EA CEO Andrew Wilson says there's "a lot of work" to do on the Battlefield Fran
...
Forum Discussion
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.
- @Ironhead841 few things are more wholesome than family members of different generations enjoying the same games together.
@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.
