Support NeoGAF

[IbizaPocholo]

EA says releasing a new Battlefield game every 2 years ‘probably makes sense’ | VGC

But CEO Andrew Wilson says players should “think about Battlefield as a service” and teases “free to enter components”…

www.videogameschronicle.com

During EA’s first quarter earnings call on Wednesday, the company was asked if it’s thinking of returning to releasing a new Battlefield instalment every two years.

“I think that is our orientation but more importantly I think you should think about Battlefield as a service,” CEO Andrew Wilson responded.

“You know, what we’re doing for the launch of this game is really revolutionising and reinventing what all our epic scale warfare is in the context of gameplay.

“In addition to that, we’ve announced Battlefield Portal, which really starts to lean into user generated content and will drive deep, long-term engagement in the game.

“And while we’ve announced Hazard Zone, to date we haven’t disclosed a lot about what’s going on there, and you’ll hear more about that in the coming months.

“You should understand that this really forms the foundation of what we believe the future of live service around Battlefield is, which over time will include a mobile launch, will include some free to enter components, and really change the nature of what happens from launch to launch.

“So that while an every other year launch probably makes sense if we think about it today, we’re really focused on 365-day engagement in the franchise at a platform level across any device that consumers may want to play on.”

 

[Imtjnotu]

 

[Kerotan]

I think 3 years is perfect. But I'm glad they're not embracing the shitty as Rainbow 6 siege approach.

 

[jaysius]

It's really sad that this is what the apex of gaming is, not better games with greater production values, but same games with 0 risk and almost no innovation shat out on a set basis instead of allowing genuine creativity to be the driving force.

 

[Calverz]

I think 3 years is perfect. But I'm glad they're not embracing the shitty as Rainbow 6 siege approach.

Why what’s wrong with the siege approach??

 

[ozz ex machina]

I think 3 years is perfect. But I'm glad they're not embracing the shitty as Rainbow 6 siege approach.

You mean the approach that results in a consistent playerbase with an ever evolving meta which has a steady cadence of solid updates?

Sound awful.

 

[Guilhermegrg]

No it doesn't make sense. Not enough time between releases to actually do anything properly. Take a 5-6 year hiatus, support your game properly, really take the time to actually develop and test the next iteration, add something new or different.

 

[R6Rider]

As long as they keep Portal going as it's own entity.

 

[Artistic]

Why what’s wrong with the siege approach??

Only reason I stopped playing because I'm not paying $30 for each new season. Feel the DLC is OD.

 

[Fare thee well]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......







Zzzzzzzz

 

[Kerotan]

You mean the approach that results in a consistent playerbase with an ever evolving meta which has a steady cadence of solid updates?

Sound awful.

It was great for 3 years but after it gets stale as fuck and needs a sequel built from the ground up.

 

[TheMay30thMan]

Bold move in the age of longevity.

 

[Halo is Back]

Nah, that sounds unrealistic. EA has the memory of a goldfish.

 

[jigglet]

Only reason I stopped playing because I'm not paying $30 for each new season.

I'm curious what you thought you were paying for?

 

[Artistic]

I'm curious what you thought you were paying for?

I knew what I was paying for, I purchased Year 1 and 2. Just think the DLC kind of went overboard as far as the amount of operators. I know you can unlock with normal gameplay, but it's very grindy.

 

[SlimySnake]

2 years isn't enough time to rebuild from the ground up. They need to do three years break like they did between bf4 and bf1 and bfv and 2042.

Then have a separate team make battlefront on a 3 year cycle. Give it to LA dice team instead of having them redo maps and dlc.

And finally titanfall on a 3 year cycle. Alternate between the three so EA has a big shooter every holiday season.

 

[Calverz]

Only reason I stopped playing because I'm not paying $30 for each new season. Feel the DLC is OD.

The battle pass? Why would you buy this? You just buy new operators with renown.

 

[ozz ex machina]

It was great for 3 years but after it gets stale as fuck and needs a sequel built from the ground up.

That’s not a viable method for a shooter with an actual competitive scene. Just look at cs.

Also there has been some huge changes to siege compared to cs. Football and mainstream sports don’t have radical changes each few years and I don’t think it’s logical to expect that from competitive games.

 

[Kerotan]

That’s not a viable method for a shooter with an actual competitive scene. Just look at cs.

Also there has been some huge changes to siege compared to cs. Football and mainstream sports don’t have radical changes each few years and I don’t think it’s logical to expect that from competitive games.

It is though. A massive portion of the original fans from the first few years have said fuck it and quit the game.

If you want to keep old, new and future fans you need to make a new game not keep the same old shit forever. They reached the stage where they were remaking old maps instead of new ones and bringing in new operators that were basically doing the same shit a different way. That's the tell tale sign it's time for a new game built from the ground up with much better graphics, better servers.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

Yuk, That's slimy.

 

[Artistic]

The battle pass? Why would you buy this? You just buy new operators with renown.

Takes forever to unlock with renown.

 

[Calverz]

Takes forever to unlock with renown.

Well yea but it’s free and u don’t need every single operator since the usual suspects get banned anyway. Clash for example.