It seems like the danger of annualisation is still far from the Battlefield franchise, at least according to EA's CFO.
It would fail hard if that happened. People are exhausted from the FPS genre to begin with.
I want to agree with you as I personally feel the same way ( also feel that is why Killzone got a 7.5 average score) because it launched next to a few other shooters. But as much as i feel the same way, and i do play my fair share of FPS games. If you look at what people are buying...its still COD as the most units sold on a system.
yep people love to say that; 'shooters are dead'... yeah right...GTAV, a once every 5 year franchise, is the ONLY title that will top shooters in sales this year... the sad thing is...shooters are one of the few genres in gaming that remain a safe bet...From a genre standpoint, NPD did that thing early this year showing that shooters make more money most years than every other genre combined...there are potential outliers, again, like GTAV (oddly enough, gta has turned into more of a third person shooter than anything else)...but one fact remains; shooters are the reigning king of gaming from a popularity standpoint...
Well to be honest I'm not surprised there, if it really took them 3 years to make the game, and come up with a 4 hour campaign imagine how long it'll be if they have 9 months to make it!
It's going to take a while for FPS to die down. A host of young gamers were exposed last gen and will continue to play them this gen
Fix the game!!!
Will Rotate with Star Wars Battlefront
If not on yearly rotation then what does EA have to compete with Call of Duty in 2014? As Star Wars Battlefront is coming in 2015 or so it has been said. I was expecting a full functioning Battlefield 214x series game in 2014 honestly. Unless they have some secret game under wraps. I have heard nothing of Dead Space 4, or Army of Two 4 yet. According to EA BC3 won't happen until after Mirror's Edge 2. Must be something else in the works then. EA can't go without a shooter for 2014 against CoD could they?
What are you talking about? FPSs are among the highest selling games every year...
That is good news. I prefer a product that has a proper development cycle instead of one that is rushed to the market.
Ironically that's what happened to BF4 anyway! :(
Come on, people. Don't disagree! Aeon is right. The game is not polished. The campaign is buggy and the MP has even more problems at the moment. Not that they are not working on the game, but they had the same problems with the beta and did not manage to get it right for release. The game is great, but not finished. Those who preordered and bought at release, are beta testers right now. This includes me and I am on the bright side of that experience. I have only few crashes and the sound bug.
@aeon, I agree man, a game like this shoud have had 3 years, or they could get other guys to come in and do the SP
Good. Great. I am quite content with the notion of buying a BF game every two/three years. I would rather have a good product that embraces innovation and new tech than one that simply rehashes essentially the same experience each year. Yes, I'm looking at you Call of Duty.
well call of duty actually has 2 teams each having 2 years dev time, I get what u mean lol
lol that 2 years development look like a 6 months...
True, but despite the two team alternation the feeling of "I've been here/done this before" is extremely profound. Plus, the studios have been known to corroborate on their titles, so in essence it's a two developer, one team situation. However you look at it, a CoD game EVERY year is starting to get a bit stale. Christ, they're still working from the old Quake engine where other companies are upgrading or replacing theirs. I got tired of Ghosts after a week - sure, new maps, 'new' guns, new class system... same feeling, same issues.
Their original plan was to switch between Medal of Honor and Battlefield. With that obviously not being the case, at least at the moment, I wonder if they have something new under wraps at the moment.
its not under wraps...its TitanFall...its very likely that BF and Titanfall will start to be staggered annually once this gen gets going...Titanfall 2014, BF5/BC3 2015, TF2 2016, etc...
just like Ubisoft said with Watch_Dogs and AC :)
No its BF,TF and Battlefront rinse and repeat -_-/.
Not to mention that DICE is still beginning development on Star Wars: Battlefront which will likely be fairly similar to BF.
I don't enjoy giving EA credit but this is good move, they need to make people miss Battlefield instead of forcing it out like all their other games.
Well given the price, even if they pump it out every 2 years, you're averaging around 60 dollars a year give or take if you get all the stuff along with the game, including all the DLC (you pay a crazy amount like 110 dollars for all the stuff in the package). So if you go by price they pretty much annualizing the game Just another way of looking at it
BF3's support schedule was staggered over 18 months...so $110 total gives roughly $6/month...well worth it imo...as BF's dlc is huge, not some weapon skins and a map or two... BF4's release schedule appears to be slightly less than 18 months...but still has the same amount of content (5 full expansions)...so its the same price for the same amount of extra content, but you get access to all of it sooner than you did with BF3... i'm ok with that...$110 total would suck for most titles, but i'm pretty comfortable for what that amount of money gets me with this franchise...
ehh I am more used to buying a game that is like 20 bucks and have that game lasting hundreds of hours. If EA continue their BF practice of having the games well over 100 dollars every 2 years, it is seriously going to add up. I suppose you could justify the purchase if you divide it over however many months until the next game, but to me that just means the game will only last me 2 years and then support for it will cease and everyone will be moved onto the next game. If I'm gonna drop 100+ dollars on a game I really, really want it to last a long time. And it really adds up if you think about it. I mean lets just say 4 BFs are released over the course of the PS4 generation length, around 8 years, starting with BF4. So they release BF4 right away, then BF5, then 6, then maybe 2142 or something. Added up that is like well over 400 dollars if BF is you regular game, i.e. the game you always come back to, the game you play in between releases of other exclusives. That is a crazy high price
To each their own, i guess... I had nearly 1000 hours in BF3 on PS3...spread out over about 2 years...1000 hours for me is a not so common amount of time with a single game... and just like you said...Battlefield is definitely my go to competitive mulitplayer franchise right now...and i was counting the days until BF4's release...Its very likely i'll have a similar amount of time in bf4... On the other hand...pretty much all 'retail' full games are $60...yes, there are sales on steam and this and that...but the going rate is still $60, even on PC now, for a new title...I have over 20 retail games on PS3 that i paid full price for on or around day 1 since 2007...thats $1200 at least, yet none of them had the replay value for me personally to BF3 w/ premium... So its just a matter of preference...I definitely get more than the value of $110 out of BF3, and BF4...as i stick with them and play little else during that time (the primary reason i went with a built PC instead of another console, all i'm realistically going to play heavily is bf4 for the time being, so why not do it right?)...some will not get that amount of value out of them... so either way...you're saying $400 over the course of generation, enjoying all of the 'new' BF games at release is too high...while to me that is nothing...not that $400 is nothing to me, that the value i get out of each new title is well worth it...$110 for each new BF with premium for 1000+ hours...vs...$60 for some 'must have' single player game that gets me 30 hours...i don't have any problem with that... I mean i beat the campaign of GTA V in about 20 hours...paid $60 for it...and i'll probably never touch it again...that is the kind of thing that annoys me...multiplayer games that just give and give for 2 full years, i'll pay whatever the going rate is...
GOOD! Dont do it. Dont become the Copy/Paste game franchises that are sadly taking over.
Awesome! Give us another Bad Company instead!
I'd actually take a new Rallisport Challenge game.
Being a huge battlefield fan... It would kill me to see the franchise go south and have them release every year. I hope they spend some time and spend 2 to 3 years before releasing their next one.
That's good, because BF is one of my favorite MP franchises. I wouldn't want it become the next CoD. There is a reason why CoD will never grace my PC. I would be fine if they made that game exclusive to consoles, let them have it.
I can see myself playing BF4 on PS4 for a long time. Boy do I hate EA but I like dice but unfortunately they are in bed together and my wallet is under attack, help!
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.