Battlefield 4 Thread ~ Server details in opening post ~

francky said:
Very true!

when given the choice between:

A) create a game that appeals to as many people as possible and thus make them a large amount of money, which goes into developing further games and ensuring business continuity, while annoying a few elitist nerds that believe a game should be tailored to their needs.

B) make a very niche game that appeals to certain hardcore gamers, with additional content given for free and mods so that community can make more conent, that they as they developer get no benefit from, so that they make as little money as possible from something and possibly go bust in a market that is very hard to make money in.

No brainer from publishers who have to make money to stay afloat.
Click to expand...

quite happily buy DLC/expansions from developers if they released mod tools.

would want to support them.

if they were to release mod tools they would have to start putting effort into their own designs as they wouldn't want to be outdone by the community.

their just ignorant&lazy
 
LOAM said:
Indeed, although I prefer to think that the people who make those decisions see the light and make steps to re-establish the older model. There was several of the guys at DICE that were (still are) very pro MOD tools.
Click to expand...

DICE also said they didn't want to charge for maps, and ended up doing so.

its EA calling the shots. The only way back for battlefield is to find another publisher. And i can't see who else they would go to thats better. Activision ? no. Ubisoft ? No.

What other publisher that is capable of handling massive releases on all platforms would they use ?

I can't think of another except for maybe publishing on Steam. But then what about the massive revenue they get from console sales ?
 
No the BF series is lost on that front since DICE are 100% owned by EA. I cant see EA ever wanting to give up such a cash cow unless it utterly bombs at some point like MOH did, which I cant see happening either.
 
Yes I know they can benefit from Mods.....my point was that in this case, allowing the player base to make maps/content would mean that people wouldnt buy map packs etc, as there would be plenty free stuff coming from the community.
 
francky said:
Yes I know they can benefit from Mods.....my point was that in this case, allowing the player base to make maps/content would mean that people wouldnt buy map packs etc, as there would be plenty free stuff coming from the community.
Click to expand...

That has been shown though to be balanced by additional sales brought on by an active and productive community. Again look at ARMAII / DayZ.
 
They better make Battlefield Bad Company 3. Otherwise I think they have gone too far with B4. I think everyones agrees a BC3?
I cant wait to see what they do (DICE). If its B4, well game over
 
MrLOL said:
How much money has Arma made compared to BF3 or MW3 /BO2 ?
Click to expand...

Well Dayz has 1.66 million unique players, you needed to own Arma II combined operations. That's 1.66 million additional ArmaII sales due to one MOD. Did the BF3 DLC achieve the same additional sales volume?, I don't know.
 
youdsy said:
not a fair comparison.
Click to expand...

Even if you compare just PC sales its clear which is more profitable

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/31777/arma-ii/

Vs

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/35315/battlefield-3/

It's clear BF3 has been much more successful even without mod support. It's just not crucial to a games success.

Once you factor in console sales :

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40231/battlefield-3/
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40230/battlefield-3/

You can see why EA don't need BF3 to have mod tools to succeed, this doesn't include the $$$$$ they got from premium ...
 
LOAM said:
Well Dayz has 1.66 million unique players, you needed to own Arma II combined operations. That's 1.66 million additional ArmaII sales due to one MOD. Did the BF3 DLC achieve the same additional sales volume?, I don't know.
Click to expand...

BF3 has ten times that figure

http://bf3stats.com/

As for the DLC they had more sales of that alone than Arma copies

http://mp1st.com/2012/07/31/battlef...-with-over-1-3-million-subscriptions-to-date/

http://www.vg247.com/2013/01/30/ea-q3-fifa-13-sells-12m-bf3-premium-hits-2-9m-subs/

Nearly 3 million premium members to date (first link was from last year)
 
Last edited:
LOAM said:
Well Dayz has 1.66 million unique players, you needed to own Arma II combined operations. That's 1.66 million additional ArmaII sales due to one MOD. Did the BF3 DLC achieve the same additional sales volume?, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Zero people bought Arma II/Combined Operations before playing DayZ?
 
everyone knows Battlefield is far more popular than Arma. But we have a situation where Battlefield loses fans because of B3. What we need now is BC3. Or Arma 3. Not Battlefield 4 PREMIUM
 
MrLOL said:
How much money has Arma made compared to BF3 or MW3 /BO2 ?
Click to expand...

Hype train/lies and massive advertising sold the trash that is BF3, fans of the past games got sucked in to the Dice hyperbole about it being the true successor to BF2 and it's anything but that. I'm sure they won't fall for the same **** with BF3.5. And of course the console sheep will buy anything thrown at them so guaranteed record sales right there. Thank God ARMA is not on consoles, what a travesty that would be for the PC gamer.
 
Last edited:
RavenXXX2 said:
Hype train/lies and massive advertising sold the trash that is BF3, fans of the past games got sucked in to the Dice hyperbole about it being the true successor to BF2 and it's anything but that. I'm sure they won't fall for the same **** with BF3.5. And of course the console sheep will buy anything thrown at them so guaranteed record sales right there. Thank God ARMA is not on consoles, what a travesty that would be for the PC gamer.
Click to expand...

Question, how many of those that bought BF3 were those expecting a battlefield 2 replacement with commander mode, mod tools, lots of large open maps etc..

and how many bought BF3 because they wanted a decent FPS game that was cool because it had vehicles in it.

Sales of the next battlefield game will tell.

As for Arma being on consoles. Its not consoles that are the problem here. its EA. The game being developed for consoles as well has got nothing to do with why DICE stopped offering mod tools and started charging for maps when previously they had said they never would .....
 
MrLOL said:
Question, how many of those that bought BF3 were those expecting a battlefield 2 replacement with commander mode, mod tools, lots of large open maps etc..

and how many bought BF3 because they wanted a decent FPS game that was cool because it had vehicles in it.

Sales of the next battlefield game will tell.

As for Arma being on consoles. Its not consoles that are the problem here. its EA. The game being developed for consoles as well has got nothing to do with why DICE stopped offering mod tools and started charging for maps when previously they had said they never would .....
Click to expand...

its up to EA whether or not to release mod tools/free maps etc, not DICE.

i expected a BF2 sequel, with PC lead platform because thats what dice said it would be.

i would have happily bought BF3 if it was a sequel to BC2 for a fun shooter.

i enjoy playing BF3 at times. but will never forget the lies that dice dished out.
 
You quoted me saying EA was the problem.

I merely referenced DICE because DICE were the ones going on record saying that the Frostbite 2 engine was too advanced for anybody else to use, when we all knew full well the reason they weren't releasing the tools was because EA said not to,and because EA thought it would damage DLC sales. Thing is, if they had released BF3 exactly as they did, and released mod tools. Somebody would have made a mod that replicated BF2, massive maps, loads of vehicles, commander mode etc..

Would anybody have bought armored kill or premium if this free mod had been available ? I doubt it. It would only have increased DLC sales if the mod needed the DLC. But you can bet mod makers wouldn't have waited for armored kill to make a BF2 mod for BF3.
 
Last edited:
MrLOL said:
You quoted me saying EA was the problem.

I merely referenced DICE because DICE were the ones going on record saying that the Frostbite 2 engine was too advanced for anybody else to use, when we all knew full well the reason they weren't releasing the tools was because EA said not to,and because EA thought it would damage DLC sales. Thing is, if they had released BF3 exactly as they did, and released mod tools. Somebody would have made a mod that replicated BF2, massive maps, loads of vehicles, commander mode etc..

Would anybody have bought armored kill or premium if this free mod had been available ? I doubt it. It would only have increased DLC sales if the mod needed the DLC. But you can bet mod makers wouldn't have waited for armored kill to make a BF2 mod for BF3.
Click to expand...

My opinion on that is that base game sales and server rentals would have increased as people would want to play that MOD. The loss of DLC sales is negated by a more intelligent way of releasing DLC. Rather than just drip release maps the development teams used to release actual desirable content (Zip lines for example) and enhancements to the engine that would be an actual sought after product rather than just unlock content already on the DVD.

Bottom line though is its maximum profit / minimum effort which whilst I dont like I cant blame them for. My opinion is still that there is a viable alternative to the situation that we currently have albeit perhaps no longer with the BF series due to the fact that its become such a commercial behemoth. As you've shown it has an revenue stream from its current DLC structure that could be difficult to compete with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom