving on right?
Couldn't possible be because some people might not want to play a game for 1-2 years straight and want some variation.

I really hope Battlefield 4 will really turn out to be something like Battlefield 2144 or some such.

I much prefer 2142 to the other entities in the series.

Zefar:

hazabaza1:
People still play Medal of Honour?

Maybe it's escaped your mind that people like different things. But I will remind you that people do in fact like different things. No need to thank me for telling this piece of information but it's sure to come in handy when you keep posting.

As for this, well I'm not mad or anything. Just want to see what DICE does with it.

Hey, I don't dislike MoH, and I never played BF3 or MW3, being the main competitors, I have just heard next to no talk about Medal of Honour for years excluding stuff from EA.

Waaghpowa:
Well given how soon the Beta is, I think I can safely say that EA has adopted the annual CoD model. Guess I wont be getting this one. There's nothing they couldn't update that they haven't already done through expansions.

Lets see, BF3 was released 2011, beta is in Fall of 2013... assuming release date is early/mid 2014, that is a good 3 years of waiting for a sequal. Not even CLOSE to the CoD Model.

Also, no EA. I will not buy this shitty game unless I know it isn't at all like the first MoH. Sorry, but the last one sucked so much arse, I consider it the "Superman 64 of Multiplayer Shooters".

Zefar:
Ok, lets hold off ANY game until the previous game is completely dead and when no one is playing it. That'll make the fans happy as only then it would be worth moving on right?
Couldn't possible be because some people might not want to play a game for 1-2 years straight and want some variation.

People have been playing CS 1.6 and CS Source for about a decade now and CS GO is being made as a more accessible version across all platforms rather than the PC only versions there are now. People have been playing TF2 for about 5 years now, there's no TF3 and all extra content is free. Blizzard hasn't released a World of Warcraft 2 because they've added content to the original game with expansions.

a Aside from reskins, new maps and balance tweaks, which can be added within the original game in the form of patches, CoD is essentially the same game unless you're playing it for single player.

It's not that people are wanting variation, it's the companies wanting you to give them more money.

Capitano Segnaposto:

Waaghpowa:
Well given how soon the Beta is, I think I can safely say that EA has adopted the annual CoD model. Guess I wont be getting this one. There's nothing they couldn't update that they haven't already done through expansions.

Lets see, BF3 was released 2011, beta is in Fall of 2013... assuming release date is early/mid 2014, that is a good 3 years of waiting for a sequal. Not even CLOSE to the CoD Model.

In case you failed to read the other posts before responding, I fixed my statement due to sleep deprivation.

Waaghpowa:

Capitano Segnaposto:

Waaghpowa:
Well given how soon the Beta is, I think I can safely say that EA has adopted the annual CoD model. Guess I wont be getting this one. There's nothing they couldn't update that they haven't already done through expansions.

Lets see, BF3 was released 2011, beta is in Fall of 2013... assuming release date is early/mid 2014, that is a good 3 years of waiting for a sequal. Not even CLOSE to the CoD Model.

In case you failed to read the other posts before responding, I fixed my statement due to sleep deprivation.

Funny, I have Sleep Deprivation right now.

So no, I did not read any other posts past the first few.

Capitano Segnaposto:
Funny, I have Sleep Deprivation right now.

So no, I did not read any other posts past the first few.

Excellent, we're in the same boat. All aboard the S.S Sleepy time.

bfgmetalhead:
Yo dawg I heard you like generic shooters so I put a generic shooter in your generic shooter so you can generic shoot while you generic shoot.

I'll admit it. I laughed at this post.

Waaghpowa:

People have been playing CS 1.6 and CS Source for about a decade now and CS GO is being made as a more accessible version across all platforms rather than the PC only versions there are now. People have been playing TF2 for about 5 years now, there's no TF3 and all extra content is free. Blizzard hasn't released a World of Warcraft 2 because they've added content to the original game with expansions.

a Aside from reskins, new maps and balance tweaks, which can be added within the original game in the form of patches, CoD is essentially the same game unless you're playing it for single player.

It's not that people are wanting variation, it's the companies wanting you to give them more money.

I know those have been played a long time but does it matter? The ones who keep playing it are the hardcore crowd and those have been sold in the millions. Where are all of those other people now? Obviously not playing their game.

Game developers do not want to be locked down to one game for several years unless they can do different things on it. One reason why TF2 and WoW works well for a long time. You can make all type of crazy stuff for it. TF2 art style also make it quite hard to kill in terms of graphical level.

Still for me all of those games are boring. I've played them all and now they are just not fun anymore.

Game Devs also can't survive on making a single game and focus on it forever. Maybe for MMORPGs but it has to be with a large population.

How is this a surprise? Honestly.

DICE has long ago jumped on the EA "release a virtually identical sequel annually and make sure you don't do anything interesting" bandwagon.

Now for 70$! How lovely!

Lawyer105:
How is this a surprise? Honestly.

DICE has long ago jumped on the EA "release a virtually identical sequel annually and make sure you don't do anything interesting" bandwagon.

As said before, 3 years is definitely not annual

Zefar:
I know those have been played a long time but does it matter? The ones who keep playing it are the hardcore crowd and those have been sold in the millions. Where are all of those other people now? Obviously not playing their game.

The average peak players per day across CS and CS Source is about 100k people every day. PC numbers only, and not including the people who played CS before steam existed, therefore not account for. TF2's peak numbers are only slightly higher than CS's numbers. For a game that is harder to kill of because of graphical style as you say, it's not being played by many more people than Counter strike. Which I should remind you is over 10 years old, therefore the graphics are VERY dated.

Valve has been supporting CS, CS:S and TF2 for years. They have a staff of ~293 people. DICE has ~ 280. If Valve can support 3 games for 10 years, DICE can easily do one.

Some games are self sustainable. Halo 1 and 2 are still being played on PC because of dedicated servers. You can't play Halo 2 anymore on consoles because they shut down the servers. Remember when people refused to log out of Live so that they could keep the Halo 2 servers up?

No matter how you spin it, Developers not wanting to be "tied down" to one game is code for "we want to get paid more". I have no problem with them making money on the game, but to suggest that creating a new game is a means of freeing themselves is sidestepping the point. Long term support of a game is good for the consumer. Constantly releasing sequels to replace your game is good for the publisher because previous content doesn't carry over and you're in a position to buy more later. Dice could easily make money on expansions, like they're doing now, for 15 dollars each every couple of months and significantly extent the life of BF3.

So if it's only the hardcore crowd playing these games for years, what does this say about the non hard core? That they're willing to pay money for a reskin of the last game as long as it looks different? If you're in favour of repaying over and over again for the same content you've already paid for, good for you. Do what you like with your money.

I still don't see why BF4 is coming so soon, unless it is really BF2143 or BF2144 or whatever they want to call it. I don't know if I'll buy another Battlefield game so soon unless it is a major overhaul, what could they add that they couldn't add with more DLC? Apart from squad VOIP on PC and tighter netcode.

I've stated before that I'm interested in seeing another developer make something with Frostbite 2, but I'm not holding out much hope considering how widely the last MoH was panned.

octafish:
I still don't see why BF4 is coming so soon, unless it is really BF2143 or BF2144 or whatever they want to call it. I don't know if I'll buy another Battlefield game so soon unless it is a major overhaul, what could they add that they couldn't add with more DLC? Apart from squad VOIP on PC and tighter netcode.

This guy get's it. I would give you a cookie but the internet can't transport things like that....yet.

octafish:
I still don't see why BF4 is coming so soon, unless it is really BF2143 or BF2144 or whatever they want to call it. I don't know if I'll buy another Battlefield game so soon unless it is a major overhaul, what could they add that they couldn't add with more DLC? Apart from squad VOIP on PC and tighter netcode.

I've stated before that I'm interested in seeing another developer make something with Frostbite 2, but I'm not holding out much hope considering how widely the last MoH was panned.

Well normally they take feedback from the community and patch it into the game to make it a more enjoyable experience. Now it seems like they are taking the feedback, patching it, and trying to sell it as a new product.

Even bad company 2 had an expansion pack but I guess EA wants to charge full price for it this time. Best of luck to those who buy into this mess.

Capitano Segnaposto:
Lets see, BF3 was released 2011, beta is in Fall of 2013... assuming release date is early/mid 2014, that is a good 3 years of waiting for a sequal. Not even CLOSE to the CoD Model.

What you have to consider, however, is the window between beta release and game release. I didn't participate in the BF3 beta, but I did for Ubisoft's Future Soldier and the Medal of Honor reboot. Those "betas" launched less than two months before the games hit shelves. Given the fact EA is perilously close to the same annual release calender as Activision, it's not at all a stretch to assume the beta for BF4 will be released later in 2013 and the full game could follow mere weeks afterward.

Waaghpowa:

The average peak players per day across CS and CS Source is about 100k people every day. PC numbers only, and not including the people who played CS before steam existed, therefore not account for. TF2's peak numbers are only slightly higher than CS's numbers. For a game that is harder to kill of because of graphical style as you say, it's not being played by many more people than Counter strike. Which I should remind you is over 10 years old, therefore the graphics are VERY dated.

Don't combine CS 1.6 and CSS player numbers. They are two different games and two different player number stats. TF2 has gotten a bit more popular lately as it often was just around 25 000 to 35 000 in player numbers.

CS 1.6 is most likely only popular now these due to two things.
1: An old classic that people will not let go off.
2: Has competitive scene.

If Nr 2 would go away I'm sure the players would drop as well.

Waaghpowa:
Valve has been supporting CS, CS:S and TF2 for years. They have a staff of ~293 people. DICE has ~ 280. If Valve can support 3 games for 10 years, DICE can easily do one.

Valve has only really supported TF2 these past few years.
CS 1.6 has been officially been put on the "We will not support this game anymore" several years back.
CSS hasn't exactly gotten any map packs in the past few years either. So there isn't much support there other than a few bug fixes every now and then. Still back then the game was in a fine condition already so not all that useful.
The beta that started some year ago or two made a lot of people angry though and made them quit the game.

Waaghpowa:
Some games are self sustainable. Halo 1 and 2 are still being played on PC because of dedicated servers. You can't play Halo 2 anymore on consoles because they shut down the servers. Remember when people refused to log out of Live so that they could keep the Halo 2 servers up?

Yes I've read about that but the players got their money worth.

Waaghpowa:
No matter how you spin it, Developers not wanting to be "tied down" to one game is code for "we want to get paid more". I have no problem with them making money on the game, but to suggest that creating a new game is a means of freeing themselves is sidestepping the point. Long term support of a game is good for the consumer. Constantly releasing sequels to replace your game is good for the publisher because previous content doesn't carry over and you're in a position to buy more later. Dice could easily make money on expansions, like they're doing now, for 15 dollars each every couple of months and significantly extent the life of BF3.

I'm sorry but I like NEW things to play. A game getting patches and support over time will not just magically make me play the game unless there is some game changing content to it.
Also the public crowd are far larger than the hardcore one. So the only consumers who wins on this are the hardcore people. Which are in a minority.

Waaghpowa:
So if it's only the hardcore crowd playing these games for years, what does this say about the non hard core? That they're willing to pay money for a reskin of the last game as long as it looks different? If you're in favour of repaying over and over again for the same content you've already paid for, good for you. Do what you like with your money.

Often it's not just a reskin. Only the Call of Duty series have been re skins of the previous game and it's just the last ones in the series. Which I don't even play anymore. Last one was Black Ops and I only got it due to the SP part. It was ok.

But if we where to do what you suggest we might not have gotten.

Counter Strike Source
Unreal Tournament 2004
Quake 3
Half-Life 2 Episodes 1 and 2.
Battlefield 2 and 2142 because the earlier ones was still being played.
Bad Company 2 for PC.
Diablo 3
Starcraft 2
+Many many more.

The graphic of the games would be stuck in the past and the same goes for physics. So really, sequels are just fine in the gaming industry.

Zefar:
-

I didn't say I was against sequels. Anything they could do with BF4 they could simply add to BF3 unless it's a massive overhaul. The fact you want new things is irrelevant. If BF4 isn't going to add anything new, then there's no point of it existing.

Many of those games you listed had several years between games. Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 were actually about 15 years after. Diablo 2 and Starcraft were being played by a large number of people all the way up until the sequels release. Starcraft is actually considered a national sport in Korea, which millions played even before Starcraft 2.

Also Valve only supporting TF2 these last few years? The game was released in 2007, they been supporting it ever since.

Also the public crowd are far larger than the hardcore one. So the only consumers who wins on this are the hardcore people. Which are in a minority.

They win by being informed and principled. If you're ok with being the loser, all you need to do is keep being the loser. Don't change anything, just let them walk all over you as a consumer.

People still play games like Counter strike because they're good games. A good game last for ages, poor games disappear after a short time. The fact you don't enjoy CS doesn't make it any less good. There's a reason why it still played competitively.

"Got their moneys worth". So we'll just render a game unplayable once we believe you've gotten your "moneys worth". Exactly how long does it take for someone to get their moneys worth? Apparently the publishers are saying 1-2 years.

EA: Battlefield, Medal of Honor Serve Different Audiences

Yeah they serve different audiences which is y you promote your BF game in with your MOH game <.<'

Siberian Relic:

Capitano Segnaposto:
Lets see, BF3 was released 2011, beta is in Fall of 2013... assuming release date is early/mid 2014, that is a good 3 years of waiting for a sequal. Not even CLOSE to the CoD Model.

What you have to consider, however, is the window between beta release and game release. I didn't participate in the BF3 beta, but I did for Ubisoft's Future Soldier and the Medal of Honor reboot. Those "betas" launched less than two months before the games hit shelves. Given the fact EA is perilously close to the same annual release calender as Activision, it's not at all a stretch to assume the beta for BF4 will be released later in 2013 and the full game could follow mere weeks afterward.

Even so, it is still HARDLY close to being CoD release schedule. CoD releases a new game every 12 months (under the Call of Duty Name). Battlfield releases a new game... every 2 to 3 years. That is three times longer than Call of Duty.

J. Mazarin:

Waaghpowa:
Well given how soon the Beta is, I think I can safely say that EA has adopted the annual CoD model. Guess I wont be getting this one. There's nothing they couldn't update that they haven't already done through expansions.

wat

Battlefield 3 came out in 2011, and since the beta for BF4 starts late in 2013 it'll likely come out in 2014. That's like 2.5 years apart at least.

OT: Bleh. I prefer the days when every shooter was set in WW2 rather than all this generic MODURN WURFURR crap. Medal of Honor had the genre all to itself, and decided to be a fucking lemming and go along with everyone else.

You realize that they did the same thing with BF3? The last Medal of Honor gave access to the BF3 Beta, a Beta that took place like a Month before release. Also, this very much is the CoD Model, they have about 2 years per iteration aswell.

Capitano Segnaposto:

Siberian Relic:

Capitano Segnaposto:
Lets see, BF3 was released 2011, beta is in Fall of 2013... assuming release date is early/mid 2014, that is a good 3 years of waiting for a sequal. Not even CLOSE to the CoD Model.

What you have to consider, however, is the window between beta release and game release. I didn't participate in the BF3 beta, but I did for Ubisoft's Future Soldier and the Medal of Honor reboot. Those "betas" launched less than two months before the games hit shelves. Given the fact EA is perilously close to the same annual release calender as Activision, it's not at all a stretch to assume the beta for BF4 will be released later in 2013 and the full game could follow mere weeks afterward.

Even so, it is still HARDLY close to being CoD release schedule. CoD releases a new game every 12 months (under the Call of Duty Name). Battlfield releases a new game... every 2 to 3 years. That is three times longer than Call of Duty.

However, Activision is only promoting one military shooter series, where EA is actively promoting two. In practise, what they're doing is not so different. Activision releases a yearly COD, and now it looks like EA is going to be annually swapping between Medal Of Honour and Battlefield. At this point, the fact that both Battlefield and Medal Of Honour are being developed by DICE means there's little difference between those games and the Modern Warfare/Black Ops series.

I'm curious as to what they can actually offer in this next game. Even though I'm not a fan of Battlefield.

Also, lets all be cynical when we actually learn something about the game shall we?

Captcha - friend zone

Hey thanks for reminding me, jackass.

Capitano Segnaposto:

Siberian Relic:

Capitano Segnaposto:
Lets see, BF3 was released 2011, beta is in Fall of 2013... assuming release date is early/mid 2014, that is a good 3 years of waiting for a sequal. Not even CLOSE to the CoD Model.

What you have to consider, however, is the window between beta release and game release. I didn't participate in the BF3 beta, but I did for Ubisoft's Future Soldier and the Medal of Honor reboot. Those "betas" launched less than two months before the games hit shelves. Given the fact EA is perilously close to the same annual release calender as Activision, it's not at all a stretch to assume the beta for BF4 will be released later in 2013 and the full game could follow mere weeks afterward.

Even so, it is still HARDLY close to being CoD release schedule. CoD releases a new game every 12 months (under the Call of Duty Name). Battlfield releases a new game... every 2 to 3 years. That is three times longer than Call of Duty.

I never said Battlefield. I said EA. And they've been at annual releases for just as long as Activision:

2005 - Battlefield 2
2006 - Battlefield 2142
2007 - Medal of Honor: Airborne
2008 - Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 - Battlefield 1943
2010 - Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2010 - Medal of Honor Reboot
2011 - Battlefield 3
2012 - Medal of Honor: Warfighter
2013 - Battlefield 4 (beta)

Siberian Relic:

Capitano Segnaposto:

Siberian Relic:

What you have to consider, however, is the window between beta release and game release. I didn't participate in the BF3 beta, but I did for Ubisoft's Future Soldier and the Medal of Honor reboot. Those "betas" launched less than two months before the games hit shelves. Given the fact EA is perilously close to the same annual release calender as Activision, it's not at all a stretch to assume the beta for BF4 will be released later in 2013 and the full game could follow mere weeks afterward.

Even so, it is still HARDLY close to being CoD release schedule. CoD releases a new game every 12 months (under the Call of Duty Name). Battlfield releases a new game... every 2 to 3 years. That is three times longer than Call of Duty.

I never said Battlefield. I said EA. And they've been at annual releases for just as long as Activision:

2005 - Battlefield 2
2006 - Battlefield 2142
2007 - Medal of Honor: Airborne
2008 - Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 - Battlefield 1943
2010 - Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2010 - Medal of Honor Reboot
2011 - Battlefield 3
2012 - Medal of Honor: Warfighter
2013 - Battlefield 4 (beta)

Nobody was really giving a damn about MOH at the time (perhaps most still don't) and not to mention the modern warfare scene didn't exactly explode 'till MW2 became the highest successful something ever. To think about it, we weren't exactly in an genre phase 'till after MW2.

Besides: laughter, laser guns, next-gen WW2, killing in the name of cotton candy fun, playing regular BF for free, getting shot at by exotic bushes all seem like an much more interesting kind of milking then playing another generic modern, no personality shooter in a span of 3 years.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here