Battlefield to be an annual release?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72434 posts) -

EA are now asking input from fans, but the CFO said himself it would make the quality dip compared to what it is now

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/20/ea-asks-if-battlefield-should-be-annualised

#2 Edited by kbaily (13042 posts) -

My husband, who's an FPS fan, got tired of Call of Duty because it was an annual release where Battlefield had a bit more of a break between installments thus making it feel less "milked" and as we saw with CoD and a lot of Activision games for that matter, is they make yearly releases with only minor changes, if that and run it into the ground. Activision did this with Guitar Hero and in turn, took the music game genre down with it. Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if EA made BF a yearly release as it sells as much as CoD, but they're asking for trouble. Then again this is EA, look at their sports division to see they're not above cranking out the same game year after year with only minor changes and getting the drooling masses to shell out $60 for it.

#3 Posted by AvatarMan96 (7324 posts) -

I say no. Keep it at every 2 years minimum. I'd hate to see it turn into Call of Doodie.

#4 Posted by Jacanuk (4748 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

EA are now asking input from fans, but the CFO said himself it would make the quality dip compared to what it is now

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/20/ea-asks-if-battlefield-should-be-annualised

LOL honestly i dont think it will make any difference if they release it each year or every 2nd-3rd year.

The game still sucks and probably will continue to suck for sp gamers.

#5 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18523 posts) -

R.I.P. DICE. I just hope they manage to release Mirror's Edge 2 before EA sinks them completely by bogging them down on Battlefield.

#6 Edited by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

They should probably patch BF4 before starting on 5.

#7 Posted by CoquiNegro (173 posts) -

I heard battlfield 4 dropped nearly 65% in sales. If that is true, there is no chance of that happening. Even more interesting is that Cod: ghosts also had a 40% drop in sales.

#8 Edited by kbaily (13042 posts) -

@CoquiNegro: Well that could be a sign that both series are peaking and consumers are starting to get burnt out on them. Remember when Medal of Honor was a super popular series? Especially when WWII shooters were the thing? But as it pumped out sequel after sequel, people got burned out on it. Then CoD came along with a new breed of WWII shooter and everyone started to gravitate towards that, then Modern Warfare showed up and basically modern war took over the FPS genre and WWII games disappeared. Medal of Honor even tried it's hand at a modernized shooter to compete but it did badly and was quickly forgotten. Warfighter wasn't it?

This does seem to be the natural cycle of things in a lot of modern game series. A new game comes out. It redefines a genre. It has a few good sequels. It's a big seller for a while. The company milks it as much as they can and eventually people will get burned out on it and it's usually around this time that another game in a similar genre comes around, introduces something new and draws people in. The question is, what will it be and when? Destiny maybe?

This is where Rockstar was smart with the GTA series. They could've easily taken Activision and EA's route and released yearly sequels and probably made just as much money, but they held off, waited until they could add a lot of new elements as well as give us time to "miss it" as the saying goes "how can I miss you when you don't go away?" If GTA was a yearly release, I think we'd get sick of it as well.

But if EA made BF a yearly release, people would definitely get sick of it and it would turn into CoD.

#9 Posted by Jacanuk (4748 posts) -

@CoquiNegro said:

I heard battlfield 4 dropped nearly 65% in sales. If that is true, there is no chance of that happening. Even more interesting is that Cod: ghosts also had a 40% drop in sales.

Please let this be true because then i have restored faith in the gaming humanity :)

And it looks like we are finally over this trend with fps games.

#10 Edited by The_Last_Ride (72434 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

EA are now asking input from fans, but the CFO said himself it would make the quality dip compared to what it is now

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/20/ea-asks-if-battlefield-should-be-annualised

LOL honestly i dont think it will make any difference if they release it each year or every 2nd-3rd year.

The game still sucks and probably will continue to suck for sp gamers.

i still like the series

#11 Posted by Flubbbs (3155 posts) -

i dont think Dice can even handle Battlefield 4 yet and they have had 2 years to develop this one.. its broken as hell

#12 Edited by iHarlequin (1789 posts) -

There's a reason the quality leap from Call of Duty to Battlefield is considerable: the latter has more development time. Between quality and having to shell out USD 60,00 a year on a game that doesn't really change between iterations (let's be honest, there aren't any radical differences between BF 2 and BF 4, and we've had more than half a decade between the two), I'd rather just wait longer and get more for my buck.

#13 Posted by Jacanuk (4748 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

@Jacanuk said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

EA are now asking input from fans, but the CFO said himself it would make the quality dip compared to what it is now

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/20/ea-asks-if-battlefield-should-be-annualised

LOL honestly i dont think it will make any difference if they release it each year or every 2nd-3rd year.

The game still sucks and probably will continue to suck for sp gamers.

i still like the series

It might be a blast multiplayer but as a singleplayer experience its probably one of the worst AAA titles out there.

#14 Posted by Kyler3229 (10 posts) -

It sucks that its becoming as bad as COD ;O.

#15 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72434 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@Jacanuk said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

EA are now asking input from fans, but the CFO said himself it would make the quality dip compared to what it is now

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/20/ea-asks-if-battlefield-should-be-annualised

LOL honestly i dont think it will make any difference if they release it each year or every 2nd-3rd year.

The game still sucks and probably will continue to suck for sp gamers.

i still like the series

It might be a blast multiplayer but as a singleplayer experience its probably one of the worst AAA titles out there.

oh i agree, i still like the games though

#16 Edited by vashkey (33750 posts) -


I honestly don't see it affecting my enjoyment of the series, really. The premise of the series, after all, has already been played out to death.

I guess I'd prefer it not to be annual. But EA clearly wants Battlefield to be bi yearly if not annual. The series is still being forced to release a game on some sort of timetable instead of the dev itself choosing to do what it wants