Sections

DICE aiming for “12-18 months of value” for BF3

Friday, 27th April 2012 14:25 GMT By Johnny Cullen

Sounds like DICE intends to provide Battlefield 3 players for as long as possible, with CEO Patrick Bach telling VG247 it intends to give up to “12-18 months” worth of value in the shooter.

DICE has the game’s second expansion multiplayer Close Quarters this June. That’s to be followed up by Armored Kill this fall and End Game towards the end of the year. This is after the release of the Back to Karkand expansion last December.

Speaking at last week’s EA European Showcase, Bach, who’s temping as studio CEO while full-time studio boss Karl-Magnus Troedsson is on paternity leave, told Sam Clay that support could extend into 2013.

Word to the wise, though: that could just mean updates, fixing things and that rather than new expansions.

“It’s really hard for me to make bets on how the market will look at Medal of Honor vs Battlefield vs other shooters,” said Bach when answering a question on the now rotating yearly releases between Medal of Honor and Battlefield within EA.

“We at DICE, we only focus on Battlefield. We make sure that if you’re a Battlefield player, there should be plenty of Battlefield for you to spend your days on. And again, we are focusing on giving you 12-18 months of value for Battlefield 3 and the expansion packs we’re releasing.

“So I can’t really say anything about the other tactics about releasing other games because we are DICE, we do Battlefield.”

But could that timeline of up to 18 months extend into two years ahead of an expected new Battlefield game?

“Right now, we haven’t had that planned out yet,” said Bach.

“Depending on what happens, we’ll change things and add to it. We’re very keen on listening to the community and we read all the forums and posts, we make sure we implement any changes that need to be implemented and of course validate through data.

“We have a lot of statistics going on in Battlefield, so we know exactly what’s happening.”

EA’s main shooter effort for the Christmas period will be Medal of Honor: Warfighter in October. Last time round, DICE was heavily involved in creating the game’s multiplayer while Danger Close made the single-player arc.

This time, DICE isn’t involved with the game directly bar “the odd tips and tricks” with Frostbite 2 in Warfighter after the engine’s stunning debut in Battlefield 3 last year. Bach said DICE’s focus with Battlefield was “slightly different” when compared to Danger Close’s real-world events in Medal of Honor.

“I’m not involved in that project directly, so I don’t know what exactly their focus is when it comes to the details. I know they are focusing a lot on the more connecting it to real-world events, which we’re not what we’re trying to do at all.

“I think our focus is slightly different from a high-level perspective. Of course, they are using the Frostbite 2 engine as well so there will be some similarities, of course. But in general, it’s just a different game.”

Battlefield 3: Close Quarters launches this June first on PS3. 360 and PC releases follow a week later. Watch for a video interview on the pack this afternoon.

Latest

14 Comments

  1. Charlie Sheen

    remember when they said 3 years…lol seriously dice you guys fucking suck, all you did with bf3 is hype it up with so much bullshit

    #1 2 years ago
  2. freedoms_stain

    Battlefield 2, released June 2005, last update, September 2009.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. GrimRita

    I do miss playing Battlefield but refuse to install EA’s spyware. But value for who? A friend of mine told me that you can purchase small DLC bundles for like £4.50 a pop – that is alot of cash! No doubt this is the real reason behind their PR bullshit spat with Steam.

    #3 2 years ago
  4. polygem

    i didn´t play bf3. the beta was a huge let down for me. i am sure the final game is much better than that shabby metro map….but i ended up not buying the game eventhough i am a bf fan and couldn´t wait for 3. yesterday night i played some conquest matches again in bfbc2 and really enjoyed it. havent played the game for quite some time. will play a bit more tonite if someone wants to join. on 360.
    that said. i still feel like skipping bf3. i am tempted to buy it but i think i wont be able to enjoy it as much as i have bfbc2

    #4 2 years ago
  5. DSB

    They should’ve given it more time in the oven and really tweaked the balance. That would’ve added a lot more value for me than B2K at least.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. tdrules

    @#4

    http://www.blogger.com

    #6 2 years ago
  7. roni1175

    Personally I think DICE did a great job with this game, to much initial marketing by EA though.

    Making a game that appeal to more crowd is not a bad thing. Some compromises are done and it’s should be acceptable.

    count me in for all 3 expansions…

    #7 2 years ago
  8. noherczeg

    The world isn’t the same place as it was 5-6 years ago. You guys seriously can’t compare software development back then with how it is today. They can’t afford to stick with one project for 5 years, because there are lots of alternatives, or will be for this genre.

    Yes maybe value has something to do with the fact that you played BF2 for 5 years, but back then I bet there were not even as much games out there like it is now. Developmnet has become a faster process because people want more, or what not. The core fans “say” that they want a product wich lasts for 5 year without any investment, but it can’t be accomplished now.

    If this game will last for ~2 years actively then they’ve reached what they wanted imho.

    Also, don’t forget that people wan’t a second part of Mirror’s Edge to, and if I can recall correctly it was developed by Dice, so if you ever want to see a worthy sequel for that they’ll need to split their resources to do that :)

    #8 2 years ago
  9. polygem

    @#6

    http://www.wikihow.com/Be-Funny

    #9 2 years ago
  10. DSB

    @8 What are you talking about? The same games that were out back then are the same games that are out now. Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, Battlefield.

    Publishers obviously want us to believe that the game has changed so they can sell us even more shit we don’t need, but there are plenty of developers who still go the extra mile at their own expense.

    Splash Damage, Valve, Relic and Blizzard support their games long after they leave the shops, and CD Projekt Red are piling on free DLC for nothing but the cost of the original game.

    There’s a big difference between “Can’t” and “Don’t want to”.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. freedoms_stain

    @8, between the 2 dates I listed DICE developed 6 other titles (including Mirror’s Edge), so what the hell was your point again?

    #11 2 years ago
  12. noherczeg

    @10 I was talking about gaming as a whole. Other genres including. Devs are competing in a larger number. It’s just my opinion that they can’t sit on one title for that long.

    Other than that: Valve has microtransactions, Blizzard has wow. It’s really easy to come up with them but everyoe knows where teir money comes from, and yes, maybe they don’t come up with something every year, but they have teir income. So I can’t look at them as what you try to imply to.

    And yes I basicaly said that Dice doesn’t want to, so NO I didn’t try to defend them, I only said that if it lasts for 2 years or more, than its already a great thing considering the trends. Thats all.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. DSB

    @12 Sorry, but that still makes no sense. I count nine micro-transaction titles off the top of my head plus two MMORPGs under EAs roof.

    I also mentioned two other developers, both of which are indies.

    Valve are a private company, so they can spend the money however they want, but Blizzard has to answer to investors just like EA does. The only difference between the two is that Blizzard doesn’t use the market as an excuse to stop supporting their games.

    Business isn’t about relaxing as long as you’re ahead. I don’t know of any business people with that kind of mentality. A lot of the more mechanical companies out there, like EA, certainly wouldn’t agree. For them it’s a question of making more money, all the time, to meet the unrealistic expectations set by investors, slowly setting the bar higher for what you can expect of a public company.

    In the old days you’d call that common greed, and subscribing to that is a choice made by EA. It’s not forced on them by anyone or anything.

    Valve has one micro-transaction title, EA has nine. Valve has a digital retail client. EA has an digital retail client. Blizzard has an MMORPG, EA has two MMORPGs.

    Splash Damage has none of those things.

    CD Projekt Red has digital retail arm selling older and indie games for 10 bucks, with two proprietary titles earning them 100% margins. EA probably has something like 40+ titles earning them 100% margins.

    It’s quite obviously a difference in mentality, not a difference in circumstance.

    #13 2 years ago
  14. jacobvandy

    EA is scrambling, hemorrhaging money. Really wouldn’t surprise me if they take that Korean F2P publisher up on the buy-out offer…

    #14 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.