6 more years of BFV?

Comments

  • ninjapenquinuk
    2120 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    6 years definitely seems unrealistic but stretching BFV beyond 2 years *IF* they sorted out the bugs and started to bring in the bucks via paid cosmetics i think would be a good option. They failed big time to get BFV out within 2 years and surely EA/DICE aren't dumb enough to repeat that with BF6, so why not stretch it out another year or so whilst they make sure BF6 is fully complete?
    .
    I read somewhere that EA are contemplating doing a paid yearly update for their sports games. Instead of releasing a near identical FIFA each year - which is essentially just a kit and squad update, they would just charge players for an update to the main game (kits/teams/a few tweaks) once a season or whatever, instead of (pretending) to create a new game every 12 months.
    .
    All this would of course rely on DICE/EA actually pumping out enough content.
  • Trokey66
    8799 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    An interesting concept but as some have already said....

    6 years seems a tad of a stretch.

    Firestorm may have to be more accessible to more players outside of the main game. I can't see it being F2P anytime soon but a cheaper stand alone access perhaps? Given that Firestorm is an integral part of BFV as it stands, I don't know how easy it would be to retrospectively give limited access though.
  • BFB-LeCharybdis
    857 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    An interesting concept but as some have already said....

    6 years seems a tad of a stretch.

    Firestorm may have to be more accessible to more players outside of the main game. I can't see it being F2P anytime soon but a cheaper stand alone access perhaps? Given that Firestorm is an integral part of BFV as it stands, I don't know how easy it would be to retrospectively give limited access though.

    Probably not that difficult, when I first bought BF1 it was after the last Apocalypse DLC had dropped and I had the standard edition. I could see the DLC content I just couldn't access it.
    I loved BF1 so much that the next day I went out and bought the Revolution edition.

    You could sell FireStorm for a cheaper price and have it available through the main menu screen but keep everything else locked. If someone loves the BR it's only a matter of time before they'll want to see what the games their locked out of are like.
  • Trokey66
    8799 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    An interesting concept but as some have already said....

    6 years seems a tad of a stretch.

    Firestorm may have to be more accessible to more players outside of the main game. I can't see it being F2P anytime soon but a cheaper stand alone access perhaps? Given that Firestorm is an integral part of BFV as it stands, I don't know how easy it would be to retrospectively give limited access though.

    Probably not that difficult, when I first bought BF1 it was after the last Apocalypse DLC had dropped and I had the standard edition. I could see the DLC content I just couldn't access it.
    I loved BF1 so much that the next day I went out and bought the Revolution edition.

    You could sell FireStorm for a cheaper price and have it available through the main menu screen but keep everything else locked. If someone loves the BR it's only a matter of time before they'll want to see what the games their locked out of are like.

    Not impossible, I only say that because like most on here, I am not a coder so what me seem 'simple' to us could in fact, be a lot more complex in reality.
  • Fas7Eddi3
    125 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The problem is the 2 year cycle. They were so worried with competing with COD in sales and cycle that they pushed to realese an unfinished product. Every launch since BF3 has been a disaster.

    They keep rushing these titles and need more time. I don't know if thats because EA is pushing it (my guess) but they need to wait 3 to 4 years between titles.

    Where they screwed up and they could easily do this while generating revenue is premium. If they released this game with free content for one year great. Then sell premium with more maps etc after one year. This will generate sales and be able to fund the next project as well. All the while giving us more maps and content. The issue now is the content they are currently releasing is sub par. I love firestorm but we need more maps. The tides of war are ok but what we need is maps. Not guns. Maps keep things interesting new fresh.

    Give us the option to purchase more maps after a year. Essentially they could have released a Pacific expansion for 30 to 50 bucks with content and even stretched it a year further with a Vietnam type of expansion after that
  • ragnarok013
    3664 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    I don't think anyone will have such a long support cycle for BF5. Historically the player base even with the large amount of Premium expansion pack content since BF3 has waned around the 18 month mark.
  • munkt0r
    3037 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    munkt0r wrote: »
    A lot of the people in here seem to forget the fact that companies literally operate based on statistical demand.

    Their release cycle is most certainly tied to overall/majority demand.

    In short, they release games this often because people buy them.

    but they didnt, they didnt meet expectations on launch and player churn is even worse than previous titles. i'd say it has more to do with cost associated with supporting an older title such as BF4 while no longer making profit from it. It's got to be a failure in every buisness sense if a previous title is still competing with your new version.
    You're referring to end result, not impetus.  I'm referring to impetus.

    There's no way to base decision making of a potential end result, only former.  
  • trip1ex
    5106 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 2019

    So yeah, a six year development cycle for the game seems like a long time, but it's the same as the gap between 1942 and BF2.
    BF42 came out in September 2002 and BF2 came out in June 2005.  < 3 years.  In between they released 2 expansion packs for BF42 - Road to Rome and Secret Weapons - and they released the other BFV - BF Vietnam.  

    There was 6 years between BF2 and BF3.  But in between they released BF:2142, multiple expansion packs for BF2,  BC1 and BC2 on console and I believe also did other BF games on console like BF1943 and BF:Modern Combat as well as the F2P BF Heroes on pc.  


  • herodes87
    1286 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    herodes87 wrote: »
    Will Not Happen after These Sales Numbers.

    EA wants Money and BFV will Not give it to them with Players already leaving.

    Alot of new People are coming to the gane just for Firestorm

    I highly doubt that the BR Guys Just bought Battlefield while Most BR Games are totally free. Special the Kiddies that prefer spending Money on skins and Not on Money.
  • herodes87
    1286 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    A big rumor is saying that Dice LA is working on BFBC3. Why Not going the CoD way with giving BF to 3 Studios (Dice LA, Dice Sweden and Criterion). Everyone develops 3 years.

    Would be easy for EA and they could Release a BF Game Every year.
  • aseveredfoot
    2462 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Yeah I couldn't take 6 years of this game. It's just not good enough. As of now Firestorm is the only mode I've been playing.
  • Catsonspeeed
    651 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The more they wait, the less of us there will be left. Old grumpy men with another foot on the grave, who were playing Pong days in days out at the local Arcade. So two year development cycle it still is lol.
  • munkt0r
    3037 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    munkt0r wrote: »
    Redstripe101 said:


    munkt0r wrote: »
    A lot of the people in here seem to forget the fact that companies literally operate based on statistical demand.



    Their release cycle is most certainly tied to overall/majority demand.



    In short, they release games this often because people buy them.



    but they didnt, they didnt meet expectations on launch and player churn is even worse than previous titles. i'd say it has more to do with cost associated with supporting an older title such as BF4 while no longer making profit from it. It's got to be a failure in every buisness sense if a previous title is still competing with your new version.

    You're referring to end result, not impetus.  I'm referring to impetus.

    There's no way to base decision making of a potential end result, only former.  
    Then the language in their fiscal findings would have hinted that. Instead they nodded to the 135 million being lost to be recouped in Fifa, EA Access, and The Sims successes and they've all but wiped out their marketing dept in the latest purge.
    It's like you didn't understand a word I said and chose to reply anyways...

    I like a lot of your posts in truth.  You're often spot on.  This time, you're arguing something without understanding what the person you're arguing with is even saying, so it's a bit strange.
  • DrunkwoIf
    306 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    They will pump out a new BF game every year possibly two years until the franchise has been buried. Then from the ashes maybe just MAYBE we might get a good BF game again.
  • Ameriken05
    451 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    They really need to go to true game-as-a-service model and essentially start creating content for multiple battlefields in parallel.  People get all up in arms when someone mentions the word "subscription" but I'm not sure if the old model is sustainable.  I would much rather prefer the same titles continuously improved and added content over the years so you could jump back and forth between WW1, WW2, modern and any other battlefields they introduce us to.  Then you can dip in and out as you like (maybe with some form of premium system).  It definitely beats them introducing a new game every two years with the same bugs, same "fix the bugs" period, and sometimes getting the same maps as DLC.  Picture this BATTLEFIELD service:

    Battlefield 4 becomes the baseline for "Battlefield Modern" and we get everything we had for BF4 but they update the game and continue churning out more content (and theaters).

    Battlefield 1 becomes the baseline for "Battlefield Great War" and instead of it slowly dying off as it is now we get new features (like customization and other new battlefield mechanics) and they keep adding modes/maps until the entire war is covered.

    Battlefield V becomes the baseline for "Battlefield WW2" and instead of being scared of whether or not we are ever going to get the content we want it ACTUALLY does get built out over the next several years to cover the entire war with every single map/theater/faction we could ever want?

    And more eras/battlefields could be added to the mix - all included in some sort of subscription or premium service.  It would be all the battlefield content we would ever need, and if it ever started falling off or not meeting expectations - simple you discontinue your subscription.  The days of expecting a ton of content for $60 every 2 years is over - and the only way we will ever end up with the polished, refined, and EXTENSIVE titles we want is a true Battlefield service.  If it meant I could jump from a WW1, WW2, Vietnam/Cold War, Modern battlefield on a whim - with no bugs and all the guns, maps, vehicles, factions, and others I could ever want  - then yes sign me up!
  • abc1434286920
    447 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:
    this time next year we'll be hearing about the next BF game.
    Cant wait to buy deluxe for the next one.
  • Catsonspeeed
    651 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex said:
    this time next year we'll be hearing about the next BF game.
    Cant wait to buy deluxe for the next one.
    Don't forget to pre-order!
  • DJTN1
    306 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I remember a game development talk a few years back talking about how it was impossible to have a game that they just kept adding guns and maps too because of memory limitations. Maybe they've found a way around that. It would be cool to have a game like that where they just continually add content.

    With new consoles coming out soon, it's hard for me to believe this game will last 6 years.
Sign In or Register to comment.