6 more years of BFV?

Comments

  • von_Campenstein
    6621 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    DJTN1 said:
    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.

    That they could've solved by having chronically correct weaponry and phasing out the old guns as they were in the war when introducing their replacements.
  • TNA_SneakyMonkey
    607 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    trip1ex wrote: »
    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.
    You are, of course, absolutely right - I meant BF2 and 3. I'm not sure what I was thinking to be honest
  • craigerswuzhere
    103 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    They would be so much better off using that time and resources to add new/ more stuff to BF4 or any other older BF title. Someone else said it best, if they put out new expansion packs for BF4 like a Premium part 2, I would happily pay $50 for that.
  • GrizzGolf
    1198 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I really wish they would drop a new game in 2020. 
  • TFBisquit
    1912 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited April 2019
    They probably won’t.
    Pre order sales were dramatically low, modern shooters are done too often, futuristic shooter isn’t on Dice’s wishlist. So what’s left to do?
    Free games earn a lot in micro transactions, they have a ww2 theme with a somewhat modern approach, they could expand it into the future with Korea war and then Vietnam war.
    That would mean they would make it f2p in the future also, to attract a massive player base.
    The seeds are all there, whether it’s something ea wants is a different matter.
    But I wouldn’t expect the next battlefield game to sell well, it’s only downhill from here on.
    It might as well be a realistic idea.
    Btw how is gta5 doing nowadays? When is 6 coming? How many years is gta5 already running live services?
  • Billydoc1
    520 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    BFV has a life of at least 5 years
    the content we can get is HUGE
    nations
    weapons
    tanks
    theatres of WW2
    uniforms
    you name it
  • Vycinas2
    932 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Billydoc1 wrote: »
    BFV has a life of at least 5 years
    the content we can get is HUGE
    nations
    weapons
    tanks
    theatres of WW2
    uniforms
    you name it

    Not without Premium or buying Expansion packs.
  • Ploodovic
    1642 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Ameriken05 wrote: »
    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!

    I’d buy that in a heartbeat. I’d buy the new “seasons”, if the content was released that way. The question is, would it be economically feasible? I don’t know.
  • kohagan1942
    54 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I'm fine with a longer period playing bfv. It would probably be cheaper to design new maps than a complete new game on a much lower budget this time - which I believe would definitely be the case after poor initial sales. EA would be unwilling to match the dev budget of bfv.

    Bfv has solid gameplay. Once we have more maps, I think people should then reassess it and let go of their grudge regarding the launch and Internet herd mentality.
  • SirBobdk
    4672 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    @kohagan1942 wrote

    Once we have more maps


    Depends on the maps. More of the same stuff will not make much of a difference imo.

    But if they add the pacific and eastern front + another 10-15 good designed maps, BFV could end up being a good game.

    I just can't see this happen.

  • JamieCurnock
    693 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I also picked up on that in Jack's video and it did make me wonder at the time but after thinking I can't see this happening tho.

    Where does the money come from for development etc? This would mean they wouldn't sell anything battlefield (other than cosmetics) for another 5 years where as they could release battlefield 6 or whatever it's called in 2020 for another potential 10million plus sales.
  • DrunkwoIf
    306 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    Billydoc1 said:
    BFV has a life of at least 5 years
    the content we can get is HUGE
    nations
    weapons
    tanks
    theatres of WW2
    uniforms
    you name it
    They have already abandoned ship on BFV, there is probably a skeleton crew working on it now and the rest are onto the next money grab. probably the only thing that will be running still later this year will be the BR, because people love BR for some reason.
  • munkt0r
    3037 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    munkt0r wrote: »
    Redstripe101 said:


    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.

    i dont agree there is potential, there is no way of predicting but i doubt i'll come back 2 years later and rebuttal it. i think roadmap spells it out and compared to other games its not looking good to me. the priority seemed to shift
    To that I can agree.  The priorities have clearly shifted over the years, but each shift has been predicated on past data - which was my only point.

  • DirtyDog1974
    316 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Please no, just let this game go the way of HL, die quickly and introduce something decent.
  • Bolly_GB
    85 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I'm still really digging BFV, I've been playing it since launch and I'm looking forward to the PTO and other future content. I'll be playing until the next gen engines come out with another WWII FPS.

    WWII is the best era for an FPS - the biggest conflict in human history, with massive battles and modern weapons.
    Korea - pretty much the same weapons as 5 years earlier and the opposition - Nth Korea & Chinese hoards? In battles that most people don't know about?
    Vietnam - very few stand-up battles. Blokes in black pyjamas camping in tunnels and shooting you in the ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Boring.
    Falklands - over pretty quickly and the Yanks weren't invited.
    Gulf Wars - Iraqi's desperately trying to find reverse in clapped out T54's
    Insurgency's - hanging out in caves to avoid B52 bombs and planting the odd IED.
    Future - the battle has already moved a mile down the road before the troopers get a chance to fight the other troopers.

    You're free to move along if you don't like it, but there are enough players interested to keep this game going. BF1 was good and still going strong, BFV is better, it's a great looking game with awesome gun mechanics and destruction. It's the real deal people, so harden up and get some!
  • Kayback
    367 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    B0110X5 wrote: »
    I'm still really digging BFV, I've been playing it since launch and I'm looking forward to the PTO and other future content. I'll be playing until the next gen engines come out with another WWII FPS.

    WWII is the best era for an FPS - the biggest conflict in human history, with massive battles and modern weapons.
    Korea - pretty much the same weapons as 5 years earlier and the opposition - Nth Korea & Chinese hoards? In battles that most people don't know about?
    Vietnam - very few stand-up battles. Blokes in black pyjamas camping in tunnels and shooting you in the ****. Boring.
    Falklands - over pretty quickly and the Yanks weren't invited.
    Gulf Wars - Iraqi's desperately trying to find reverse in clapped out T54's
    Insurgency's - hanging out in caves to avoid B52 bombs and planting the odd IED.
    Future - the battle has already moved a mile down the road before the troopers get a chance to fight the other troopers.

    You're free to move along if you don't like it, but there are enough players interested to keep this game going. BF1 was good and still going strong, BFV is better, it's a great looking game with awesome gun mechanics and destruction. It's the real deal people, so harden up and get some!

    You misunderstand the events of the Vietnam War.

    And at 32v32 it is hardly the epic large scale battles of WWII. There are probably loads of gunfights in the modern era which match that.
  • Redstripe101
    2749 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    B0110X5 wrote: »
    I'm still really digging BFV, I've been playing it since launch and I'm looking forward to the PTO and other future content. I'll be playing until the next gen engines come out with another WWII FPS.

    WWII is the best era for an FPS - the biggest conflict in human history, with massive battles and modern weapons.
    Korea - pretty much the same weapons as 5 years earlier and the opposition - Nth Korea & Chinese hoards? In battles that most people don't know about?
    Vietnam - very few stand-up battles. Blokes in black pyjamas camping in tunnels and shooting you in the ****. Boring.
    Falklands - over pretty quickly and the Yanks weren't invited.
    Gulf Wars - Iraqi's desperately trying to find reverse in clapped out T54's
    Insurgency's - hanging out in caves to avoid B52 bombs and planting the odd IED.
    Future - the battle has already moved a mile down the road before the troopers get a chance to fight the other troopers.

    You're free to move along if you don't like it, but there are enough players interested to keep this game going. BF1 was good and still going strong, BFV is better, it's a great looking game with awesome gun mechanics and destruction. It's the real deal people, so harden up and get some!

    You purposefully described each as underwhelming. In my 28 months in afganistan, RC South and RC West, I saw a total of 0 caves.

    As it is now, the WW2 era DICE delivered is pathetic. I'd take an actual deployment back to theatre over trying to find enjoyment in BF5 lol
  • GRAW2ROBZ
    2498 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I cant picture them milking BF5 for a few more years. Seems battlefield comes out every two years.  Also XBOX2 and PS5 comes out in 2020.  The way EA is.  I wouldn't be surprised they changed it up and had two DICE teams making a game.  1 every year.  Kinda like COD. So if one game bombs another game be out within the year.
  • trip1ex
    5058 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    They just have a mess and it will take them losing business for them to change course.  Those of us not buying the game are heroes lol.  
  • princemiah
    54 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Vycinas2 wrote: »
    I played BF4 for 5 years (to skip through BF1) with little breaks for Hardline. I cant see myself playing this for more than a year (thats a big stretch) even if they added content. Gameplay is extremely bland with terrible class balance.

    Agree about the gameplay and the class balance, but if a games cycle was more than two years these things could be corrected by a fully staffed Dev team, which would also mean more content.

    I'm by no means a huge fan of BFV, but I do think there's potential here that isn't going to have time to be developed on before they start work on the next one and this whole thing starts all over again.

    6 years is too long, but I think 3 or maybe even 4 years would benefit this title and the next.

    It's just not EAs MO, crank out a new title as often as possible is how they built their empire, why deviate from that because a game could be made better?
    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.

    Agree and again this is just an idea.

    Take the amount of revenue games like Fortnite bring in based purely on things like micro transactions and weigh it against the cost of developing a new game 2 yearly. I believe Apex has made 10 million on its first few weeks alone.

    EA made a mistake not making FireStorm free to play on release when the hype was at its strongest. This is purely subjective but I think FireStorm is a great mode as it stands, with a few tweaks to gameplay to reduce camping and Dice finally getting a grip on the TTD and you have a BR that can stand up against any of the others on the market that are making an absolute fortune.

    The profits from this in turn goes into expanding and improving the main game and continues to be a source of revenue for EA.

    The next game which releases at least a year later isn't almost completely broken at launch, has a better beta, stronger reviews and in turn makes EA a lot more money.

    Reduce camping... Lol. It battle royal.
Sign In or Register to comment.