Battlefield 4 Won't Support Mods

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Does it really matter? Not really. I will still pick up and play it as I am sure it will be a fun game with a group of buddies.

Mods don't have to exist in every PC game, people.

No mod support?

That's okay. Modders will still figure out how to mod the game.

I'm more concerned if you have to use that god awful web browser thing for BF4. Most stupid idea ever, made worse at launch when you have to be ingame and alive to change anything in the menu.

Also who ever mentioned modding community will lead to hacks/exploits, well you certainly haven't been playing on BF3 multiplayer for long, hacks are doing well in the absence of mods.

I can live without Mods, what I can't live with is a game that is a glitchy, laggy piece of shit. But hey, it looks real pretty.

And now there's the new Battlefront game... This is gonna be the biggest "Be careful what you wish for..." moment in a long time I fear. They said DICE is gonna put its flavor on it, too bad DICE's flavor lately leaves a vile acidic aftertaste.

I honestly don't know if I mind.

Sure, it's a shame people can't make their own maps (about the only thing I would care about) but I like BF3 and what I've seen and heard so far of Bf4 it's an improvement.

Not surprising in the least. Bad Company 2 for PC didn't have mod tools, although I've heard of people forcibly modding the game. It's sad, really. BF1942 and BF2 had a ridiculous mod following along with COD4.

It's disappointing because then community-made competitive mods could have been created :(

I hate walled garden games :(

Yeah looks like I won't support Battlefield 4 than.

I'm not a real fan of mods myself. But I do expect the game to be in working order and bug-free. A lot of times great mods for games were mods that solved problems that were present in the game. If DICE manage to deliver a working product with no game-breaking faults I think we can live on well without mods. That is IF they manage to make the game bug-free.

I really feel like this is their way to protect their own DLC. If modders are making incredible maps and single player levels, why would someone pay EA for their stuff?

Let's recap:

ˇBattlefield 1942 comes out to a general 'meh' from the audience, and horrible bugs

ˇA Modding group creates Desert Combat and Bf1942's popularity skyrockets

ˇBattlefield Vietnam comes out to a general 'we're having more fun with Desert Combat', and horrible bugs game design.

ˇDICE/EA buy out the Desert Combat studio so they can "help" with BF2 and the first console port.

ˇBattlefied 2 comes out to a general 'Desert Combat did it first, and bigger, and had coop, but it's OK'

ˇDICE/EA shuts down Trauma (the Desert Combat guys)

ˇBattlefield 2142 comes out to a general 'Sure, mechas and titans, what else you got?'

ˇBattlefield 3 comes out... and Execs wonder why there are still Desert Combat servers out there.

Ok, this is a silly oversimplification, but I'm guessing in general they don't want mods so they can properly plan the "shelf life" of a game. Wouldn't want people to still be playing BF(n-1) when BF(n) comes out!

Kalezian:

Colt47:

Karathos:
Pretty sure Bad Company didn't support mods, and pretty sure Bad Company 2 didn't support mods. BF3 doesn't support mods, and now BF4 isn't going to support mods.

How are we surprised by this? Feels like a lot of grasping at straws to get a 'news' story together.

It sort of is, but people have wanted a moddable Battlefield game for a while and EA seems to completely ignore them, claiming they will look into it later down the road with each new release. Personally, I've never ran any of their games on PC ever since Origin became a required download for them.

honestly the only mod I ever liked for a Battlefield game was the Star Wars mod for Battlefield 2.

everything else just added new maps or weapons, they could hardly be called a mod. More like an item pack. Very few actually added game assets to the mix, and the number of Total Conversions was in the amazing single digits.

I remember the days when mods actually changed gameplay, like turning Quake 3 Arena into a tactical squad based shooter akin to Counterstrike.

There were tons of good mods for the original Unreal Tournament and 2k4 as well. Monster Madness was one of my favorites when I played 2k4 and they even had versions out there that included RPG leveling systems. There was also Unreal Forever, and the Chaos mod.

Personally, I think the military shooter genre is rather dull and just doesn't offer a lot of incentive to get creative with mods.

I love games with mods but not every game has to support mods. I don't think anybody expected for Battlefield 4 to support mods when the previous game didn't.

Ed130:
That's OK, I'll just buy ARMA 3 instead.

The Battlefield series has gone downhill anyway.

ARMA is nothing like Battlefield.

OT: So they're full of shit and they're obstructing a good feature for the community. What's new?

Woodsey:

Ed130:
That's OK, I'll just buy ARMA 3 instead.

The Battlefield series has gone downhill anyway.

ARMA is nothing like Battlefield.

OT: So they're full of shit and they're obstructing a good feature for the community. What's new?

You say it as if it's a bad thing.

And who's full of shit? DICE or EA?

Amir Kondori:
I don't think anybody expected for Battlefield 4 to support mods when the previous game didn't.

True, you could see it as corporate evolution.

Then: Battlefield 1942 - modding is hugely popular. Even recognized by EA in 2004.

Now: Battlefield 3 and 4 - You might get banned if you mod our game. NO, you HAVE to play with the blue filter.

Well, I simply will not be purchasing Battlefield 4. The series has become a rather souless repetitive mess in the attempt to compete with CoD anyways. Once the corporate suits get their slimy hands on something they really know how to fuck it up proper.

Ed130:

Woodsey:

Ed130:
That's OK, I'll just buy ARMA 3 instead.

The Battlefield series has gone downhill anyway.

ARMA is nothing like Battlefield.

OT: So they're full of shit and they're obstructing a good feature for the community. What's new?

You say it as if it's a bad thing.

And who's full of shit? DICE or EA?

Not a bad thing at all, but I find it curious when people treat ARMA as the obvious alternative to Battlefield.

And it seems to be a company policy, so EA, but shit is still shit, no matter who's feeding it to who.

That's fine. I won't 'support' Battlefield 4. It's really that simple.

DICE has thrown the entire franchise into the doghouse with no vision over its eventual outcome. I loved Bad Company 2 multiplayer to death, despite my dislike for the 'no-mods' policy - it was kinda fine, it wasn't a numbered Battlefield game, the third one would get it... right? Nope. But fine, all they had to do is make BC2 with planes and larger battlefields. That's all I wanted. But no. They had to fuck it up. They fucked it up and gave me no opportunity to fix it for them for free - all so they could sell some bullshit DLC that they could have sold anyways.

I'm not as excited for ARMA 3 as I should be, due to all the inherent flaws that game has - but at least Bohemia doesn't give me the finger when I purchase their product. DICE can do whatever they want, but they won't receive my money. (And to be clear, my gripe is with DICE, not EA - EA is a whole different pile of shit.)

Was this something that EA/Dice really needed to announce?

EA haven't supported mods in... well it's been so long I can't even remember.

This would be like Activision announcing Call of Duty 5 is going to be an FPS

Capitano Segnaposto:

Mods don't have to exist in every PC game, people.

They don't have to exist. Should they? Yes. In every single one. "Less game is more fun for me!"

OT:

I think the escapist should keep name-dropping Natural Selection 2. That game deserves all the free advertising it can get. It's so great that such an awesome game came from a mod-able game. Hmph, if only EA didn't live for DLC, maybe it'd happen here, and give EA a whole new franchise.

It's not like DOTA is popular or anything.

I like how it doesn't support mods because there are known cheaters out there that's an undeniable fact right there yet this community obviously shouts and rages to the heavens even though the game is coming to PC and not being locked to one console so I suppose no one in gaming can ever be satisfied and happy if at all, shame really.

So...a game with an engine that absolutely screams a full out My Little Pony mod (destroying Celestia's castle with an AH-64D Apache piloted by a cute Pegasus? Hell yes!) or something interesting like a White House Down type scenario doesn't have this capability... for what reason?

Against cheaters? Cheaters will always be around, regardless. Hell, I've had morons aimbot me with M14s from well over effective weapon range, so that doesn't help. And this was BF3 BTW.

DLC? I guess so, after all, BF3's DLC I think cost more than the base game itself. And EA isn't about to fuck up their dwindling money pile (o wait- they have!)

EA being dicks in general? Well, considering they let Origin out the bag & thought it was a good idea to fuck up multiple studios along with backing some serious garbage policies, can't see why not.

I'm honestly trying to figure why EA doesn't allow modders. Skyrim has a MASSIVE mod community to the point there's probably someone wondering why they can't make an ancient underworld evils (Orcs, Dragons, Imps, etc.) against modern military might kind of thing on some Reign of Fire shit with the power of Frostbite 3.

wulfgar_red:
user created content is completion to their DLCs

Never has the truth been so concise and complete.

Granted, I can't really blame EA and BF4. They look amazing, so they must've thrown the GDP of several small third-world countries in order to get that kind of graphical fidelity. Therefore, they need to sell as much DLC and copies as possible to recoup those costs.

In short, STOP MAKING BIG BUDGET TITLES AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO FUCKING SELL UNREALISTIC FIGURES AND SHOVE DLC DOWN OUR THROATS TO MAKE A PROFIT.

Yuuki:
It could be a step to keep cheaters/hackers at an absolute minimum. Reveal too much about your engine to the community and the bad apples will find a way to abuse/exploit that information to develop cheats.

If it's anything that will keep reduce the numbers of the cheating fuckers (seriously, nothing on the internet can stoop lower than cheaters in online multiplayer games) then I'm all for it.

That's not how modding works. In order for a mod to be implemented in the game, the mod has to be installed on the server. Mods have absolutely nothing to do with cheating.

Team Fortress 2 supports mods and I rarely run into a cheater while playing that game. TF2 uses Valve's Anti Cheat, which is an efficient system to ban cheaters from playing the game online regardless of server.

They don't want to do it because they're not 100% confident they can do it right.

Problem: They'll never know if they can until they try...

Oskuro:
Let's recap:

ˇBattlefield 1942 comes out to a general 'meh' from the audience, and horrible bugs

ˇA Modding group creates Desert Combat and Bf1942's popularity skyrockets

This is a really good point. Everyone aged > 20ish(?) today will remember the thriving mod community that 1942 and (to a much lesser extent) Vietnam had and it was certainly the game that got me interested in mods and PC gaming in general. BF1942 should have died very quickly, but it persisted because of that aspect, and the same goes for BF2. This wasn't a bad thing, it was just good games becoming great, in modern terms it was awesome and free DLC that was constantly being updated. I guess EA looked at this and thought it meant less of a market for newer iterations of a franchise.

I dislike how PC gaming is slowly becoming console gaming with a mouse and keyboard. Even RTSes, once the go-to genre for modders, have been dropping mod support for pricey DLC. I'd start gaming more on consoles if games weren't so much cheaper on PC, seriously, that is almost the only difference nowadays.

edit: But yes, I know I'm living in a fantasy dreamworld and big companies need to keep on recouping their huge operating costs annually with assembly line sequels. But I need to rant at this issue, it sucks.

I don't see this as a big deal. I mean seriously, its not like I really need another reason not to buy this game, there are already more than enough.

Kalezian:

Colt47:

Karathos:
Pretty sure Bad Company didn't support mods, and pretty sure Bad Company 2 didn't support mods. BF3 doesn't support mods, and now BF4 isn't going to support mods.

How are we surprised by this? Feels like a lot of grasping at straws to get a 'news' story together.

It sort of is, but people have wanted a moddable Battlefield game for a while and EA seems to completely ignore them, claiming they will look into it later down the road with each new release. Personally, I've never ran any of their games on PC ever since Origin became a required download for them.

honestly the only mod I ever liked for a Battlefield game was the Star Wars mod for Battlefield 2.

everything else just added new maps or weapons, they could hardly be called a mod. More like an item pack. Very few actually added game assets to the mix, and the number of Total Conversions was in the amazing single digits.

I remember the days when mods actually changed gameplay, like turning Quake 3 Arena into a tactical squad based shooter akin to Counterstrike.

Dude, Forgotten Hope 2 and Project Reality both shit all over Battlefield 3 in terms of game design, in a game where jets can glide incredibly slow and chase infantry with their machine guns then there isnt much else to expect from it. Mods are really good to tweak things if they are needed and BF3 really needs a lot of tweaks, unfortanly BF4 looks like it will have the same flaws.

EDIT:

They want to protect their engine?
Then give the people modding tools.

Not doing it will only result in people cracking open the engine to be able to make mods.

Not going to lie, things like this always disappoint me. It doesn't matter how big the community is, so long as there are a handful of people modding the game there should be support there. Limited support, maybe, but support all the same.

MeChaNiZ3D:
Maybe I'm underestimating the amount of work it takes to allow users to do things in their own time.

It depends a lot on how things are set up.

Remember the whole Battlefield 3 thing where DICE said the game was too complex for mods, and the community said "nuh-uh, we can handle it", and then DICE explained that you'd need multiple high-end computers just to compile a map, and even then it would take days, and even then it would probably crash and require multiple attempts. And that they'd need to pay millions of dollars for different licensing agreements for the middleware they use (like physics engines). And that it would take up to a year of development time to get the development tools into a user-friendly state.

What you need to keep in mind is that in a lot of cases, the tools that companies use for internal development are not designed to be used by anyone outside of the company, meaning that they may be incredibly confusing or have horrific bugs that you need to know how to avoid. It's not as simple as saying "here, the game is open for mods, have at it"-- it's incredibly difficult to pull it off without building the engine to support it from the ground up, and the Frostbite engine... well, it wasn't designed for that. Even the BF3 mod that's referenced in the news post only claims to unlock pre-existing dev tools that allow you to do things like adjust lighting, and are not full-fledged mod tools.

I think this is what they're talking about when they say "we don't want to do it unless we can do it 100%". Any mod tools they released would either be extremely limited, leading to complaints, or so convoluted and buggy that people would complain even more. Or both.

That's not to say that they shouldn't support mods, but it's far from trivial to do so, and saying "how hard can it be" is not an effective argument to make.

This is an EA game, why is anyone surprised that this doesn't support mods? EA don't want a community of dedicated fans who enjoy their games, keep their games alive for years after release, expand the game beyond the original scope, add new ideas and polish it to a mirror finish. What publisher wants that?

EA game development cycle:

- Develop game
- Remove 10% from game
- Sell game
- Sell previously removed 10% in 5x 2% increments
- Develop same game again with new maps, increment number on box
- Repeat Steps 2-5

Skyrim has a great modding community and the professional DLC still sells by the boatload. By keeping their games off Steam and not giving us toolsets, they're hurting themselves more than us.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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