I'm all for taking chances but some of the higher ups definitely made some boneheaded decisions. The next title absolutely must have community tools and persistent servers
It's like you're in my head stop stalking me!
Agree 100% only thing I would add is don't go all goofy with anymore abilities/heroes/specialists/operators or whatever.
Think of the K.I.S.S. principle and the next BF will be a smash :D
@Ironhead841 wrote:It's like you're in my head stop stalking me!
Agree 100% only thing I would add is don't go all goofy with anymore abilities/heroes/specialists/operators or whatever.
Think of the K.I.S.S. principle and the next BF will be a smash :D
It's an absolute no brainer on how to make the next battlefield a success.
They can still innovate with something like "the most advanced destruction" yet type of marketing bullet points and other such features like weather etc
Spent some time today on the Modern Warfare II beta. Absolutely blows away 2042's gun handling and sound design. It's night and day and makes the guns in 2042 sound like airsoft guns. I didn't really think 2042's gun handling/sound were that bad mainly because the only other shooters I've been playing lately were Apex Legends and Rainbow 6, but MWII definitely takes it up a notch. If they want to compete, the guns need to have a more thunderous sound to them.
The good news is the 20v20 vehicle mode kind of sucks and doesn't nearly play as good as 2042 even with the reduction in vehicles. There's lots of AI too. Reminds me of a worse version of Attrition in TF2. The vehicle count in 2042 still needs to be increased though.
@Ironhead841 wrote:It's like you're in my head stop stalking me!
Agree 100% only thing I would add is don't go all goofy with anymore abilities/heroes/specialists/operators or whatever.
Think of the K.I.S.S. principle and the next BF will be a smash :D
Yeah I agree, we just all want a true BF experience next time. back to BF roots.
While I agree that it would be EASY to make the next BF title a 'success' it would make it a success with the already existing fan base -- the BF community. We know that, Dice knows that, EA does as well.
But THIS is obviously not their goal. They don't want to appeal to 'us' (otherwise many decisions are not remotely explicable), as they think that by now 'we' are too few. And well, they might indeed be correct in that assessment. They search for a new, younger, bigger audience and for doing that desperately try to appeal to the 'younger' players that come from, well, not sure where, but it looks like CoD, Apex & Co.
IF they could capture a sizable portion of those players and just take a big fat dump on 'us', this would make totally sense from a business perspective. This is what they tried. And they succeeded only in one of the two aspects with the result, that they by now had to realize that BF2042 is a failure and that they lost every little trust they might have still had left.
There are 3 phrases/buzzwords that I do not want to hear about any game promotion these days.
" designed for a modern audience" ===> departure from the successful formula / scorning of (or taking for granted) the existing core fanbase
"it is ambitious" ======> the same as above but with different words/ a good part of the budget will be focused on some gimmick (in the case of 2042 that would be specialists and hazard zone)
"we are excited" =====> Cant explain how it will actually be good in any way.
With all due respect that logic just doesn't work out from a business perspective, I mean sure you're always wanting new customers but not at the expense or alienation of your existing ones.
If I was EA/Dice, I would want to encourage and foster my current player base, which in turn would most likely, through word of mouth, bring in those new customers they are looking for.
I really think they are blowing it big time by discouraging the community aspects of Battlefield, particularly the Clans/Platoons out there that have supported them for years, some all the way back to BF1942.
They have in my opinion, particularly in the last two titles, really missed the mark here lately. I hope they reconsider what sucked a lot of people into Battlefield to begin with and perhaps look to the past for some inspiration.
@Ironhead841
They realize that we -- the 'existing player base' -- are on average 45+ years old (I myself am even older) and they know that we will get fewer and fewer by the means 'natural causes', even IF they would manage to bring a remake of BF4, with server browser, persistent servers, clan features, squad management, all chat, ....
That might be sad, but I'm afraid they are correct in that assessment at least.
@DuaneDibbleyit does not matter if the people age. What is really good at a point of time will continue be good in the future no matter how many years pass.
This is why we enjoy classical music even if the original audience it was made for died many generations ago.
The original Top Gun movie was made before I was born. The Top Gun Maveric sequel that came out this year was faithful to the style of the old movie and thus it still keeps reaching new records profits.
Meanwhile almost every " for the modern audience" sequel/remake/prequel movie either falls bellow expectations or flops.
In short if something is good, a good part of the next generation will learn to like it.
@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@Ironhead841
They realize that we -- the 'existing player base' -- are on average 45+ years old (I myself am even older) and they know that we will get fewer and fewer for 'natual reasons', even IF they would manage to bring a remake of BF4, with server browser, persistent servers, clan features, squad management, all chat, ....
That might be sad, but I'm afraid they are correct in that assessment at least.
Hell, man I'm 50ish myself but I'm telling you if they made a good Battlefield along the lines of an updated BF2/BF3/BF4 with the features you mentioned it WOULD bring in a younger player base. I got both my sons into Battlefield and my BF1942 through BF4 clan I was in and a separate BF2142 clan I ran with consistently had a bunch of young pups signing up.
If they were like my kids, they loved mixing it up with us old timers you should have heard my kids cackling every time they got one over on me, especially if the little S.O.B.'s managed to get my tags.
Bottom line fun has no age limit, build a FUN, GOOD Battlefield game with ALL the features that they KNOW we want, and the "new/young" customers will come.
@RayD_O1 wrote:
@Ironhead841 wrote:It's like you're in my head stop stalking me!
Agree 100% only thing I would add is don't go all goofy with anymore abilities/heroes/specialists/operators or whatever.
Think of the K.I.S.S. principle and the next BF will be a smash :D
Yeah I agree, we just all want a true BF experience next time. back to BF roots.
The roadmap to Battlefield Success:
Name the next BF game
Battlefield - Legacy Resurrection
And deliver on it accordingly!
@UP_Hawxxeye wrote:@DuaneDibbleyit does not matter if the people age. What is really good at a point of time will continue be good in the future no matter how many years pass.
This is why we enjoy classical music even if the original audience it was made for died many generations ago.
Classical music is a bad analogy. This is like retro gaming (with Game Boy like graphics). If you want to use music as an analogy, use the music of the 80th and try to make that popular with the current generation. I guarantee you that this will not work.
Times change, so does the taste in music. And in video games. Sure, parts of the generation of younger gamers would still play a game like BF4. Maybe even a big part. But in the eyes of EA this part is not big enough and they look at the player numbers of other titles and THOSE will NOT be achievable with a modernized version of BF4.
If you want to please everyone, you will please nobody. And if you want to make a game that appeals to everyone it will also fail -- just like BF2042 did. Make a new game, make it an Apex clone, MAYBE you are successful. But don't call it Battlefield and expect us to love or even like it.
And at the same time make a BF4-like game (like you teased in the trailers) that you can be proud to call Battlefield and will have a lot of success with a certain audience (us and parts of the younger gamer generation as well), but DON'T expect the sales numbers that could match those of the most popular titles. For EA, this simply does not seem to be enough.
@DuaneDibbleyBut Apex already exists and it is owned by EA. There was never a reason to make a second Apex to compete with their current one.
They just had to make 2042 for those who would not be interested in Apex and not to compete with it.
PS: I still prefer the 80s music over the music on the 90s and 00s that were the period that I was old enough to understand music as more than a sound. GTA:San Andreas in-game radio had a lot to do with that. It shows that younger people can get into something older than them if it is good enough, not everyone but it can be a profitable cult favorite.
As you said they need to make new IPs if they want to try new things.
”Gnarly squad based arcade war sim.”
That’s what I want.
The kind of gnarly that would result in a
“Battlefield~black and white” release
The next game should be called “Battlefield” and be based entirely around an upgrade to portal with all the community/legacy features.
Main single player game would introduce the new gnarly Environment, movement, black and white-esque, feel. Providing the backdrop of which to introduce off shoots such as AOW and specialist incursions.
I guess Gnarly for me is a move away from the pristine specialist skins and a move towards a more cinematic grime and dirt look and feel. Covered in siht dirt and blood.
DuaneDibbley Agree with all you have said. EA could have easily launched an update of BF3/4 that would have been acclaimed by franchise players, particularly after the uproar over BFV. It would have been cheaper and faster.
They didn't - IMHO, they 'doubled down' on a FPS/BR hybrid.
So ask yourself why. Put yourself into the shoes of a senior manager who has a significant portion of their salary 'at risk' i.e. bonuses. What do the shareholders expect from EA? No company I know would tell their investors that they would deliver the same market share, the same profit/dividend, as last year. Don't think about BF/Apex/FIFA/Candy Crush/etc as games - they are products. And products need to grow in share/sales/profitability, otherwise they are side-lined or divested.
I think that Battlefield will shift towards the 'franchise' model - like Star Wars. Vince is probably working on a "Fallen Order" style game, rather than a story-driven single player part of a multiplayer FPS game. EA constantly talks up the opportunity to expand the Battlefield franchise (mobile, etc.), but not necessarily the FPS iteration of BF.
@DuaneDibbley wrote:@Ironhead841
They realize that we -- the 'existing player base' -- are on average 45+ years old (I myself am even older) and they know that we will get fewer and fewer by the means 'natural causes', even IF they would manage to bring a remake of BF4, with server browser, persistent servers, clan features, squad management, all chat, ....
That might be sad, but I'm afraid they are correct in that assessment at least.
I seriously doubt the reddit 2042 hate mobs have a 45 year average age.
