Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If BF3 beats COD, we lose

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If BF3 beats COD, we lose

    What does it really mean if BF3 beats COD? This article on gamespy (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/battlefield-3/1160106p1.html) got me thinking about what would happen if BF3 beat out the next COD and became top dog. As much as im rooting for my team (BF3) to win especially since I hate COD I believe BF3 winning this will hurt the entire franchise.

    For example, COD 1 was amazing but it didn't really get mass market appeal until it went to console (COD2) Than COD3 wasn't for PC, and COD 4, 5, and 6 were extremely hyped console made ports. I know that we all know this already but now what does it mean for the BF franchise.

    If BF3 beats out COD than it will not only take top dog, but have to maintain it. What does that mean for us? I'm sure it will mean that in general the franchise will go the same route as COD did or else COD will once again take top dog the following year. I'm sure BF3 will takes CODs ad approach to hype the game and im sure BF3 is an insanely good game but what happens when they make a COD game in 1 year, what will BF do to counter it...because in order to remain top dog it will have to counter it.

    Rushed games? Smaller less focuses games? COD:BC 3,4,5, and 6? in 4 years? It makes me wonder, and concerned for my favorite franchise.

    What do you guys think, inevitable, or worse case scenario?

  • #2
    Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

    I don't think it woul dbe a problem; much of CoD's rise to infame has more to do with Activision's and robert kotick policies than a deliberate trend initiated by IW.

    Battlefield as a franchise centers around multiplayer; in a kind of gameplay CoD has never attempted to compete (or anybody else for that matter, thats why the BF experience you can only get in a BF game, no matter how "watered down" the particular game is)

    Worst case scenario only affects PC players, not the game itself:

    We start getting yearly BF games, maybe one Bad Company this year, full BFnumber the next and complete dropoff of the previous title in a hard way by EA servers. Much less maps and perhaps more DLC stuff. that's worst case scenario.

    Most likely? BF3 will sell a ton, as high as maybe 6 to 10 million units total among all platforms; we still won't see a yearly BF game since EA at least acknowledges this is not a franchise to milk and the fanbase itself is not milkeable; the disgrace that is now CoD is a frankenstein monster made possible by a multitude of factors: Acti strives to make money fast, in large quantities; they hype their games to no end until they are the next big thing that is a thing and not a game, you have to have them just to get enough "cred".

    CoD1 was competing against MoH initially; BF was born as the alternative to mindless deathmatching and CoD only rose to be the "thing" in between BF releases; try to get your average CoD player to tell you if they played the WWII cods; you won't find any that knows Modern Warfail was actually the fourth game in the series; CoD was big only after 4; IW brought the franchise back to PC when the console only cod3 failed spectacularly; and both 1 and 2 weren't that big to begin with.

    But 4 had the advantage of being released without competition: no MoH, no BF, no nothing; it sold well on PC too since for CoD it was back to form after literally years of no new cod game for PC; and it released to console when the 360 already had more than 10 million users; for a lot of people, this was their first FPS and even Halol fans got a taste of the "look, CoD didn't do anything new for the genre" even tough ironically, regenerating health was in CoD before Halol.

    And the game is actually real good on both platforms; both single and multiplayer are well thought, gripping and compelling; that is the thing: when MW2 released, a lot of people bought it without thinking, since MW was so good, this would be at least the same right?

    BF3 can't achieve this on purpose, it's releasing with competition, it's way more complex than cod; it's going to break down PCs like BF2 did in the beginning so a lot of people won't be able to run it on PC; and it will maybe not look as good as BC2 on consoles.
    It will sell very well; but it has a hard battle to dethrone cod from top seller.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

      Just as long as EA doesn't whore out the true Battlefield name then I don't really seen it interfering with the COD franchise in the long run.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

        I think it is the opposite. If BF3 does NOT beat CoD, it would tell EA that people want CoD like games and so to fight that, they are going to have to implement the things that ARE in CoD.

        And I know this may sound crazy, but there can be two top FPS games out there. So what exactly is "beating" a CoD? You beat them this year, but what about next?

        Crunch
        Twitter: @CptainCrunch
        Battlelog/Origin: CptainCrunch

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

          It is usually assumed that "beating" a game is through sales, actual game quality doesn't matter, neither does technical prowress or game design.

          Fans at large believe more sales=better game since a bad game wouldn't sell large quantities.

          This is how we get to the logical paradox that the best franchise out there is pokemon and Mario games are some of the best games ever.

          Now, let's wrap ourheads around the fact that when BF2 launched it was THE best game in the FPS genre both in sales and quality; but ever since, the minimum bar for an acceptable blockbuster title has been upped by a couple of millions.
          We've reached the ridiculous stage where a game selling "just" one million units is a "flop" in the mainstream eyes even tough most games are still profitable with as low as 300k units sold.

          Take for example; minecraft: how much did it take to develop? It's raked in 30 million plus in sales; SOME of that must be profit, and it's not half bad for an indie studio/individual. even if he/she got ripped off by accountants and what not, ending up with a couple millions in ouyr pocket is not bad at all.
          Everything else is just rethoric and industry whining from the stock holders; you can't seriously believe it takes more than a dozen million dollars to make a game like cod for example; seriously, if they are still not turning profit after selling 5 million units there is something wrong with their business model, not the game themselves.

          BF however, has no chance in hell to sell more than cod single player or not; BF is a much more complex game in every aspect, and that doesn't sit well with the mainstream kids.

          and complex as in: there is just TOO MUCH to do in the multiplayer aspect. Cod is run and gun with some minimal objectives. the game is basically kill a lot of people, the most you can during a round.

          BF is : ok, here you are with other people in a team, you can kill peopel in the opposing team, but you also can drive around in a jeep, fly a chopper, ride a boat, parachute off everywhere, you can switch your class around during the round, you can revive people, you can give them bullets or heals, call mortars on them, roll them over with tanks. so even tough the basic objective (controlling flags) is simple enough, there are many ways to accomplish it or not at all; in BF your KDR is not directly related to your W/L and you may as well end up first on the leaderboard on the losing team. also playing sniper is not a surefire way to be first on the leaderboard, big turn off there.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

            Battlefield has allways been winning for me

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

              Yeah, they are just different. I think with all the things DICE are doing to Battlefield shows that competition helps the industry for us.

              Of course, I might be thinking otherwise in November

              Also, did the question change? I dont recall voting no that. I mean, I did vote no, but looking at the question again I would have voted Yes.

              If they do not beat CoD, no telling what will happen then.

              Crunch
              Twitter: @CptainCrunch
              Battlelog/Origin: CptainCrunch

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

                beat 1942

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

                  @Crunch
                  I don't even know how to change the poll, or even if it is possible lol prob the way I worded it.

                  You have a point, they might say we didn't beat COD now lets join them, but if they join COD they will lose all the BF fans and might not be accepted by cod fans thus leaving them with nothing! It's just strange hearing them so openly saying there going after COD when COD's gameplay is very different. It almost makes BF3 sound COD-ly if you know what i mean. The closest COD ever came to BF was COD1: UO and even that was nowhere near what BF is truly like. I don't understand how they plan to appeal to CODiies unless they make it more like COD which is my greatest fear.

                  To beat COD is to outsell COD, which would mean taking on an active roll against cod which also probably means listening to what the COD people want, that is what scares me. Your average COD gamer saying, "It takes to long to get to the enemy," or "Prone is useless." Than we get Bad company becoming BF4.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

                    here we come BF4. I can't wait for all that hoopla to start once somebody dislikes the game.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

                      Well since EA are too lazy and only make BF games every 5 years and COD make a game every year it wont mean sh%t, but i agree EA will join them and then later bam BF pay to play.Easy studios is just a test case for this.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

                        I think COD has peaked, too many games in too short a while of too low quality can kill even the massive momentum that COD has.
                        After all, Activision managed to kill Guitar Hero.

                        But I also predict that they will acquire another shooter franchise and make it a bestseller by pure brute marketing force.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

                          Originally posted by Rambo
                          Well since EA are too lazy and only make BF games every 5 years and COD make a game every year it wont mean sh%t, but i agree EA will join them and then later bam BF pay to play.Easy studios is just a test case for this.
                          I, for one, don't want a new BF game every year. I'd rather they made a quality product that could last for several years. I think that formula of producing a new product each year has been a major detractor for the CoD series. That only serves to further divide the overall community as some players like to stick to games or genres they like and don't move on to the latest game.

                          What's more, I also see that the developers have run out of creative ideas. Heck, every CoD game follows the same formula just different settings and uniforms: sneak into base, escape on vehicle, shoot from vehicle to make escape, lose important teammate, captured, escape, rescue, accompany and protect, blah blah.

                          The MP is largely the same game over and over again.

                          BF adds the dynamic of larger maps and incorporating various vehicles. Not very dramatic but it really makes the game much more interesting. If they wanted to do something new every year, I'd be happy with just an expansion pack or map pack for the same game. BO could have been a map pack for MW2 for christ's sake

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

                            I also hope EA doesn't go the COD/Tony Hawk/Madden Football route and release one every year. Activision has been down that road before with the Tony Hawk series. EA also has been down that road with Madden Football. But both companies still relaese the same game year after year with no real inovations. After a while the COD series will stagnate with no real new inovations and will rely only on the COD name alone to sell the game.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: If BF3 beats COD, we lose

                              Originally posted by Roamer
                              I, for one, don't want a new BF game every year. I'd rather they made a quality product that could last for several years. I think that formula of producing a new product each year has been a major detractor for the CoD series. That only serves to further divide the overall community as some players like to stick to games or genres they like and don't move on to the latest game.
                              The community must accept the fact too that the current market conditions don't allow developers to make a game every 5 years anymore; Valve subsists because they are more about selling games through steam than developing games.

                              DICE nor any other company can really afford to with the second hand market moving so many units around, piracy is a problem, but not as bad as selling your initial million units, and then not selling any more because people wait to get it used or to drop price before getting it new; as much as I like companies like DICE they can't subsists on loyalty alone; unless you buy several copies of the game at a time to support them.

                              All in all, DICE has made one BF game every 2 years more or less. Believe me, their main concern is making money but at least they strive to make a memorable product, rather than the quick cash Activision tries to make.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X