EA Speaks Out on Battlefield 4 Post-Launch Issues

EA Speaks Out on Battlefield 4 Post-Launch Issues

BF4 Chopper

EA comments regarding Battlefield 4's multplayer issues and claims it was "convinced" the shooter "was ready."

It's common knowledge by now that DICE's shooter, Battlefield 4, has been plagued by various bugs and issues post-launch. During parent company EA's Q3 2013 earnings call, the publisher's executives has spoken out on the game's multiplayer issues, with EA executive vice president Patrick Soderlund claiming that based on pre-launch testing and beta performance, they were "convinced (Battlefield 4) was ready."

"When Battlefield 4 launched, it was a very complex game, launching on two entirely new console platforms, as well as current-gen and PC...We were pushing innovation heavily and we're delivering 60 frames per second gameplay for 64 players plus the ability to connect via mobile tablet as a Commander into the product, coupled those with some very innovative features on the gameplay side. Based on our pre-launch testing and beta performance, we were confident the game was ready when it was launched. Shortly after launch, however, we began hearing about problems from our player community, and the development team quickly began to address the situation."

According to Soderlund, the challenge EA faced with BF4 was different from anything they've seen in past titles, and that "there were different issues that only manifest its scale in the post-launch live environment." He adds, "We're taking multiple steps to evaluate what occurred and incorporate those learnings into our development process for future products, so we don't experience the same problems again."

In the same call, EA CEO Andrew Wilson also weighed in and called launching BF4 as a "complex effort" due to it being released on both current and next-gen consoles and PC; but also applauded how DICE acted swiftly to roll out patches and reiterated that BF4 is an "amazing game" that he's confident people will be playing for a "long time to come."

"Launching Battlefield was a complex effort, with our teams at DICE delivering a massive game packed with innovative new features for players on next-gen consoles, current-gen consoles and PC...Shortly after Battlefield 4 went live, we began hearing from some players in the community who were experiencing issues with the game. The Battlefield team acted swiftly to address the issues through game updates, and they continue to make refinements as part of our live service to ensure a great game experience for all Battlefield 4 players. Battlefield 4 is an amazing game in size, scope and gameplay, and we're confident that gamers will be playing for a long time to come."

While BF4 has been running relatively bug-free for the most part -- at least on my personal experience, DICE is still not done tweaking the game, with the studio seeking player feedback on what to balance next. And as a thank you to fans, DICE is also holding a "Battlefield 4 Player Appreciation Month" for February, where Battlepacks will be given out to users who log in throughout the month.

What do you make of EA's statements, and do you think the publisher has learned its lesson with Battlefield 4?

Source: IGN

Permalink

Alex Co:
innovation, innovative, innovative

image

For crying out loud. Is it really that difficult for a company to give an apology or explanation without it sounding like a robotic, artificial advertisement?!

I cannot take anything you (Patrick Soderlund) say seriously when all I hear is: "Our Game is awesome, it had some problems but we thought it was awesome enough, buy our game!"

Saulkar:

Alex Co:
innovation, innovative, innovative

image

image

Seriously though, if DICE and EA really cared about balancing, they'd do us all a favour and start balancing out all these modern shooters by setting the next Battlefield back in WW2, Vietnam, or the 2100s.

So what they are saying is that their testing team are complete monkeys? nice way to shift the blame! Maybe next time we will be paying them for testing their game (also known as early acess).

Squilookle:

Saulkar:

Alex Co:
innovation, innovative, innovative

image

image

Seriously though, if DICE and EA really cared about balancing, they'd do us all a favour and start balancing out all these modern shooters by setting the next Battlefield back in WW2, Vietnam, or the 2100s.

ERGH!!! I grabbed the one with the wrong text!

OT: Could you elaborate your reasoning for changing the BF timeline? Sounds like there is something you want to share more in depth.

I don't think EA will learn from this, because this is the final result of the business model they've built themselves up with, and it will get worse.

What model? The "release big, release fast" model that has Battlefield competing with Call of Duty, attempting to be the next big thing(tm), concerning themselves more with release dates, profit margins and market appeal, than with actual product quality (Battlefield 4 attempts to appeal to tablet users now... really?!).

The greatest problem with that model is that it is, fittingly enough, an arms race. It escalates continually in a perpetual search for increased profits in the short term, and fails to see the harsh truths of the long term, namely:

1) Markets are not infinite, at some point growth will be impossible.
2) Production has minimum time/effort requirements, beyond which the product becomes a broken mess.

Changing this model/mindset is, essentially, asking EA (and their shareholders) to change their corporate culture and goals, and I don't see that happening... Not without some catastrophe forcing them to, as has happened with other formerly dominant corporations (like what happened to Nintendo in the past, and seems to be happening again).

And I don't think they are evil, just as shortsighted as every human being is, incapable of self reflection because our lizard brains keep telling us that our way is the right way, and it's everyone else who are wrong.

Well see how this develops.

I always laugh when I read "EA doesn't deserve the comments" when every single news that comes from them is all just pure BS., "Innovative features" Like... being a "modern warfare FPS? Being Multiplayer? Or being able to "destroy" buildings? Cuz if it's any of those, his deffinition of "Innovative" is way off.

Is it that difficult to say "it was a shit launch, we rushed it and fucked up" instead of coming up with even more bullshit?

Seriously, they were trying to innovate? Exactly what was so innovative about BF4? And EA, just admit when you fuck up, I'll at least respect that over you droning the usual bland PR "We're soooooooooorry" crap. Again.

I think this is a case of EA needing to shut up. It's very clear to anyone who played the game on release (and Sim City, BF3 etc) that the men 'upstairs' decide when a game is ready and that testing and development has nothing to do with it, release dates are decided to best leverage pre-orders and to avoid clashing with the competition. In BF4's case this is particularly egregious as they moved the release date forwards specifically to beat Call of Duty to the market.

Unfortunately, the fact that they keep doing it seems to indicate that as a strategy it's working. With the money from Pre-orders it no longer matters what state the game is in on release or afterwards, as long as sale beforehand justify the budget. Luckily EA's desire to use Battlefield as a DLC and micro transaction platform is motivating them to fix it (to a degree at least), if they didn't have that sword of Damocles hanging over them you can bet they would have declared BF4 'finished' and wandered off onto the next hype train.

Well you would think they would have learned not to try to release a game like BF4 (because no one is disputing the sheer scope of a game like that) every 2 years. You'd think they would take more time testing, but this is EA, and they have to pump out games in November, especially when there is a new console launching.

..We were pushing innovation heavily..

oh christ, now i sprayed diet coke through my nose all over my keyboard.
stopped taking anything serious after that.

oh, for anyone who has some time to kill and is interested in the way the franchise took over the last decade, here you go.

http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.php?3880-The-True-Story-of-Battlefield-3-the-Battlefield-Franchise-Its-Community-amp-EA-DICE

And I'd almost, ALMOST be inclined to believe you, EA, if this weren't just another in a long chain of screwups and failures in your history.

...we're delivering 60 frames per second gameplay for 64 players plus the ability to connect via mobile tablet as a Commander into the product...

Maybe they wouldn't have has so many problems if they had limited it to just 12 players.

MinionJoe:

...we're delivering 60 frames per second gameplay for 64 players plus the ability to connect via mobile tablet as a Commander into the product...

Maybe they wouldn't have has so many problems if they had limited it to just 12 players.

that would of had an even worse negative response. the whole "connect via mobile tablet as a commander into the product" is what seems more unnecessary as opposed to a higher number of players, which for a game like battlefield is needed to make it feel alive

suitepee7:

MinionJoe:

...we're delivering 60 frames per second gameplay for 64 players plus the ability to connect via mobile tablet as a Commander into the product...

Maybe they wouldn't have has so many problems if they had limited it to just 12 players.

that would of had an even worse negative response. the whole "connect via mobile tablet as a commander into the product" is what seems more unnecessary as opposed to a higher number of players, which for a game like battlefield is needed to make it feel alive

So EA should rethink the 12-player limit in Titanfall then?

What lesson isn't EA learning here?

Trick question! The answer is, "All the lessons." ;)

MinionJoe:

suitepee7:

MinionJoe:

Maybe they wouldn't have has so many problems if they had limited it to just 12 players.

that would of had an even worse negative response. the whole "connect via mobile tablet as a commander into the product" is what seems more unnecessary as opposed to a higher number of players, which for a game like battlefield is needed to make it feel alive

So EA should rethink the 12-player limit in Titanfall then?

What lesson isn't EA learning here?

Trick question! The answer is, "All the lessons." ;)

ha! they never learn.

although i think they're trying to use the AI system in titanfall as the reason for limiting the number of players. there was an article about it a while ago which mentions loads of the team will be AI controlled so it will seem busier... i'm waiting for release before i pass judgement on that one though, i honestly haven't paid much attention to it until a couple of days ago

My jimmies are still rustled over the fact that 90 days after release I still cannot save my single player campaign. Also its damn near impossible to get a group of friends to join in to a game together. Every time I turn off and on my PS4 or even close the game out, it resets all my multiplayer stuff as well, once it accesses battle log all my unlocks are there, but I have those little orange triangles all over everything everywhere.

They very very very much need to have something like COD (yes...I know...it's at this stage though guys..srsly.) Anyways, you should be able to invite your friends into a lobby, and then as a group of 2-however many, you should be able to join a server, on the same team and in the same squads.

Currently the only way to play together that I have found is to have 1 person join a halfway filled game, then just have everyone join a friends game, hope you are on the same team (switch if needed) then just bully people out of squads till you can fill one up with your party.

/rant

When the buying stops, the killing of dreams can too. That's it.

Kathinka:

..We were pushing innovation heavily..

oh christ, now i sprayed diet coke through my nose all over my keyboard.
stopped taking anything serious after that.

oh, for anyone who has some time to kill and is interested in the way the franchise took over the last decade, here you go.

http://www.mordorhq.com/showthread.php?3880-The-True-Story-of-Battlefield-3-the-Battlefield-Franchise-Its-Community-amp-EA-DICE

Interesting! Thanks for the link! =)

DICE has always been known to release buggy games but BF4 was on a whole other level. The PS4 version now is stable, but friends still can't party up properly, and a few other issues persist. I blame EA for continually chasing that Call of Duty $$$ instead of developing its shooter and letting it stand on its own. Heck, since next-gen can handle 64 players, that alone might be enough to tilt the battle in their favor, but BF4 did more harm than good especially to newbies to the franchise.

 

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