"EA's CFO says they Battlefield is a 'two-year project' and this does create some problems."
Why so EA can botch more BF launches in order to beat out COD? Please don't.
I don't think they should, I mean if they can only make a 4 hour campaign in 3 years imagine what they would make in months ?!!? lol
Exactly.. they haven't even fixed Battlefield 4's problems and can't even release a stable product and they are considering doing a yearly release? GTFO! Either way, they won't do a yearly release I don't think. They will alternate it between Titanfall one year and Battlefield the next.
NOPE!!! Please do not make it a Madden like franchise. The game would become seriously watered down. @minimur12 I honestly wouldn't mind BF just being a online shooter. While this story was better than BF3's story it still wasn't an epic tale. So if DICE would just focus on the multiplayer aspect I think the series would be even better.
NO! If you start that, I'm never buying another BF ever again.
Totally agree, this will ruin BF. I hope the next BF is BF2143.
Next one is Battlefront(2015) they say, but have announced no shooter for 2014. So...
2142 wasn't that great
lol, with 2 years and a beta, they still can't get it right... and they even contemplated releasing every year?
"EA's CFO..." Yeah it's gonna happen.
IF you do, the franchise will suffer and you will lose fans quickly. IF you don't, you maintain a great fanbase and don't doom one of the best developers in the business.
EA technically already does this by re-releasing "Complete Editions" of BF games the year after the original release. Its already happening. I don't see why its suddenly a problem. Id rather get a game with a new coat of paint, new story, new features, and new modes each year as opposed to a 12 month old game + DLC.
I know for a fact that Titanfall will be a yearly game if it sells the way EA belives it will sell. I don't see the issue. If you don't want to buy the same game every year...then don't. Just buy the game every other year and pretend that the entry preceding it never existed.
In order to do that, they need another studio to make the games. Either break DICE in two, or create another studio. However DICE seems pretty stingy with their engine for shooters, they barely let Danger Close use it for MOH. I think Titanfall was meant to fill the gap, but since its being held hostage for one console it obviously can't for the time being..... The answer is simple EA, bring back BLACK lol
A game that looked and played awesome back on the PS2. It was awesome because it was outrageous, you were literally just blowing crap up and having fun watching it. None of this "authentic" military crap we have today. http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Its happening. The aaa industry is turning into the shovelware industry by the day.
Every 2-3 years. DICE can't dish out a game annually. Not even IW or Treyarch do annual games and they use the same engine. Unless EA is going to contract Battlefield out to another studio as well as DICE, it won't be annual. Besides, didn't they say they wanted to mix it up: Year 1: Battlefield Year 2: Titanfall Year 3: Battlefront rinse/repeat
Forgot about Battlefront, that will most likely become their second game then. We all knew something had to fill MOH's gap. It'll be >Battlefield >Battlefront >Battlefield spin off >Battlefront >Battlefield Unless EA somehow manages to screw up Battlefront, which won't be surprising....
They should go to a three year cycle. I think that gives time for people to play enough of the last game and then be craving for more, I think a two year wait is just way too short for such a big game.
Let Battlefield be on a two year development cycle with a secondary, smaller team that works on a meaty expansion that can be sold for $30. You can even have marketing around the expansion to make it feel almost like its own game without alienating the playerbase. One thing I'm curious about is if Battlefield needs that secondary online mode the way CoD has Zombies/Extinction? Obviously I wouldn't want the normal multiplayer affected by spreading resources thin, but there are A LOT of people who buy CoD just to play zombies with their friends. Hell, I bought Black Ops II just to occasionally play zombies with my best friend that moved to Arkansas. If Battlefield could establish a secondary mode, it could really help the series even more. More than anything, Battlefield needs to stop trying to beat Call of Duty and focus on being the best game it can be; because I find Battlefield infinitely more interesting than CoD and I'd hate to see the potential wasted.
Please don't EA, surely you have enough money by now?? At what point does quality no longer matter?
Get a working Game out in 2 years, then think about it. EA just relying on FIFA and BF now, but no surprise that the company is going downhill.
lol... what fantasy world are you living in?
Make Bad Company 3 instead
It shouldn't. End.
Reminds me of the Governor's second in command on The Walking Dead: "Sure, they'll do their little song and dance but sooner or later, maybe next week...they'll give the order."
Then. . I shall stop playing. I didn't even get battlefield 3.. . I'm not sure about B4.
if its not turned into a 1 year cycle expect some sort of monthly subscription service and or lots of micro transactions
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.