Top
260°

"Mod tools in Bad Company 2? If people pay"

9lives.be: "In an interview with the Belgian website 9lives, Patrick Bach, Lead Producer of Battlefield: Bad Company 2, revealed why the pc version of the game don't support mod tools."

9lives: About the pc-version.You made it seem like Dice is hosting dedicated servers. are there going to be modding tools available?

Bach: Not at this moment in time. It's not that we're malign at DICE, but it's very complicated to implement this in contemporary games. It's far more complex than it used to be. We won't deny it costs great amounts of money to produce. But if there's enough feedback and plenty of people are asking about it and are willing to pay for it, then we'll definitely consider it. We mainly wanted to focus on delivering the best Battlefield-game possible.

Read Full Story >>
translate.google.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Carbide72865d ago

Developers would make anything if "people would pay"...

Bnet3432865d ago

So EA really hasn't changed.

DiffusionE2864d ago

No they haven't. EA's business policy will never change. It is whether their contracted developers come up with a good game or not that generates the supposed 'changes'. Publishers are the worst in this industry, while at least some devs are sympathetic towards gamers.

qface642864d ago

they tried to change did that help their wallets in any way? far from it

STK0262864d ago

EA changed. At one point they invested in new IPs, published risky projects, provided quality content, pushed for innovation, was willing to publish both hardcore games and casual ones rather than ask its developer to "mainstream" their hardcore offerings. What happened? Great critical reception, low sales.

On the other hand, at the same time, a company called Activision, which used to deliver new experiences (Guitar Hero) and quality franchises (like CoD), became Activision-Blizzard. They started milking like there's no tomorrow and made more money than ever, trumping EA and becoming the biggest third party publisher in the world, a title EA hold for years.

So, let's say you're an investor today, which of those two are you going to invest in?

You see, EA tried to please gamers, but it didn't pay off, and now they have to please the share holders.

smittyjerkins2864d ago

I agree with the above comment. EA is a business not a charity. You can't survive as a business if you make your product free, especially if it costs a lot of money to make.

led10902863d ago

@STK026 - I agree with you completely. I remember EA where actually happy bout Crysis being just for the PC. They were not putting any sorta pressure at all on Crytek to develop the game on the consoles. On the other hand if it would have been activision they wouldn't have agreed to publish the game in the first place since it wasn't on the consoles. Also, they brought a lot of innovative titles such as mirrors edge and dead space which were not everybodys cup of tea. Even though they have had to change their business strategy right now because of losing the numero uno position, they're still much better off than Activision cause they're actually trying to improve game quality at the same time. Look at FIFA. Who would have thought it would ever trump PES. But look at it now. Activision are going through a phase which EA has gone through in the past. I hope EA give them a good enough challenge so maybe one day they can change their ways and try something new.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2863d ago
wicko2864d ago

Depending on the cost, I would not doubt that people would be willing to pay for the mod tools if this game remains popular. Making mods for games is a great way to build up a portfolio and eventually land a job in the industry.

Proxy2864d ago

You could just build your own game. That could also help you get started in the industry, and you don't even need to be hired.

wicko2864d ago (Edited 2864d ago )

Either route works, but it is favourable to developers if you have experience with professional tools. Indie developing is very risky and not everyone is willing to take that risk.

Pandamobile2864d ago

Depends on the price. If it costs a couple hundred dollars for the Mod Tools, I'm sure a lot of mod teams would enjoy using it. Consider it like a licensing fee for it, like other devs would pay to use a pre-made engine and assets.

Or maybe just like a $20 fee, cheap enough so that anyone who's slightly serious about making things can still accomplish it.

Letros2864d ago

Map making contest would be fun =) Seems to work well for PC games.

FantasyStar2864d ago

They're making US pay to basically promote/advertise their game, support the game, and deal with all the bugs. And they're making us pay to help them. That's just BS.

evrfighter2864d ago

I'm gonna take Panda's stance on this one. Through interviews they've let it be known that making frostbite work on the pc was a beast of a burden on its own. I'm guessing hundreds if not thousands of hours to accomplish this.

At this point in time it sounds like they are at a fork in the road.
1.)Do we spend who knows how many hundreds of hours building a SDK at no charge for the consumer?
2.)Do we spend who knows how many hundreds of hours building a SDK at least getting some of the costs back?
3.)Do we forget about mod tools completely?

no matter how much you wanna argue it. #1 is not gonna happen no matter who the developer is called. so you're left with #2 and #3.

I'd rather have mod tools then none. Mod teams could easily drop a "Donation" button on their website to get their money back. I know I'd donate a few bucks if there was a finished mod that I enjoyed. The result of that is I'd feel more involved with that particular mod community.

mrv3212864d ago (Edited 2864d ago )

Why not give out MOD tools to the best modders on Battlefield 2. Then after a year release to everyone.

You retain the quality and more importantly increase the amount of maps.

Show all comments (24)
The story is too old to be commented.