Should BF4 PC get mod support it does have the most players

#1 Edited by CroidX (1220 posts) -

Since data on BF4 shows that the pc has the most players meaning it had the highest sales. You guys think EA should reconsider mod support to keep the game alive and attract a large modding community. Hell the modders could probably fix all the issues we are still having. People are still playing BF2 mods till this day. It worked well with other games with major mod support this is a miss opportunity

#2 Posted by lawlessx (46934 posts) -

EA will never give a BF game mod support when they can sell season passes for the same price of the game

#3 Edited by BloodyTides (151 posts) -

I don't see why not BF2 was huge on pc I think EA just wants to milk consumer with dlc and keep players restricted so they can have tight control over them. Sad that Dice doesn't put much effort anymore and are just dishing out new BF content to make quick profit for EA.

BF2 was bought by over 11 million people on pc not sure why they shouldn't put effort to a audience that made their game so popular

#4 Posted by PapaTrop (1643 posts) -

Not unless EA can charge money for it.

#6 Edited by Shielder7 (5155 posts) -

EA give Mod support and give up their season passes and crappy DLC?

You have a better chance of winning the lottery than seeing that happen, unless EA thinks they might be able to charge to use Mod support.

#7 Edited by CroidX (1220 posts) -

Didn't BF2 have DLC?

#8 Posted by lostrib (40000 posts) -

EA/DICE has said that will never happen

#9 Posted by Wasdie (50355 posts) -

Yet again, despite several other games having DLC sales along side of mod support, gamer jump on the whole "but mods mean they can't sell DLC."

Mods didn't stop the DLC and expansion for BF2 from being sold, nor did it stop the expansion for BF1942 from being sold. But now, because it's really cool to hate on EA, mods apparently cut into DLC sales.

Do you people even know what the fuck software licenses are and how much per LICENSE they can cost? I'll give you a hint, where I work we charge $1200 per copy of our software, and we're cheap. Now imagine if EA had to pay that to every single person who downloads the mod tools because their engine uses 3rd party software.

Developers like Epic and Crytek build their engines with mods, free engine distribution, and free user content in mind and thus either do not use 3rd party software or set up the agreements ahead of time with the 3rd party software to not have to pay licensing fees for every copy downloaded. DICE was clearly never operating under those requirements when they build the Frostbite 3 engine and it's a good reason why mods will never happen for that engine.

#10 Posted by TheFadeForever (1897 posts) -

I honestly wish Dice would go back to its older roots but knowing EA it won't happen

#11 Edited by Wasdie (50355 posts) -

@TheFadeForever said:

I honestly wish Dice would go back to its older roots but knowing EA it won't happen

Considering most of the original DICE members have left, they have no real "roots" to go back too.

#12 Edited by GodspellWH (564 posts) -

Probably not which I can't seem to understand myself it worked well with the last game with mod support. I think EA just wants players to buy more of their DLC and maps or whatever.

#13 Posted by lostrib (40000 posts) -

@CroidX said:

Didn't BF2 have DLC?

No, it had expansion packs

#14 Posted by Wasdie (50355 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@CroidX said:

Didn't BF2 have DLC?

No, it had expansion packs

It had one decent sized expansion pack that was $30 on launch and 2 other DLCs that were about the size of a BF3/BF4 DLC.

#15 Edited by AdrianWerner (28080 posts) -

Thanks to mods lots of people are still playing BF2 instead of buying BF3, BC2 and BF4. You think a company like EA wants that to happen ever again? lol.

Heck, it looks like thanks to modders BF2 will actully survive the closure of servers just fine.

#16 Posted by R4gn4r0k (17250 posts) -

I would like to see modders make some maps for battlefield

As DICEs maps can be pretty hit or miss. Like I'm not a real fan of most of the base BF4 maps, but I love all of Naval Strike's maps.

#17 Posted by silversix_ (15245 posts) -

Well yes except its EA who's modding AND charging money for their mods. Hardline HELLO

#18 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

PS 4 all by itself has more players than pc most of the time. Consolites are all splintered up into 4 groups.

#19 Posted by KittenNose (585 posts) -

Why in the name of Fluff would there be any reason not to have mod support? Skyrim isn't just a better game because of mod support, many PC gamers buy the game specifically because they know there will be nearly endless thousands of mods for the game. It becomes a superior product that generates more revenue for the company. Where is the down side?

#20 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@kittennose said:

Why in the name of Fluff would there be any reason not to have mod support? Skyrim isn't just a better game because of mod support, many PC gamers buy the game specifically because they know there will be nearly endless thousands of mods for the game. It becomes a superior product that generates more revenue for the company. Where is the down side?

The money they make off the map packs would most likely surpass whatever extra sales they would get for mods. Plus mods could hurt sales of future BF releases like Hardline. Surely they don't make these decisions lightly.

#21 Posted by BldgIrsh (2884 posts) -

Battlefield: Hardline. It's what a modder could've done for free but EA wishes to make money.

#22 Posted by clyde46 (46992 posts) -

Its EA. Nuff said.

#23 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@bldgirsh said:

Battlefield: Hardline. It's what a modder could've done for free but EA wishes to make money.

The mp wouldn't have had the polish and I doubt they any modder would have made a campaign either.

#24 Posted by clyde46 (46992 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@bldgirsh said:

Battlefield: Hardline. It's what a modder could've done for free but EA wishes to make money.

The mp wouldn't have had the polish and I doubt they any modder would have made a campaign either.

Polished? Pretty sure almost every Beta player said it was "unpolished".

#25 Edited by BldgIrsh (2884 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@bldgirsh said:

Battlefield: Hardline. It's what a modder could've done for free but EA wishes to make money.

The mp wouldn't have had the polish and I doubt they any modder would have made a campaign either.

You have no idea of the power of a modder... stick with the consoles.

#26 Edited by m3dude1 (1507 posts) -

pc has far fewer players on avg than ps4. usually slightly more than 50%.

#27 Posted by Jankarcop (10187 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

pc has far fewer players on avg than ps4. usually slightly more than 50%.

More players in BF4, hey at least you're beating PC at something this gen...right?

#28 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

@Cranler said:

@bldgirsh said:

Battlefield: Hardline. It's what a modder could've done for free but EA wishes to make money.

The mp wouldn't have had the polish and I doubt they any modder would have made a campaign either.

Polished? Pretty sure almost every Beta player said it was "unpolished".

@bldgirsh said:

@Cranler said:

@bldgirsh said:

Battlefield: Hardline. It's what a modder could've done for free but EA wishes to make money.

The mp wouldn't have had the polish and I doubt they any modder would have made a campaign either.

You have no idea the power of a modder... stick with the consoles.

Could a modder have done the news reporter loading screens as well as Visceral? Maybe but I doubt it.

Could modders have made decent original music that fits the theme of the game? Maybe but i doubt it.

Could a modder have gotten professional actors and a music composer to help with the mods free of charge?

How long did the HL remake in source take? How long do you think an original campaign would take?

I mainly game on pc.

#29 Edited by BldgIrsh (2884 posts) -

@Cranler: Yet again you persist that PC can stand for Personal Console. Silly consolite.

#30 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@bldgirsh said:

@Cranler: Yet again you persist that PC can stand for Personal Console. Silly consolite.

?????????? I game on a computer using windows, aka pc. Recently been playing CS GO to confirm my belief in it being less hardcore than Gears.

I do have personal consoles as well for blu ray, netflix and console exclusives.

Funny how you failed to attempt to counter the more important parts of my post.

#31 Posted by m3dude1 (1507 posts) -

@Jankarcop said:

@m3dude1 said:

pc has far fewer players on avg than ps4. usually slightly more than 50%.

More players in BF4, hey at least you're beating PC at something this gen...right?

also in graphics for the foreseeable future. exclusives forever. avg player skill forever.

#32 Posted by DEadliNE-Zero0 (3812 posts) -

Forget BF4. It's a broken mess. BF3 has far more PC gamers. I'v seen at 70-80k concurrent. It's far more played than any BF4 platform.

I'd rather have BF3 get mod support since it's older. Sadly, as other have said,it won't happen because of DLC. And if PC gamers prefer playing BF2 and 3, giving mod support would only encourage them to not bother with Hardline.

#33 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@deadline-zero0 said:

Forget BF4. It's a broken mess. BF3 has far more PC gamers. I'v seen at 70-80k concurrent. It's far more played than any BF4 platform.

I'd rather have BF3 get mod support since it's older. Sadly, as other have said,it won't happen because of DLC. And if PC gamers prefer playing BF2 and 3, giving mod support would only encourage them to not bother with Hardline.

According to BFstats.com BF 3 pc has only 2,000 more players than BF 4 pc.

#34 Edited by DEadliNE-Zero0 (3812 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@deadline-zero0 said:

Forget BF4. It's a broken mess. BF3 has far more PC gamers. I'v seen at 70-80k concurrent. It's far more played than any BF4 platform.

I'd rather have BF3 get mod support since it's older. Sadly, as other have said,it won't happen because of DLC. And if PC gamers prefer playing BF2 and 3, giving mod support would only encourage them to not bother with Hardline.

According to BFstats.com BF 3 pc has only 2,000 more players than BF 4 pc.

Not very high right now. Hell, PC BF4 also low. Usually, during peaker times, i tend to see BF4 at around 30-40k and BF3 anywhehere from 50-70-80k.

Flucuations occur ofcourse. BF4 on consoles is also lower than what i usually see.

#35 Posted by freedomfreak (41856 posts) -

It has. It's called Hardline.

#36 Posted by BloodyTides (151 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

pc has far fewer players on avg than ps4. usually slightly more than 50%.

proof?

#37 Posted by foxhound_fox (89767 posts) -

Why? Then EA couldn't charge money for addon and expansion content.

#38 Posted by Motokid6 (5963 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

@Jankarcop said:

@m3dude1 said:

pc has far fewer players on avg than ps4. usually slightly more than 50%.

More players in BF4, hey at least you're beating PC at something this gen...right?

also in graphics for the foreseeable future. exclusives forever. avg player skill forever.

Hm.. no. No that's not right. Not at all.

#39 Edited by Wasdie (50355 posts) -

And everybody ignores me...

Apparently bashing EA is more important than having an ounce of logic.

#40 Edited by Wasdie (50355 posts) -

And everybody ignores me.

I guess bashing EA is more important than thinking logically.

We've seen time and time in the past that mods and expansions/DLC can exist side-by-side. Bethesda proves that constantly and even DICE proved that with their former games. Mods are much more complicated than just "the publisher doesn't want mods because they can't sell DLC with mods".

Mods are great and all but don't for one minute think they come free of charge for the developer. Tools and support are expensive and if they've used any sort of 3rd party software in the engine it becomes a mess with all of the various contracts and fees. Mods also only benefit one platform right now and it's really hard to justify spending the money to engineer in for mods, build tools, and then support the engine in any way if it's only going to benefit one of the platforms that historically has a smaller amount of users, especially if the engine is brand new and was never designed to be modded in the first place.

#41 Edited by uninspiredcup (9996 posts) -
@foxhound_fox said:

Why? Then EA couldn't charge money for addon and expansion content.

As the halflife barny man said, something about fucking engines,"you people". Yes, you.

However, giving users the ability to create content, can (and has) enhanced sales rather than detracted them. It's also allowed enthusiasts to move from amateurs, to payed, retail developers.

Arguably, Battlefield 2, and the entire genre of "modern military games" can be attributed or partially attributed to moders.

On September 1, 2004, Digital Illusions CE (DICE) bought Trauma Studios, the developers of the Desert Combat Battlefield 1942 modification to help work on Battlefield 2.

You also have more recent examples like DayZ, which as far as I'm aware, is much larger than Arma 3 now and something a genre defining game that has directed the future of the gaming somewhat.

The whole crafting survival thing is being mimicked by shitty assholes on geen-light with poor quality games and AAA developer like Epic.

#43 Posted by TheShadowLord07 (22153 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

Yet again, despite several other games having DLC sales along side of mod support, gamer jump on the whole "but mods mean they can't sell DLC."

Mods didn't stop the DLC and expansion for BF2 from being sold, nor did it stop the expansion for BF1942 from being sold. But now, because it's really cool to hate on EA, mods apparently cut into DLC sales.

Do you people even know what the fuck software licenses are and how much per LICENSE they can cost? I'll give you a hint, where I work we charge $1200 per copy of our software, and we're cheap. Now imagine if EA had to pay that to every single person who downloads the mod tools because their engine uses 3rd party software.

Developers like Epic and Crytek build their engines with mods, free engine distribution, and free user content in mind and thus either do not use 3rd party software or set up the agreements ahead of time with the 3rd party software to not have to pay licensing fees for every copy downloaded. DICE was clearly never operating under those requirements when they build the Frostbite 3 engine and it's a good reason why mods will never happen for that engine.

could you explain why does bethesda games have mod support but dice doesn't? I just wanted to know. That's all really.

#44 Edited by Jankarcop (10187 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

@Jankarcop said:

@m3dude1 said:

pc has far fewer players on avg than ps4. usually slightly more than 50%.

More players in BF4, hey at least you're beating PC at something this gen...right?

also in graphics for the foreseeable future. exclusives forever. avg player skill forever.

www.gamespot.com | www.metacritic.com (more exclusives than all 3 consoles combined)

digitalfoundry.com (best gfx)

http://www.esportsearnings.com/games (rofl why did you even put this one)

I would like an anti-pc post that can't be easily refuted with factual links. C'mon Carlos you're better at trolling than that.

#45 Edited by uninspiredcup (9996 posts) -

Graphics don't mean much if the games using them are essentially designed with consoles in mind.

That's not pc gaming. Pc gamers of today (myself oldschool and a former professional Quake player) seem to assume graphics makes pc games rather than pc games.

Divinity Original Sin is a good example of a pc game for man. Crysis 3 is not pc game, casual shooter, waste of time.

#46 Edited by Wasdie (50355 posts) -

@TheShadowLord07 said:

could you explain why does bethesda games have mod support but dice doesn't? I just wanted to know. That's all really.

Bethesda still uses the core of the engine they've been using for years and years (since Morrowind). It was always there. The mod tools they release are just slimmed down versions of their own development tools.

DICE built the Frostbite Engine for the consoles in the middle of the last generation and has been working on upgrading it ever since. It was never initially designed for custom content.

They could make it to be built to accept custom content and then distribute the tools, but there are a lot of potential issues. Furthemore DICE has been working on constantly upgrading the engine, porting it to new platforms, upgrading the rendering API to include the newest versions of DirectX and now their own proprietary Mantle API, adapting the engine to different game genres, and generally expanding it. At this point its life it would be a massive cost to build mod tools and support them even if they could get permission from all of the 3rd party tools they most likely used to build the engine to allow them to distribute the tools.

In short, it would cost them far too much for basically no benefit. In the end they still don't profit from mods and their engine isn't built to be redistributed for free to get market saturation like the CryEngine or Unreal engine. So there is very little intensive for them to work on it other than the demands of PC gamers who want free content.

Mods are great to have and DICE would probably agree, but the benefits don't always outweigh the risks or expenses. Back when games were PC exclusives mods could theoretically keep sales strong longer throughout the life of a game. Now that PC sales are only a fraction of the income of the game, it's harder to justify the expense of building the engine to be modded and then building/supporting the tools.

I'm sure EA owning the engine is yet another barrier to mod tools for the Frosbite Engine as well. I'm not going to deny that EA isn't a barrier here, but they are going to be a barrier for different reasons. They are the ones writing the checks and if they aren't certain that an investment is going to make them more money in the long run they probably won't authorize it.

#47 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@bloodytides said:

@m3dude1 said:

pc has far fewer players on avg than ps4. usually slightly more than 50%.

proof?

http://bf4stats.com/

Currently PS 4 has 45k while pc 30k.

Although it's unfair to compare one console to pc. The consolites are all splintered up between 4 consoles while computer version of BF 4 has 1 version.

#48 Edited by BloodyTides (151 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@bloodytides said:

@m3dude1 said:

pc has far fewer players on avg than ps4. usually slightly more than 50%.

proof?

http://bf4stats.com/

Currently PS 4 has 45k while pc 30k.

Although it's unfair to compare one console to pc. The consolites are all splintered up between 4 consoles while computer version of BF 4 has 1 version.

He said on average for the ps4

If there actually any data to back that claim

Not sure why its unfair not like the xbox 360 or ps3 can play each other bf4 game

#49 Edited by naz99 (1630 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@bldgirsh said:

Battlefield: Hardline. It's what a modder could've done for free but EA wishes to make money.

The mp wouldn't have had the polish and I doubt they any modder would have made a campaign either.

Not had the polish? ......Wrong.

http://www.moddb.com/mods/desert-combat

http://www.moddb.com/mods/project-reality

Modders Won't make singlplayer campaigns?

http://www.moddb.com/mods/black-mesa

http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/37994/?