Maybe it could go in off topic but... Bad Company 3

[Infernalis]

Re: Maybe it could go in off topic but... Bad Company 3

Actually all the PC BF were rather close to one year between them ( BF1942 : September 2002 |BF:V : March 2004 | BF2 : June 2005 | BF2142 : October 2006 ).

[Rambo]

Re: Maybe it could go in off topic but... Bad Company 3

If they were alot smarter they could have made so much more money.

they could have made spin off titles like battlefield -desert or battlefield navy ect. like need for speed do.

Yeah seperate BC from BF and give BC the training wheels a pretty basket and some handlebar streamers, PC dont need to be held back for them.

[Lordsethonan]

Re: Maybe it could go in off topic but... Bad Company 3

They've made a lot of money already; in fact, to make even more money they should have gone to console EARLIER and Modern Combat doesn't count as it didn't have massive multiplayer online.

To put some perspective on this. Take away prestige and perks from CoD4. What do you get? CoD2 deathmatch on multiplayer, nothing has changed for that franchise.

[Anarchy1]

Re: Maybe it could go in off topic but... Bad Company 3

Actually all the PC BF were rather close to one year between them ( BF1942 : September 2002 |BF:V : March 2004 | BF2 : June 2005 | BF2142 : October 2006 ).

They were all over a year though. Compared to the CoD franchise, which releases a new exactly every year (middle of November). But each CoD game does take 2 years to develop.

It is odd though that technically, they develop each BF game quicker than each CoD game, but there is much more innovation in each Battlefield game.

[Lordsethonan]

Re: Maybe it could go in off topic but... Bad Company 3

I don't think they take less time to make; there were leaks by mistake about BF3 mid 2009; 2142 stopped getting support because they were making Mirror's and building Frostbite as early as 2007. the first iteraton of a BF game in a new engine so far has been around 4 years in the making.

It's much more impressive that none of the DICE guys has gone mad from overworking, but maybe they are indeed passionate about it and it's not tiresome; but the fact they have been working non stop for around 6 years already since BF2 could explain some of their decision making process.

It's more troublesome that CoD doesn't see more improvement when the engine has barely changed in 5 years and it'ss till using the same template, 2 years to make glorified DLC expansions that sell at retail price makes you wonder.

[Lordsethonan]

Re: Maybe it could go in off topic but... Bad Company 3

On the other hand, now that DICE has a new template pretty much set, I would like them to take a small break of one year and just refine Frostbite so they can then, start working on BC3 and (for christ sake DICE, take my money already!) 2143 with single player.

[Anarchy1]

Re: Maybe it could go in off topic but... Bad Company 3

Coming off what I said in the news post for the article I posted, maybe they could release an expansion pack that adds a couple more factions and some new vehicles and maps, which certainly wouldn't take the full team.

[Vreki]

Re: Maybe it could go in off topic but... Bad Company 3

Thats not a bad idea. Do you think it would work though with todays gamers and how most consoles have both single and multi player parts?

Maybe if it was priced a bit less, it could work. There would be no replay value though, which may be an issue.

Crunch

Valve does it with Halflife and TF2.
But BC could still have COOP and small TDM maps, which would then be kept out of BF.
So BC would be the direct competitor to COD, and BF would be the alternative with a very different gameplay.

[-Shifty-]

Re: Maybe it could go in off topic but... Bad Company 3

I'm with Jim on putting the singleplayer effort into more content for an actual MP BF3. I'm fine with them adding a singleplayer if they don't make a half-finished multiplayer.