EA CEO: Battlefield 3 Is Designed to Take COD Down

[Nedoras]

The logic behind this industry simply fascinates me. By that I mean that it leaves me tilting my head and completely confused. I don't understand why they think copying a game that became really profitable, will automatically make their game really profitable. Sure you'll make some profit, but nowhere near as much. It baffles me even more when statements like this are made saying, "You know that really really profitable game that made a lot of money? Well we're going to copy it, and make EVEN MORE MONEY. We're going to smash them into the dirt and take first prize, because we're making a better experience." I wonder what makes them think like this. Surely you can't hope to beat the competition simply by copying them. Just look at MMORPGs for example. All of those MMOs that claimed to be "WoW killers", ended up not even being serious competition because they just copied WoW. After all, why play a knock off when you can play the real thing? Copying is seriously not the way to go. DICE should just focus on making Battlefield 3, not Battlefield: COD Sucks I'm Awesome.

 

[Shellsh0cker]

Hopefully DICE is focused on just making a good game. Obviously EA hopes it will kills COD, but that doesn't necessarily reflect the attitude of the devs. Still, I find it kind of nice that EA is being up-front about their intent here, even if they're still idiots.

Yeah, it will fail. Bad Company didn't take the crown. Medal of Honor didn't take the crown. This won't take the crown.

Your just digging yourself a giant-ass hole. And now I'm worried the quality of Battlefield will suffer. Do you know how Call of Duty 4 stole "most profitable shooter" from Halo? They did something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from Halo. Your not going to win by offering an experience thats just like the competition. You idiots.

Quoted for truth.

 

[DevilWolf47]

I could have sworn the shooter crown was still being worn by Valve. Portal is a better "Shooter" than Battlefield or COD will ever be. And what about Half-Life 2? Maybe Bethesda has it. Fallout 3? Maybe Irrational Games has it for BioShock. Call of Duty never had that crown is what i'm saying. Yeah Modern Warfare was good, but there was never once a point when Call of Duty beat all competition.

That being said, i'm with the poster of the thread. DICE should be making it's own titles, the hell with Call of Duty. Do they really want to die with the reputation as being the Family Guy of first person shooters?

 

[Shadie777]

2142 was my first FPS and the last one i actually enjoyed. I was mediocre at best but i loved that game and i was getting good when they canceled any notion of expansions, extra maps, and work. My PC was built to run that game. If i had to stick my right hand on a stack of bibles i would swear that was the last original idea they had; for all i know it was.

*checks wikipedia*

Heroes was ok until EA sunk its talons into it. Over all that was a good one.

Battlefield 2142 was the first game I played on the pc. I was depressed when they abandoned it like that. The memories of destroying my first titan with my team is still embedded in my mind.

 

[FallenRainbows]

Redo BF2142!

This, do this! I love 2142!

 

[Pebsy]

Do keep in mind guys, this is EA saying this, not DICE the developer. When EA says this, they talk in terms of marketing, supply channel,s different pricing strategies, etc. Head over to the BF3 site, check out some of DICE's videos and you'll see that DICE is entirely focused on making the greatest game of all time, and EA is dead set on making sure everyone knows it. Its a deadly combo.

 

[DevilWolf47]

I could have sworn the shooter crown was still being worn by Valve. Portal is a better "Shooter" than Battlefield or COD will ever be. And what about Half-Life 2? Maybe Bethesda has it. Fallout 3? Maybe Irrational Games has it for BioShock. Call of Duty never had that crown is what i'm saying. Yeah Modern Warfare was good, but there was never once a point when Call of Duty beat all competition.

That being said, i'm with the poster of the thread. DICE should be making it's own titles, the hell with Call of Duty. Do they really want to die with the reputation as being the Family Guy of first person shooters?

It sold the most apparently therefore CEO'S view it as king. If it is king it must be emulated directly to maximize profits, then blame gamers when it fails to do so.

There are countless COD and Halo clones clogging up the arteries of the FPS market at this stage though. What the fuck do they think they can accomplish? The company that made the original COD series is dead, and Treyarch will never be able to make the COD 4: MW lightning strike again, so trying to copying Call of Duty at this stage is like trying to copy the fucking Hindenburg. If anything Square Enix has a better shot at claiming the FPS crown now that they own Eidos and IO Interactive and are reviving the Thief and Deus Ex franchises.

 

[Valiance]

Do keep in mind guys, this is EA saying this, not DICE the developer. When EA says this, they talk in terms of marketing, supply channel,s different pricing strategies, etc. Head over to the BF3 site, check out some of DICE's videos and you'll see that DICE is entirely focused on making the greatest game of all time, and EA is dead set on making sure everyone knows it. Its a deadly combo.

This was the first thing I was going to point out. Thanks for saying it in a more elegant way than I would have.

Secondly, I would like to encourage the readers of this article and thread to please realize that many games were designed to be alternatives or to "beat" the competition. Sometimes it's designed to be an improvement of a game, like WoW being a "better Everquest," for example. Other times, the game is released to be in direct competition with another game, such as Rock Band vs. Guitar Hero or Sonic vs. Mario, say. There's also the occasion that similar enough games that just happen to come out around the same time that they create a rivalry, such as Quake 3 Arena and Unreal Tournament (released within 6 days of each other, and providing similar experiences).

My point is that this sort of thing has happened before and if anything, it was a good thing. Trying to blatantly copy the competition isn't really a good thing, but trying to improve on their model or create a better game which will appeal to players of that model is an admirable cause. BF3 could very much be its own game, and that game as it stands alone might just be a "CoD-killer." It's not like they're sister games that are separate but equal, such as Pokemon Red & Blue, they are legitimately different experiences tailored to the same demographic.

 

[dmase]

The shooter franchises always seem to fall and a new one rises to take the helm they can barely ever truly compete with one another. At least we're past WWII for the most part.

 

[Valiance]

I could have sworn the shooter crown was still being worn by Valve. Portal is a better "Shooter" than Battlefield or COD will ever be. And what about Half-Life 2? Maybe Bethesda has it. Fallout 3? Maybe Irrational Games has it for BioShock. Call of Duty never had that crown is what i'm saying. Yeah Modern Warfare was good, but there was never once a point when Call of Duty beat all competition.

That being said, i'm with the poster of the thread. DICE should be making it's own titles, the hell with Call of Duty. Do they really want to die with the reputation as being the Family Guy of first person shooters?

It sold the most apparently therefore CEO'S view it as king. If it is king it must be emulated directly to maximize profits, then blame gamers when it fails to do so.

There are countless COD and Halo clones clogging up the arteries of the FPS market at this stage though. What the fuck do they think they can accomplish? The company that made the original COD series is dead, and Treyarch will never be able to make the COD 4: MW lightning strike again, so trying to copying Call of Duty at this stage is like trying to copy the fucking Hindenburg. If anything Square Enix has a better shot at claiming the FPS crown now that they own Eidos and IO Interactive and are reviving the Thief and Deus Ex franchises.

While you or me might not want the CoD/Halo clones, they still sell well, so the publishers still think we, gamers as a whole, want more of them. So they'll help out a developer making a game similar to CoD or Halo, or at least feel less at-risk if they put out a game that has a shot of being "the next" CoD or Halo.

I am much more excited about Deus Ex 3 or a Thief sequel than I am about a new CoD or Halo game, but there's no denying that Square would be lucky if it sells 1/20th the amount that CoD7/BF3/MoH10 will.

 

[Vakz]

Don't listen to this guy, EA are just full of idiots. DICE will do their thing, BF3 is gonna be great, and not a single fuck was given regarding whether it's better than CoD.

 

[Baresark]

What a fucktard.... in order to beat CoD, you would need to embrace there love of the most common denominator.... and that in turn makes the games suck (see what I did there?). I liked what the head of Dice had to say about it, that they weren't trying to compete with CoD, and they just wanted to make a game the community would love. They also said they are concentrating on the PC version of the game, and not on consoles. That is a much smarter model.

I need this to be good.... and I need all EA CEO's to stop being fuckin' artards and not talk to community. Just sit there and collect your massive paycheck, I don't mind as long as you don't fuck with the games I actually like.

 

[Vrach]

I don't know why that statement was necessary tbh. I mean don't get me wrong, I consider Battlefield a far superior product multiplayer wise, I always have. And the BF3 singleplayer looks pretty good, probably better than what CoD will churn out, if MW2 and Black Ops are any indication (I found BO singleplayer so boring, I actually couldn't bring myself to finish the damn thing).

That all said, unless Battlefield throws out what makes it Battlefield (large maps, vehicular combat, capture the bases mode), and I REALLY don't think it will, it'll just not appeal to as big a market. Particularly due to the fact CoD is an already known franchise and people tend to stick with what they know.

Personally... I'm rooting for them. I'll definitely be buying BF3, been waiting for it a long time and still having fun with BFBC2 atm (hoping BF3 brings back the planes though, missing them). To be frank, they DO have a chance at it. CoD could churn out another shitty sequel by then and their fanbase could get sick enough of it to try something else out. Hell, a good portion of their playerbase might even be willing to do that right now, seeing all the complaints everywhere. But it just doesn't seem to be a goal to set at the point where we know next to nothing about the game itself.

 

[mitchell271]

This is going to be lame. Redo BF2142!

no, it's going to be awesome. i sincerely hope that BF3 takes down CoD. Activision only care about that franchise and they're killing the industry.

BF2143. DICE. Do it. do it the same way you did BF1943.

captcha: eadoing crack (no joke)

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

Why are all you people so fucking negative about the whole thing? Do you feel you have somehow advanced beyond shooters or you're better than them and all of their fans? Fucking Elitists. You aren't, so stop saying stupid shit about games that aren't even out yet. You're the reason gaming forums get so shitty. /anger

Also, have any of you people even seen the BF3 (pre-alpha) trailers? Simply amazing.

This game isn't going to be a clone of anything. Remember BF2 came out 6 years ago. It's the original developers making their game the way they want to. I believe there were more people online on BF2 in 2005 than CoD2.

Regarding Medal of Honor, after replaying it, I seriously think reviewers wanted to make it look bad in front of Black Ops. MoH was not a 9, but neither was Blops, and look how many better reviews Blops got.

And considering they waited this long to get the right technology to even make the game says something about DICE. They could've just spat out any shooter they wanted to be BF3, and be on BF5 by now, but they waited, and waited, and so did their fans.

 

[TheJwalkR]

Prediction: Battlefield 3 will offer many of the same weapons, armaments, and vehicles as BFBC2.

So, why buy it if it will offer the same experiences as the last installment?

By the looks of it you have never played Battlefield 2. That is the reason it is going to be a different experience. The addition of 64 person multi player, large maps and jets transform the game from a frantic shooter into an epic battle.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Prediction: Battlefield 3 will offer many of the same weapons, armaments, and vehicles as BFBC2.

So, why buy it if it will offer the same experiences as the last installment?

Because according to EA, "sandbox games", like the openness of Bad Company, suck. Linearity for all!

This is looking less and less like a battlefield game. They can call me when they remake 2142.

 

[Saintcole]

hahahah its only good to have a dream DICE, I love you but your fighting a big geeen monster here.

 

[jsnfloyd]

Prediction: Battlefield 3 will offer many of the same weapons, armaments, and vehicles as BFBC2.

So, why buy it if it will offer the same experiences as the last installment?

By the looks of it you have never played Battlefield 2. That is the reason it is going to be a different experience. The addition of 64 person multi player, large maps and jets transform the game from a frantic shooter into an epic battle.

I've seen it played in person. Personally, I'm not a fan of large open maps for multiplayer action. Many times, as a player, I'm forced to trek long distances or wait on vehicle to spawn. Once near the hotbed of the action, I may get a couple of kills, but most likely die then repeat the above scenario. Squad spawn is a nice feature, but 'randoms' in many instances don't utilize it, because they are unfamiliar with other players. Also, from many of the experiences I've had, it is very difficult to co-ordinate strategy in big games, which is a huge turn off for casual players that just want to hop into the action.

I've found that smaller-based multiplayer games like Shadowrun and Halo offer better team experiences. The larger the multiplayer support the less impact random players have on the game and becomes an experience tailored more for clans or guilds who can co-ordinate actions. Battlefield 1942, the arcade game for Xbox 360, was pretty good though at offering larger scaled battle, but kept intense action. The level design was more suited for that though. IMO better than any battlefield I've played.

You're right though, earlier installments in the Battlefield franchise were something different to CoD. That's why I think Medal of Honor has fallen flat on its face. It didn't offer anything different from the CoD experience and it wasn't better. As much as people may harp on CoD or on Halo, they both have the best aim mechanics and gun feedback for console shooters. That's part of the reason, I think, they've done so well. The game mechanic is highly polished even if people aren't a fan of the gameplay.

 

[Balaxe]

So someone who works at Ea says that EA's next shooting will beat Call of Duty. Where have I heard that before...