I just don't understand EA/Dice...

@Ironhead841Good point.... See EA/DICE?, it can be sooo simple. [ insert sound of a mic drop here]

---

@Ironhead841 wrote:

Keep in my mind I'm just spit-balling here, but it would seem the formula to make a successful modern military shooter is staring EA/Dice right in the face.

...

Well that's all I can think of right now. but I think ya'll get the idea.

---

Good write up. And in general I agree that this would indeed make a good Battlefield game.

But unfortunately you are completely missing the point when it comes to the goal that EA/Dice have. Spoiler (and don't be shocked): it is definitely NOT making a good game. EA is a company that needs to make money. That is the ONLY goal. And it does not matter if we like or accept it, this is a fact. And this does not even have to to be a bad thing, because if everything goes right, the goals of the players and the company can and most likely will more often than not, align.

A company makes a great game, players like it, they sell millions of copies. Both sides are happy. Having a strong franchise helps of course. And Battlefield was a good franchise.

Now, where things went wrong (horribly one might add) was when someone decided that it would also work to make a bad game that in their mind would also be able to sell a lot of copies (it did because of the good name the franchise still had at launch) and in the long run would bring in a constant stream of even more money by micro-transactions. I think we agree that this line of thinking failed. The initial sales were pretty good, but the micro-transactions idea will never fly of course as this would require players playing the game and as things look now, they don't and it would need considerable effort to bring enough of us back to have ANY hope that the micro-transactions idea could work out in the end.

I doubt that it will, but I am special in that way I guess as I have ZERO interest in those things, wear the initial uniform on all my soldiers in BF5, have over 200 unopened battle chests in BF1 (never opened even one) and would never play any game where you could buy power by spending money after launch; but I know many other players out there would and there is the potential of additional revenue IFF the game would be played by enough players. I just doubt that EA is willing to spend that many resources to make BF2042 a good and true BF game, despite of what they are now claiming. I HOPE they will prove me wrong, but at the moment I don't think they are really willing to do what it takes (remember Apex, anyone?). They will let it die. The ONLY hope is that they see that -- other than Apex -- Battlefield is an established franchise and they would lose more by killing it off completely

@DuaneDibbley 

Fair points, disheartening to be sure but fair points.

I just think Battlefield both profit-wise and its reputation would have fared much better if they would have stuck with the unique experiences that was the heart of the franchise for so long.

As you point out they're not going make the kind of money they wanted because of the design decisions they've made, and I feel like they may have done irreparable harm to the Battlefield franchise as a whole which is going to affect future sales as well.

If they would have stuck with the actual BF-experience without these specialists, a more darker/gritty tone to the maps then I think the backlash would have been much less because maybe the game would actually be a bit more fun or balanced. I loved the whole nameless soldier part of BF which gave it that unique atmosphere that other games didn't have but they threw that away.

People came to this game because its Battlefield and they didn't deliver what they normally do so yeah, a 97.5% player drop is the result. Good luck selling skins to the few people that will still be playing by the time you guys implement "legacy features". Economics 101: Its easier to get new customers than retaining old ones, especially when you slap them in the face over and over again.

I'll probably read up on patch notes and maaaaybe give it a shot in the summer (unless something better comes along) but I'll pass on buying games from EA for at least a couple of years...

---

@Ironhead841 wrote:

Keep in my mind I'm just spit-balling here, but it would seem the formula to make a successful modern military shooter is staring EA/Dice right in the face.

Grab the most beloved a.k.a. successful parts of their previous modern shooters (BF2 to BF4, with maybe a sprinkling of the stuff the modding community did with BF1942's Desert Combat) and roll them into one amazing new game.

Of course, KEEP all the so called "Legacy" features. You KNOW what the community wants in this regard.

Steer far and wide away from the "Hero Shooter" genre and focus on making Battlefield its own unique experience. Bring back classes, commanders etc. etc.

Maps.

Take the best maps or the basic formula of the most played/beloved maps and re-use them or at least make them a baseline for new maps. And I mean whatever worked, CQB or Vehicle-centric or middle of the road, whatever it was the community liked with these maps reuse them or build on that experience. What happened to the static anti-armor, anti-air and machine-gun emplacements? And please add MORE maps.

Vehicles.

Variety is the spice of life. This should be obvious, more vehicles, naval, anti-air, artillery, transports, air-assets, armor assets just MORE. Make them move and react with the environment realistically, have a higher skill ceiling. A good tanker or pilot etc. etc. SHOULD stand out. Bring back "sweet spots" for armor-to-armor battles.

Weapons.

Again variety, variety, variety. Make the weapons function differently, attachments that actually DO something beyond just the cosmetic. LMG's should have horrible spread, except when prone or bipod/braced on something. Sniper rifles SHOULD be inaccurate unless prone or bipod/braced on something, add scope-sway maybe even a little randomized wind-drift, offset that with removal of the scope glint (I mean c'mon the tech to decrease that in real life has been around for decades) Assault rifles SHOULD be OP, PDW's SHOULD be brutal in CQB etc. etc. You get the picture.

Soldiers.

I'll refer you to the K.I.S.S. principle, keep-it-simple-stupid. Make soldier movements somewhat grounded in reality, no endless sprinting, sliding, bunny-hopping etc. etc. Bring back the ability to peak/auto-lean around corners. And for crying out loud make the soldiers actually LOOK like soldiers.

Gadgets.

Again, I'll refer you to the K.I.S.S. principle, keep-it-simple-stupid. No flying squirrels, no spidermen, no magic shields, poke-balls, robot-guns or wall hacks.

Well that's all I can think of right now. but I think ya'll get the idea.

---

Nice one, very well written and the blueprint for the next Battlefield installment. !

When you itemise it all like that, you realise just how far DICE have moved away from the proven BF formula. 

If they could actually implement your changes they would definitely have a winner on their hands and imho I genuinely think it would bring back the droves of BF players who have abandoned BF2042.

Judging by the state of the current player population, the vast majority of players did not expect / want a BR type game.

They wanted a BF game incorporating the true BF values you have highlighted above.

It is not just ea and dice.

It seems that most of the entertainment industry in general has forgotten how to target their core audience properly.

Look at how the makers of the upcoming Lord of the rings series decided to be really proud of their decision to deviate in various ways from the established material.

---

@UP_Hawxxeye wrote:

It is not just ea and dice.

It seems that most of the entertainment industry in general has forgotten how to target their core audience properly.

Look at how the makers of the upcoming Lord of the rings series decided to be really proud of their decision to deviate in various ways from the established material.

---

As you say, sadly it is a sign of the times.!

@Ironhead841 

Great points and I totally agree.  

This is something I've seen happening with Ubisoft as well where they ignore great and unique attributes from some of their franchises like Ghost Recon and have paid a dear price for it (e.g. Breakpoints failure).  Had they simply listened to the community anddelivered a product they wanted especially on the heels of success of Wildlands, they would have likely had a hit on their hands. 

It;s funny to me that on one hand EA / DICE fully recognize the popularity of past titles in their library like BF3 and BC2 through their inclusion in Portal yet choose not to capitalize on those qualities throughout the game.  They thought it would be enough to throw a small bone to fans so they would accept the new changes.