Will EA/DICE Learn From This Failure?
If they truly are taking "lessons learned" from BF2042's failure, they might want to start here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgHTehCBLMg
Forum Discussion
A couple of factual and very substantial blunders and their associated hard decisions keeps me pondering on who really did take those decisions:
1. From the onset of the game development, the design concept was all centered around making a Battle Royal kind of game, but using a futuristic battlefield environment. But it was foremost to be an "each player against everybody else" battle royal kind of game. Reason why in the final game we had Specialists heros to choose our ego character on, but no scoreboard, no VoIP, no squad functions, no relevant XP awards at game round, no community features, no clans, no... etc etc... Because all those legacy features are not used in a Battle Royal game. So question remain:
Why call it a Battlefield Game, when it was obviously not and who took that decision, EA or DICE?
2. So the development is not going to plan, and far into the project work it is finally being recognized that relying on the now ancient Frostbite Engine is causing a lot of shortcomings and unstable foundation for this game. So the plug is pulled on all done so far to give the frostbite engine a complete overhaul. All while the global market for Battle Royal gaming is quickly flaming out. So it was decided to repurpose the game from being a Battle Royal game to be a larger team based Battlefield game instead. And now all hands on deck from across the many different studios that EA/DICE could pull from, because only 18-20 months remain after the Frostbite work was done and then still to meet that now illusory deadline to release still by November 2021. So question remain:
Who decided still to keep all that clutter in a BF game now inherited from the misconceived flirtation with Battle Royal, EA or DICE?
3. Now we are getting to February 2021 and we now get that epic messaging released from EA saying that "DICE is way ahead of schedule with development of Battlefield 6..." as the publisher geared up to reveal the title in spring 2022. And yes, despite the very substantial shock and feedback that was provided at the Technical Playtest, EA/DICE stuck to their illusive story line that all was good, we played on a very old build and the release date would stick being November 2021.
Who decided still to release the game despite the very substantial number of game breaking bugs and the very long list of abhorrent missing game functions, EA or DICE?
It is not like this is something new to EA/DICE. They have been down this self-delusional path before. Unfortunately it has only gone from bad to worse. So why should we think they will learn anything from this failure?
Granted, they quickly parted ways with the BF Franchise General Manager and also the lead game designer, both at DICE and both absolutely responsible for this meltdown. But are we to believe that they, two man alone, totally framed EA leadership to think all was well until the very day of full release? That the CFO at EA did not know any better the day he went on stage and proclaimed they were far ahead of schedule? That nobody at EA would be involved to check the bug counts as the testing and beta phases were conducted? That nobody at EA cared to check what the market/tester feedback was telling them? That nobody at EA were involved when the GO/NO-GO decision for full launch was made?
Those that were in leadership roles and just sitting on their hands when this was rolled out the door are as responsible as those that already were shown the door.
And those that kept insisting to release despite the overwhelming indications of the product far from being ready are equally responsible for this meltdown, the destroyed brand reputation and imploded customer base.
@CyberDyme
"Why call it a Battlefield Game, when it was obviously not and who took that decision, EA or DICE?"
For the same reason the Ghost Recon name is now tattered and torn along with Assassin's Creed. Neither games being anywhere near representative of the games that made them king in their genre. Corporate heads willing to cash in on a name regardless of the end result. Look at XDefiant. They went from somehow BSing Tom Clancy's name into that title and then were finally shamed hard enough across the known community to the point that they removed it.
Who decided still to keep all that clutter in a BF game now inherited from the misconceived flirtation with Battle Royal, EA or DICE?
If I were a betting man? EA told DICE they had a hard date for a delivery and they didn't care how it happened. Just put Battlefield in the name. DICE heads then probably looked at each other, said "*" and then decided this was the only way to "meet" those deadlines.
"Who decided still to release the game despite the very substantial number of game breaking bugs and the very long list of abhorrent missing game functions, EA or DICE?"
My guess...EA. They did the same thing with Anthem. It went through development hell and EA chose to force the devs to lie about it by releasing a completely fictitious vertical slice at E3, and then released a corpse of a game.
Overall, I do not expect EA nor DICE to learn from this failure. My real hope is that the core audience does and waits at least a month after release of the next title before spending money. Wait for someone other than Kotaku, IGN, or any other paid shill (who doesn't even play FPS titles) not concerned about clicks more than their integrity to review the title.
The people that were fired were simply the scapegoat/patsy. Someone's head needed to roll and the drew the short guillotine.
If I were a betting man, DICE is potentially going to be the next studio to fall to the EA's Grim Reaper.
"Why call it a Battlefield Game, when it was obviously not and who took that decision, EA or DICE?"
For the same reason the Ghost Recon name is now tattered and torn along with Assassin's Creed. Neither games being anywhere near representative of the games that made them king in their genre. Corporate heads willing to cash in on a name regardless of the end result. Look at XDefiant. They went from somehow BSing Tom Clancy's name into that title and then were finally shamed hard enough across the known community to the point that they removed it.
Who decided still to keep all that clutter in a BF game now inherited from the misconceived flirtation with Battle Royal, EA or DICE?
If I were a betting man? EA told DICE they had a hard date for a delivery and they didn't care how it happened. Just put Battlefield in the name. DICE heads then probably looked at each other, said "*" and then decided this was the only way to "meet" those deadlines.
"Who decided still to release the game despite the very substantial number of game breaking bugs and the very long list of abhorrent missing game functions, EA or DICE?"
My guess...EA. They did the same thing with Anthem. It went through development hell and EA chose to force the devs to lie about it by releasing a completely fictitious vertical slice at E3, and then released a corpse of a game.
Overall, I do not expect EA nor DICE to learn from this failure. My real hope is that the core audience does and waits at least a month after release of the next title before spending money. Wait for someone other than Kotaku, IGN, or any other paid shill (who doesn't even play FPS titles) not concerned about clicks more than their integrity to review the title.
The people that were fired were simply the scapegoat/patsy. Someone's head needed to roll and the drew the short guillotine.
If I were a betting man, DICE is potentially going to be the next studio to fall to the EA's Grim Reaper.
Featured Places
