server setting info. Small but talks about ranked vs unranked ect.

[Apache Warrior]

Unfortunately, we need people to be able to play against... I played BF2 competitively, and long into BC2 coming out... I only moved to BC2 once I ran out of people to play on BF2. It is not just the game itself, they need to keep the community alive. It's kind of like if you admin a server poorly, no one will play there. You need to keep people coming back, and if that means all the customizations they have been adding with BF3 and BF4, I don't really care, as long as it keeps servers populated so I have people to kill.

I am still going to use the class I need for the situation at hand, and for weapons, I am going to pick the weapon that has the best balance of rate of fire versus bullet velocity, as long as the recoil or damage dropoff at range are not extensive. From there on it is pure gameplay skill, it has nothing to do with gadgets.

If they would support the BF Series long term, they might have a stronger and longer lasting community. EA is notorious for dropping support for the newest BF Series game not long after it is released. They might do better to emulate Valve.
Apache

[NateTheBrewer]

If they would support the BF Series long term, they might have a stronger and longer lasting community. EA is notorious for dropping support for the newest BF Series game not long after it is released. They might do better to emulate Valve.
Apache

That seems to be what they are trying to do, so building in this kind of variety out of the gate allows them more paths to add things later... With all of the arguments that BF is becoming more like COD, I don't think the customization / upgrade stuff or membership based premium content are a good argument, because many games are doing that. People want it, and it is just one 'checkbox' to mark when listing off the features to make sure the game can do everything that COD or other shooters do, plus 100 times more. It prevents someone from being able to say 'well, BF is cool but it doesn't have this, this, and this, but COD does'.

[Rand{CLR}]

If they would support the BF Series long term, they might have a stronger and longer lasting community. EA is notorious for dropping support for the newest BF Series game not long after it is released. They might do better to emulate Valve.
Apache

+1

The argument that BF is becoming more like COD is very pertinent, and I'm not sure what you mean by "many games are doing that." The COD games are all still high sellers but they're so generic and just bad now that trying to be more like COD for popularity reasons is not a good place for a developer with a successful series of their own to be. EA and DICE should instead concentrate on their own strengths. Nobody else is trying to get the type of battle map and capture points that BF has because nobody else does it as well. Stand on that strength and build on it.

Nate, your first sentence actually speaks to Apache's point. EA isn't out there to support the game long term. They are ALREADY looking at the next thing--the DLC. They don't really care about the main game much at this point, that's already clear and quite unfortunate. Unless you really think they're going with an October beta to actually fix problems in the game before an October release. They physically can't--the game has to go gold during the beta period if not before to get the physical discs pressed for the console kiddies. If we're lucky we get a massive Day 0 Patch. If we're lucky. This pattern of theirs is just continuing with BF4, it's not getting better.

-Rand

[Apache Warrior]

If they were truly supporting the game the DLC would be free and all players and servers would be able to use them as addons. By making players buy the DLC's they fracture the community and show that they are only interested in the bottom line.
Apache

[goldenfooler]

Apache I don't think they can afford to run things as free DLC anymore. Just look at CS:GO and they were asking people to donate money to the people making the maps. The maps on CS:GO had plenty of bugs and such. They also are alot simpler then BF maps.

[Qicmee]

DLC purchase required?
This was true even back with BF2. I didn't like it then or now, for all the reasons already mentioned.

Zero Day patch after beta
I believe there will be a series of patches during and after the October marketing beta (stress test). With the developers requiring every player use Origin, I assume their patches can be smaller & more frequent. TBD whether they will enable intelligent server updates.

[NateTheBrewer]

+1

The argument that BF is becoming more like COD is very pertinent, and I'm not sure what you mean by "many games are doing that." The COD games are all still high sellers but they're so generic and just bad now that trying to be more like COD for popularity reasons is not a good place for a developer with a successful series of their own to be. EA and DICE should instead concentrate on their own strengths. Nobody else is trying to get the type of battle map and capture points that BF has because nobody else does it as well. Stand on that strength and build on it.

Nate, your first sentence actually speaks to Apache's point. EA isn't out there to support the game long term. They are ALREADY looking at the next thing--the DLC. They don't really care about the main game much at this point, that's already clear and quite unfortunate. Unless you really think they're going with an October beta to actually fix problems in the game before an October release. They physically can't--the game has to go gold during the beta period if not before to get the physical discs pressed for the console kiddies. If we're lucky we get a massive Day 0 Patch. If we're lucky. This pattern of theirs is just continuing with BF4, it's not getting better.

-Rand

When I say many games are doing that, I am mainly talking about the customization - Crysis, COD, even Mass Effect had it to some extent. People like tweaking things. And I don't really think it hurts the core gameplay model. Everyone is going to use the most effective 1-3 weapons for a class with the most effective upgrades, regardless of the 50 other choices they have... and if it keeps the people who tend go from game to game as new content delivery decreases, then that is a great thing.

The premium content thing is mainly in reference to COD, but I still say that if you want to play ball, you have to have everything the competition does and then some.

I know I am in the minority thinking that they are actually doing a good thing in the advancement of the BF franchise... So I am not trying to sway others to my opinion, I just want you to understand where I am coming from, so I don't just seem crazy.

Having a successful game franchise means 2 things:

1. You have to evolve and grow the product - add to and improve upon the core gameplay, add content, do anything you can to keep it from becoming stale. It looks like with their new release, the COD franchise is finally realizing that they can't rest on what is basically a pretty version of quake team deathmatch with gadgets and stats. Hell, the first generation of HL and CS had stats, Goldeneye had gadgets, and Crysis had weapon customization.

2. You have to keep the fickle gaming community as long as possible. Having a player base is vital for an online multiplayer gaming franchise. It is almost like a beast that feeds itself - the more players it has, the better the player experience. Having a big player base means more 'salesmen' that will get their friends to play the game, more interest from clans/communities to host servers on the game, more of a reason to develop and improve upon anti-cheat and admin tools, and more of a reason for the producer of the game to keep investing in the franchise. A decreasing player base is like a virus - as the base decreases, the players still there have less and less reason to stay (because they have a harder and harder time finding players to play against).

That investment part is very important... I am not just talking about them investing in development of the existing game, I am talking about the franchise as a whole... The strategy of ongoing releases keeps the community around, and in many cases keeps money in the developers pocket... So when we see less and less development on the existing game, they are still developing their franchise, it's just that more resources are going to the next game, so that they can keep the player base of the franchise strong. Keeping the community going with ongoing content releases is not ONLY about making money, it is about keeping the number of people up in the community so that you have all of those people ready and willing to transition into the next game in the series (the more early adopters the better).

Having seen the BF community swell and shrink through multiple games (on a large scale and small - this happened at my old clan, as well as here), in my opinion they have actually improved upon ongoing support immensely. If you look at BF2's expansions, they were piss-poor... Unimaginative map designs and reskinned weapons, player models, and vehicles (except for a few additons for special forces). Then they released 2142, and for a while supported them simultaneously (releasing updates for both around the same time), but then eventually stopped releasing an update for BF2 with each 2142 update. Because of this, adoption of them was not high, so the people that easily get bored with the 'same old same old' moved on to other games..

With the release of BC1 I was honestly afraid we were never going to see another true BF game again... My guess is they got enough interest in the Battlefield type of gameplay (albeit not really the true style, but at least a little resemblance) and decided to get a little closer to it with the release of BC2... BC2 had Vietnam, which was an expansion with HUGE changes - I think the only reason it did not last is due to lack of continued map releases... They should have released more as DLC later, or released less up front, then some later on.

BF3 was a jump back into the water, and luckily (not just for them, but for us who enjoy playing BF games) it was a great success. Yes, there are COD'ish elements with certain maps, but you can avoid them altogether if you want, and only play Conquest Large - true Battlefield in my opinion.

I don't think BF4's development or the buzz around it would be as big if BF3 was and still is so successful, and part of that is because they have kept people playing with these DLC releases.

Battlefield is a moneymaker for EA and DICE, and to be honest, I am totally glad. I love the fact that I don't have to fear that the Battlefield game I am playing will be the last one ever. I love the fact that I can go on and find servers with players. I love the fact that there are still streaming anticheat services that are getting updated (and yes, these do work contrary to popular belief - when on servers running multple ones of these I see people getting auto-kicked all the time... just because someone kicks your ass does not mean they are cheating). I love the fact that the content stays fresh.

To keep getting new Battlefield of any flavor, and keep people playing it so we can have opponents and teammates, it needs to make money... I do not mind spending it to keep the franchise going, and keep me playing my favorite series. I am really happy that the series which played second string to COD is finally perched to be the first string.

As for the beta, yes the game discs are already made at that point, but it is still a necessity. It does indeed let them encounter bugs that do not present themselves until you have a huge playerbase... And they can in turn release day 1 patches (which the digital distribution will have included anyways, and if you are on PC there is no reason to own a disc). This is the nature of the beast... not just for gaming, but for software as a whole. Back in college I did a comp-sci ethics paper on the change in software releases, beta testing, and patching as broadband internet connections become increasingly available.

I wish I still had it, because I actually have solid numbers to back this up - but the findings were that as broadband internet availability increased:

Beta testing length (in time) decreased
Bugs discovered in beta decreased
Bugs discovered post launch increased
Software patches increased on around a 1:20 ratio

My main case studies were gaming and operating systems, but it is prevalent across the software industry. Be glad we get an open beta, and a day 1 patch... If there is no open beta, the trend is to have a small closed beta, then what can often be termed a 'soft launch'... Where the software is released and then they pick up the pieces (identify and fix bugs) after the fact - in some cases months later.

I am just saying that problems with software on day 1 is not a Battlefield thing, it's a software industry thing.

[goldenfooler]

The only thing I dislike in change from BF2/2142 models is how quickly you level up.
I liked when to get a rank you had to have 20 hrs as commander or X amount of time in X vehicle.

[NateTheBrewer]

The only thing I dislike in change from BF2/2142 models is how quickly you level up.
I liked when to get a rank you had to have 20 hrs as commander or X amount of time in X vehicle.

I liked that as well... the jump from NonCom to CO was like you needed to set aside a week to do... But they do have to keep the ADD folks occupied.

Perhaps they could have them in tiers? So like various levels in private and corporal were quick, then a huge jump to sergeant, then a huge jump to lower CO levels, then a BIG jump to things like General?

With the sea warfare, you could mix in Navy ranks too with requirements of using sea vehicles, etc...