it use to be the difference. But BF3 has a single player story mission too... so i guess the only difference between the 2 now is the 3 stooges that follow you around from the BC series.Andronicus said:
Analysts Suspects EA Will Start Annual Battlefield Releases
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Bullshit. They're basing that off thin air just because DICE said it wants to compete with CoD. It's just stupidity stemming from the fact those analysts are stuck in the mindset of "if you wanna compete with someone, you've got to do the exact same thing as them".
I can see expansions and DLC map packs, but yearly releases of Battlefield? Would easily put my money down that ain't happening.
I can see expansions and DLC map packs, but yearly releases of Battlefield? Would easily put my money down that ain't happening.
I really don't want anyone but DICE to handle the BF franchise! If they want to continue messing with MoH, fine, that's ruined already, but stay the hell away from BF!
I don't think this is going to happen though. EA should be above that. Let DICE work on mirror's edge 2 and let the BF franchise stand tall with BF3 for a while.
That said, I must say I'm liking EA less and less. They bought up all of my favourite companies and gave them a bunch of money. That was simply awesome! Then they start to mess with the dev. I'll say right now, if BF3 isn't perfect I will lose all faith in EA, and it would seem I was one of their biggest fans, given that most can't look past EA sports.
I don't think this is going to happen though. EA should be above that. Let DICE work on mirror's edge 2 and let the BF franchise stand tall with BF3 for a while.
That said, I must say I'm liking EA less and less. They bought up all of my favourite companies and gave them a bunch of money. That was simply awesome! Then they start to mess with the dev. I'll say right now, if BF3 isn't perfect I will lose all faith in EA, and it would seem I was one of their biggest fans, given that most can't look past EA sports.
They better not fucking do this. I like Battlefield and Dice way more than Call of Duty, and seeing them make games to be 'COD killers' not only breaks my heart but is a really bad business strategy.
Though that said, this was predicted by an 'analyst'. Those idiots couldn't predict the fucking sun rising if it burnt off their face.
Though that said, this was predicted by an 'analyst'. Those idiots couldn't predict the fucking sun rising if it burnt off their face.
I doubt it, activision only has one established FPS name (COD) so they'll churn that thing out every year.
EA has a lot of known FPS franchises, battlefield, bad company series (i'll count that different because it's a spin off to BF), and MOH. I think they'll just rotate between releasing these three. Activision might cut down their COD releases when bungie starts coming up with more franchises for them, because for now activision might be bigger but EA has more variety of games than activision
edit: also if ea wants to make battlefield yearly they'll just sell expansion packs
EA has a lot of known FPS franchises, battlefield, bad company series (i'll count that different because it's a spin off to BF), and MOH. I think they'll just rotate between releasing these three. Activision might cut down their COD releases when bungie starts coming up with more franchises for them, because for now activision might be bigger but EA has more variety of games than activision
edit: also if ea wants to make battlefield yearly they'll just sell expansion packs
Pretty much, it's the same but different, much like Black Ops is the same but different than Modern Warfare.Andronicus said:
New characters, new story, slight changes, but mostly the same.
While Battlefield 3 definitely seems to have had the time and polish to be extremely solid, if they start doing annual releases you can count me out. CoD has already gone to hell, and I'd really rather not see the same thing happening with DICE's work.
That being said, as others have stated in this thread this is all just the musings of an analyst...and goodness knows why anyone bothers listening to those guys anyways. Game industry analysts seem to just state as much inane BS as they can, hoping that one of them will be accurate enough to actually work out to some semblance of truth.
That being said, as others have stated in this thread this is all just the musings of an analyst...and goodness knows why anyone bothers listening to those guys anyways. Game industry analysts seem to just state as much inane BS as they can, hoping that one of them will be accurate enough to actually work out to some semblance of truth.
No.
Even IF Battlefield were able to take down COD, (Which it can't and shouldn't), we would not be in any better a position. EA thinks that they have gamers on their side to fight the "evil" Activision, so they somehow think that if they were top dogs we'd all be okay with it.
Nothing will change. It would still be a shooter monopoly, only the name would change.
Even IF Battlefield were able to take down COD, (Which it can't and shouldn't), we would not be in any better a position. EA thinks that they have gamers on their side to fight the "evil" Activision, so they somehow think that if they were top dogs we'd all be okay with it.
Nothing will change. It would still be a shooter monopoly, only the name would change.
And they somehow acquire the rights to be the only game to feature guns, shooting and bullets. Thus allowing them to churn out titles without innovation while forcing any would-be competing titles to use things like pie throwing, squirt flowers and inflatable hammers instead of realistic modern weapons.
