Why EA and DICE not making Battlefield Bad Company 3?

Bad Company 1 and 2 were uber awesome for online, destructive physiques and nifty single player campaigns.Why EA not making Bad Company 3? I'm pretty sure Bad Company 2 was more popular amongst gamers than Battlefeild 3 and 4. Come on EA, stop making all this Battlefront and give us BC 3 ASAP.

Well Warriors, do you want EA and DICE announcing Battlefeild Bad Company 3?

Battlefield 3 outsold Bad Company 2 by a decent margin and it's season pass and DLC sold very well. The previous CEO at EA pushed for easy money makers with more formulaic gameplay and pushed for a yearly modern military shooter. The success of BF3 led to the decision to make BF4 as they could make BF4 quicker and cheaper since it would share a lot of the same assets of BF3. This past CEO was also the reason Battlefield Hardline was ever a thing. The MoH Warfighter Studio, Danger Close, closed down after Warfighter was a disaster (due to the push of the yearly shooter), so they rebranded some cop drama game into the Battlefield series. We saw how that went.

Things have changed slightly at EA since the new guy moved in. We're seeing a bit less rigorous routine to the release schedule. The delay of Battlefield Hardline was a huge indication that they cannot get away with bad game launches like BF4 and Sim City. They also opened up another studio to just work on Battlefield 4's DLC and vastly improve the Frostbite engine. The new Need for Speed game doesn't even have any DLC despite a situation where microtransaction and/or DLC would fit that game perfectly.

Battlefront is the obvious exception to this give then season pass and the rushed timeline to get that game out. That's mostly due to the Disney contract though. They had to get a big budget Star Wars game out in time for the movie so time was short. The good thing is they've now got a great base and the sequels to Battlefront should be far more full bodied.

As for Bad Company 3, I expect that's going to be the next Battlefield game. I think DICE LA has moved into full development of a new Battlefield game and Battlefield Bad Company 3 is the logical choice. Doing a Battlefield 5 would be redundant. It would be too similar to Battlefield 4. Battlefield 4 has also been tuned for competition better and has a massive amount of content. There is no reason to put out a more competition, large scale focused Battlefield game with BF4 still going strong. Bad Company 3 is the logical next choice as it's going to be more casual and smaller scale. It'll fit into the release schedule nicely.

I remember once listening to an interview with the dev about this, and they said something along the lines of "we don't really know what makes BC distinct, why it is so popular", if I remember correctly. For them, it seems BC is just Battlefield.

Sweet. Hope we get some announcements on BF BC 3 by Q 1 2016 :)

Battlefield 3 pretty much IS Bad Company 3.

Unless the campaign has co-op and they can do something new with the multiplayer, they're far better off continuing to improve BF4 and working on other IPs until they get enough new ideas and tech for the next Battlefield. All the improvements they've done to BF4 have made it the best one yet so whatever comes next needs to be really amazing (and not nearly as laggy at launch.)

They know people want it. So, they'll release it once people will stop buying their current games. But I expect it to be half assed like their recent games.

Not in the slightest. The gameplay in BF3 not only was on a much larger scale with more diversity in the vehicles and weapons, it started tuning the gunplay and level design to be more competitive. BF4 continued this trend.

@Wasdie: I disagree, the gameplay felt very much like a BFBC2 sequel and definitely more so than a sequel to the earlier BF games.

BFBC are more focus on the infantry combat,small scale battle(compare with BF3/4).Vehicles are rare on the field,aircrafts are completely removed.

awesome breakdown, I've been wondering what has been going on with EA lately. The have released 2 free maps for BF4 and are releasing a third soon which is not something I would have expected from EA a couple of years ago. This supports your theory that they aren't going to try and put out a direct successor to BF4 since they are still supporting it.

I wonder what will become of Visceral after Hardline tanked. perhaps the new CEO would be willing to revive the Dead Space franchise? I kinda doubt it given how DS3 wrapped up. Maybe a new IP?

God I hope they release it, it's long over due in my opinion. BC series is probably the only series carrying the "Battlefield" name that actually focuses on the SP portion.

They aren't making it because that is what we want. It would be to much like right.

EA doesn't give a flying **** what we want, look at the new NFS and Battlefront without ANY space battles.

@with_teeth26: I was actually asking myself the same question about Visceral myself. I have no idea what they are going to do next.

Space battles were overrated garbage that didn't even work right.

If they were to be done right it would take much longer for the game to come out and they would have probably had to compromise somewhere else to accommodate for them.

They said that they didn't knew what made BC so special... they're clueless that's why there's not BC3 but Battlefront instead.

Bad Company is better suited for consoles also. The maps and player count were just right.

EA should just have Bad Company be Console/PC but focus on console strengths. Then have Battlefield be PC only and leave consoles out of the picture.

Really, and you have first hand knowledge of your claims or are you just pulling it out of your hat. I'm okay with you OPINION on space battles, but the rest of it made no sense.

You apparently didn't go through the community made map from Battlefield 4 to learn how long it takes them to make maps in the Frostbite engine.

It's also logical that more content would take more time to develop. That's just common sense. They had two years to get his game done and all software has a finite amount of work that can be done on it in a certain amount of time. Throwing more people at the job doesn't necessarily mean an increase in how much gets done. QA becomes more difficult as there is more to test and project management becomes much more difficult when you have a lot of people doing a lot of different tasks at once. There is always overhead that increases the time it takes to get stuff done. This is completely ignoring the fact that more people would cost a lot more money.

I work in software, I know how software development goes. Any project that has more requirements simply takes more time, manpower and money. That's not even exclusive to the software industry but applies to everything.

@Wasdie:

I don't know how long they have been working on this game and after the Beta then maybe it should been delayed. Again, it is pure speculation.

@flyincloud1116: They couldn't delay it. Their 10 year contact they signed with Disney demanded a Star Wars game the size and scope of Battlefront this year. Disney got the Star Wars license a bit over two years ago and then a month or two later EA was awarded a contract for Star Wars games. The first they started working on Battlefront soon after. They had basically less than two years to make the game.

Bad Company 2 had awesome online gameplay, maybe my most favorite of the last gen battlefield games. But they really botched the campaign mode, those characters were the perfect opportunity for having a 4-player online co-op experience. They also took the quasi-open but linear approach of the first game and really narrowed down and rushed the gameplay. They also took a dysfunctional group of misfits and rejects and put them in highly sensitive field operations; that made no sense to me. The online was great, the maps and player counts were the right size. BF3 just felt like a compromise of a more ambitious PC port for multiplayer, with scaled back map size and player count. And the campaign sucked even worse.

Anyhow, maybe DICE will announce BFBC3, when they're done working on Mirror's Edge. Hope that does well.

I'm kinda hoping for another 2142 tbh. But a BC3 would be great too, as long as it still has a humorish campaign.

Honestly, I think EA and Dice should do a WWII game. It's a genre that's largely been left behind, and could use some revitalization.

Because of this quote from DICE:

"What is it that the people really liked about Bad Company?"

Really DICE? The balanced classes, better focus on teamwork, destruction, maps built for each mode and humor are what people loved about them.

Tee new studio is danger close. they were just renamed to DICE LA.

K.

Then they shouldn't have wasted their time on anything outside of Walker Assault/Supremacy. All the other modes are unarguably worse when compared to space battles.

They're only there for the sake of list padding. You've taken that liberty on too many occasions.

Warfighter was EASILY one of my favorite shooters last gen. Warfighter and Confrontation by a landslide. Criminally under rated game. Now the Medal of Honor game before that? Yeah... that was trash.

@Wasdie: It should be obvious that one of the reasons BF3 was so successful is because it was the next BF game releasd after BC2. So of course people would want BF3 considering a lot of people thought it would be similar to BC2. The BC games are so much better than the main BF games. The destructible environments were much more refined and better implemented in the BC games. And don't even bring up Levelution because that crap was nowhere near as game changing and was just a stupid gimmick. At least in the BC games you could actually destroy almost every building in a level. That made almost every single match in the game play different than the previous match. Destructible environments in the main BF games are so limited in comparison and disappointing. I can't believe there are some people that actually think Levelution is better than actually being able to destroy pretty much every building in a level. And to whoever quoted you and remarked that your post was an awesome breakdown is insane. I'm not trying to be a douche but seriously, the BC games were and are much better than the main games. BC games weren't smaller based than the main BF games at all. BF:BC1 was larger than Modern Combat 2 and you're badly deluded if you believe otherwise. I guarantee you that the only reasons you think the main BF games were larger was because the consoles couldn't handle the computational power required to what can be done with the current BF games.

@indzman: **** Bad Company 3 I want a Rallisport Challenge 3.

You know, even this is a necro, it's quite amazing to read Wasdie's post from two years ago in today's context; especially with how some things have changed and others... ...not so much.