DICE promises Battlefield 3 support, B4 features
DICE has shared more details on Battlefield 4, including what will happen to B3, and some fan requested features for the sequel.
Following yesterday's announcement of a Battlefield 4 beta code being included with the Medal of Honor Warfighter LE, fans had lingering questions. DICE has taken to answering a few of them, including the fate of Battlefield 3 and requested features they're trying to slip into B4.
An official thread on Reddit (via OXM) shares the details. The team promises continued support for Battlefield 3, and that DICE has a separate team working on Battlefield 4. The beta is set to hit in fall 2013, with the game (obviously) coming sometime shortly afterwards. "Starting work on Battlefield 4 does not mean that we will be abandoning Battlefield 3," the post states. If you want to get in on the beta, you'll have other opportunities besides Warfighter. But that game is the only way to "guarantee" beta access right now.
As for Battlefield 4 itself, DICE has noted a few common fan requests and is trying to implement them in Battlefield 4. These include a better VOIP solution, battle record, spectator mode, and better eSports support. The company also addresses concerns about the short time frame for this sequel. "I truly believe that we're in one of the best positions to be creating our next title," the post states. "Frostbite 2 has matured, we've been gathering fan feedback like crazy, Battlefield 3 continues to expand with features which we can learn from, and we've got more data about how people play than ever."
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, DICE promises Battlefield 3 support, B4 features.
DICE has shared more details on Battlefield 4, including what will happen to B3, and some fan requested features for the sequel.-
-
This would be nice.
-
-
-
this is EA, come on now
-
lol, who needs LAN support these days?
-
-
Who? Usually when you LAN (in BF's case) it excludes you from internet play. Who gets 20 + people Lanning anymore.
If Starcraft 2 can cut LAN, every game can cut LAN from here on out. IMHO.-
you don't do it personally so no one else should, right?
the 400 pc lan party that's happening at PAX prime next month sold out in a few hours. the intel lan party i staff at is able to sell out it's ~400 seats with just a few weeks notice.
the last dreamhack, just a few weeks ago, had 12,000 some people in the BYOC.
yeah, no one lans anymore.-
Shhhh!
-
Seriously, these are nerd gatherings en mass, in actuality, nerds don't gather in groups because theres not enough games that support it anymore. I admit I used to LAN it up with 20-30 people, maybe 2-3x a year. That was 12 years ago.
-
just last month, i went to 3 lans (2 large lans, 1 small get together lan with a few friends). i'm doing doing pax next month, and two to four more possibles by the end of the year.
there's plenty of games that support it, it's the few AAA titles that most shackers focus on that don't support it.
and there's always quake 3, unreal tourneys, etc, to fire up. they're still damn fun games. carball in ut2k4 can always get a bunch of people going.
-
-
-
lol
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
After the way they supported BF3, I'm glad they are stating their intentions this far out to do barely anything new with 4, in game VOIP is something they should be "testing" by adding it to BF3, assholes. And zero plans again for added longevity with user created maps and content, most likely opting for the ship a handful of maps to make $15 DLC packs every 4 months if lucky. Gonna be way easier to skip this one.
-
-
assuming you only ever play with friends and no one else with pre-arranged VOIP setups...
-
This. VOIP should have been in BF3 at launch, I'm still baffled as to why it's not there.
-
Because it is packaged with Xbox Live and PSN dev kits.
-
-
-
-
I mute people if they're a jackass/annoying, I don't blanket turn off VOIP in pub games. Every game should have their own VOIP in game to encourage communication. You wouldn't make the same argument for text chat and XFire.
-
-
-
-
I have no idea why every BF/DICE hater has an issue with the Premium business model (aside from uncharted territory like Premium slots in server queues - that is admittedly kinda weird). $15 for 4-5 maps is the exact right price. BF3 is going to be alive and kicking for quite a while.
-
-
[deleted]
-
And most of the mods/maps that were user created for that game were garbage. Even POE2 sucked and that had a strong legacy.
-
Don't even get me started on those realism mods.
-
[deleted]
-
Name some popular / well designed user made maps in BF2. I played a ton, some good some bad. The main problem is that you will never get stats ranking on a user made map, therefore the community will be DOA.
You would need a full blown TC mod to get people to jump off the rankings train.-
[deleted]
-
Cool. I'm with you. I'm not that concerned about points...however...I'm speaking from experience running a server for BF2. Despite what people say, I saw exactly how the community behaves when it comes to ranks. If the map can't get ranked, they aren't really interested. It has to be a full blown total conversion to get people to jump.
Its the sad truth man, but unlocks changed everything.
-
-
-
-
-
and 99% of them sucked, and everyone just settled on 2-3 to play anyway.
-
-
I care, which is why I'll pay $15 for 4-5 professionally made maps.
-
exactly. professional quality maps deserve compensation. The price point is debatable, but I'm not against paying for a few maps if they are really good.
-
I paid launch price for nine 64 player conquest maps, five of which were terrible and unsuitable for that mode. It's no guarantee that the "professional" maps are going to be the best in any game.
In my opinion they should be running a constant beta to test their upcoming DLC maps one at a time and tweaking them based on feedback. Most of the maps they've released thus far could be a whole lot better in terms of balance. People just accept it faults and all because it's all there is and will be. -
Because the studio made them doesn't make them good maps. If you've been around since the Quake days. You'd see a number of dev studios learned a lot from amateur map makers in terms of map flow, gameplay mechanics and architecture experimentation.
The FPS scene would have been fucking dull without it.
-
-
-
That percentage of yours is off. And that's also not the point. Most custom-made maps ended up better than what devs produce. As goes with a number of Source games, which has tons of great community map-makers out in the public. I'm thankful some companies still allow modification of their games. We wouldn't have a number of the popular games we currently have if it wasn't for mods. It always just starts out as a small map experiment and then a full mod happens.
Most of them are breaths of fresh air. I'd rather have an open playground than one fed through a fucking tube at monetary intervals.
-
-
-
Because you are beholden to their schedule and what they think is best, what the community wants and decides to create to keep the game alive is no longer possible.
I would still be playing this game if armored kill or just some more "battlefield" sized maps were released for the game. But now after all this time away, I doubt I'd even bother coming back for that, even if it were free and not $15. Quite a contrast to the games I played for years non stop due almost entirely to community support.-
And for the record I have no problem with their premium service. I just think it's shitty that it's the only option for more Battlefield maps (and I mean actual Battlefield maps, not this Call of Duty garbage they most recently added). I'd feel the same way if any MP game I really liked shared the same content model, imagine a TF2 with infrequent paid for map packs compared to the 1000s of custom ones available. Sure only a fraction of those are great, but the best bubble to the top and thanks to community testing and feedback they are sometimes better than "official" ones.
It's sad when a console only game like Halo is doing more for additional content and community features with Forge than Battlefield has done in years since DICE stopped releasing tools.
-
-
People like being archaic and think of the good ol mod days which aren't coming back anytime soon besides from smaller companies like Bohemia. EA obviously isn't going to support that model with all the $$ DLC CoD brings in. Either way, premium should be viewed as a good deal to anyone that still plays BF3 on a normal basis that plans on playing more into the future since you save $ compared to buying DLC one at a time. Digital retailers like GMG also offer % discount codes all the time which knock down the Premium price even more.
-
A pay wall for maps in a multiplayer game splits the community. Maps should be free and shitty fluff stuff should be buyable.
-
-
they could also counter with the fact that old school expansion packs did the exact same thing but somehow didn't generate the same concern (even though the expansions were at least 2x the cost of a map pack today). Q3 Team Arena? All the BF1942 expansions?
-
You know, I never did buy Team Arena or the BF42 expansions because of custom maps and mods. I had way more content than I could get to already.
And while I regret missing some of those RTR Shackbattles, we still continued to play vanilla BF1942 for years most of the time because more people had it. -
Those also didn't have the frequency of what you get today. So the wait in those periods did build a lot better but those also didn't sell very well. Q3:TA was pretty much a joke.
-
they didn't have the frequency because you needed more content to justify a $30-40 product and boxed retail release, but then you get the content out later than is ideal. That said RTR came out 6 months after 1942 and another 6 months after that. I suspect the number of people who want new content 2-4 months after release is much greater than the number of people still playing and interested in new content 6-12 months after release.
-
they didn't have the frequency because you needed more content to justify a $30-40 product and boxed retail release, but then you get the content out later than is ideal. That said RTR came out 6 months after 1942 and another 6 months after that. I suspect (and I'm reasonably sure even though the EEDAR data is fuzzy in my mind) the number of people who want new content 2-4 months after release is much greater than the number of people still playing and interested in new content 6-12 months after release. You guys may hate it but there're a ton of people who love the idea of a new map pack every couple months after release.
-
-
[deleted]
-
that's all well and good, it doesn't really change the nature of the "fragmenting the community" complaint which has become one lynchpin for DLC hate despite somehow not being as bad an issue with traditional expansion packs of old (when the overall community was even smaller so fragmenting it would be even worse)
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Honestly, what is the difference between BC2 and BF3?
-
BC2 was all about rush and the maps were better designed for that game mode. BF3 is more interested in conquest, and the rush conversions are of mixed quality. Also, the environments in BC2 were more natural and the destruction was more impressive and comprehensive. I prefer everything in BC2 except the gunplay, which feels better in BF3.
-
Buildings went down in BC2 a lot more, but the destruction was a lot more generic and cookie cutter looking. I personally wish that BF3's building collapsed more often but the destruction is REALLY good looking and organic feeling. I found BF3's rush maps to be a lote better than BC2, but to each their own.
-
[deleted]
-
lol. I feel like most of the requests in this thread are people with reminiscing about a bygone era. Those days are done. No one cares about LAN anymore, offline bots isn't that popular anymore, and custom maps will never build a community because they cannot be ranked.
-
-
They could, but people won't play on the unranked versions in the first place to test them out and get a feel for whats popular.
-
If they had let server operators unlock everything from the start in unranked mode instead of adding that feature (and a much requested one) into a patch many months later, things would be different. I know I wouldn't have touched ranked mode, especially because of the bullshit vehicle unlocks. It wasn't fun.
-
Having unlocks free ruin's the unlock economy mentality. That's not going to happen.
-
When you just want to hop into the game you paid for and have fun without grinding out hours for this weapon or that unlock, there's nothing being ruined there. Choice beats all. Do you remember how many people gave up on the game in the first month because they couldn't put the hours in to unlock and keep up and stopped having fun? I'd say a stronger and happier playerbase with access to the content they want if they so choose is more important than some artificial unlock economy.
DICE must have thought so as well, but by the time they finally got around to implementing the variable to unlock everything the damage was done and those people had moved on.-
I don't get this at all. Unlocks are just fine when designed properly. Case in point. I've put a ton of hours in to BF3, it the unlock cap. Want to know the gun I use exclusively? The basic m16.
-
-
-
-
-
You would think so, but BF2's legacy said otherwise.
-
-
-
-
you are talking like one of those people who is completely fine with the de-evolution of MP gaming communities and philosophy, to the point of promoting it. thats cool and all, but i wish you would get a virus on your computer and never ever be able to talk publicly on the internet for the rest of your life. i dont mean that in a harsh or bad way, just saying.
-
-
-
-
Bad Company 2's destruction made buildings as a functional part of map balance almost worthless. When you can just level all the buildings around there is almost no cover and absolutely no verticality which has a huge impact on how you play the game. I get that BF3's destruction isn't as appealing in terms of the aesthetics and realism, as far as keeping the gameplay consistent and more varied it's much better than Bad Company 2. You can still punch holes in most walls to create new paths, but you're not going to lose the ability to climb up to upper floors for tactical advantages.
-
Exactly, this was one of the reasons they dialed it down. Once the community matured in BC2, people knew how to drop a building in a few strokes.
-
Yea, Arica Harbor, Port Valdez, etc. Who cares about the 1st two MCOMs on Arica when you can just knock buildings out with tanks from a far or on the 2nd mcom set in Valdez? I understand the BF3 design decision to not allow using C4/explosives on Mcoms or to allow too much destructibility.
-
-
Yup
-
-
Who cares if the first points are hard to hold when there are four more pairs of points to defend? Whether it was intentional or not, I think a good rush map is balanced so that the points become increasingly more difficult to capture and you're not stuck replaying the same scenario forever. If you put up a strong, but losing defense, it's not wasted effort because the enemy will have fewer tickets to take the next point.
-
-
-
-
If your shit was getting torn down quickly that was on you and your team. You can easily counter that shit and even then not every point was a destroyable building. The issue as with most class-based games is everyone always has terrible class make-up's.
-
You obviously didn't play on the (in my opinion really shitty) high ticket count servers that dominated the server browser after a few months. When each team has like 500 or 1000 tickets, the matches last so long that pretty much anything that can be destroyed will be about halfway through. The amount of indestructible buildings was much too low frankly.
It's not a big deal if the games are short, but when was the last time you saw a vanilla server three months after a Battlefield or a Call of Duty launched? You have to look really hard to find them and if you do find any it's maybe one or two, and they may be far away from you.-
I never play on high ticket servers. That bullshit is boring.
-
high ticket servers weren't too common in bc2 since the main mode everyone played was a mix of rush & cq, with more emphasis on rush. Its in BF3 I notice a lot of servers with super inflated ticket counts, mostly done in order to keep their server populated. There's a ton of servers including the shack one that sit permanently at empty due to shitty seeding
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Exactly :D
-
-
-
-
I personally enjoyed BC2 more, but primarily because of the map selection. The destruction was also more over the top and prevalent which I enjoyed.
-
[deleted]
-
-
The maps, the squads and overall aggressive nature of it. The building and environment destruction is great in it. It's too bad a lot of what Dice did to make it better came too late. I still play it today and it's a great game even if you have to get used to Dice's awful mouse and character movement. Hardcore is fun too.
-
-
-
-
Not going to happen, they have been doing that since BF2. Won't be changing if you want ranks.
-
The entire ranking/unlock system needs to vanish from FPS games.
-
A lot of people. Love it. So its going not going anywhere.
-
i just wish it was not just a different name for "leveling". im totally fine with ranks and ratings and stuff, thats cool and lets you benchmark yourself. but the unlocking thing is what is so bad. this coming from a guy with 200 some hours in BF3, and with premium (though admittedly I have not played since CQC came out, mainly due to busy life etc).
-
Shit's gay.
-
-
-
Offline BOTS, a la Black Ops. Do you fucking speak them?
-
Why are all of these requests in this thread for baby features?
-
Because some people prefer a certain featureset as and you said higher up, - maybe it is a bygone era, but it was a goddamn awesome era. :)
-
Fair enough, I really loved 42, Vietnam, and BF2. But in a world were AAA games cost a bazillion dollars and man hours are precious, I'd rather have them spend time DM7's recommended change vs offline bots for a game that is multiplayer focused.
-
If it's down to a budget, you're right, the most popular features win. That doesn't make it any more of a shame that "niche" features like offline bot play etc are knocked off the list.
In an era where it's all about "monetising the product" and "franchise synergy" the older/old-school gamers seem to be left behind somewhat. I hope somewhere around the corner, there's a revival for the small but equally fun features, because they're what keep some people coming back long after the buzz of a new game has died.-
Indie shooters are what you are looking for.
-
Yeah I had a blast with Sanctum.
-
Great game. Even better at that Steam Sale price.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not falling for this bullshit again..... never buying a dice game again. BF3 was a great game only when all the stars aligned properly everything worked... and after I bought a new sound card because the stupid fucking games online component was not compatible with my onboard sound as fucking stupid as that sounds.
-
Am I the only one that wishes we could modify our soldier builds outside of the fucking server we're playing on? Do it Battlelog! Sometimes I'll spend 5 minutes figuring shit out while my squad is getting slaughtered.
-
That would be great, a feature worth begging for. To set and save preset loudouts outside the game and equip them easily while. It's bad enough you can only change something when you're dead and in a hurry to get back into the action, and that the soldier / camo customization stuff never seems to stick still.
-
Oh hey, look: http://battlefieldo.com/threads/battlefield-3-customization-editor.5114/
It's not in Battlelog but could be worth checking out. I'm always wary of running some 3rd party .exe these days though.-
Nice find! I'm definitely going to try this.
-
BOOM!
Let's hope he's right! It's long overdue.
Per the author of that mod on page 2:
So, I've got some news.
DICE is gonna add the ability to change your loadout into Battlelog.
They're gonna add this within the next game client update, which I presume is the same day when the next DLC will come out.
This mean that my app will be pretty much useless. I don't think I'll continue working on it, but I doubt I'll completely delete the project (probably I'll continue it privately).
-
-
-
I dont want to seem too ambitious here, but how about:
- its easy to get into a match, same team, and squad with a friend! -
I seriously have Battle Field and Call of Duty fatigue. I don't give a damn about either franchise's sequels anymore.
Maybe I'll go to a one every 2nd or 3rd release personal schedule.
-
