In yet another scintillating series of musings straight From the Editors' Desks, Alex98uk reflects on the announcement of Battlefield 1943 and the community's reaction to the announcement of one of the newest Battlefield titles:
Alex98uk has been a staff member with the Total Gaming Network since its inception in 2006. He currently resides in the United Kingdom and enjoys playing both the Battlefield series and assorted racing titles.
"Reactions of a Franchise Fan" is the first in a five part editorial series about the announcement of Battlefield 1943; the staff have taken up a wide range of positions on the issue, so be sure to check back for new updates From the Editors' Desks.
For a while, we as fans of the Battlefield franchise lived in anticipation of a Battlefield 3 announcement; rumours came down the grapevine, and most of those rumours proved to be true. However, the newest expansion to the line-up, 1943 came from absolutely nowhere, like a slap in the dark. I use the term "slap" because that is exactly what it was, a painful, offensive and downright annoying announcement that left me, along with most of the community, with a rather disappointed and angry feeling in the pit of my stomach.
My first reaction was defensiveness; Surely DICE wouldn't release a whole new Battlefield game with a 24 player only limit? But, as I scrambled for facts, eager to disprove the nay-sayers of TGN, it became apparent that DICE will release a new Battlefield game with a 24 player limit.
I have played Battlefield games since the release of 1942 and whilst I was never really keen on 64 player maps, I know that others are, and I always saw these large battles as a unique selling point of the franchise. The huge amount of content, both created by DICE and community modders was great and, again, made the game stand out from other titles such as Frontlines Fuel of War. However, 1943 seems to have bucked this trend and has decided that a middle of the road style approach would be best: Smaller numbers of players, smaller maps, less content and more cartoony, less gritty graphics. Well, perhaps it’s a bit more skewed toward console play than a “middle of the road” approach.
Having been staff at the Total Gaming Network since 2006, I have seen every BF3 thread in existence on these forums and nowhere have I ever encountered players asking for reduced content and fewer players. In fact, I’ve seen the complete opposite; DICE and EA are using the popularity, image and brand name of the Battlefield franchise to peddle weakened titles to consumers. Heroes was the first game to alert me to the shift in focus of the franchise. Then came the announcement that a third party developer is working on a BF game for the Asian market and finally, 1943.<!--more-->
I understand the business concept of using a brand to sell, especially in this turbulent time, but DICE is diluting a once proud, famous and unique brand with games that do not deserve to carry the Battlefield name. Ask any gamer about Battlefield and they'll tell you epic tales of 64 player games, intense dogfights and mass tank battles, things which, given the current information available about 1943, we won’t see.
I believe DICE needs to reconsider its franchise roadmap and primary user base of PC players. I have no problem with Battlefield titles on consoles; console owners deserve to enjoy what we do, but to carry player number restrictions from consoles to PC just reeks of the word "port." Modding and hardcore PC gamers comprise a great deal of 1942 and BF2 sales, and I really worry that these groups will be ostracised and forgotten if DICE continues on its console style PC games. Such a direction is both devastating for us PC gamers as well as EA and their subsidiaries in a time where revenue is of utmost importance.
The lack of communication acts as a catalyst to the outrage and confusion of the community. We have heard very little from DICE about how the PC version of the game will work, and this simply leaves people (such as myself) open to make their own judgements based the precious little information DICE has released up to this point. Some simple communication aimed directly at the PC market, whether it be through traditional media, forums or online press releases would no doubt alleviate some of problems illuminated in this editorial. DICE member Patrick Liu came very close to such communication in an interview when he said, "I feel a little sad sometimes when people say they're [DICE] lazy or they're not listening to the fans. Yes of course we keep track of what the forums are saying. I can't say anything really, but we have plans. Definitely big plans. The fans don't need to worry.” More communication often means happy market. Happy market means more sales.
I think we can only wait and hope that DICE has plans for another BF2/BF1942 in the pipeline. I have no doubt, given the popularity of the titles, but both DICE and EA have to listen to feedback and learn from it, and this feedback clearly says, “64 players, epic battles, and not a console port. This is what we want, no, demand for our next Battlefield title.”
My first reaction was defensiveness; Surely DICE wouldn't release a whole new Battlefield game with a 24 player only limit? But, as I scrambled for facts, eager to disprove the nay-sayers of TGN, it became apparent that DICE will release a new Battlefield game with a 24 player limit.
I have played Battlefield games since the release of 1942 and whilst I was never really keen on 64 player maps, I know that others are, and I always saw these large battles as a unique selling point of the franchise. The huge amount of content, both created by DICE and community modders was great and, again, made the game stand out from other titles such as Frontlines Fuel of War. However, 1943 seems to have bucked this trend and has decided that a middle of the road style approach would be best: Smaller numbers of players, smaller maps, less content and more cartoony, less gritty graphics. Well, perhaps it’s a bit more skewed toward console play than a “middle of the road” approach.
Having been staff at the Total Gaming Network since 2006, I have seen every BF3 thread in existence on these forums and nowhere have I ever encountered players asking for reduced content and fewer players. In fact, I’ve seen the complete opposite; DICE and EA are using the popularity, image and brand name of the Battlefield franchise to peddle weakened titles to consumers. Heroes was the first game to alert me to the shift in focus of the franchise. Then came the announcement that a third party developer is working on a BF game for the Asian market and finally, 1943.<!--more-->
I understand the business concept of using a brand to sell, especially in this turbulent time, but DICE is diluting a once proud, famous and unique brand with games that do not deserve to carry the Battlefield name. Ask any gamer about Battlefield and they'll tell you epic tales of 64 player games, intense dogfights and mass tank battles, things which, given the current information available about 1943, we won’t see.
I believe DICE needs to reconsider its franchise roadmap and primary user base of PC players. I have no problem with Battlefield titles on consoles; console owners deserve to enjoy what we do, but to carry player number restrictions from consoles to PC just reeks of the word "port." Modding and hardcore PC gamers comprise a great deal of 1942 and BF2 sales, and I really worry that these groups will be ostracised and forgotten if DICE continues on its console style PC games. Such a direction is both devastating for us PC gamers as well as EA and their subsidiaries in a time where revenue is of utmost importance.
The lack of communication acts as a catalyst to the outrage and confusion of the community. We have heard very little from DICE about how the PC version of the game will work, and this simply leaves people (such as myself) open to make their own judgements based the precious little information DICE has released up to this point. Some simple communication aimed directly at the PC market, whether it be through traditional media, forums or online press releases would no doubt alleviate some of problems illuminated in this editorial. DICE member Patrick Liu came very close to such communication in an interview when he said, "I feel a little sad sometimes when people say they're [DICE] lazy or they're not listening to the fans. Yes of course we keep track of what the forums are saying. I can't say anything really, but we have plans. Definitely big plans. The fans don't need to worry.” More communication often means happy market. Happy market means more sales.
I think we can only wait and hope that DICE has plans for another BF2/BF1942 in the pipeline. I have no doubt, given the popularity of the titles, but both DICE and EA have to listen to feedback and learn from it, and this feedback clearly says, “64 players, epic battles, and not a console port. This is what we want, no, demand for our next Battlefield title.”
Alex98uk has been a staff member with the Total Gaming Network since its inception in 2006. He currently resides in the United Kingdom and enjoys playing both the Battlefield series and assorted racing titles.
"Reactions of a Franchise Fan" is the first in a five part editorial series about the announcement of Battlefield 1943; the staff have taken up a wide range of positions on the issue, so be sure to check back for new updates From the Editors' Desks.
Comment