Battlefield 4

Cerulean said:
I love how most of the people in this thread haven't played BF3 / don't even own it and are raving about how much BF3 sucks and how much BF4 will suck even more. :D
Click to expand...

I love how some people always make assumptions just because the general consensus differs from their own opinion.
 
Too soon,

Battlefield is a kind of a game that should have sequel releases every 4-5 years and not sooner.

EA desperately wants that CoD money, but the problem is that CoD itself is quickly becoming a very tired franchise because of the fast and almost unchanged releases.

I wonder though, is it still going to be released for PS3/360 or the next gen systems?
 
defiant007 said:
What really grinds my gears is the fact that they are more than happy to churn out $DLC and start working on an early sequel, but anything else which involves implementing constructive feedback or addressing fundamental issues is simply abandoned or ignored.
Click to expand...
You have a decent argument, but I have issue with this one statement.
Filtrator said:
Too soon,

Battlefield is a kind of a game that should have sequel releases every 4-5 years and not sooner.
Click to expand...
:facepalm:
Battlefield has NEVER gone 4-5 years between releases. NEVER.

Battlefield 1942 =2002
Battlefield 1942 Road to Rome Ex pack =2003
Battlefield 1942 Secret Weapons of WWII Ex pack =2003
Battlefield Vietnam =2004
Battlefield 2 =2005
Battlefield 2 Special Forces Ex pack =2005
Battlefield 2: Modern Combat (console only) =2005
Battlefield 2 EuroForce DLC =2006
Battlefield 2 Armored Fury DLC =2006
Battlefield 2142 =2006
Battlefield 2142 Northern Strike Ex Pack =2007
Battlefield Bad Company (console only) =2008
Battlefield Heroes F2P (PC only) =2009
Battlefield 1943 (console only) =2009
Battlefield Bad Company 2 =2010
Battlefield Bad Company 2 Vietnam DLC =2010
Battlefield Play4Free (PC only) =2011
Battlefield 3 =2011
Battlefield 3 DLC's =2011 thru 2013

Battlefield 4...sometime in 2013 or later. The last MOH release where Battlefield 3 Beta access was promised, MOH was released in October 2010, and BF3 was released October 2011. Assuming the same deal, BF4 will be released October 2013, a full 2 years after BF3. There has NEVER, I repeat, NEVER, been a battlefield game released more than 2 years after its predecessor. Anyone claiming otherwise is conveniently forgetting about BF:V, BF2142, and BF:BC2. The longest wait between PC releases was 4 years between BF2142 and BFBC2 with console only releases between then. The argument could be made these aren't "true" sequels to their predecessors, but the fact is DICE is constantly making the next battlefield game. They are making the game's that the market demands, between 2006 and 2010, the money was in making console games, so they focused on them during that time. The limits of consoles have been met, now they have to push boundaries and make something new to draw in more customers, so now they are focusing on console AND PC to get more money. BF3 has been more of a cash cow than anything else, so why not make the next Battlefield game be a sequel to it?
 
Raudulfr said:
Really? You include the crappy F2P games, the console exclusives and the expansion packs and expect to be taken seriously?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ok, then going by you logic:

BF1942 2002
BF2 2005

3 years. Or do you have any more arbitrary conditions on what you consider a Battlefield game?
 
Raudulfr said:
Really? You include the crappy F2P games, the console exclusives and the expansion packs and expect to be taken seriously?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The comment I was replying to stated "Battlefield is a kind of a game that should have sequel releases every 4-5 years". Do you see F2P, console exclusives, or expacks included in the statement I replied to? No? Then it should be obvious to you that I was replying to the fact that Battlefield games have always been the complete opposite of what that poster was implying. Notice I did not say "PC versions that aren't F2P" or any other qualifying nonsense you stated in your post. I clearly pointed out that DICE has never stopped putting out Battlefield series games and has put out new content every year since 2002, with sequels no more than 2 years apart.

The only real argument here is which games are sequels to each. The whole argument is truly moot though, since BF Vietnam was the direct sequel to BF1942, and BF2 was actually the third game in the series and a direct sequel to BF Vietnam and BF1942 since there was never a Battlefield 1. It can then be argued that BF2142 is a direct sequel to BF2. The 2, 3, 4 is all semantics, each game is arguably a sequel to the previous release. They could call Battlefield 4 "Battlefield 69: Extreme Suck a Dick Edition", but that wouldn't change the fact that it is the eleventh Battlefield game. Between BF1942 and BF2142, there was no more than 1-2 years between releases. The fact that they continued the trend with console and F2P games for the next 4 years and not non-F2P PC games is a pointless arguement since the precedent was already set by the first 4 games in the series.

My point, in case anyone else missed it (clearly stated in the final paragraph of my last post), is the fact that DICE is making the games that the market ($$) demands at that time period. The first 3 games in the series were PC only (1-2 years apart), followed by a console push interspersed by attempts at F2P, followed by PC and Console simultaneous releases. Despite this, DICE has been pushing out NEW content every year for the Battlefield Series and they started it a year before COD and Activision started doing it in late 2003 . Who's copying who's business model again?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top