DICE Still Supporting Battlefield 3

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

DICE Still Supporting Battlefield 3

image

Just because Battlefield 4 has been announced doesn't mean that Battlefield 3 won't be supported.

When it comes to gaming it's very common for critically acclaimed games to get sequels, but that still didn't make it any less surprising when EA slipped a Battlefield 4 announcement into the trailer for Medal of Honor: Warfighter. Considering that Battlefield 3 isn't even a year old yet, the announcement has raised concerns among the franchise's fans that support for the older game will be phased out to support the new. DICE executive producer Patrick Bach understands the concern, but reminded fans that Battlefield's history alone should prove that DICE supports its games long after release.

"We heard that before with Battlefield 2," Bach told Eurogamer. "It was like, oh, you stopped supporting games! No, we're working like hell, but we haven't announced it yet. We have now announced we are putting a lot of effort into supporting Battlefield 3 and still we get reactions like this. I think it's just sad. We are dedicated to supporting Battlefield 3. People seem to be worried for all the wrong reasons."

According to Bach, developing new games immediately after launch is business as usual, not a sign that the developer and publishing are moving on. "People tend to forget we built three other Battlefield games in between Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 3," Bach said, referring to the Heroes and Bad Company installments. "That's a natural reaction. People then think we won't support Battlefield 3, even though we have the Premium version, people know we're working on future expansion packs and we've been very open in explaining what we are doing."

This certainly isn't the first game announcement in the industry to get this kind of attention. When Valve announced that Left 4 Dead 2 would be released almost exactly a year after the original, a very vocal boycott group was formed in protest. While one could argue that L4D2 received more support than L4D in content updates, the argument is a little harder to make for Battlefield 3, whose Premium Edition will contain an additional 20 levels over those in the base game.

"Battlefield doesn't go away," Bach said. "We're starting to understand this after seven years. Oh yeah, people tend to buy Battlefield for quite some time."

Source: Eurogamer

Permalink

If they made it moddable it could live for much longer like BF2 did.

yes, but after bf2 you made "different games" at least as different as 2142 gets.

Matthew94:
If they made it moddable it could live for much longer like BF2 did.

Moddable games don't sell DLC too well.
Unless the developer has a reputation like Bethesda (where people are accustomed to bugs), why would people pay money for something when they can get something better (and buggier) for free?

Absolutionis:

Matthew94:
If they made it moddable it could live for much longer like BF2 did.

Moddable games don't sell DLC too well.
Unless the developer has a reputation like Bethesda (where people are accustomed to bugs), why would people pay money for something when they can get something better (and buggier) for free?

Because you know a lot of people will also be playing and it will count for ranking up.

Also, most mods are shit and only a few rise to the top so people will still pay for quality.

Isn't it just like the military to keep fighting the previous war?

I count 5 Battlefield games add Free2play and 2142 to that list ! 2142 being the best one since battlefield 2

C'mon Dice, where's my Battlefield 2142 sequel? Battlefield 3 is a perfectly functional game and it just seems silly to churn out another one that's going to be the same game with some tweaks so soon after BF3 came out. I want mechs and titans and silly apc man cannons!

Matthew94:

Absolutionis:

Matthew94:
If they made it moddable it could live for much longer like BF2 did.

Moddable games don't sell DLC too well.
Unless the developer has a reputation like Bethesda (where people are accustomed to bugs), why would people pay money for something when they can get something better (and buggier) for free?

Because you know a lot of people will also be playing and it will count for ranking up.

Also, most mods are shit and only a few rise to the top so people will still pay for quality.

The problem is the guy making that decision wont be able to see a cash incentive to make it moddable.

It always come back to "But how does that make me money?"

Draech:

Matthew94:

Absolutionis:
Moddable games don't sell DLC too well.
Unless the developer has a reputation like Bethesda (where people are accustomed to bugs), why would people pay money for something when they can get something better (and buggier) for free?

Because you know a lot of people will also be playing and it will count for ranking up.

Also, most mods are shit and only a few rise to the top so people will still pay for quality.

The problem is the guy making that decision wont be able to see a cash incentive to make it moddable.

It always come back to "But how does that make me money?"

People still play BF2 and COD2 to this very day.

One of the big reasons is mods and custom maps. Long term sales is a big incentive.

THANK YOU, DICE. Thank you for supporting your online multiplayer that is linked to a digital service. I am so happy that you are supporting your products. Thank you thank you. My worthless hide is not fit to deserve your benefaction.

Anyway, I think that supporting two massive games will strain their abilities to manage them and put out quality services.

So what could they possibly add to the new game that wasn't in Battlefield 3?

I don't see the point in constant iterations of games just for the sake of a few minor additions. Yes, there is the obvious point about doing it just for the money, but I really do lose respect in games companies when they do stuff like this.

frobalt:
So what could they possibly add to the new game that wasn't in Battlefield 3?

More DLC

kajinking:

frobalt:
So what could they possibly add to the new game that wasn't in Battlefield 3?

More DLC

Oh, I dunno. It'll probably be the same DLC rehashed. ;)

Yeah, but that's not really our concern. Because we so enjoy uisng more M4s and AKs for your next magnum opus in the next 2 to 3 years, right?

Ugh, I'm starting wish Bad Company didn't get me into BF for me to care.

Hey, they haven't announced anything except the name and launch year 2013 about Battlefield 4. For all we know it's going to be Battlefield 2143. I mean, Battlefield 2 wasn't the sequel to modern shooter Battlefield 1, so who knows what they'll pull off this time. Until they announce more than a name, expect anything.

Matthew94:

Absolutionis:

Matthew94:
If they made it moddable it could live for much longer like BF2 did.

Moddable games don't sell DLC too well.
Unless the developer has a reputation like Bethesda (where people are accustomed to bugs), why would people pay money for something when they can get something better (and buggier) for free?

Because you know a lot of people will also be playing and it will count for ranking up.

Also, most mods are shit and only a few rise to the top so people will still pay for quality.

There are tons more shit "EA Weapon-skin DLC" packs than there are Counterstrikes and DayZs, but the awful and the amazing exist in both mods and DLC.

Mods are just really easy to make so most of it ends up being junky fanservice; of course there's shitty stuff out there.
However, there are more amazing mods out there than any DLC that has ever been worth the price.

NLS:
Hey, they haven't announced anything except the name and launch year 2013 about Battlefield 4. For all we know it's going to be Battlefield 2143. I mean, Battlefield 2 wasn't the sequel to modern shooter Battlefield 1, so who knows what they'll pull off this time. Until they announce more than a name, expect anything.

nope its already been said by the EA cheif its another modern shooter

BBboy20:
Ugh, I'm starting wish Bad Company didn't get me into BF for me to care.

I started with BF much sooner, the Bad Company-era was already the start of the downward spiral to me.

Nightmonger:
I count 5 Battlefield games add Free2play and 2142 to that list ! 2142 being the best one since battlefield 2

F2P was not entirely made by DICE, that's why he probably forgot about it.

DVS BSTrD:
Isn't it just like the military to keep fighting the previous war.

That sir, is actually pretty clever, but then a military smart enough to to prepare for a future war would hopefully be paired with a government smart enough to avoid it.

Glad to hear that DICE will continue to support 3, but I think the big reason why theres an outcry is that it was release less than a year after the release of both 3 and Premium. People who bought day 1 and premium effectivly bought the game for $110 dollars (and possibly 15 dollars more if you bought Karkland first.

With that much investment, we want it to LAST. Not just for you to announce another game after we spent another 50 dollars on the predesesor (sp?) game.

thethird0611:
Glad to hear that DICE will continue to support 3, but I think the big reason why theres an outcry is that it was release less than a year after the release of both 3 and Premium. People who bought day 1 and premium effectivly bought the game for $110 dollars (and possibly 15 dollars more if you bought Karkland first.

With that much investment, we want it to LAST. Not just for you to announce another game after we spent another 50 dollars on the predesesor (sp?) game.

Exactly. I actually LIKE what's happening with BF3. I only have the base game, not even Back to Karkand, and I'm having a blast. The idea of all these "differently themed" expansion packs is one I really approve of. It's kind of like episodic multiplayer. Kind of. By the time all those expansions come around (and I plan on getting Premium at SOME point) the content available for multiplayer will have likely doubled in size.

The problem Mr. EA man is that you are starting to look a lot like another game development company that releases episodic games every two years. That series also includes many DLC's to milk as much cash as possible, and lacks modding tools.

Fanghawk:

According to Bach, developing new games immediately after launch is business as usual, not a sign that the developer and publishing are moving on. "People tend to forget we built three other Battlefield games in between Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 3," Bach said, referring to the Heroes and Bad Company installments.

Nightmonger:
I count 5 Battlefield games add Free2play and 2142 to that list ! 2142 being the best one since battlefield 2

Does nobody remember BF1943? :( I know it was small and console-exclusive, but that game got me into BF and imho is much better than BC2 and BF3 (the only other BF games I played.)

ON TOPIC: BF4 coming out so soon is a clear-cut sign that BF as a whole is dying. There's simply no way they'll be able to adequately support both games with any degree of quality, especially if BF does become a yearly franchise ala CoD. The sheer size of these games combined with the history of yearly franchises will see to that.

I want a new Battlefield 2142. Best. Online. Shooter. Ever.

Battlefield 5 is right around the corner. I'm saving up for my new PC build.

I love how map packs out the ass are regarded as "support" now. And on the topic of those...
image

good thing they will support older games still, I don't buy them but good for those who do.

Hammeroj:
I love how map packs out the ass are regarded as "support" now. And on the topic of those...
image

Oh wow. Words escape just how freaking horrible that is.

HOW MUCH FARTHER WILL YOU SINK, EA/DICE?!? HAVE YOU ANY HONOR, ANY AT ALL?

Hammeroj:
I love how map packs out the ass are regarded as "support" now. And on the topic of those...
image

HEYOOOO, WHAT'S THIS?! I smell denial and deceit!

I think people are forgetting that DICE has been releasing Battlefield games on an almost yearly schedule since Battlefield Vietnam. Yet this new game is released 2 years after the last game.

2002 Battlefield 1942
2003 Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome
2003 Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII
2004 Battlefield Vietnam
2005 Battlefield 2
2005 Battlefield 2: Special Forces
2005 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
2006 Battlefield 2: Euro Forces
2006 Battlefield 2: Armored Fury
2006 Battlefield 2142
2007 Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike
2008 Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 Battlefield Heroes
2009 Battlefield 1943
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam
2010 Battlefield Online
2011 Battlefield Play4Free
2011 Battlefield 3
2011 Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand
2012 Battlefield 3: Close Quarters

Strange huh? No.

Releasing a whole host of DLC map packs is not support.

- Fixing the god awful hit detection, seriously the game is much worse than any of the previous Battlefield games and TDM highlights just how bad it really is. You can easily duck behind a container and a good second and a half later be killed by a guy who was shooting at you r location when you where standing to the side of the container. It is very obvious that what you see on screen is not what the other player is seeing.

- The awful client side system, in the past you found a server usually based on ping, players and game style you joined you played and unless something was wrong you knew the next time you played your connection and as a direct result the lag and ping would be pretty much the same. The system they use now combined with the high turn over players means that lag and hit detection is based on how good your connection to another player is and if they have a rubbish connection YOU suffer for it. I am playing on a 30meg fibre optic system and suffering hit detection and lag issues because the guy I am shooting at is on some shitty 1meg broadband, nice. Add to this the fact that the new system allows for some extra ordinary cheats. BF2 commander hack, BFBC2 some aim botters, BF3 getting knifed while in a tank and being killed by ammo and media packs, nice!

- Talking of which the rampant cheaters, yeah their are the obvious ones but the game has a lot more cheaters than the previous ones, I am thankful I don't admin a BF3 server, I used to admin both BF2 and BFBC2 ones and had a 100% hit rate for cheater bans so believe me when I say BF3 has a lot of them, some are stupidly obvious a lot of them are very subtle but they are there. What's worse though is Ea have given them the method to hide thier cheating from their automated stats banning by giving them the opportunity to reset their stats if they pay for the premium service, double nice!

- The game is flawed, it is all about quick decisions, move from one place to another, split second reactions meaning the difference between kill or be killed. Why the fuck they added these stupid context sensitive animations in is beyond me. If you aren't in exactly the right place at the right time you are

1). Left jumping up and down on the spot like an idiot with a shoot me tag on your head, just because all you wanted to do was jump over a fence or object
2). Left standing with nothing more than knife in your hand because you aren't in the right place to get the stab animation running, bringing a knife to a gun fight, BF3 will show just what this means.
3). Jumping up and down like an idiot just to get from one end of the map to the other, Try just walking across Battle at Karkand after the game has been running for five or ten minutes. You can't every bit of debris, damage, even kerbs you need to jump to get over something a normal person would just STEP over.

I'd rather play bad company 2 instead of battlefield 3, if the servers still worked... Can't connect for some reason.

Can anyone here actually recommend Battlefield 3 only for it's single player campaign? Same for that Homefront game?

Just askin, they are probably cheaper now, so I might want to check them out. I'm a fan of Halo and CoD single player campaigns, but not Crysis, so take that for what it's worth ; )

(console versions)

OT: There needs to be a set time game companies support their product. I don't imagine most will be on par with Halo 2, but we need to set a timeline before the multiplayer heads commit to a game.

Sure, it depends on when the next iteration of the game comes out, but also on it's fanbase. Take Ultima Online (please) as an example. They have a lasting fanbase, while run by Origin, so they should be (and are) supported.

I think games like CoD are the long running flashes in the pan type. But if a game (I'm sure people here are aware of them) is driven by online play, they need a disclaimer on the box stating the minimal time servers will be up and running by the company.

But then again, I fucking hate multiplayer games, so I don't really care. But I think what I said makes a little sense, kinda. Eh?

'Long running flashes in the pan'... lol

Sober Thal:
-snip-

No, the campaign is a total disappointment. Forget it.

Also, I could care less about this. I'm too busy playing Planetside 2 ;)

 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