Battlefield5beta.com transferred into EA's nameserver

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Desmonic (12651 posts) -

*stolen from NeoGaf*

Well... guess we now might have a proper COD to combat...COD. At least as far as the release schedule goes.

Regardless for now we should take it with a grain of salt.

Yay? Nay? Meh? Any clue on what the pack-in game for this beta might be? Opinions?

#2 Edited by Solid_Max13 (3476 posts) -

I swear to god better be a sequel to Battlefield 2142!!! EA don't fuck this up!!!

#3 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (5883 posts) -

While the new expansion for BF4 looks sick as hell....................I hope they don't rush into 5 and have all these damn problems again. Plus they might be competing with Assassins Creed for most titles put out soon. Slow down son.

#4 Posted by Desmonic (12651 posts) -

While the new expansion for BF4 looks sick as hell....................I hope they don't rush into 5 and have all these damn problems again. Plus they might be competing with Assassins Creed for most titles put out soon. Slow down son.

Pfft! XD It'll more than likely be (once again) broken as all hell.

They released BF3 -> it was a mess -> they tried to fix it -> didn't do much -> gave up and started work on BF4.

They released BF4 -> it's still a mess -> they are trying to fix it -> haven't done much -> (assuming this is true) they will give up on it and start work n BF5.

Rinse and repeate brah :P

At least in the PC version mods always manage to fix what the devs can't but there is no such thing on consoles.

#5 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (5883 posts) -

@Desmonic said:

@FoxbatAlpha said:

While the new expansion for BF4 looks sick as hell....................I hope they don't rush into 5 and have all these damn problems again. Plus they might be competing with Assassins Creed for most titles put out soon. Slow down son.

Pfft! XD It'll more than likely be (once again) broken as all hell.

They released BF3 -> it was a mess -> they tried to fix it -> didn't do much -> gave up and started work on BF4.

They released BF4 -> it's still a mess -> they are trying to fix it -> haven't done much -> (assuming this is true) they will give up on it and start work n BF5.

Rinse and repeate brah :P

At least in the PC version mods always manage to fix what the devs can't but there is no such thing on consoles.

This is what I am afraid of...........the whole damn rinse and repeat and following in Assassin Creeds lead on this.

Did you check out the new expansion for BF4? It looks like they stepped it up.

#6 Posted by toast_burner (21122 posts) -

Companies usually do this to prevent people making fake sites. The longer they take to register it the higher the chance someone else might take it and complicate the process.

#7 Posted by MonsieurX (28642 posts) -

Might as well launch battlefield6beta

#8 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16037 posts) -

@Desmonic said:

@FoxbatAlpha said:

While the new expansion for BF4 looks sick as hell....................I hope they don't rush into 5 and have all these damn problems again. Plus they might be competing with Assassins Creed for most titles put out soon. Slow down son.

Pfft! XD It'll more than likely be (once again) broken as all hell.

They released BF3 -> it was a mess -> they tried to fix it -> didn't do much -> gave up and started work on BF4.

They released BF4 -> it's still a mess -> they are trying to fix it -> haven't done much -> (assuming this is true) they will give up on it and start work n BF5.

Rinse and repeate brah :P

At least in the PC version mods always manage to fix what the devs can't but there is no such thing on consoles.

They cut out mod support for battlefield a long time ago.

mod support was awesome. For BF 1942 we got a vietnam mod, a modern combat mod, a star wars mod (notice how those all turned into full games ?)

But of course we can't have mod support when they want to sell us maps and dlc

#9 Posted by Wasdie (49302 posts) -

I swear to god better be a sequel to Battlefield 2142!!! EA don't fuck this up!!!

It won't be. Stop even asking. They'll never make a sequel to that game.

#10 Edited by WitIsWisdom (3633 posts) -

BF5 and not BC3? BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Seriously... We need Bad Company 3 and Battle Front 3... stat like... chop chop

Also... blowing up ships is the new BF4 mode right? BOOOOOOOOOO again....

We need BC's laser guided missiles back... now THAT was a good time.

#11 Edited by Wasdie (49302 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

They cut out mod support for battlefield a long time ago.

mod support was awesome. For BF 1942 we got a vietnam mod, a modern combat mod, a star wars mod (notice how those all turned into full games ?)

But of course we can't have mod support when they want to sell us maps and dlc

Yes because mods have stopped every other dev from selling DLC.

Ever think they don't want to make mod tools because they are both expensive and don't increase the value of the engine on the majority of the platforms? Furthemore there is no point for mod tools for their games when you can get game engines like the CryEngine and Unreal 4 for free.

If a person wants to make a game they can do it with those extremely robust tools instead of hoping that DICE spends time in between constantly upgrading the engine for multiple developers, porting to new platforms and technology, and developing new games just to support a set of mod tools on one platform. It's a pointless waste of time for them.

The times of mod tools for games have really passed. Today individual games don't really bother with mod tools, it's a business decision by the guys who built the engine. CryEngine 3 and Unreal 4 are both open engines from their design. Source 2 is the same thing and is being built completely around community made content. Having basic mods like texture replacements are not the same as what you're talking about either. People having to inject their own DX shaders into a game or overwrite game files is not the same as actively supporting mods by developing and supporting tools. That's how games like Dark Souls and GTA got their mods. They were very much forced by devs and were primarily just graphic mods.

Engines like Frosbite 3, Panta Rhei, Snowdrop, and pretty much every other major engine today are internal for developers/publishers with no reason to spend the time and money to build public mod tools. Why bother when there are entire engines dedicated for free development that have the same, if not more robust features.

I'm just sick of hearing this shitty "they just want to sell us DLC" argument as it's narrow minded and ignorant. It ignores the widely changed landscape of independent development today. You're basically ignoring the fact that those same modders now have completely unrestricted game engines to build whatever the hell they want.

This is also ignoring the shear amount of work it takes to build a modern game. Art assets and development of maps for modern games take literally 100x more time to build. People just don't do that kind of quality work for free anymore, and if they do, they aren't going to limit themselves to a closed engine. They'll put it on an engine that they could turn into a retail game if they wanted.

#12 Posted by Desmonic (12651 posts) -

@FoxbatAlpha: No, haven't really followed it much after launch since the issues were taking forever to actually get fixed.

@R4gn4r0k: Ah, I see. Well that sucks... Nobody wins then. And to think that up until BF3 this franchise was one of the best (IMO) around in it's genre...

#13 Edited by Desmonic (12651 posts) -

@Wasdie: I think mods are (and have always been) more useful as fun/different complements to the main game rather than tools to create completely new games (despite many great games starting as mods).

Just from the games that I like and follow like Fallout 3, New Vegas, Skyrim it's easy to see that mods not only made those core experiences better (less bugs, better graphics, some slight changes here and there, etc) they also prolongued these experiences with new items, characters, quests, maps and even new or different gameplay experiences.

From that point of view I think mods only help the game (and franchise), never the reverse. Though I can understand why devs shy away from that, reducing costs being the first and foremost reason.

#14 Posted by Wasdie (49302 posts) -

Ok now that I'm done ranting, apparently BF5 has been done by Visceral (guys behind dead space) and is a "police theme" Battlefield.

Sounds like crap. Series needs to take a major rest. DICE needs to get their engine patched up on the consoles and they need to work through the bugs. Their QA has gone to hell.

#15 Posted by Deevoshun (840 posts) -

Wish it were Bad Company 3, right now I am not one bit excited for another BF.

#16 Posted by Wasdie (49302 posts) -

@Desmonic said:

@Wasdie: I think mods are (and have always been) more useful as fun/different complements to the main game rather than tools to create completely new games (despite many great games starting as mods).

Just from the games that I like and follow like Fallout 3, New Vegas, Skyrim it's easy to see that mods not only made those core experiences better (less bugs, better graphics, some slight changes here and there, etc) they also prolongued these experiences with new items, characters, quests, maps and even new or different gameplay experiences.

From that point of view I think mods only help the game (and franchise), never the reverse. Though I can understand why devs shy away from that, reducing costs being the first and foremost reason.

Much easier to make single player mods around a game whos core engine hasn't changed in 10 years and has supported pretty much the same tools.

The engine that powers those games has been built around mods since it's beginning and the core hasn't changed. It's really not the same as the mods you see for multiplayer games like Battlefield. Replacing some textures, implementing a new weapon or land, or scripting up some stuff with a scripting engine isn't the same as to what has to be done for games like Battlefield when it comes to the amount of work it takes to build the mods and distribute them.

It's really apples to oranges here. Also, despite the mods, those 3 games you mentioned sold plenty of DLC.

If they ever decide to build a new engine (which they desperately need), they'll need to make the decision at the beginning if they want to support mods. Then the whole engine will be built around that and it will take more time.

It's pretty clear that Frostbite 3 was never once intended for any external mod development. If you've followed the development of the engine you would know that it was originally just an FPS engine that is being molded to fit other genres. DICE is constantly flying people all around the world to support their engine for a number of different games. Supporting mod tools is just not in their real of possibilities right now and doesn't really have to considering they have absolutely no desire to make the engine commercial. That's fine considering there are numerous other engines that are completely open.

Mods had their place years ago and now have been replaced by a much more robust set of tools than devs have ever had. It's a good thing. Being hung up on no mod support for large, AAA budget games is pointless because of this.

#17 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16037 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

Yes because mods have stopped every other dev from selling DLC.

Ever think they don't want to make mod tools because they are both expensive and don't increase the value of the engine on the majority of the platforms? Furthemore there is no point for mod tools for their games when you can get game engines like the CryEngine and Unreal 4 for free.

If a person wants to make a game they can do it with those extremely robust tools instead of hoping that DICE spends time in between constantly upgrading the engine for multiple developers, porting to new platforms and technology, and developing new games just to support a set of mod tools on one platform. It's a pointless waste of time for them.

The times of mod tools for games have really passed. Today individual games don't really bother with mod tools, it's a business decision by the guys who built the engine. CryEngine 3 and Unreal 4 are both open engines from their design. Source 2 is the same thing and is being built completely around community made content. Having basic mods like texture replacements are not the same as what you're talking about either. People having to inject their own DX shaders into a game or overwrite game files is not the same as actively supporting mods by developing and supporting tools. That's how games like Dark Souls and GTA got their mods. They were very much forced by devs and were primarily just graphic mods.

Engines like Frosbite 3, Panta Rhei, Snowdrop, and pretty much every other major engine today are internal for developers/publishers with no reason to spend the time and money to build public mod tools. Why bother when there are entire engines dedicated for free development that have the same, if not more robust features.

I'm just sick of hearing this shitty "they just want to sell us DLC" argument as it's narrow minded and ignorant. It ignores the widely changed landscape of independent development today. You're basically ignoring the fact that those same modders now have completely unrestricted game engines to build whatever the hell they want.

This is also ignoring the shear amount of work it takes to build a modern game. Art assets and development of maps for modern games take literally 100x more time to build. People just don't do that kind of quality work for free anymore, and if they do, they aren't going to limit themselves to a closed engine. They'll put it on an engine that they could turn into a retail game if they wanted.

You are saying it like mod support cutting into DLC sales has nothing to do with it. Which is wrong.

Of course map packs sales decrease the amount of DLC sales. Because there are some community maps out there that are way better than what the devs sell us for cash.

What's the reason COD games cut mod support ? because their engine suddenly didn't support it anymore ? lol, that's simply not true. You can still mod the game, but not a single official server will support it.

meanwhile there are devs like Tripwire that don't charge for additional content and in fact offer money to community map developers through competitions. And you say EA doesn't have time and money to include mod tools ? Yeah, you believe that is the main reason. I'll believe it's because they are scared it'll cut into their DLC profits. DLC which EA has been focusing on so much with Battlefield games lately. They even hype up their premium content before even shipping the main game.

But of course I'm ignorant.

i'm also Ignorant to think that amazing BF 1942 mods influenced games like BF: Vietnam, modern day Battlefields and SW: Battlefront. Or that BF1942 mod developers worked on a BF game with Dice...

#18 Edited by Desmonic (12651 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@Desmonic said:

@Wasdie: I think mods are (and have always been) more useful as fun/different complements to the main game rather than tools to create completely new games (despite many great games starting as mods).

Just from the games that I like and follow like Fallout 3, New Vegas, Skyrim it's easy to see that mods not only made those core experiences better (less bugs, better graphics, some slight changes here and there, etc) they also prolongued these experiences with new items, characters, quests, maps and even new or different gameplay experiences.

From that point of view I think mods only help the game (and franchise), never the reverse. Though I can understand why devs shy away from that, reducing costs being the first and foremost reason.

Much easier to make single player mods around a game whos core engine hasn't changed in 10 years and has supported pretty much the same tools.

The engine that powers those games has been built around mods since it's beginning and the core hasn't changed. It's really not the same as the mods you see for multiplayer games like Battlefield. Replacing some textures, implementing a new weapon or land, or scripting up some stuff with a scripting engine isn't the same as to what has to be done for games like Battlefield when it comes to the amount of work it takes to build the mods and distribute them.

It's really apples to oranges here. Also, despite the mods, those 3 games you mentioned sold plenty of DLC.

If they ever decide to build a new engine (which they desperately need), they'll need to make the decision at the beginning if they want to support mods. Then the whole engine will be built around that and it will take more time.

It's pretty clear that Frostbite 3 was never once intended for any external mod development. If you've followed the development of the engine you would know that it was originally just an FPS engine that is being molded to fit other genres. DICE is constantly flying people all around the world to support their engine for a number of different games. Supporting mod tools is just not in their real of possibilities right now and doesn't really have to considering they have absolutely no desire to make the engine commercial. That's fine considering there are numerous other engines that are completely open.

Mods had their place years ago and now have been replaced by a much more robust set of tools than devs have ever had. It's a good thing. Being hung up on no mod support for large, AAA budget games is pointless because of this.

I don't disagree. Perhaps I didn't word it correctly :P

What I meant was that mods make sense as complements, not really as tools for creating new software since as you mentioned for quite some time we've had engines like Unreal (at least since late 2009), free to use and extremely complex, which we could use just for that.

From the devs perspective it makes sense not to support mods. It takes time & money to make that happen and unfortunately most of the times even the large studios can't afford to deviate too much from their own set budget (since it's at cost of their own jobs).

From a fan/gamer perspective mods do help a lot. Even if games like Fallout and Skyrim only support them due to using old as heck engines (which is true), their existence made those games "fantastic" experiences instead of just "good" experiences. Especially the Fallout games, where mods fixed the core experience of many, many annoying bugs.

And yeah, for these games in particular I mentioned I did buy a lot of DLC despite all the mods. For F3 and FNV I bought all of the DLC they made in fact :P

#19 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16037 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

This is also ignoring the shear amount of work it takes to build a modern game. Art assets and development of maps for modern games take literally 100x more time to build. People just don't do that kind of quality work for free anymore, and if they do, they aren't going to limit themselves to a closed engine. They'll put it on an engine that they could turn into a retail game if they wanted.

Again, completely disagree.

I'm talking about maps here, which FPS like COD, BF and now Titanfall are so keen on selling to you.

Many people have made maps for Rising Storm and Red Orchestra. Some did it to win in the competition, not all though

Many people created maps for Company of Heroes 2, just look at the steam workshop

Many people created maps for Source engine games.

All of them did it for 'free'

You think modders create mods or maps because they want to make something out of it. Wrong, they do it for many other reasons. Making money in the longterm is not one of the main reasons they do that. I've never heard a modder say: I really want to make money of my mod.

How long have people worked on Black Mesa ? Sure they plan on selling it soon, but they've worked 10 years on it now for free

Renegade X is free

0 a.d. is free

#20 Posted by Wasdie (49302 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k: Your failing to explain why Skyrim and the Fallout games had such successful DLC even on the PC. Why did the BF2 expansions sell so well despite the handful of mods available? Hell even CS: GO has map packs now.

There is no evidence to say that mods really cut into DLC sales. Activision and EA may think that but the evidence counters that. Their stupidity in the PC market reaches far deeper than just not supporting mods too.

Tripwire also didn't make their game engine. They are using the Unreal engine which already has a full set of tools made public by Epic. DICE didn't build those tools because they are expensive to do for little gain. Their internal tools are far lower level than anything they would ever publish to the public. There are also licensing and other business related issues of just opening up your engine for modding. It's never as easy.

Mod tools require an ongoing investment of time and money by the dev. They need to decide early on if it's even worth supporting. It's not just as simple as they want to sell DLC so they won't support mods. There is evidence that game sales increase with mod tools and DLC sales do not decrease. It's not as black and white as you're making it out to be.

I know what mods have done in the past, but now those modders have much more robust engines to use for free that can do far more. We're going to see these engines being used for indie game development more often. Look at Renegade X, that's a great fan built remake of C&C Renegade's multiplayer on the Unreal 3 engine.

No mod support for the big games isn't going to stop independent developers anymore. It's really not a big deal.

#21 Edited by Wasdie (49302 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

Again, completely disagree.

I'm talking about maps here, which FPS like COD, BF and now Titanfall are so keen on selling to you.

Many people have made maps for Rising Storm and Red Orchestra. Some did it to win in the competition, not all though

Many people created maps for Company of Heroes 2, just look at the steam workshop

Many people created maps for Source engine games.

All of them did it for 'free'

You think modders create mods or maps because they want to make something out of it. Wrong, they do it for many other reasons. Making money in the longterm is not one of the main reasons they do that. I've never heard a modder say: I really want to make money of my mod.

How long have people worked on Black Mesa ? Sure they plan on selling it soon, but they've worked 10 years on it now for free

Renegade X is free

0 a.d. is free

I understand all of this, I just don't see why DICE needs to include mod support when there are plenty of other resources for modders and independent devs.

My point, considering we've strayed far from that, is that mods aren't necessary and there are far more reasons than just DLC to not support mods. Such a blanket generalization is not seeing the widely changing industry.

I don't deny what mods have done in the past or how much value they do offer. I just don't believe they need to be apart of every game because I understand how difficult proper mod support really is. When you start looking at large scale multiplatform development, it's even more work from a technical and business perspective to create public mod tools. When the developer is having a hard enough time getting a game out that works (in BF4's case), then mod tools aren't even worth talking about.

#22 Posted by wolverine4262 (18786 posts) -

Battlefront 3 will be out before BF5

#23 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16037 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@R4gn4r0k: Your failing to explain why Skyrim and the Fallout games had such successful DLC even on the PC. Why did the BF2 expansions sell so well despite the handful of mods available? Hell even CS: GO has map packs now.

There is no evidence to say that mods really cut into DLC sales. Activision and EA may think that but the evidence counters that. Their stupidity in the PC market reaches far deeper than just not supporting mods too.

I totally agree with that. I don't think that DLC and mods/maps can't co-exist. I'm all for them co-existing.

I'm saying that Activision and EA seem to think they can't co-exist. It's easy to see how both COD and BF used to support mods, but now they don't anymore. Same evolution with DLC/premium things. There used to be huge expansion packs for these games and now there are lots of smaller DLCs.

Mod support went away, DLC came in abundance. I don't disagree that time and money aren't a concern, but DLC sales definitely has something to do with it, or at least in their corporate eyes.

Also, the devs behind COD and BF are such a strict deadline these days it's hard enough for them to create a working game at launch so there is zero time for them to create mod tools unfortunately.

Again that is due to Acti and EA. Other publishers let their devs create mod tools down the line just fine

@Wasdie said:

@R4gn4r0k: Tripwire also didn't make their game engine. They are using the Unreal engine which already has a full set of tools made public by Epic. DICE didn't build those tools because they are expensive to do for little gain. Their internal tools are far lower level than anything they would ever publish to the public. There are also licensing and other business related issues of just opening up your engine for modding. It's never as easy.

Mod tools require an ongoing investment of time and money by the dev. They need to decide early on if it's even worth supporting. It's not just as simple as they want to sell DLC so they won't support mods. There is evidence that game sales increase with mod tools and DLC sales do not decrease. It's not as black and white as you're making it out to be.

I know what mods have done in the past, but now those modders have much more robust engines to use for free that can do far more. We're going to see these engines being used for indie game development more often. Look at Renegade X, that's a great fan built remake of C&C Renegade's multiplayer on the Unreal 3 engine.

No mod support for the big games isn't going to stop independent developers anymore. It's really not a big deal.

It's not a big deal sure, but when I see how great BF mods used to be (up until BF2) or how much fun custom maps in RO2/RS or COH 2 have brought me in the past years compared to paid maps I've played, it's just a damn shame.

Mods can also bring new game mods and creative risks that the big publishers aren't always willing to take. Look at the interesting MP that AC: Brotherhood had, completely ripped from a mod.

#24 Posted by Vatusus (4223 posts) -

A new one already? At this rate it might just become worse than CoD

#25 Posted by MeanLeanBoi (25 posts) -

Lets bees hopin they nots bees puttin it on da xbone. It bees holdin backs da grafics to much if they do. Yous know whats I bees sayin?

#26 Posted by Kevlar101 (5971 posts) -

Please be Bad Company 3.

#27 Posted by bfmv2007 (279 posts) -

Screw Battlefield 5, I'm still enjoying 4! If EA does make Battlefield a yearly game, which I hope they don't, please at least make it Battlefield one year, and Battlefield Bad Company the next. Or switch things up for one year and give us Battlefield 2143. If EA makes Battlefield yearly, there's many things they could do to keep from releasing the same Battlefield game every year. Just PLEASE don't release Battlefield 5 6 7 and 8 year after year. Space them out, let another Battlefield game fill the gap between the main franchise if EA really wants to release Battlefield yearly.

#28 Edited by Mr-Kutaragi (1831 posts) -

I want bad company 3. The series is much better than bf3 and 4... They will never make 2142 sequel, seems titanfall fills this space for EA unfortunately, even though is much smaller scale.

#29 Posted by UnbiasedPoster (628 posts) -

SMD if you buy Battlefield 5. Even if it gets collective 10s on every website I will never give this franchise another dollar.

#30 Posted by wis3boi (30881 posts) -

I swear to god better be a sequel to Battlefield 2142!!! EA don't fuck this up!!!

considering DICE is making Battlefront right now...I highly doubt it

#31 Posted by Solid_Max13 (3476 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@Solid_Max13 said:

I swear to god better be a sequel to Battlefield 2142!!! EA don't fuck this up!!!

It won't be. Stop even asking. They'll never make a sequel to that game.

I can still hope

#32 Posted by MBirdy88 (7137 posts) -

I'm done with battlefield..... jsut not that fun anymore.

#33 Posted by Bardock47 (5146 posts) -

Only one thing can get me hyped for another battlefield so soon...motherfuckin' DINO MODE!

#34 Posted by I_can_haz (6452 posts) -

I'll probably skip this one at launch if it releases too soon. I don't want another buggy mess like BF4

#35 Posted by KittenNose (357 posts) -

@Wasdie: "Your failing to explain why Skyrim and the Fallout games had such successful DLC even on the PC."

Because Bethesda games offer DLC that builds on the world. Fully voice acted adventures you can spending hours exploring, at a quality that is above the content made by modders.

FPS maps don't quite make that cut. A modder can quite easily duplicate the results, as they are just new maps, and pretty darn small and simple at that. The fact that Bethesda DLC and new FPS maps cost the same amount of money just goes to show how ripe FPS players are for milking, and no EA doesn't want people threatening that cow with any IP that isn't dead.

#36 Posted by kuu2 (6785 posts) -

BF is dead to me after the travesty that was 4. Beyond broken in almost all areas of play.