EA: We don’t want to disturb Battlefield 3 devs with “marketing and PR”

Tuesday, 3rd August 2010 20:42 GMT By Johnny Cullen


EA’s refused to confirm to VG247 if Battlefield 3 will be revealed at gamescom this month, saying it wants to give developer DICE more time to “craft the game” without marketing and PR.

The publisher said last week that a beta of the shooter will be included with the release of Medal of Honor in October, the game’s first mention.

But while refusing to say explicitly whether or not it’ll be in Cologne in two weeks time for the firm’s press conference, it’s not sounding very hopeful.

“Battlefield 3 is one of the most anticipated games in the world, and we want to give the dev team as much time and privacy to craft the game without disturbing them with marketing/PR,” EA said in a statement.

“In the meantime, everyone is excited to launch MOH and we hope you’ll play that beta and enjoy that game this fall.”

Other then last week’s news of the beta, nothing has been revealed of the game.

Medal of Honor releases in October for PS3, 360 and PC.



  1. BraveArse

    Allowing a game’s development to get well underway without being pinned in a corner by marketing and PR? Wow – that must be a first.

    #1 4 years ago
  2. onlineatron

    I’d like to see if BF3 can set itself apart from BFBC and MoH’s online portions.

    DICE are talented, but those two titles seem eerily similar.

    #2 4 years ago
  3. DeSpiritusBellum

    Yeah, beta invites have nothing to do with PR, EA are just being nice… Mhm.

    EA is really starting to sound like the Soviet Union.

    @2 True, but I think the MOH Beta handles a lot better. Those are made on the same engine though, DICE are overhauling it for Battlefield 3.

    #3 4 years ago
  4. LOLshock94

    i would like BF2s gameplay but i still like BFBC2s gameplay im not bothered what gameplay it is just want a battlefield game

    EA i love but when are u guys goin to be tossas

    #4 4 years ago
  5. Grimrita

    @2 – lets hope so. BC2 is ok but those 10ft wide hit boxes piss me off. I dont really care what DICE say, the pc version feels like a console game.

    I pray that BF3 wont stick two fingers up at its bread and butter PC crowd with a shoddy port.

    #5 4 years ago
  6. JimFear666

    fuck DICE beta. They suck at shipping a games without any bug that make the game unplayable, immagine a beta now…
    I played the beta of moh and it was fucking horrible. Of all the beta i played in my life, the moh beta was by far the worst of all.

    #6 4 years ago
  7. jacobvandy

    Battlefield 3 ought to be way different than Bad Company 2. It needs bigger maps, 64+ players, more air vehicles, a commander, etc. If it’s not going to be an exclusive, it needs to at least be designed around PC and then ported to consoles later.

    #7 4 years ago
  8. LOLshock94

    they obv wont make it exclusive i think it was the ps3 and xbox 360 versions of BFBC2 were on the charts and there wasnt any on pc but obv pc would get 64 players while console versions will have 24 players

    and BF has always been designed on pc then ported on consoles thats why BFBC had so many glitches on console

    #8 4 years ago
  9. Artheval_Pe

    The US Charts don’t take PC sales into account, that’s why you didn’t see the game there.

    As far as BF3 is concerned, the fact that it is going to ship on the consoles makes me fear a clear lack of ambition from the developers part.

    Hell, no game has managed to provide a more ambitious experience than Joint Operations and the Desert Combat Final mod for BF1942 back in the day…

    There are a lot of excellent ideas in all these games and we lack a game that could do justice to the concept of Joint Warfare on a broad scale. With Battlefield 3, I am expecting things like a complex command system, multiple controlables warships, hundreds of players on each map, huge maps and things like naval battles between carrier groups, or giant ground battles between joint forces.

    There are games that offer experiences that are getting close to that on the PC, but I don’t see that happening on the consoles anytime soon, or even being desired there… So I don’t take the announcement for BF3 as a multiplatforme game as good news. I don’t expect Battlefield 2.1, but a game that really takes the experience to the next level. A lot of people have been expecting that since 2005, hell, even since Desert Combat Final is available.

    #9 4 years ago
  10. DeSpiritusBellum

    @5 Definitely. Personally I thought the worst choice they made was the major focus on destructible environments, while crippling the guns with both dispersion and recoil. That’s basically pushing people to stick to the 40mm and the launchers.

    It’s not rare that a game ends up like a Team Fortress 2 match. It gets pretty silly.

    #10 4 years ago
  11. RoyBrown

    Last time I visited Dice back in.. I think it was May last year, they already had 48 player matches running on consoles.

    So no, it won’t be 24 player on consoles.

    It would totally defeat the whole purpose of BF3.

    BF3 = Gigantic BFBC2.

    #11 4 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.