I love games with mods but not every game has to support mods. I don't think anybody expected for Battlefield 4 to support mods when the previous game didn't.
Battlefield 4 Won't Support Mods
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
True, you could see it as corporate evolution.Amir Kondori said:
Then: Battlefield 1942 - modding is hugely popular. Even recognized by EA in 2004.
Now: Battlefield 3 and 4 - You might get banned if you mod our game. NO, you HAVE to play with the blue filter.
Well, I simply will not be purchasing Battlefield 4. The series has become a rather souless repetitive mess in the attempt to compete with CoD anyways. Once the corporate suits get their slimy hands on something they really know how to fuck it up proper.
That's fine. I won't 'support' Battlefield 4. It's really that simple.
DICE has thrown the entire franchise into the doghouse with no vision over its eventual outcome. I loved Bad Company 2 multiplayer to death, despite my dislike for the 'no-mods' policy - it was kinda fine, it wasn't a numbered Battlefield game, the third one would get it... right? Nope. But fine, all they had to do is make BC2 with planes and larger battlefields. That's all I wanted. But no. They had to fuck it up. They fucked it up and gave me no opportunity to fix it for them for free - all so they could sell some bullshit DLC that they could have sold anyways.
I'm not as excited for ARMA 3 as I should be, due to all the inherent flaws that game has - but at least Bohemia doesn't give me the finger when I purchase their product. DICE can do whatever they want, but they won't receive my money. (And to be clear, my gripe is with DICE, not EA - EA is a whole different pile of shit.)
DICE has thrown the entire franchise into the doghouse with no vision over its eventual outcome. I loved Bad Company 2 multiplayer to death, despite my dislike for the 'no-mods' policy - it was kinda fine, it wasn't a numbered Battlefield game, the third one would get it... right? Nope. But fine, all they had to do is make BC2 with planes and larger battlefields. That's all I wanted. But no. They had to fuck it up. They fucked it up and gave me no opportunity to fix it for them for free - all so they could sell some bullshit DLC that they could have sold anyways.
I'm not as excited for ARMA 3 as I should be, due to all the inherent flaws that game has - but at least Bohemia doesn't give me the finger when I purchase their product. DICE can do whatever they want, but they won't receive my money. (And to be clear, my gripe is with DICE, not EA - EA is a whole different pile of shit.)
They don't have to exist. Should they? Yes. In every single one. "Less game is more fun for me!"Capitano Segnaposto said:
OT:
I think the escapist should keep name-dropping Natural Selection 2. That game deserves all the free advertising it can get. It's so great that such an awesome game came from a mod-able game. Hmph, if only EA didn't live for DLC, maybe it'd happen here, and give EA a whole new franchise.
It's not like DOTA is popular or anything.
I like how it doesn't support mods because there are known cheaters out there that's an undeniable fact right there yet this community obviously shouts and rages to the heavens even though the game is coming to PC and not being locked to one console so I suppose no one in gaming can ever be satisfied and happy if at all, shame really.
So...a game with an engine that absolutely screams a full out My Little Pony mod (destroying Celestia's castle with an AH-64D Apache piloted by a cute Pegasus? Hell yes!) or something interesting like a White House Down type scenario doesn't have this capability... for what reason?
Against cheaters? Cheaters will always be around, regardless. Hell, I've had morons aimbot me with M14s from well over effective weapon range, so that doesn't help. And this was BF3 BTW.
DLC? I guess so, after all, BF3's DLC I think cost more than the base game itself. And EA isn't about to fuck up their dwindling money pile (o wait- they have!)
EA being dicks in general? Well, considering they let Origin out the bag & thought it was a good idea to fuck up multiple studios along with backing some serious garbage policies, can't see why not.
I'm honestly trying to figure why EA doesn't allow modders. Skyrim has a MASSIVE mod community to the point there's probably someone wondering why they can't make an ancient underworld evils (Orcs, Dragons, Imps, etc.) against modern military might kind of thing on some Reign of Fire shit with the power of Frostbite 3.
Against cheaters? Cheaters will always be around, regardless. Hell, I've had morons aimbot me with M14s from well over effective weapon range, so that doesn't help. And this was BF3 BTW.
DLC? I guess so, after all, BF3's DLC I think cost more than the base game itself. And EA isn't about to fuck up their dwindling money pile (o wait- they have!)
EA being dicks in general? Well, considering they let Origin out the bag & thought it was a good idea to fuck up multiple studios along with backing some serious garbage policies, can't see why not.
I'm honestly trying to figure why EA doesn't allow modders. Skyrim has a MASSIVE mod community to the point there's probably someone wondering why they can't make an ancient underworld evils (Orcs, Dragons, Imps, etc.) against modern military might kind of thing on some Reign of Fire shit with the power of Frostbite 3.
Never has the truth been so concise and complete.wulfgar_red said:
Granted, I can't really blame EA and BF4. They look amazing, so they must've thrown the GDP of several small third-world countries in order to get that kind of graphical fidelity. Therefore, they need to sell as much DLC and copies as possible to recoup those costs.
In short, STOP MAKING BIG BUDGET TITLES AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO FUCKING SELL UNREALISTIC FIGURES AND SHOVE DLC DOWN OUR THROATS TO MAKE A PROFIT.
That's not how modding works. In order for a mod to be implemented in the game, the mod has to be installed on the server. Mods have absolutely nothing to do with cheating.Yuuki said:
Team Fortress 2 supports mods and I rarely run into a cheater while playing that game. TF2 uses Valve's Anti Cheat, which is an efficient system to ban cheaters from playing the game online regardless of server.
They don't want to do it because they're not 100% confident they can do it right.
Problem: They'll never know if they can until they try...
Problem: They'll never know if they can until they try...
This is a really good point. Everyone aged > 20ish(?) today will remember the thriving mod community that 1942 and (to a much lesser extent) Vietnam had and it was certainly the game that got me interested in mods and PC gaming in general. BF1942 should have died very quickly, but it persisted because of that aspect, and the same goes for BF2. This wasn't a bad thing, it was just good games becoming great, in modern terms it was awesome and free DLC that was constantly being updated. I guess EA looked at this and thought it meant less of a market for newer iterations of a franchise.Oskuro said:
I dislike how PC gaming is slowly becoming console gaming with a mouse and keyboard. Even RTSes, once the go-to genre for modders, have been dropping mod support for pricey DLC. I'd start gaming more on consoles if games weren't so much cheaper on PC, seriously, that is almost the only difference nowadays.
edit: But yes, I know I'm living in a fantasy dreamworld and big companies need to keep on recouping their huge operating costs annually with assembly line sequels. But I need to rant at this issue, it sucks.
Dude, Forgotten Hope 2 and Project Reality both shit all over Battlefield 3 in terms of game design, in a game where jets can glide incredibly slow and chase infantry with their machine guns then there isnt much else to expect from it. Mods are really good to tweak things if they are needed and BF3 really needs a lot of tweaks, unfortanly BF4 looks like it will have the same flaws.Kalezian said:
EDIT:
They want to protect their engine?
Then give the people modding tools.
Not doing it will only result in people cracking open the engine to be able to make mods.
Then give the people modding tools.
Not doing it will only result in people cracking open the engine to be able to make mods.
It depends a lot on how things are set up.MeChaNiZ3D said:
Remember the whole Battlefield 3 thing where DICE said the game was too complex for mods, and the community said "nuh-uh, we can handle it", and then DICE explained that you'd need multiple high-end computers just to compile a map, and even then it would take days, and even then it would probably crash and require multiple attempts. And that they'd need to pay millions of dollars for different licensing agreements for the middleware they use (like physics engines). And that it would take up to a year of development time to get the development tools into a user-friendly state. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.299016-DICE-Says-No-to-Mod-Tools-For-Battlefield-3?page=3#11875552]
What you need to keep in mind is that in a lot of cases, the tools that companies use for internal development are not designed to be used by anyone outside of the company, meaning that they may be incredibly confusing or have horrific bugs that you need to know how to avoid. It's not as simple as saying "here, the game is open for mods, have at it"-- it's incredibly difficult to pull it off without building the engine to support it from the ground up, and the Frostbite engine... well, it wasn't designed for that. Even the BF3 mod that's referenced in the news post only claims to unlock pre-existing dev tools that allow you to do things like adjust lighting, and are not full-fledged mod tools.
I think this is what they're talking about when they say "we don't want to do it unless we can do it 100%". Any mod tools they released would either be extremely limited, leading to complaints, or so convoluted and buggy that people would complain even more. Or both.
That's not to say that they shouldn't support mods, but it's far from trivial to do so, and saying "how hard can it be" is not an effective argument to make.