Battlefield 4 Announced in Medal of Honor: Warfighter Trailer

[the doom cannon]

How is this a surprise? Honestly.

DICE has long ago jumped on the EA "release a virtually identical sequel annually and make sure you don't do anything interesting" bandwagon.

As said before, 3 years is definitely not annual

 

[Waaghpowa]

I know those have been played a long time but does it matter? The ones who keep playing it are the hardcore crowd and those have been sold in the millions. Where are all of those other people now? Obviously not playing their game.

The average peak players per day across CS and CS Source is about 100k people every day. PC numbers only, and not including the people who played CS before steam existed, therefore not account for. TF2's peak numbers are only slightly higher than CS's numbers. For a game that is harder to kill of because of graphical style as you say, it's not being played by many more people than Counter strike. Which I should remind you is over 10 years old, therefore the graphics are VERY dated.

Valve has been supporting CS, CS:S and TF2 for years. They have a staff of ~293 people. DICE has ~ 280. If Valve can support 3 games for 10 years, DICE can easily do one.

Some games are self sustainable. Halo 1 and 2 are still being played on PC because of dedicated servers. You can't play Halo 2 anymore on consoles because they shut down the servers. Remember when people refused to log out of Live so that they could keep the Halo 2 servers up?

No matter how you spin it, Developers not wanting to be "tied down" to one game is code for "we want to get paid more". I have no problem with them making money on the game, but to suggest that creating a new game is a means of freeing themselves is sidestepping the point. Long term support of a game is good for the consumer. Constantly releasing sequels to replace your game is good for the publisher because previous content doesn't carry over and you're in a position to buy more later. Dice could easily make money on expansions, like they're doing now, for 15 dollars each every couple of months and significantly extent the life of BF3.

So if it's only the hardcore crowd playing these games for years, what does this say about the non hard core? That they're willing to pay money for a reskin of the last game as long as it looks different? If you're in favour of repaying over and over again for the same content you've already paid for, good for you. Do what you like with your money.

 

[octafish]

I still don't see why BF4 is coming so soon, unless it is really BF2143 or BF2144 or whatever they want to call it. I don't know if I'll buy another Battlefield game so soon unless it is a major overhaul, what could they add that they couldn't add with more DLC? Apart from squad VOIP on PC and tighter netcode.

I've stated before that I'm interested in seeing another developer make something with Frostbite 2, but I'm not holding out much hope considering how widely the last MoH was panned.

 

[Waaghpowa]

I still don't see why BF4 is coming so soon, unless it is really BF2143 or BF2144 or whatever they want to call it. I don't know if I'll buy another Battlefield game so soon unless it is a major overhaul, what could they add that they couldn't add with more DLC? Apart from squad VOIP on PC and tighter netcode.

This guy get's it. I would give you a cookie but the internet can't transport things like that....yet.

 

[GAunderrated]

I still don't see why BF4 is coming so soon, unless it is really BF2143 or BF2144 or whatever they want to call it. I don't know if I'll buy another Battlefield game so soon unless it is a major overhaul, what could they add that they couldn't add with more DLC? Apart from squad VOIP on PC and tighter netcode.

I've stated before that I'm interested in seeing another developer make something with Frostbite 2, but I'm not holding out much hope considering how widely the last MoH was panned.

Well normally they take feedback from the community and patch it into the game to make it a more enjoyable experience. Now it seems like they are taking the feedback, patching it, and trying to sell it as a new product.

Even bad company 2 had an expansion pack but I guess EA wants to charge full price for it this time. Best of luck to those who buy into this mess.

 

[Siberian Relic]

Lets see, BF3 was released 2011, beta is in Fall of 2013... assuming release date is early/mid 2014, that is a good 3 years of waiting for a sequal. Not even CLOSE to the CoD Model.

What you have to consider, however, is the window between beta release and game release. I didn't participate in the BF3 beta, but I did for Ubisoft's Future Soldier and the Medal of Honor reboot. Those "betas" launched less than two months before the games hit shelves. Given the fact EA is perilously close to the same annual release calender as Activision, it's not at all a stretch to assume the beta for BF4 will be released later in 2013 and the full game could follow mere weeks afterward.

 

[Zefar]

The average peak players per day across CS and CS Source is about 100k people every day. PC numbers only, and not including the people who played CS before steam existed, therefore not account for. TF2's peak numbers are only slightly higher than CS's numbers. For a game that is harder to kill of because of graphical style as you say, it's not being played by many more people than Counter strike. Which I should remind you is over 10 years old, therefore the graphics are VERY dated.

Don't combine CS 1.6 and CSS player numbers. They are two different games and two different player number stats. TF2 has gotten a bit more popular lately as it often was just around 25 000 to 35 000 in player numbers.

CS 1.6 is most likely only popular now these due to two things.
1: An old classic that people will not let go off.
2: Has competitive scene.

If Nr 2 would go away I'm sure the players would drop as well.

Valve has been supporting CS, CS:S and TF2 for years. They have a staff of ~293 people. DICE has ~ 280. If Valve can support 3 games for 10 years, DICE can easily do one.

Valve has only really supported TF2 these past few years.
CS 1.6 has been officially been put on the "We will not support this game anymore" several years back.
CSS hasn't exactly gotten any map packs in the past few years either. So there isn't much support there other than a few bug fixes every now and then. Still back then the game was in a fine condition already so not all that useful.
The beta that started some year ago or two made a lot of people angry though and made them quit the game.

Some games are self sustainable. Halo 1 and 2 are still being played on PC because of dedicated servers. You can't play Halo 2 anymore on consoles because they shut down the servers. Remember when people refused to log out of Live so that they could keep the Halo 2 servers up?

Yes I've read about that but the players got their money worth.

No matter how you spin it, Developers not wanting to be "tied down" to one game is code for "we want to get paid more". I have no problem with them making money on the game, but to suggest that creating a new game is a means of freeing themselves is sidestepping the point. Long term support of a game is good for the consumer. Constantly releasing sequels to replace your game is good for the publisher because previous content doesn't carry over and you're in a position to buy more later. Dice could easily make money on expansions, like they're doing now, for 15 dollars each every couple of months and significantly extent the life of BF3.

I'm sorry but I like NEW things to play. A game getting patches and support over time will not just magically make me play the game unless there is some game changing content to it.
Also the public crowd are far larger than the hardcore one. So the only consumers who wins on this are the hardcore people. Which are in a minority.

So if it's only the hardcore crowd playing these games for years, what does this say about the non hard core? That they're willing to pay money for a reskin of the last game as long as it looks different? If you're in favour of repaying over and over again for the same content you've already paid for, good for you. Do what you like with your money.

Often it's not just a reskin. Only the Call of Duty series have been re skins of the previous game and it's just the last ones in the series. Which I don't even play anymore. Last one was Black Ops and I only got it due to the SP part. It was ok.

But if we where to do what you suggest we might not have gotten.

Counter Strike Source
Unreal Tournament 2004
Quake 3
Half-Life 2 Episodes 1 and 2.
Battlefield 2 and 2142 because the earlier ones was still being played.
Bad Company 2 for PC.
Diablo 3
Starcraft 2
+Many many more.

The graphic of the games would be stuck in the past and the same goes for physics. So really, sequels are just fine in the gaming industry.

 

[Waaghpowa]

-

I didn't say I was against sequels. Anything they could do with BF4 they could simply add to BF3 unless it's a massive overhaul. The fact you want new things is irrelevant. If BF4 isn't going to add anything new, then there's no point of it existing.

Many of those games you listed had several years between games. Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 were actually about 15 years after. Diablo 2 and Starcraft were being played by a large number of people all the way up until the sequels release. Starcraft is actually considered a national sport in Korea, which millions played even before Starcraft 2.

Also Valve only supporting TF2 these last few years? The game was released in 2007, they been supporting it ever since.

Also the public crowd are far larger than the hardcore one. So the only consumers who wins on this are the hardcore people. Which are in a minority.

They win by being informed and principled. If you're ok with being the loser, all you need to do is keep being the loser. Don't change anything, just let them walk all over you as a consumer.

People still play games like Counter strike because they're good games. A good game last for ages, poor games disappear after a short time. The fact you don't enjoy CS doesn't make it any less good. There's a reason why it still played competitively.

"Got their moneys worth". So we'll just render a game unplayable once we believe you've gotten your "moneys worth". Exactly how long does it take for someone to get their moneys worth? Apparently the publishers are saying 1-2 years.

 

[DTWolfwood]

EA: Battlefield, Medal of Honor Serve Different Audiences [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118514-EA-Battlefield-Medal-of-Honor-Serve-Different-Audiences]

Yeah they serve different audiences which is y you promote your BF game in with your MOH game <.<'

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I'm curious as to what they can actually offer in this next game. Even though I'm not a fan of Battlefield.

Also, lets all be cynical when we actually learn something about the game shall we?

Captcha - friend zone

Hey thanks for reminding me, jackass.

 

[Siberian Relic]

Lets see, BF3 was released 2011, beta is in Fall of 2013... assuming release date is early/mid 2014, that is a good 3 years of waiting for a sequal. Not even CLOSE to the CoD Model.

What you have to consider, however, is the window between beta release and game release. I didn't participate in the BF3 beta, but I did for Ubisoft's Future Soldier and the Medal of Honor reboot. Those "betas" launched less than two months before the games hit shelves. Given the fact EA is perilously close to the same annual release calender as Activision, it's not at all a stretch to assume the beta for BF4 will be released later in 2013 and the full game could follow mere weeks afterward.

Even so, it is still HARDLY close to being CoD release schedule. CoD releases a new game every 12 months (under the Call of Duty Name). Battlfield releases a new game... every 2 to 3 years. That is three times longer than Call of Duty.

I never said Battlefield. I said EA. And they've been at annual releases for just as long as Activision:

2005 - Battlefield 2
2006 - Battlefield 2142
2007 - Medal of Honor: Airborne
2008 - Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 - Battlefield 1943
2010 - Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2010 - Medal of Honor Reboot
2011 - Battlefield 3
2012 - Medal of Honor: Warfighter
2013 - Battlefield 4 (beta)

 

[BBboy20]

Lets see, BF3 was released 2011, beta is in Fall of 2013... assuming release date is early/mid 2014, that is a good 3 years of waiting for a sequal. Not even CLOSE to the CoD Model.

What you have to consider, however, is the window between beta release and game release. I didn't participate in the BF3 beta, but I did for Ubisoft's Future Soldier and the Medal of Honor reboot. Those "betas" launched less than two months before the games hit shelves. Given the fact EA is perilously close to the same annual release calender as Activision, it's not at all a stretch to assume the beta for BF4 will be released later in 2013 and the full game could follow mere weeks afterward.

Even so, it is still HARDLY close to being CoD release schedule. CoD releases a new game every 12 months (under the Call of Duty Name). Battlfield releases a new game... every 2 to 3 years. That is three times longer than Call of Duty.

I never said Battlefield. I said EA. And they've been at annual releases for just as long as Activision:

2005 - Battlefield 2
2006 - Battlefield 2142
2007 - Medal of Honor: Airborne
2008 - Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 - Battlefield 1943
2010 - Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2010 - Medal of Honor Reboot
2011 - Battlefield 3
2012 - Medal of Honor: Warfighter
2013 - Battlefield 4 (beta)

Nobody was really giving a damn about MOH at the time (perhaps most still don't) and not to mention the modern warfare scene didn't exactly explode 'till MW2 became the highest successful something ever. To think about it, we weren't exactly in an genre phase 'till after MW2.

Besides: laughter, laser guns, next-gen WW2, killing in the name of cotton candy fun, playing regular BF for free, getting shot at by exotic bushes all seem like an much more interesting kind of milking then playing another generic modern, no personality shooter in a span of 3 years.

 

[Siberian Relic]

Lets see, BF3 was released 2011, beta is in Fall of 2013... assuming release date is early/mid 2014, that is a good 3 years of waiting for a sequal. Not even CLOSE to the CoD Model.

What you have to consider, however, is the window between beta release and game release. I didn't participate in the BF3 beta, but I did for Ubisoft's Future Soldier and the Medal of Honor reboot. Those "betas" launched less than two months before the games hit shelves. Given the fact EA is perilously close to the same annual release calender as Activision, it's not at all a stretch to assume the beta for BF4 will be released later in 2013 and the full game could follow mere weeks afterward.

Even so, it is still HARDLY close to being CoD release schedule. CoD releases a new game every 12 months (under the Call of Duty Name). Battlfield releases a new game... every 2 to 3 years. That is three times longer than Call of Duty.

I never said Battlefield. I said EA. And they've been at annual releases for just as long as Activision:

2005 - Battlefield 2
2006 - Battlefield 2142
2007 - Medal of Honor: Airborne
2008 - Battlefield: Bad Company
2009 - Battlefield 1943
2010 - Battlefield: Bad Company 2
2010 - Medal of Honor Reboot
2011 - Battlefield 3
2012 - Medal of Honor: Warfighter
2013 - Battlefield 4 (beta)

Nobody was really giving a damn about MOH at the time (perhaps most still don't) and not to mention the modern warfare scene didn't exactly explode 'till MW2 became the highest successful something ever. To think about it, we weren't exactly in an genre phase 'till after MW2.

Dude, no, you don't get to modify the scenario by flippantly saying, "Well, no one really cared about X and Y." Major releases are major releases. Work is work. Especially since, as you brought up, the Call of Duty franchise exploded with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. The very next year, DICE developed both Bad Company 2 and the multiplayer for Medal of Honor.

 

[Zefar]

I didn't say I was against sequels. Anything they could do with BF4 they could simply add to BF3 unless it's a massive overhaul. The fact you want new things is irrelevant. If BF4 isn't going to add anything new, then there's no point of it existing.

But the way you said "People where still playing BF2" you made it sound like companies should not even bother with sequels until the game is dying. This just isn't fun for the those who are not hardcore and wants to play the same game every day for the entire year and then do that in like 5 years. That is just too much to ask for.

Many of those games you listed had several years between games. Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 were actually about 15 years after. Diablo 2 and Starcraft were being played by a large number of people all the way up until the sequels release. Starcraft is actually considered a national sport in Korea, which millions played even before Starcraft 2.

Yes there was a long time between those but you still brought up Battlefield 2 against BF3. So I'm gonna pick older titles as well.

Point was, if games where being massively popular there was no need for a sequel because it the old game is still being played.

Also Valve only supporting TF2 these last few years? The game was released in 2007, they been supporting it ever since.

I meant that it was the only game out of those 3 that's been supported for the past few years. CS 1.6 hasn't gotten any patches for several years by now. Don't remember when they officially announced that they would stop updating it.
CSS just got some bug fixes or so and nothing else. TF2 got all the love on the other hand.

They win by being informed and principled. If you're ok with being the loser, all you need to do is keep being the loser. Don't change anything, just let them walk all over you as a consumer.

Ugh, I'm not a loser just because I don't play a game for several years. In fact I did that in the early days because I had little to pick from and when you where smaller things where more fun. Now those older games do not hold up that well against some of the newer titles. No, I'm not comparing them to Modern Warfare series.

People still play games like Counter strike because they're good games. A good game last for ages, poor games disappear after a short time. The fact you don't enjoy CS doesn't make it any less good. There's a reason why it still played competitively.

The reason it's played competitive is because it uses few guns(Having lots of them just make it harder to learn them all), easy to learn, a team game and plugins works quite nicely.
Pro people are afraid of change and this can be seen EVERY single time something is changed. Every time something was changed in CSS the pro people whined about it. I saw it happen all the time.

"Got their moneys worth". So we'll just render a game unplayable once we believe you've gotten your "moneys worth". Exactly how long does it take for someone to get their moneys worth? Apparently the publishers are saying 1-2 years.

I never claimed they should do that. It's also rare for a popular game to become unplayable online. 1 to 2 years of gameplay time should be quite fine if you pay $60 for it.

Still games MP part being locked down is quite rare and often it's just a few people left playing it. They will though make a huge fuss about it.

 

[Waaghpowa]

-

You've dragged this on far longer than it should since my initial comment was "There's nothing they can't add to BF3 unless they're making some huge changes for BF4" to which you responded with a "Blarg 2 years update I want new things!". The whole point was the releasing a game every 2 years does not make it new. Especially in the case of Battlefield 3, releasing a 4 != new.

Ugh, I'm not a loser just because I don't play a game for several years. In fact I did that in the early days because I had little to pick from and when you where smaller things where more fun. Now those older games do not hold up that well against some of the newer titles. No, I'm not comparing them to Modern Warfare series.

You said

Also the public crowd are far larger than the hardcore one. So the only consumers who wins on this are the hardcore people. Which are in a minority.

I said "Well stop letting the publishers step on you". Based on your comment, I can assume that you meant that the hardcore are the winning consumers, therefore unless you are not hardcore, you are the loser. I didn't call anyone a loser, you did as not winning usually means losing.

So unless you can provide some ideas as far as content for BF4 that would justify the making a sequel beyond "Because I want something with a new number on the end to make it look new" there's no reason for me to continue this. This has gone way off the original comment and you have yet to provide anything sufficient contrary to my original comment. I don't see you pestering Octafish for basically saying the same thing as me.

 

[thethird0611]

This does not make me happy... well kinda. I actually picked up premium because of the map packs, and hoping for alot more longevity from BF3. Hopefully it will be a long beta for BF4, until possibly 2014, just because I actually want to make more use of premium.

 

[the doom cannon]

I really don't know why everyone's making such a big deal out of this. Dice has been releasing a game or large expansion every year since bf1942.

2002: 1942
2003: 1942 Road to Rome; 1942 Secret Weapons
2004: Vietnam
2005: 2; 2 Special Forces; 2 Modern Combat
2006: 2 Euro Forces; 2 Armored Fury
2006: 2142
2007: 2142 Northern Strike
2008: Bad Company
2009: Heroes; 1943
2010: BC2; BC2 Vietnam
2010: BF Online
2011: P4F
2011: 3; 3 Back to Karkand
2012: 3 Close Quarters

I feel like this is all really misplaced EA hate(completely unwarranted with regards to Battlefield). I mean just look at the release history. Let's all stop trying to be cool and hate on EA without actually looking stuff up? Nah that's not gonna work.

Divert all power to Flameshields!