EA on Battlefield: Not Just Building a Game but a Platform to Drive Live Services

EA CEO Andrew Wilson shares that they are not just building a game with Battlefield, but a platform to deliver live service content for "decades to come."

-Foxtrot145d ago (Edited 145d ago )

Jesus Christ man

After failure upon failure you’d think they would make sure the next Battlefield game puts other things before all this crap and yet here they are yet again clearly not understanding that this attitude, making a live service game first is what’s killing the franchise

Tacoboto144d ago

Well, Halo Infinite received blame from them for 2042's disappointing launch, and it was marketed as the platform for Halo for the next decade.

In the 18 months they've had to reflect, EA clearly saw that Halo's singular decade was just not ambitious enough.

jznrpg144d ago

I ignore 99% of EA for years now so yeah sounds about right. Star Wars is only thing they have that interests me at all.

ElendilsSorrow144d ago

Good then that they have multiple projects on the way for that franchise, very excited for that

HollowIchigo25144d ago

That man is completely oblivious and he is their CEO.

excaliburps144d ago

Yep. It's like they learned nothing from BFV and BF2042.

JEECE144d ago

Sigh. Battlefield V got criticized for not being an active enough live service. Even though it had a longer tail of support than any prior BF game other than 4, as soon as the last maps came out (almost two years after launch), people started blasting DICE for abandoning the game. You can't say you hate live service/games as a service but then also declare that a multiplayer title is dead as soon as it isn't treated like one.

People say they want a remaster of one of the old BF games, but the reality is that they'd start whining about the lack of support a few weeks after launch if the game wasn't maintained as a live service. The same thing happened to Halo: Infinite. It's commonly accepted now that that game was botched, but when you ask people why it quickly becomes clear that they wanted it to be more of a live service.

MetroidFREAK21144d ago

Great, can't wait to not be there

Show all comments (17)

It's a good thing Microsoft now says its "adorably all digital" future plans are outdated

They suggested a potentially different path to Sony, and poorer game preservation as a result.

Read Full Story >>
Vits15h ago

Honestly, I don't mind a digital-only device - I do play mostly on PC after all. I just think that one paired with Microsoft's way of handling expandable storage is a bad idea.

Like, just imagine how expensive that would get with 1TB costing around 150 USD and the current sizes for AAA titles.

aaronaton11m ago

I honestly don't understand when ppl buy digitally over physical on launch when the game is the same price.
With physical, you actually own the game, its not a prolonged rent. Plus with single player games costing over £60, its nice to know you can recuperate costs after completion.
Ppl that buy all digital are either lazy or not very savvy when it comes to expenses.

ocelot071m ago

Many positives for digital. So for example EA Sports FC 24 is a game I put 200 plus hours in and will be playing off and on for a year until 25 releases. For me it was actually cheaper getting digital. Cheapest I could find on disc was £62. On PSN it was £65 I went to shopto.net and bought £65 worth of PSN credit for £58.

Another reason I buy a fair few games digitally is game sharing with my partner. She likes call of duty I also enjoy cod but get board of it right away. Again it's another £65 game that costs us £58. Since we are going half each it actually cost us £29 each. That's much better than paying £60+ for a disc copy each.

The likes of say Spiderman and god of war if it's single player only. I'll get on disc. As once I'm fully done with it. If my partner wants to play it she can. If not I can sell and get some money back for the next game.


PlayStation Portal battery life: here's how long Sony's PS5 handheld lasts

According to a recent hands-on by CNET, the PlayStation Portal battery life is expected to last between seven to nine hours.

Read Full Story >>
TQQ13h ago

That's really good actually, better than my phone and my 10' tablet just watching YouTube or Twitch.

gold_drake13h ago

oh wow, i expected it to be way less.

nice, cant wait :)

SwissCheese13h ago

Given this is just a streaming device, that's pretty low compared to my cell. But I guess most gaming sessions are shorter than that.

Profchaos10h ago(Edited 10h ago)

Try streaming games to your mobile phone for that long and see how it goes I think you'll find with a decent screen brightness most phones would only get 3 to 6 hours max.
My fold 3 would only go about 3 hours tbh

EvertonFC7h ago

Most.phones wouldn't even do 3 hours imo, I used 12% in about 20mins using remote play while letting my nephew and niece play "Peppa pig and paw patrol.
I imagine it's even less playing a more gfx intensive game.