EA discusses why Battlefield is not annualized

"You want to be really careful that you don't destroy the franchise," CFO Blake Jorgensen.

202 Comments
No Caption Provided

Electronic Arts has explained why the Battlefield series, unlike Call of Duty, is not released on a yearly basis. Asked by an analyst during the UBS Global Technology Conference this week if Battlefield could be an annualized franchise, CFO Blake Jorgensen laid out the reasons why this would be difficult and potentially problematic.

"The challenges are you’ve got to most likely do it out of two studios because it’s hard, it’s a two-year project," Jorgensen said. "Battlefield takes us about two years to develop and so you want to make sure that you're sharing talent across studios, so you keep core talent of the product and the experience for the consumer there."

Stockholm, Sweden-based DICE develops all core games in the Battlefield series, though the recently established DICE LA also contributes for multiplayer map packs like Second Assault for Battlefield 4. The Call of Duty series, on the other hand, switches every year between Infinity Ward and Treyarch, with assistance from Sledgehammer Games, Raven Software, and NeverSoft Entertainment.

Jorgensen said another issue to consider when annualizing a franchise is making sure every new entry in the series is perceived as substantially different than its predecessor.

"You also want to be really careful that you don’t destroy the franchise along the way. You've got to make it exciting and different, but at the same time you want to make sure you maintain a great franchise," Jorgensen said.

In addition, releasing a new Battlefield game every year would potentially hurt ongoing digital content sales, Jorgensen said

"Battlefield is a product that doesn’t just sell once; it sells for 24 months associated with not just Battlefield, but all the additional Battlefield Premium activities that the consumer wants," he said. "So you’ve got to be careful that you don’t destroy some of that tail that is on the Battlefield product."

All of that said, Jorgensen explained that EA remains interested in looking at ways to grow the Battlefield business, though he did not provide any specifics.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

$13.90 on Amazon
Buy
$12.99 on Walmart
Buy

GameSpot may get a commission from retail offers.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 202 comments about this story
202 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for kisado87
kisado87

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Joseph P. Johnson Or they think their fans are dumb enough to pay double in exchange for all DLCs without knowing in full detail what DLCs contain. So in fact they're paying for 2 games instead of the 1. It's the same BS just a different flavor.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Cryptic_Shadow
Cryptic_Shadow

203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

EA needs to reboot the NHL series on next gen... just sayin'..randomly.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Deaho
Deaho

1003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

"You also want to be really careful that you don’t destroy the franchise along the way" This for Activation ,I am not a fan of shooting games but this is really well said from EA even if battle filed isn't that good as the previous one.


Upvote • 
Avatar image for eze_sl89
eze_sl89

217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 116

User Lists: 0

battlefield 3 = battlefield 4. so where is the

"Jorgensen said another issue to consider when annualizing a franchise is making sure every new entry in the series is perceived as substantially different than its predecessor." ???

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Mengsk
Mengsk

32

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Doesn't matter. After the BF4 fiasco there is no way I'm ever going back to a DICE title again. I swear it. They've got their last penny from me. I'll be going back to Valve and CS Go.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for 50_Ft_Kingie
50_Ft_Kingie

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

<< LINK REMOVED >> Do you really think it was DICE that decided to release BF4 before it was ready? If you're going to blame anyone, blame EA for pressuring DICE.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for LatinLegacy
LatinLegacy

35

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Les Inaminute Haigh 1) You don't play a Battlefield game for the single player. 2) Those two consoles are now obsolete :P.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Tristan2668
Tristan2668

43

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

And because it takes 6 months before the game is playable. That would only leave them 6 months to make a sequel...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for alenth
alenth

26

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

omg remove these fb comments from here!!! that's why FB exists: to keep these comments there.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for CraZkid37
CraZkid37

530

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

I guarantee you if EA had a secondary company to work on Battlefield, they would have a game out every year as well. This is just marketing propaganda/gimmick.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for name333
name333

37

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 30

User Lists: 0

Imo the game is bad enough. Rush the devs and it will be even worse.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DarthLod
DarthLod

177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Regurgitating the same game with a different paint job and bells and whistles is the SAME THING. EA lives on a different planet. Seriously. Up on their hill with nickle and dime tactics and greed. EA has helped single handedly destroy my enjoyment of gaming in the past 2 or 3 years.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for luizferrarezzi
luizferrarezzi

124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

launching 1 every 2 years is almost the same thing..

Upvote • 
Avatar image for grimzy105
grimzy105

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

The 24 month cycle is clearly not enough time to get the game fully functional and out onto the shelves for the release date, as what I've seen from Battlefield 4 and Battlefield 3 is that it's basically the same, nothing has really changed, only the maps, controls and weapons. And there's a lot glitches and errors in the game, the most annoying one is the crashing in multiplayers and losing your saved progress in Campaign.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Whiskey3romeo
Whiskey3romeo

67

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

They need to rethink the 24 month cycle because 2 years clearly isn't enough for the marginally talented Dice to produce a working game.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kjranu
Kjranu

1789

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

I rather 3 year cycles with map and weapon DLCs in-between but that's just me. I think Battlefield 4 released a little too soon as is evident with its onerous problems and bugs since launch.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for DAOWAce
DAOWAce

653

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Game.. expansion.. similar game.. looks annual to me.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for aajep
aajep

33

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Ehh, every person with a decent head on their shoulder knows that CoD is a 2 year project as well? I don't see the big difference between BF3 and BF4 either, so my conclusion is that EA is full of shit. **** EA and Activision.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Darth_Starwind
Darth_Starwind

148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@aajep Well, at least you hate both equally lol.
That probably makes you the most neutral in opinion in the comments lol.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sortajan
sortajan

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Can someone tell me what the big differences are between CoD and Battlefield?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Tacanacy
Tacanacy

184

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@sortajan Wondering the same myself. I know exactly the differences between the Bad Company games and BO2. I stopped playing BF3 over a year ago, so I don't know how it's today. I've changed my opinion about buying BF4, it's looks extremely fast paced compared to older titles and seems to have completely lost its teamwork, so to me, what only remains of this franchise is the title. I see no good old Battlefield in it anymore.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kjranu
Kjranu

1789

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@Tacanacy I think BF4 fundamentally improved on BF3 mechanics and gameplay but it doesn't go far enough to differ itself from BF3. It's one of the reasons why I don't like BF4 very much but hey I got my copy free so I'm certainly not complaining.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for toshineon
toshineon

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

"You want to be really careful that you don't destroy the franchise"

One might argue that it's too late.

4 • 
Avatar image for devilzzzwin
DeViLzzzWIN

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

God Bless them ....

Don't become dooty

Upvote • 
Avatar image for NTM23
NTM23

1282

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

I don't want to sound overly negative about it, because in the end it could be a great game to me, but honestly, with the reception it's getting, and just how it looks, it doesn't look much better than what you could do in a year to me when we look at Call of Duty. I mean, does Battlefield 4 really feel all that new compared to three? Plus, the campaign's not even supposed to be that good, which is something that should have been worked on since you have more than a year. I just feel like the jump from BF3 to BF4 is like, or little more than Black Ops 2 to Ghosts. I'd have to play them, so I could be wrong.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for snacky_smorez
snacky_smorez

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

So it doesn't turn into the borefest COD has become? I'm glad the game isn't annual. It adds replay value.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for fredyellowone
fredyellowone

255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

EA, go fix my game please. UNDERSTAND?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Sarg1010
Sarg1010

36

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

"We don't want to annualize Battlefield... but lord help DICE if they need another month to iron out bugs! We gotta beat COD to release! Also, here's a DLC full of maps you've already played and payed for before! Netcode problems? What netcode problems?"


Forget you Jorgensen. Don't lie to us like you actually care about the people you employ or the games they make.

2 • 
Avatar image for RabbiSchmuley
RabbiSchmuley

204

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

"EA discusses why they need your money"

Upvote • 
Avatar image for emperiox
emperiox

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

The balance was great during the beta, then they went and nerfed everything so it isn't fast-paced or tactical anymore. I cancelled my preorder because it was going to turn into the same crapfest that was Camperfield 3.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for conorhat
ConorHat

141

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

Gamers will take anything that's handed to them today, even if it's broken and unplayable they will defend their favorite corporations until they die. Gamers are so damn pathetic and spineless, I would sell them the same game every 6 months, forget about waiting an entire year.

2 • 
Avatar image for jeffosoft
jeffosoft

47

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@conorhat Well said. Tired of the defenders of bad games. WarZ anyone. people still defend this game to this DAY even the ones that no longer play it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for arqe
arqe

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

<< LINK REMOVED >> WarZ ? Yeah it was good at first. then they started to patch it till its broken like hell.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kgbinusa
KGBinUSA

72

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

<< LINK REMOVED >> Its not WarZ anymore, isn't it?

<< LINK REMOVED >> There is a difference between publishers *EA* and developers *DICE*. I am pretty sure, DICE would have taken its sweet time to polish off the game...but then the *EVIL* EA had to step in.

So yeah, screw EA...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for randomkidlol
randomkidlol

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

they want to release it every year, but theyre afraid of the backlash if they do.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for legatelanissius
LegateLanissius

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

This is EA basically saying "FU WE'RE BETTER" to Activision, but in reality, they have so many annualized franchises that they're actually worse than Activision. They inundate the market with Fifa every year and they rushed Battlefield 4 so much that you could just call it Battlefield 3.5. Screw EA man, they're ruining the games industry and when they fall, and they will, we just might get better games again, not recycles of last years crap.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ultimate-k
ultimate-k

2348

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It may as well be, its just as bad as COD milking now, rushing a release every 2 years that looks no different than the last, and then have overpriced map packs in between that splits up the community. Day one map packs, pffft.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lazycomplife
lazycomplife

621

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

They should stop releasing madden every year then

Upvote • 
Avatar image for TehUndeadHorror
TehUndeadHorror

758

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 28

User Lists: 1

<< LINK REMOVED >> Sports games are to sports fans as cocaine is to businessmen :(

Upvote • 
Avatar image for dz99ls
dz99ls

417

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 50

User Lists: 6

So battlefield is a 2 year project hmmm, newsflash SO IS CALL OF DUTY. Two developers working in two separate projects for 2 years each....

The other issue of course is DICE will have to do what EA wants and we already know EA wants an annual shooter to compete with Call of Duty. They Shelved Medal of Honor so who steps up?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for arqe
arqe

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

<< LINK REMOVED >> and still there no difference in cod series. same since modern warfare 2

Upvote • 
Avatar image for dz99ls
dz99ls

417

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 50

User Lists: 6

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> Broken record? You hateboys stupid comments are as repetitive as you claim the game is. Its s good thing the games are not the same. Oh yeah in case you missed it BF3 and BF4 are the same too....

Upvote • 
Avatar image for snacky_smorez
snacky_smorez

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No they are not the same. Battlefield is great. COD used to be a long time ago in a galaxy far f.... sorry but they aren't the same.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for toshineon
toshineon

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

<< LINK REMOVED >> I know that Battlefield and Call of Duty used to be different. Battlefield had large online battles, while Call of Duty had it's campaign, and multiplayer that quite frankly was the same as most other online shooters at the time. But what's so different about them now?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for snacky_smorez
snacky_smorez

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Everything Darth_star wind said. I would also add strategy and team and needed in battlefield to win whereas Call of duty does not required either. The xp in battlefield is greater for a team player. COD rewards the singular effort of kills. You can have a single dominating player on a six man COD team carry a team to victory. This would never happen in BF. Strategy is incredibly different with vehicles too. I'll give you similar campaigns. And also BF has destructible environments which is awesome. Far less camping occurs because of it. Infact I see little to no camping in BF whereas its rewarded in COD. No perks in BF either.

In effect multi players is drastically different.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for toshineon
toshineon

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> The more you know. The last Call of Duty I played was the fourth installment, and I only played the single-player. Thanks for filling me in though.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Darth_Starwind
Darth_Starwind

148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

<< LINK REMOVED >><< LINK REMOVED >> Mainly scale and the type of battles fought. Battlefield still mainly focuses on large battles that feature vehicles and a destructible environment. (Though the level of destruction has taken a nose dive since BF3 came out). Call of Duty's multiplayer is much smaller in scale with what I call frantic battles. (High speed and more run and gun). Also no vehicles. BF also is more geared to team play than COD. I'll let others debate on which game looks and plays better but I will say the sound effects in BF (i.e. gunshots) sound a lot more realistic. COD has the better single player experience than BF but by DICE's own admission, (BF developer) they're not used to making single player campaigns. The reason your hear a lot of flak about COD is due to franchise fatigue. The overall design of the franchise has not changed since COD 4 which has been kicking out a new title every year since then. BF4 is two years removed from BF3 but still feels too similar to it. Personally I own both and like both.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for cirugo
cirugo

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

they're worried about destroying franchises? they just did it with SimCity...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kryptonbornson
Kryptonbornson

96

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

...or they do it to combat used game sales. They stagger Battlefield expansions so that you HAVE to keep your copy to be able to play or else buy it again every 4 months or whatever the cadence is. If they blew their load all at once and released one huge game with no DLC, many gamers would play it constantly for 2 months and sell it, then Gamestop would reap the profits instead of EA. PC gamers should be given the option of having all the DLC at once--but maybe that would reveal their plan some see as anti-consumer when it is really pro-money/anti-Gamstop.

I haven't attempted to look, but I would bet that you have to use private servers once pirating Battlefield DLC, so perhaps that would help combat piracy on PC or at least not give the treasure map to the pirates all in one piece.

Upvote •