Are DICE Getting worried about planetside 2..

[dorgo]

Read This (http://blogs.battlefield.com/2012/07/building-biggest-bf-map-ever/?sourceid=bf3-fb-wall-na-blogpost%3Futm_source%3Dfacebook&utm_medium=wall-post&utm_campaign=do-not-use&utm_content=blogpost)

They might be, make you own conclusions.

I wasnt sure which forum to put this.

[Sledgecrushr]

Yup DICE is squirming. If PS2s gameplay is as tight as it looks in the vids then they really are screwed. Why in the hell would someone PAY for a 2.4km 64 player map when you can get 3x8km maps with 6k total players for free.

[BlueSkies]

ITS SO BIG AND WE FACED SO MANY CHALLENGES IN DESIGNING IT for 64 players total...

[Kevin D Lee]

Yup DICE is squirming. If PS2s gameplay is as tight as it looks in the vids then they really are screwed. Why in the hell would someone PAY for a 2.4km 64 player map when you can get 3x8km maps with 6k total players for free.

BF3 is and will still be the better game for E-Sports / Tournaments due to the ability to limit team sizes. They have nothing to fear from PS2 in that regard. As for casual players... yeah they may come over. Remember PS2 won't have the destruction the BF3 engine offers.

[Firearms]

Nah I don't think so. No more than they were scared of PS1 during 1942 etc.
They're only interested in cash from the Console monkey. They got the taste for that from BC1. They like to mention size and scale and 64 players as it gives the consolers something to aspire to...
They killed battlefield when they screwed Trauma studios over for Desert Combat...it went down hill from there with smaller scale and longer and longer TTK until we end at BF3.

[Sturmhardt]

ITS SO BIG AND WE FACED SO MANY CHALLENGES IN DESIGNING IT for 64 players total...

Lol, yeah, my thoughts, its not that special as they wanna sell it.

[SkilletSoup]

Too little too late. Should have listened to your community, you could have had the best FPS ever. But no, you mis-led your player base and catered to the COD console kids. Too bad, the world could have been yours.

[Kevin D Lee]

ITS SO BIG AND WE FACED SO MANY CHALLENGES IN DESIGNING IT for 64 players total...

I too was let down by the 64 player cap... BUT you need to remember everything their engine allows destruction wise.

Anyways I remember servers going past 120 people in the BF3 Beta. It is possible but most of the maps are not designed for that many players.

[TOCS]

Of course they're getting worried, they're getting beat at their own ballgame. They thought catering to everyone would succeed, but it failed miserably. SoE has broadened its audience, but they're still trying to get the old vets aboard.

[Klockan]

They are probably not worried yet, there is no hype about PS2 at all as of now. Kinda like league of legends, none knew what it was before it was released except for a small part of the dota community and now it is one of the biggest games there is. They should be worried but they probably aren't, hopefully PS2 can make a LoL and become the biggest fps that everyone plays. The only things that could stop that is bad netcode, bad weapon handling, bad vehicle handling or imbalanced servers making the game unenjoyable. To me it seems like they have those things covered but we got to see to be sure.

[Kevin D Lee]

Of course they're getting worried, they're getting beat at their own ballgame. They thought catering to everyone would succeed, but it failed miserably. SoE has broadened its audience, but they're still trying to get the old vets aboard.

PS2's Engine can't do what BF3's Engine can. More players does not make PS2 the better game by default.

fanboys I swear...

[GhettoPrince]

Anyone else thing 1100 meters between spawns is really small for a map full of jets? Shit, I jog twice that every morning in like 15 minutes...

[ITOS]

I don't think that DICE is too worried about PS2. BF and PS has different gameplay and selling points.

What I DO think they feel, is the pressure to increase the number of players in a match beyond 64. Perhaps they will look into that more carefully with the next console generation.

[typhaon]

I would imagine all the major FPS producers are watching PS2 pretty closely. PS2 is trying to pull off something unique... an experience CoD and BF3 do not offer.

A successful PS2 would not only reward SOE (and I hope they are rewarded... and encouraged to try equally 'unique' things in future games) but force other companies to evolve their games - which can only be good for what has felt like a stagnant gaming industry.

[Firearms]

It's refreshing to see a thread on here where PS1 preceding 1942 gets forgotten...apples and oranges.

To put some figures to BF3 though -

PC sales - World - 2.02million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/35315/battlefield-3/)
Xbox sales - World - 6.06million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40231/battlefield-3/)
PlayS2 sales - World - 5.52million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40230/battlefield-3/)

So are they worries about a PC only game? Really no.

/thread

[Zulthus]

PS2's Engine can't do what BF3's Engine can. More players does not make PS2 the better game by default.

fanboys I swear...

Except it is the better game.

Destruction was a novelty, and it wore off after a month tops. What else does it have to offer that PS2 won't bring to the table?

Massive maps, 2000 player battles, immense vehicle warfare, incredible amounts and customization of guns, better teamplay, much nicer environments, complete day/night cycle with many variants, 10 person squads, outfits, more variety in classes... I can go on and on and on.

Plus the big one... wait for it... it's FREE.

What does BF3 have to offer? Pretty guns, insane bloom, dirty goggles, tactical sun, brown environments, and destruction. It was fun for a while... it's time to step aside.

PS2 is the better game. That's just how it is.

[SkilletSoup]

Uninstalls = 1.25 million

[fod]

PS2's Engine can't do what BF3's Engine can. More players does not make PS2 the better game by default.

fanboys I swear...

and the bf3 engine cant do what forgelight can
it works both ways here as they both have their positives and negatives

[Phyrefli]

Read This (http://blogs.battlefield.com/2012/07/building-biggest-bf-map-ever/?sourceid=bf3-fb-wall-na-blogpost%3Futm_source%3Dfacebook&utm_medium=wall-post&utm_campaign=do-not-use&utm_content=blogpost)

They might be, make you own conclusions.

I wasnt sure which forum to put this.

There's no connection between AK and PS2....Dice are concentrating on trying to carve into CoD's fanbase rather than anyone else's. They've effectively ignored their historic fanbase to achieve this, so AK is one of their ways of getting the vets back. Too little too late for most of us.

Personally I'm a long-time BF fan, with BF2142 being my fav game. Myself and many others from an originally BF-centric community called MordorHQ are looking to move to PS2 once it gets going.

[IronMole]

PS2's Engine can't do what BF3's Engine can. More players does not make PS2 the better game by default.

fanboys I swear...

How do you know that it can't? Just because it's not in PS2 doesn't mean it's not capable...

[BlueSkies]

It's refreshing to see a thread on here where PS1 preceding 1942 gets forgotten...apples and oranges.

To put some figures to BF3 though -

PC sales - World - 2.02million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/35315/battlefield-3/)
Xbox sales - World - 6.06million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40231/battlefield-3/)
PlayS2 sales - World - 5.52million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40230/battlefield-3/)

So are they worries about a PC only game? Really no.

/thread

Smedley hinted strongly that planetside 2 would make its way to the PS3 at the very least.

[IronMole]

They are probably not worried yet, there is no hype about PS2 at all as of now. Kinda like league of legends, none knew what it was before it was released except for a small part of the dota community and now it is one of the biggest games there is. They should be worried but they probably aren't, hopefully PS2 can make a LoL and become the biggest fps that everyone plays. The only things that could stop that is bad netcode, bad weapon handling, bad vehicle handling or imbalanced servers making the game unenjoyable. To me it seems like they have those things covered but we got to see to be sure.

No hype? Where have you been for the last year?

Also your last bit sounds exactly like BF3...

[ThermalReaper]

Except it is the better game.

Destruction was a novelty, and it wore off after a month tops. What else does it have to offer that PS2 won't bring to the table?

Massive maps, 2000 player battles, immense vehicle warfare, incredible amounts and customization of guns, better teamplay, much nicer environments, complete day/night cycle with many variants, 10 person squads, outfits, more variety in classes... I can go on and on and on.

Plus the big one... wait for it... it's FREE.

What does BF3 have to offer? Pretty guns, insane bloom, dirty goggles, tactical sun, brown environments, and destruction. It was fun for a while... it's time to step aside.

PS2 is the better game. That's just how it is.

As well as the most innovative thing ever in an fps. A blue filter instead of a Brown one.

[Firearms]

Smedley hinted strongly that planetside 2 would make its way to the PS3 at the very least.

:evildrop: In that case we need to worry less about DICE worrying and more about PS2 being "Tweaked" to work on consoles :cry:
Although I don't know the spec of the ps3...it's prolly better than my PC. Negative mouse and assisted aim are all fun though...:D

[Kevin D Lee]

How do you know that it can't? Just because it's not in PS2 doesn't mean it's not capable...

If Forgelight could do what Frostbite could I'm sure we would have been seeing a lot of news about the destructible features.

-------------

Anyways I know PS2 will be the better game, it's just wrong to assume one game will suffer due to the other.

I had high hopes for BF3 and E-Sports... but they fucked themselves in that regard at launch by not having any of the features E-Sports would require to be a huge success.

[Canaris]

we didn't want destructable features in PS2 we built our buildings to last ;)

[Rago]

One word "Premium"

I deinstalled BF3 As it went Premium i also dont buy COD for many YEARS i did not bought many COD Games (i think not enoght content,to expensive,...)

Well i would be happy they had to Worry, maybe something changes :)
I will Play Planetside i think for a Long Time :)

I was dissapointed by the most fps Games the Last Years.

Canaris i Agree i dont want a CS Game :)

[Stardouser]

It's refreshing to see a thread on here where PS1 preceding 1942 gets forgotten...apples and oranges.

Not that wikipedia can never be wrong, but as a handy reference it's great, and according to it, BF1942 was released in September 2002, and PS in May 2003.

Just saying!

Destruction was a novelty, and it wore off after a month tops. What else does it have to offer that PS2 won't bring to the table?


This. Destruction isn't necessarily bad per se, except that it wastes a lot of hardware resources that could be used for other things. It's something that should only be looked at once hardware power outreaches the other game design goals enough to allow it without compromising other things.

Although the idea of destruction in a persistent game presents challenges. What should be destructible and what shouldn't, and how will it get rebuilt? And it would have to be rebuilt, otherwise nothing would exist for more than a few hours. As for being rebuilt, some people will take "persistence" over-literally and say "oh, no, the game can't rebuild anything, it's a persistent game" but I think that's going overboard with it.

And as far as that goes, I would think that to properly use Destruction you would want cities and residential/commercial areas to tear down as you fight through them. Thus far Planetside is seemingly devoid of anything but military buildings, or, as far as we know.

[Pella]

If Forgelight could do what Frostbite could I'm sure we would have been seeing a lot of news about the destructible features.

-------------

Anyways I know PS2 will be the better game, it's just wrong to assume one game will suffer due to the other.

I had high hopes for BF3 and E-Sports... but they fucked themselves in that regard at launch by not having any of the features E-Sports would require to be a huge success.

Frostbite is used by many many games. And Forgelight is being used by 2 games which have yet to be released to the Public . So no one knows the potential of it other than the Devs who have made big claims of its capability's. That is confidence right there.

[Maniox]

BF3 will be destroyed by planetside, dice knows it, PREVIOUS battlefield fans know it.

Loved the battlefield series, but sorry! EA sucks

[TAA]

BF is a well established franchise, and BF3 looks amazing. Once the new generation of consoles come out the next generation of shooters will be absolutely phenomenal. Never underestimate the appeal of being able to reshape terrain during a fight. No, BF is in no danger from PS2.

Some of you are way too confident/hopeful that PS2 will be a monster hit. I for one am worried. Very worried.

Almost all the first beta testers are going to be PS1 vets. This wouldnt be any concern, except that the devs really do seem to listen to what their playerbase says. PS1 vets are the last people they need to take advice from to build a truly phenomenal shooter. Leave it up to them (the diehard PS1 vets who are still subbed to this day) and we will get a bastardized version of PS1 with prettier graphics. It certainly wont help that this game is going to look old and antiquated in a couple of years when the standard hardware for games takes a giant leap forward due to next gen consoles.

[Sabot]

PlanetSide has always been more fun than Battlefield... The original PS was still the best (read: more enjoyable) between the two after they released sooo many new BF games. BF got prettier over the years, but the game play got uglier... and uglier and uglier. Now PS is just as pretty, but as long as they haven't messed up completely, which I don't think they have, it's still the same amazing game play as the original.... And I used to love Battlefield. Honestly, I still enjoy BF3 for instance... but compared to PS...

BF, u mad bro?

[Canaris]

PlanetSide has always been more fun than Battlefield... The original PS was still the best (read: more enjoyable) between the two after they released sooo many new BF games. BF got prettier over the years, but the game play got uglier... and uglier and uglier. Now PS is just as pretty, but as long as they haven't messed up completely, which I don't think they have, it's still the same amazing game play as the original.... And I used to love Battlefield. Honestly, I still enjoy BF3 for instance... but compared to PS...

BF, u mad bro?

exactly right, EA/DICE keep going back to same turgid well every time they want to expand the BF series. They add more bells and whistles but never fix the games underlying problems or expand to much on the forumla. They are their own worse enemy in this regard.

[Redshift]

If Forgelight could do what Frostbite could I'm sure we would have been seeing a lot of news about the destructible features.



I doubt you'll ever see a game of PS2's size with destructable environments, you'd level the whole map in 10 mins

[KaB]

I believe DICE are really getting worried. They didn't put the good money balance for their engine between the gameplay wealth, the game's price, and the graphics.

Even if nothing's assured yet, PS2 is on a better way right now. Forgelight isn't as awesome as Frosbite, but it's balanced enough to make an interesting game with useful stuff and great graphics, without costing a lot of money (at least less than Frostbite did).

And ... Sony.

[Pella]

Almost all the first beta testers are going to be PS1 vets. This wouldnt be any concern, except that the devs really do seem to listen to what their playerbase says. PS1 vets are the last people they need to take advice from to build a truly phenomenal shooter. Leave it up to them (the diehard PS1 vets who are still subbed to this day) and we will get a bastardized version of PS1 with prettier graphics. It certainly wont help that this game is going to look old and antiquated in a couple of years when the standard hardware for games takes a giant leap forward due to next gen consoles.

So the Majority of PS1 vets i personally know. All play other FPS excessively and competitively. So your saying Myself and these people who have grown up over the years and gained profound knowledge of the FPS Market & Gameplay. That SOE should not listen to the likes of us? Sorry pal we are top of the list.

[Marsgrim]

I doubt you'll ever see a game of PS2's size with destructable environments, you'd level the whole map in 10 mins

Was about to post the same thing but you beat me to it, damn you Red!! /shakefist

[TAA]

So the Majority of PS1 vets i personally know. All play other FPS excessively and competitively. So your saying Myself and these people who have grown up over the years and gained profound knowledge of the FPS Market & Gameplay. That SOE should not listen to the likes of us? Sorry pal we are top of the list.

I think they should not listen to anyone other than their collected data. Especially nobody who posts on these forums (the 1-2% of players this will eventually account for at best). They need to trust their data and their market research papers, they need to put a survey into the launcher and get the opinions of the other 98-99% of players. Not anyone here.

[Sikee Atric]

I think DICE are 'interested' more than squirming at the thought of PS2.... They'll be facinated to see how the netcode handles the 6K players and how many will leave BF3, or at least try PS2.

They'll respond after they get those answers.

[Canaris]

I think they should not listen to anyone other than their collected data. Especially nobody who posts on these forums (the 1-2% of players this will eventually account for at best). They need to trust their data and their market research papers, they need to put a survey into the launcher and get the opinions of the other 98-99% of players. Not anyone here.

HA tell that to Bioware and all their great metrics of data :rolleyes:
"working as intended!" sound familiar?

Raw data is nothing without the context of experiences to give reason as to why something is the way it is.
Take for instance the space game of TOR, BW will claim they have tons of data that say "It's greatly used so therefore it must be liked" instead of the truth which points that BW themselves have artificially made it so people will do the simple, crap and not liked space game in order to get free money/experience and special tokens so they can buy their favourite Gucci Space pilots hand bag.

[Stardouser]

So the Majority of PS1 vets i personally know. All play other FPS excessively and competitively. So your saying Myself and these people who have grown up over the years and gained profound knowledge of the FPS Market & Gameplay. That SOE should not listen to the likes of us? Sorry pal we are top of the list.

The question that you didn't answer, though, was, if you were approached by SOE for your consultation, exactly what would you be advocating that they do?

I think they should not listen to anyone other than their collected data. Especially nobody who posts on these forums (the 1-2% of players this will eventually account for at best). They need to trust their data and their market research papers, they need to put a survey into the launcher and get the opinions of the other 98-99% of players. Not anyone here.

Well, you're right about putting a survey into the Station Launcher, but by definition, they won't be able to do that until they have a LOT of people in beta, by which time, 75% or more of the game is feature locked.

As for data other than surveys, companies like DICE cut corners and use sales figures, which simply can't be used to justify individual features, not the least reason for which is because one game can be different from another in hundreds of ways - you can't attribute sales to one specific thing. For example, if SOE was looking at sales figures, we would have a positional killcam, because BF3 has one and BF3 sold 15 million copies, or we would have CoD style replay cam because CoD sells 20 million copies per year.

[Sabot]

I think they should not listen to anyone other than their collected data. Especially nobody who posts on these forums (the 1-2% of players this will eventually account for at best). They need to trust their data and their market research papers, they need to put a survey into the launcher and get the opinions of the other 98-99% of players. Not anyone here.

Excuse me... but what the F are you on about? They are making PlanetSide... is it logical of them to listen to everybody BUT the ones that actually knows PlanetSide? You obvisouly didn't play PS1 and is a bit ticked off about it... no vet. status or whaterver. And for some reason you think that if they listened to the CoD or BF crowd, it would make the game better...? How did you come to this conlusion? Seriously I want to know your train of thought here... I'm pondering writing a paper about it.

[Memeotis]

Except it is the better game.

Destruction was a novelty, and it wore off after a month tops. What else does it have to offer that PS2 won't bring to the table?

Massive maps, 2000 player battles, immense vehicle warfare, incredible amounts and customization of guns, better teamplay, much nicer environments, complete day/night cycle with many variants, 10 person squads, outfits, more variety in classes... I can go on and on and on.

Plus the big one... wait for it... it's FREE.

What does BF3 have to offer? Pretty guns, insane bloom, dirty goggles, tactical sun, brown environments, and destruction. It was fun for a while... it's time to step aside.

PS2 is the better game. That's just how it is.

Exactly. The destruction, aside from being pretty for the first two games, actually made the game more annoying than interesting. (imo) For a building-destruction mechanic to be interesting, the buildings that get destroyed will have to have been placed by players - if not it's just an over-used gimmick.

[Klockan]

No hype? Where have you been for the last year?
In all the forums I frequent the planetside 2 threads are really small and people barely talks about it. There is a rather small population that is hyped for planetside 2, nothing even close to what the big AAA titles get. Even this forum is extremely small and it is the biggest forum for PS2 currently. If you say that PS2 is hyped then you are just delusional. If you show me any forum anywhere except this one that is shows the masses being hyped I might reconsider my opinion but at most there is a thread with some guy telling others about PS2, maybe 3-5 guys are actively talking about the game with most just asking how to get a beta key and then the thread dies after a few pages. All the big AAA games had threads with hundreds of pages before even beta was released.

Also your last bit sounds exactly like BF3...
BF3 is a really well made game, there are a few quirks but overall it is awesome. I didn't play it that much though since I had grown bored of the BF series a long time ago and BF3 didn't really bring anything new but added a few things I really didn't like. I liked BF 2142 the most, it had the most variety and added a lot of new concepts but weren't liked due to the futuristic theme and bland environments.

Excuse me... but what the F are you on about? They are making PlanetSide... is it logical of them to listen to everybody BUT the ones that actually knows PlanetSide? You obvisouly didn't play PS1 and is a bit ticked off about it... no vet. status or whaterver. And for some reason you think that if they listened to the CoD or BF crowd, it would make the game better...? How did you come to this conlusion? Seriously I want to know your train of thought here... I'm pondering writing a paper about it.
They want this game to get over 10 million players, to do that they need to cater to the common FPS player. The idea of PS1 wasn't to have an inventory system or to have skills to chose what you could use, instead it was about having a three way faction warfare futuristic mmofps. They hold true to all those things, they do basically the same game except that they modified the gameplay parts of the game to modern standards. Planetsides gameplay was popular back in the late 90 early 00, but today the average fps player wants a game to play like battlefield.

[TotoDestroy]

So the Majority of PS1 vets i personally know. All play other FPS excessively and competitively. So your saying Myself and these people who have grown up over the years and gained profound knowledge of the FPS Market & Gameplay. That SOE should not listen to the likes of us? Sorry pal we are top of the list.

Definitely agree with that. IMO 1997-2005 was the golden age of FPS games, so if you were around playing those games you're good in my book. Not to say there aren't any good current FPS', but I just feel the genre has been running on the fumes for awhile.

Anyway, of course DICE is worried, it's their job to be worried about any potential threats. The only titles they have confirmed to be releasing within the next 9-12 months are BF3 expansions. Point being: is "John M. Gamer" gonna spend his money on Xpacks or take that money to a newer, shinier, bigger F2P FPS title and get some custom in-game stuff?

[VaderShake]

EA/DICE are worried because of falling stock shares and population declines in their lead titles. Are they worried about PS2 specifically...well, most likely they are because it is going to grab part of their base BF/MOH player and is on a much larger scale than anything they can deliver.

To those who are saying PS1 did not affect BF1942, to be honest...I knew nothing about PS1 because I was neck deep in BF1942 and never put my head up to look around, if I did heck yea I would have tried PS1 and probably loved it from what I have see.

With the failure of BF3 appealing to the BF vets it opened the door to find PS2 and we are super excited to try it. The shear size and scope and ambition of the game squishes BF3.

If SOE really wanted to take a swipe at DICE/EA & Activision they should do a WW3 game with 2,000 players, 3 factions, fighting all over the globe, with all modern vehicles & weapons, and a not as robust unlock system as PS2. Heck they could even do a WW2 game, imagine storming the beach at Normandy, fighting through the hedgerows, and into a town all in 1 64km map?

SOE is in the driver seat for the next 12 months if PS2 is what it looks to be and I don't think EA investors what to see an investment in hundreds of millions of dollars to develope a Frostbite 3 engine that can handle thousands of players. Maybe the new EA CEO will feel different?

[infected]

It certainly wont help that this game is going to look old and antiquated in a couple of years when the standard hardware for games takes a giant leap forward due to next gen consoles.

that is some serious comedy right there

[Elays]

If you look at the comments, I find it hilarious that there are so many begging BF3 to expand the number of players on the server.....to 32. :lol:

I don't want to be overconfident, but let's face it, PS2 will be a radical departure from the "brown & bloom" shooters, and I think people are ready for that. Ready, waiting, and begging for a playtest.

[Sabot]

They want this game to get over 10 million players, to do that they need to cater to the common FPS player. The idea of PS1 wasn't to have an inventory system or to have skills to chose what you could use, instead it was about having a three way faction warfare futuristic mmofps. They hold true to all those things, they do basically the same game except that they modified the gameplay parts of the game to modern standards. Planetsides gameplay was popular back in the late 90 early 00, but today the average fps player wants a game to play like battlefield.

That's not the point though... we all get that they've made changes to make the game more attractive in the eyes of a broader spectrum of FPS gamers. But it's still PlanetSide... But if you ask someone that has never played PlanetSide something like...
"What do you guys think about this: Instead of the AMS we now have the Gal as a mobile spawnpoint, and the main gun on the Mag is now controlled by the driver... comments?"

A CoD or BF player that's never heard of PS wont give useful feedback on that! That is exactly why we, the ones that know PS, are the most useful tools they have in the development of this game, m'kay?

[Stardouser]

All the big AAA games had threads with hundreds of pages before even beta was released.


Which AAA games are you talking about? Battlefield and CoD games already have huge followings and that probably accounts for a lot of the hype. I don't know how many people bought/subscribed to PS1 over the years so I can't speculate that there weren't that many, but not all of them are active right now, due to how long it has been since PS1's most active years.

Do you know of any AAA games that are/were brand new on the scene and are doing/did better than PS2 for hype?

[Exmortius]

planetside soe is going to eat battlefields lunch and i think cod fans as well. youtube is here folks. it wasn't when ps1 first launched. the game design is much crisper on ps2 it appears than ps1 overall. i expect a lot of people to defect. we will have to put up with more bs but the servers should be packed with cod/bf noobs who will be padding vet kill counts for a few months :D BF3 was a pretty big dissappointment to me, i actually think overall BC2 was a superior game to bf3 in it's gameplay and mechanics. BF3 had potential but I feel like they kinda squandered it some. that game really shoulda been something more.

[SwiftRanger]

To put some figures to BF3 though -

PC sales - World - 2.02million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/35315/battlefield-3/)
Xbox sales - World - 6.06million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40231/battlefield-3/)
PlayS2 sales - World - 5.52million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40230/battlefield-3/)

VGChartz doesn't have much credibility.

As for the OP: they already announced that one of the five(!) DLC packs would offer larger maps.
Battlefield 3 isn't a bad game (awful linear singleplayer though) but its server browsing wasn't perfect, it didn't evolve much in the FPS multiplayer area (aside from insane destructability). Something was off with the game after a while (also balance-wise), still, it was money well spent as Dice pushed PC tech with it. You have to applaud that. It's also one of those games where too much detail hurts the experience. You rarely actually saw your opponents and from where they shot you. While that may be realistic, it wasn't exactly fun.

This doesn't seem to be the case with PS2 as it offers very vibrant colours in the character details and environments.

As others have said: Battlefield is a lot more popular than PlanetSide could ever hope to be. Even after the past E3 I don't see the same buzz surrounding PS2 as BF3 got pre-release. Has something to do with being PC-exclusive and being free-to-play. As long as PS2 itself excels at what it aims to do (à la LoL) then Dice will feel the hurt in the long end, yes. Others will have to take note and start making large MMOFPSs themselves.

A perfect PlanetSide with the right meta-game could take on any multiplayer FPS experience. So I am not talking about a PS1 remake, that won't be good enough if SOE leaves it at that.

[LegioX]

I love how people are saying next generation consoles are going to make a massive leap in hardware..lol

Consoles will never beat the PC. When next generation comes out, Nividia will already be working on 900 series cards, and intel will still be owning in the processor market. Child please.

[Accuser]

I love how people are saying next generation consoles are going to make a massive leap in hardware..lol

Consoles will never beat the PC. When next generation comes out, Nividia will already be working on 900 series cards, and intel will still be owning in the processor market. Child please.

What they mean is that the FPS games currently being produced (CoD, BF3 especially) are set up to be compatible with current consoles and PC performance. The next gen of consoles will allow developers to dramatically expand what they can do with their new releases, since the new consoles can handle it.

Put simply: BF3 on console can only handle 32 player matches, whereas PC can handle Planetside 2. The next gen of consoles will be able to handle Planetside 2... You do the math.

[TAA]

Excuse me... but what the F are you on about? They are making PlanetSide... is it logical of them to listen to everybody BUT the ones that actually knows PlanetSide? You obvisouly didn't play PS1 and is a bit ticked off about it... no vet. status or whaterver. And for some reason you think that if they listened to the CoD or BF crowd, it would make the game better...? How did you come to this conlusion? Seriously I want to know your train of thought here... I'm pondering writing a paper about it.

You are right. Oh I see the light! DICE should have definitely listened to their most hardcore BF1942 and BF2 players when making BF3 - it would have been a much more successful game! :rolleyes:

Someone in another thread a while back posted this excellent presentation (http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win). I would link to that post and poster to give them credit, but I cant find it right now. I urge you to take a look. Listening to forum posters is a mistake. When it comes to specific advice on weapons etc: isnt that what people like Mr Whisenhunt are hired for?


that is some serious comedy right there

I love how people are saying next generation consoles are going to make a massive leap in hardware..lol

Consoles will never beat the PC. When next generation comes out, Nividia will already be working on 900 series cards, and intel will still be owning in the processor market. Child please.

For years PC game design has been stunted by the hardware limitations of consoles. The new generation of consoles will be a huge leap up for game design - it will set the new minimum level for the vast majority of PC games to come out for years after that. PC games always have been and always will be superior to consoles. Unfortunately the reality is that most games are designed with consoles in mind, not for the PC primarily. I am looking forward to the next generation of consoles. No I am not going to buy one. I am going to upgrade my computer instead.

[LegioX]

What they mean is that the FPS games currently being produced (CoD, BF3 especially) are set up to be compatible with current consoles and PC performance. The next gen of consoles will allow developers to dramatically expand what they can do with their new releases, since the new consoles can handle it.

Put simply: BF3 on console can only handle 32 player matches, whereas PC can handle Planetside 2. The next gen of consoles will be able to handle Planetside 2... You do the math.

Come back to me when PS2 on consoles can handle 2000 player maps, with the bandwidth restrictions microsoft and sony has right now.

[Exmortius]

hmmm 32 players vs 2000 players.......ya that's a tough choice NOT! :D
unleash the burgers!

[Stardouser]

You are right. Oh I see the light! DICE should have definitely listened to their most hardcore BF1942 and BF2 players when making BF3 - it would have been a much more successful game! :rolleyes:



Yes, it would have. Not from a sales standpoint, because frankly, when a game like CoD is entrenched in the marketplace, making a better game just isn't all that matters, but certainly in quality. Because the fact is, the hardcore BF vets were actually quite willing to compromise on the issues.

Teamwork tools, for example, that BF vets were asking for. That would have hurt no one to include. Proper sized large maps instead of maps that they called large, but were really mockeries of the term since they were flag-packed. Having a couple of properly large maps would not have hurt the Metro lovers, Metro would still have existed for them. And as far as large maps go, the original post of this thread links an article that proves DICE finally realized the need for proper sized maps.

[TAA]

Teamwork tools, for example, that BF vets were asking for. That would have hurt no one to include. Proper sized large maps instead of maps that they called large, but were really mockeries of the term since they were flag-packed. Having a couple of properly large maps would not have hurt the Metro lovers, Metro would still have existed for them. And as far as large maps go, the original post of this thread links an article that proves DICE finally realized the need for proper sized maps.


Finally? It never occurred to you that the plan was to get all the hardcore players to pay for the game up front, then appease them by making them pay again for the DLC for the style of play they want? Do you think that the hardcore playerbase would have been ok with that suggestion up front?

[TotoDestroy]

What they mean is that the FPS games currently being produced (CoD, BF3 especially) are set up to be compatible with current consoles and PC performance. The next gen of consoles will allow developers to dramatically expand what they can do with their new releases, since the new consoles can handle it.

Put simply: BF3 on console can only handle 32 player matches, whereas PC can handle Planetside 2. The next gen of consoles will be able to handle Planetside 2... You do the math.

Simply not the case. No matter how well they plan Micro, Sony, Ninty can only make a console with the best tech they have a t that moment which right now for PCs is the Nvidia 600 series GFX cards and Intel's i7/i9 series CPUs. So if new consoles do indeed launch next year, we'll already have AMD 8000 series/ Nvidia 700 series GPUs and we'll be pretty close to the 9000/ 800 series of those cards; and who knows what kinda crazy quattuordecicore CPU AMD or Intel might have out by then?

tl;dr consoles won't catch PCs because tech advances too fast for a stock console to keep up.

[TAA]

tl;dr consoles won't catch PCs because tech advances too fast for a stock console to keep up.

You misunderstood what he said.

[Sabot]

You are right. Oh I see the light! DICE should have definitely listened to their most hardcore BF1942 and BF2 players when making BF3 - it would have been a much more successful game! :rolleyes:

Someone in another thread a while back posted this excellent presentation (http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win). I would link to that post and poster to give them credit, but I cant find it right now. I urge you to take a look. Listening to forum posters is a mistake.

I still don't understand what you are on about? Are you afraid of the F2P buiness model? That it's going to be pay2win? It's not... that is a fact. And as long as they stick to that fact, it's not going to be.

And yes... BF3 would have been a better game if they made it more like the first games that people fell in love with. At least to the ones that love Battlefield, whom which I would guess they'd want to keep as players, as they're the ones making BF3 possible in the first place. I don't understand how you can think otherwise.

And do you think the devs are robots? Don't you think they have minds of their own? The ability to spot a fucked up idea on a forum, and the knowhow to test out ideas they like? In the end they're making the game they want to make, they're not sitting there listing everything we say so they can implement it into the game later... You say "don't listen to forum posters." I'm willing to bet that most of the time they aren't. But they use the forum as a tool to get feedback on THEIR game, from people that KNOW what they're talking about, and as a source of ideas... but how many of the ideas put up on this forum over the months you think are actually in the game because they read it here and didn't think of it themselves first? It's probably not that many...

[lawnmower]

BF3 is and will still be the better game for E-Sports / Tournaments due to the ability to limit team sizes. They have nothing to fear from PS2 in that regard. As for casual players... yeah they may come over. Remember PS2 won't have the destruction the BF3 engine offers.
as for casual players, bf3 is as casual as it gets

PS2's Engine can't do what BF3's Engine can. More players does not make PS2 the better game by default.

fanboys I swear...
an engine has nothing to do with the quality of a game. its about how much dedication and or money one decides to use on it to apply it to the game. its not a question of how well you have made the game and cant be used to describe the quality of the work a company did with the game.
its also peculiar that you seem to think of bf3 as a good game, at least thats the feel i am getting

[Stardouser]

Simply not the case. No matter how well they plan Micro, Sony, Ninty can only make a console with the best tech they have a t that moment which right now for PCs is the Nvidia 600 series GFX cards and Intel's i7/i9 series CPUs. So if new consoles do indeed launch next year, we'll already have AMD 8000 series/ Nvidia 700 series GPUs and we'll be pretty close to the 9000/ 800 series of those cards; and who knows what kinda crazy quattuordecicore CPU AMD or Intel might have out by then?

tl;dr consoles won't catch PCs because tech advances too fast for a stock console to keep up.

Consoles won't catch PCs, no, you're right. But many game developers are developing multiplatform, and at least some of them are bottlenecking game design to keep some kind of parity across versions. That means that sure, PCs are always more powerful, but game design can't take big leaps except when new consoles come out.

So what he meant was, BF3 on console can only handle 24 players, and BF3 PC is 64 players. BF4 on consoles may be able to handle 64 players and PC, well...we'll just have to see whether they increase the PC player count past 64, won't we?

[KaB]

tl;dr consoles won't catch PCs because tech advances too fast for a stock console to keep up.

Consoles won't catch PCs until they get a higher frame rate than 20-30, and a higher resolution than 720p, whatever is their system.
Not more than 10% of console games have already overtaken this resolution scale actually.

Consoles are dying guys. Some devs admitted it.

[sumo]

Except it is the better game.
What does BF3 have to offer? Pretty guns, insane bloom, dirty goggles, tactical sun, brown environments, and destruction. It was fun for a while... it's time to step aside.

PS2 is the better game. That's just how it is.
duude... you forgot that they also offer DLC.

[KaB]

duude... you forgot that they also offer DLC.

Yeaaah, 50$ of DLC ! With such a price, I call it an entire game... which requires another game etc. Buy more please !

[Pella]

The question that you didn't answer, though, was, if you were approached by SOE for your consultation, exactly what would you be advocating that they do?

Have trust in the community and respect our input. Biggest thing SOE done was to employ Jimmy Whisenhunt to deal with the nitty gritty of weapons and somewhat Balance.

Everyone has ideas of how they want the game to play, But the reality of it will be decided on what makes SOE the most money. They are a business with shareholders after all.

[Phantomdestiny]

PS2's Engine can't do what BF3's Engine can. More players does not make PS2 the better game by default.

fanboys I swear...

forgelight has better light treatment than frostbite 2 ; frosbite 2 is a very good engine but it not superior to every other engine has a amateur game dev i can tell you that every engine has pros and cons :P , bf3 has less destructible terrain than bfbc xD .

[Shogun]

not only dice is worried about ps2. every fps developer is or should be.

not only because fps games will have to keep up with 2000 players per map from now on, but because nobody will want to buy AAA titles for 60 bucks if there are AAA titles available for free! and the free game doesn´t even look less polished!

i am sure ps2 marks the end of those blender games who just overhype their game before launch by great blockbustermovie-like commercials to trick as many players as possible to buy it in the first week. too many of those games were a great success, but could not maintain an active playerbase for long.

developing games as free to play forces you to deliver on gameplay and fun! no fun, no money! this was not the case for boxed games. you had to buy it to find out if it´s really a fun game. if it wasn´t, you were screwed and had payed for the trashcan.
and free trials or demos only showed the most fun part of games and told you nothing about the replay value or longtime fun/endgame motivation.

but the article about the big bf3 map really sounds pathetic as hell for people who know something about planetside 2 and its developement!
big challenge? unbelievable big map?
those guys sound like they have built the best and coolest matchbox car ever! while higby and his team just built a real musclecar or functional spaceshuttle ;)

[Senyu]

Have trust in the community and respect our input. Biggest thing SOE done was to employ Jimmy Whisenhunt to deal with the nitty gritty of weapons and somewhat Balance.

Everyone has ideas of how they want the game to play, But the reality of it will be decided on what makes SOE the most money. They are a business with shareholders after all.

Make quality games and players will come themselves. Blizzard's beggining's is a great example of this and ignoring where they are now, it' what made their games still on the shevles of stores a decade later. Pull out everything to make a game the best you can and it usually pays for its self for the company and shareholders.

[Sabot]

The console market is all about money... there's no passion behind the games released on a console. A few might have, but the majority doesn't. Halo is a prime example of what console gaming is... it was intended for PC originally. It looked fantastic at the time. Then Micrsoft bought Bungie and released it exclusively for xbox. It came to PC a long while after that, but by that time it was nothing special to the PC anymore. Now they make a new Halo every year to milk it...

The Sims to PC, is what gaming on a console is over all. A cash cow with no passion or willingness to make a great game behind it. Ask yourself why games like Portal or Minecraft (or indeed The Sims :P) wasn't realsed on console instead of PC...

[Stardouser]

Have trust in the community and respect our input. Biggest thing SOE done was to employ Jimmy Whisenhunt to deal with the nitty gritty of weapons and somewhat Balance.

Everyone has ideas of how they want the game to play, But the reality of it will be decided on what makes SOE the most money. They are a business with shareholders after all.

That's not what I meant. I mean, what would your input be? In a generalistic sense, obviously.

And you said "biggest thing", I assume you mean "best" thing was to hire Whisenhunt. A two tiered question: One, does hiring Whisenhunt have any meaning in terms of listening to PS1 vets? And two, how is it good? (I am not saying it isn't good, I'm just asking)

[VaderShake]

not only dice is worried about ps2. every fps developer is or should be.

not only because fps games will have to keep up with 2000 players per map from now on, but because nobody will want to buy AAA titles for 60 bucks if there are AAA titles available for free! and the free game doesn´t even look less polished!

i am sure ps2 marks the end of those blender games who just overhype their game before launch by great blockbustermovie-like commercials to trick as many players as possible to buy it in the first week. too many of those games were a great success, but could not maintain an active playerbase for long.

developing games as free to play forces you to deliver on gameplay and fun! no fun, no money! this was not the case for boxed games. you had to buy it to find out if it´s really a fun game. if it wasn´t, you were screwed and had payed for the trashcan.
and free trials or demos only showed the most fun part of games and told you nothing about the replay value or longtime fun/endgame motivation.

but the article about the big bf3 map really sounds pathetic as hell for people who know something about planetside 2 and its developement!
big challenge? unbelievable big map?
those guys sound like they have built the best and coolest matchbox car ever! while higby and his team just built a real musclecar or functional spaceshuttle ;)


^^^^ This, been gaming over 30 years, PS2 is the most ambitious benchmark game I have ever seen. They are going to put the industry on notice, step up, religate yourself to somthing else, or get out.

If PS2 is as glorious as it looks and makes mad $$$ (I have no problem throwing $20 a paycheck at it for the next 3-4 years) it begs the question....

What will the PS2 team cook up next?

[Pella]

That's not what I meant. I mean, what would your input be? In a generalistic sense, obviously.

And you said "biggest thing", I assume you mean "best" thing was to hire Whisenhunt. A two tiered question: One, does hiring Whisenhunt have any meaning in terms of listening to PS1 vets? And two, how is it good? (I am not saying it isn't good, I'm just asking)


1: The Input i would give, Would be purely balance and gameflow. A classic example would be the "Noob tube/C4". Yes its realistic in terms of the military use it. But does the game actually need it? Does it fit in planetside's 2 style? Also the weight and feel of weapons is a big thing for me.

2: Yes, As i mentioned before the majority of PS1 vets have played FPS excessively / competitively and gained allot of knowledge of what works and what doesn't. Whisenhunt was hired for a reason. To bring that FPS knowledge to SOE.

[SkilletSoup]

I just hope PS2 is successful enough to bring consolers back into PC gaming. Please SOE allocate NO resorces to console porting of PS2. Put my dollars that I spend into expanding the PS2 experience and beyond. The possibilities are endless.

[JPalmer]

BF3 is and will still be the better game for E-Sports / Tournaments due to the ability to limit team sizes. They have nothing to fear from PS2 in that regard. As for casual players... yeah they may come over. Remember PS2 won't have the destruction the BF3 engine offers.


6 pages you probably had this response. ESports is in the works for PS2 after the game is released. Most likely separate servers with timed events for Outfit vs Outfit or Squad vs Squad.

[ChryptXXII]

Why would DICE be worried?

Battlefield commands the market in their niche because there are no other games like it. PS2 is going to be an epic game, no doubt, but compairing PS2 and BF3 doesnt fit, the only things they have in common are that they are FPS and they both have vehicles... thats it.

You can hate on BF3 all you want but when it comes down to it name 1 other game thats like it. Sure, they made their mistakes with BF3 and its far from perfect, but its a fun dynamic game.

Going forward we will see what type of standard is set by PS2, I imagine that if this game is successful as it seems that it may set a standard for future games in the FPS industry.

[Poser]

If PS2 is as glorious as it looks and makes mad $$$ (I have no problem throwing $20 a paycheck at it for the next 3-4 years) it begs the question....


But on what? I don't want tiger armor...

[TAA]

not only dice is worried about ps2. every fps developer is or should be.

not only because fps games will have to keep up with 2000 players per map from now on, but because nobody will want to buy AAA titles for 60 bucks if there are AAA titles available for free! and the free game doesn´t even look less polished!

i am sure ps2 marks the end of those blender games who just overhype their game before launch by great blockbustermovie-like commercials to trick as many players as possible to buy it in the first week. too many of those games were a great success, but could not maintain an active playerbase for long.

developing games as free to play forces you to deliver on gameplay and fun! no fun, no money! this was not the case for boxed games. you had to buy it to find out if it´s really a fun game. if it wasn´t, you were screwed and had payed for the trashcan.
and free trials or demos only showed the most fun part of games and told you nothing about the replay value or longtime fun/endgame motivation.

but the article about the big bf3 map really sounds pathetic as hell for people who know something about planetside 2 and its developement!
big challenge? unbelievable big map?
those guys sound like they have built the best and coolest matchbox car ever! while higby and his team just built a real musclecar or functional spaceshuttle ;)


I have heard this before. Usually its worded a little differently though. Usually it sounds more like "this is going to be the WoW killer!"


There are a lot of challenges ahead for PS2. Yes, the fact it is f2p will get a lot of people to try it. Will they stay? Will they pay even if they do stay? We can only hope so.


What about the lag? No local servers will be a massive turnoff for a lot of FPS players.
What about the fact that there are no alternative game modes?
What about the fact that the graphics are good but not the best?
What about the lack of a single player campaign? Yes, many people only play shooters for the single player game.
What about the set gaming parameters such as player health? A lot of people prefer HC mode to normal mode in COD and BF, and will only play those modes. Other people hate 3D spotting, or minimaps, etc.




What about the clans however? Will they come over from other FPS titles in droves? Not as likely. An MMO makes it very difficult for an FPS clan to do some very important things:


Lock the server for members only to practice, or to set up a scrim against another clan.
Change the server rules to match their preferred style of play.
Play in a competition.



Will the huge number of simultaneous players in PS2 set a new standard for games? Well did PS1 set a new standard? Did MAG? I hope it does. I love the idea of mass combat. I am reluctant to say that it will actually happen though.

Yes we all hope that PS2 will be successful, but there are obstacles to be overcome.

[Naz The Eternal]

Fuck DICE and EA.

Both a bunch of crooks.

BF3 has got be the biggest disappointment of a game, no other Battlefield series has been so broken and not fixed. Even after the extra $50 they took for premium, the vanilla game still has bugs everywhere.

[VaderShake]

But on what? I don't want tiger armor...

I don't know, it is the biggest question I have about PS2, but it's a major social outlet for me and if it becomes a place I spend 10-20+ hours a week I am willing to $upport this franchise. Also for me it's my entertainment and somtimes my only chance to sociolize with my friends.

I can only use my expiriance playing Need4Speed world which is play for free. It's a really nice little game, I got into it, then decided to spend $20 and get a car or 2 and some upgrades which I could have gotten them by playing but I simply don't have the time I used to. All told I think I dropped about $60 on Need4Speed World and I did not mind, It was fun and pretty good quality game, I still play now and again, they keep supporting it, my friends played it and we had some laughs, it was still cheap entertainment.

Also it helps I just got a healthy raise.....hahaha

[Eyeklops]

For years PC game design has been stunted by the hardware limitations of consoles. The new generation of consoles will be a huge leap up for game design - it will set the new minimum level for the vast majority of PC games to come out for years after that. PC games always have been and always will be superior to consoles. Unfortunately the reality is that most games are designed with consoles in mind, not for the PC primarily. I am looking forward to the next generation of consoles. No I am not going to buy one. I am going to upgrade my computer instead.

This. I would really like to see the hardware performance gap between PC and console close abit, it is about due. This is a good thing for PC players as the console ports will utilize more of that high end PC hardware we paid so much money for.

[Hamma]

I saw this last night it's a rather interesting development from DICE.

Also :lol: at people saying the destruction engine makes it the better game.

We shall see which game is better once everyone plays it. PlanetSide offers more than Battlefield's locked map and round system could ever hope to.

[typhaon]

I think many of you guys jump to the most severe conculsion... DICE can be very interested in the success/failure of PS2 - because it might have very important rammifications with respect to what future FPS players expect - and NOT be worried that nobody will buy BF4 and they will go out of business.

Sure... PS2 isn't available on consoles - but that also doesn't mean DICE and co. would be particularly happy if 2 million PC FPS players decided BF/COD no longer offered the best experience.


* for the record... I love BF3, I think destruction is awesome and just about everything else in the game is top notch. On the other hand, there were many times when I played it I thought how much cooler it would be if the maps were 128 vs. 128 or greater with more persistence. I imagine there are a LOT of people that think just like me.

[Eyeklops]

Come back to me when PS2 on consoles can handle 2000 player maps, with the bandwidth restrictions microsoft and sony has right now.

Derp? Were talking about a Sony game, Sony console, & Sony network. If they think the money is there, they will make all three work together and the bandwidth restrictions will be changed. I think that Planetside 2 has lots of internal "hype" not only within SOE, but also other area's of Sony. Don't be surprised if they hammer out all the bugs for Planetside 2 on PC, and then in a few years push PS2 as the killer app for the Playstation 4 release.

[infinite loop]

BF is a well established franchise, and BF3 looks amazing. Once the new generation of consoles come out the next generation of shooters will be absolutely phenomenal. Never underestimate the appeal of being able to reshape terrain during a fight. No, BF is in no danger from PS2.

Some of you are way too confident/hopeful that PS2 will be a monster hit. I for one am worried. Very worried.

Almost all the first beta testers are going to be PS1 vets. This wouldnt be any concern, except that the devs really do seem to listen to what their playerbase says. PS1 vets are the last people they need to take advice from to build a truly phenomenal shooter. Leave it up to them (the diehard PS1 vets who are still subbed to this day) and we will get a bastardized version of PS1 with prettier graphics. It certainly wont help that this game is going to look old and antiquated in a couple of years when the standard hardware for games takes a giant leap forward due to next gen consoles.

^ very much this. I do think this is why they have given away so many beta keys though, to try and get some modern fps (but non-PS1 vet) players into the beta. They absolutely need input from the BF/COD playerbase, or PS2 is in serious trouble.

[wasdie]

Probably a bit.

I'm sure Planetside 2 is going to have a major positive influence on the next big Battlefield game.

Planetside 2 is NEEDED for FPSs right now. We are stuck in a rut that CoD put us in, Planetside 2 is at the beginning of a new generation of game consoles that will have 10x the power of the current gen. Developers will need a guide of how to build a next-gen FPS. Planetside 2 can be that guide.

[Exmortius]

i could definitely see a smaller version of ps2 running on the ps4 at launch next year. it would be a smart move and would help spread the name/franchise. i honestly would love to see them just squash battlefield and cod franchises in one blow. it'll take time but i think higby and co. can pull it off. everything i've seen so far from this game in vids just looks incredible and pushes the bar.

[basti]

In all the forums I frequent the planetside 2 threads are really small and people barely talks about it. There is a rather small population that is hyped for planetside 2, nothing even close to what the big AAA titles get. Even this forum is extremely small and it is the biggest forum for PS2 currently. If you say that PS2 is hyped then you are just delusional. If you show me any forum anywhere except this one that is shows the masses being hyped I might reconsider my opinion but at most there is a thread with some guy telling others about PS2, maybe 3-5 guys are actively talking about the game with most just asking how to get a beta key and then the thread dies after a few pages. All the big AAA games had threads with hundreds of pages before even beta was released.



Let me tell you a bit about hype, so you understand how stuff works, rather than typing random letters that somehow form words:

No game gets hyped by itself. No game ever managed to be hyped just because it is THE game.
In fact, only sequels get hyped. THe original Battlefield 1942 didnt really take off, the original Call of duty was just one shooter of many. Yet, whenever those games get a new installation of themself out, everything goes to shit and nothing else is important anymore. Why? Because of two simple facts:
1. The still existing playerbase, as well as the devs, go out and tell everyone.
2. Everyone who ever played that game forgot all the bad memorys and just goes OMIGOD A NEW BF/COD/WUTEVER HYPE HYPE HYPE.

Then, as said, everything goes to shit.



Now, with a game like planetside, this obviously cant happen that easily. For once, planetsides Playerbase is much smaller than that of the original BF or COD. Then, we have a rather difficult problem to solve: explaining planetside.

In all my years of a PS player, every single damn time i tried to explain to someone that there are 133 vs 133 vs 133 players on a map in a persistent battle, people went "whut?", and asked me questions what i mean, like how long they fight, what the goal is, when the round ends (you wont believe how often i got that one), what i mean with 133vs133vs133, how much can fit on one server, etc.
People simply cant understand the concept of Planetside. Its so absolutly absurd and unrealistic in a gamers mind that they completly block out. You simply cannot explain it quickly, you always need to spend hours upon hours to make sure the dude figures out whats really going on.

We tried to fix that for Planetside 1, and had some success. It was called the "Guerilla marketing campaing", and it did help a bit.
As for Planetside 2, this can only be fixed by waiting for beta, grabbing loads of footage from massive battles, and spamming such videos into everyones face.
Onces thats done, BF will be rather dead.

So yes, Dice is worried, in fact they are shitting their pants, because they know they have absolutly nothing to offer to the actual Battlefield Fans that enjoy the big maps.

The Moment Planetside 2 opens to the public, means Open Beta, all hell will break loose, and Games like COD, BF and whatever other PC shooter out there will loose a large chunk of their playerbase.
And im not telling you that as a PS Fanboy, but as a Gamer who played a craplot of Multiplayer FPS.

[Stardouser]

1: The Input i would give, Would be purely balance and gameflow. A classic example would be the "Noob tube/C4". Yes its realistic in terms of the military use it. But does the game actually need it? Does it fit in planetside's 2 style? Also the weight and feel of weapons is a big thing for me.

2: Yes, As i mentioned before the majority of PS1 vets have played FPS excessively / competitively and gained allot of knowledge of what works and what doesn't. Whisenhunt was hired for a reason. To bring that FPS knowledge to SOE.

I think that's the key. Does it fit in Planetside 2? And, who decides what PS2's style should be? Does PS2's style have to be the exact same as PS1? If not, then inevitably, the answer to the question "does this fit in PS2" will, for many issues, be yes, even if it would have been no for PS1.

I've often thought that some things would lend themselves to custom ruleset servers. I'm sure you know what this means but for those reading who don't, it means, for example, that if SOE was going to turn friendly fire off, a PS1 ruleset server would have it on, it would have dedicated tank gunners required, and all that stuff.

The problem is that any time someone suggests varied ruleset servers, people scream "community splitting". But there are two basic facts:

1. Even if it is community splitting, servers of both ruleset types will get populated, and it won't actually affect anything. Why should anyone care as long as the 2000 player continent/6000 player server they are personally on, gets fully populated?

2. If there are no varied ruleset servers, then the gameplay decisions have to be the same for everyone, and, as you point out, the gameplay will be decided on what makes SOE the most money.

So, instead of fighting on principle against "community splitting", why not rally to ask SOE to have a separate server type that is PS1 vet configured to the maximum extent possible? You might even find that some people are willing to try it and be converted. Wouldn't that be better than rejecting this idea citing "community splitting", knowing that having only one ruleset will force SOE to make that ruleset geared toward the most money? You might even find that new players to PS2 who are playing PS2 before they play other online shooters(and are thus not biased in favor of any specific game style) might choose to start out on the vet ruleset server.

And also, a lot of people on this forum say "it's an MMO!" as a response to certain ideas. Well, MMOs are well known for having varied ruleset servers. SOE is no stranger to this, EQ has had all manner of PvP servers, a server where all the gear is tradeable, they even, for a while there, had a server where death was permanent.

[Hamma]

Additionally Klockan is comparing apples to oranges. When Battlefield first started there wasn't a massive community around it posting thread every second. PlanetSide was largely unknown.. PlanetSide 2 will change that.

[Shogun]

basti nailed it!

sure, this will only happen if planetside 2 is a success and soe breaks with its tradition to screw up their best games after some time.
but ps2 has the best dev team ever and this time they really put some thought into future plans for the game! (5 year plan anyone?)

also the marketing problem of part 1 seems to be history as well.( count the nominates and awards ps2 already won even before beta started!)

so the chance is very high for ps2 to become a very successful game and therefore the title of wow killer and battlefield killer is well within reach!

[Klockan]

Let me tell you a bit about hype, so you understand how stuff works, rather than typing random letters that somehow form words:

No game gets hyped by itself. No game ever managed to be hyped just because it is THE game.
In fact, only sequels get hyped. THe original Battlefield 1942 didnt really take off, the original Call of duty was just one shooter of many. Yet, whenever those games get a new installation of themself out, everything goes to shit and nothing else is important anymore. Why? Because of two simple facts:
1. The still existing playerbase, as well as the devs, go out and tell everyone.
2. Everyone who ever played that game forgot all the bad memorys and just goes OMIGOD A NEW BF/COD/WUTEVER HYPE HYPE HYPE.

Then, as said, everything goes to shit.



Now, with a game like planetside, this obviously cant happen that easily. For once, planetsides Playerbase is much smaller than that of the original BF or COD. Then, we have a rather difficult problem to solve: explaining planetside.

In all my years of a PS player, every single damn time i tried to explain to someone that there are 133 vs 133 vs 133 players on a map in a persistent battle, people went "whut?", and asked me questions what i mean, like how long they fight, what the goal is, when the round ends (you wont believe how often i got that one), what i mean with 133vs133vs133, how much can fit on one server, etc.
People simply cant understand the concept of Planetside. Its so absolutly absurd and unrealistic in a gamers mind that they completly block out. You simply cannot explain it quickly, you always need to spend hours upon hours to make sure the dude figures out whats really going on.

We tried to fix that for Planetside 1, and had some success. It was called the "Guerilla marketing campaing", and it did help a bit.
As for Planetside 2, this can only be fixed by waiting for beta, grabbing loads of footage from massive battles, and spamming such videos into everyones face.
Onces thats done, BF will be rather dead.

So yes, Dice is worried, in fact they are shitting their pants, because they know they have absolutly nothing to offer to the actual Battlefield Fans that enjoy the big maps.

The Moment Planetside 2 opens to the public, means Open Beta, all hell will break loose, and Games like COD, BF and whatever other PC shooter out there will loose a large chunk of their playerbase.
And im not telling you that as a PS Fanboy, but as a Gamer who played a craplot of Multiplayer FPS.
I didn't say that PS2 wont get big, I just said that the hype around it isn't big which is true and thus I don't really think that the BF guys are worried yet. They probably think that the game will be a fluke or so.

[Sabot]

Basti tellin' it like it is!

[VaderShake]

Additionally Klockan is comparing apples to oranges. When Battlefield first started there wasn't a massive community around it posting thread every second. PlanetSide was largely unknown.. PlanetSide 2 will change that.

Hamma,

1942 took off when the DC Mod came out and eveyone screamed from the rooftops about it and was posting videos of how awesome it was.

Here is a personal example of why Basti is dead on.

I found out about PS2 (Never knew about PS1)

I shared it with the 12 regular BF guys I play with across the USA .

Now about 20 people locally are waiting to camp in my basement because I have a beta key.

My nephew and his friend are at my house right now weed whacking, cleaning up my yard, and painting my garage door talking about PlanetSide 2 because I showed them a video of it this morining, he's text me a dozen times about it in the last 4 hours.

PS2 is winning advocates with it's openess by the devs and the awesomeness of it's ambition and I will promote the heck out of it any way I can to ensure success.

[Klockan]

Many games have a bigger following than PS2 before they are released, even if they aren't AAA titles. Path of exile for example saw way more community hype than PS2, almost none have even heard of PS2. So I don't think that the BF makers are afraid because as of now the game is very unknown.

[infected]

For years PC game design has been stunted by the hardware limitations of consoles. The new generation of consoles will be a huge leap up for game design - it will set the new minimum level for the vast majority of PC games to come out for years after that. PC games always have been and always will be superior to consoles. Unfortunately the reality is that most games are designed with consoles in mind, not for the PC primarily. I am looking forward to the next generation of consoles. No I am not going to buy one. I am going to upgrade my computer instead.

sure, multiplatform games for pc have been lazy console ports.. a new console won't change that. even when consoles get 1080p and dx11, they will still be lazy ports, because publishers like quick deadlines and developers are all bought and paid for and do what they're told. until publishers give the developers more time to polish games, the better hardware won't matter. you can't make an amazing game in 2 years, unless you consider it an amazing franchise.. where 1/2 the work was already done because the sequel is almost cut and paste identical to the previous... console versions of games will still suck, and publishers will continue to feed the console kids garbage because they do not complain because they do not know any better.

and they will have to continue to be ports because pc will still be better than the next console. the next gen console wants to run 1080 at some weak FoV at 30-60 fps. well pc's can run higher res and higher FoV at more than double that fps. no contest. the ports to pc will still suck, ignoring all that the pc can offer, yes, even over the new consoles. because it takes time to make a game, and publishers these days don't give the proper amount of time.

we've had 1080 and beyond for years now. we've had dx11. it will be another year and a half before consoles get bare bones dx11 1080. that is what you call "already 4 years behind" not "next gen".

and that's not a big leap forward, that's because they know there is no way they can cost effectively leap forward... because they don't like to take risks. they like to play it safe. consoles can't gain an advantage over pc any longer.

instead, consoles have chosen to go another direction to try to remain relevant... the more time passes the more the consoles try to be more like a replacement to cable tv service, and less a true game platform.

[Gonefshn]

I agree with Basti to an extent however I think there are some points being missed.

COD and BF both have rounds, which obviously is what could make them "inferior" experiences in scale and huge war. However being persistant doesn't make PS2 better on a factual basis.

I am the biggest advocate for Planetside and the persistant game, I believe it to be the best thing that has ever happened to gaming for sure. Still, It can't be ignored that there will always be a market for arena shooters.

People will always love that end of game leaderboard that summarizes the last 10-45 minute match and shoves your ownage (or lack thereof) in the other players faces. Planetside 2 will not have that sort of in your face bragging rights leaderboard. Sure you can see visually in the game that people are doing well but tons of competitive gamers will always want to play a match not a persistant game.

BF definitely has more to worry about than COD because you can argue that PS2 will satisfy more fully the feel that BF fans are looking for. COD has nothing to worry about though. Literally nothing. It isn't even remotely close to a Planetside type of game.

Don't forget too. Console gaming is HUGE and isn't going anywhere. The push for cloud gaming and integration with your entertainment system on your TV is only going to make console gaming more and more accesible.

Planetside 2 will surely be HUGE and upset the gaming world by showing people a new style of game. I am sure it will be immitated and praised for innovation but I don't think established franchises like BF and COD and Halo that are round based games have anything to fear.

[Canadian Vanu]

What they mean is that the FPS games currently being produced (CoD, BF3 especially) are set up to be compatible with current consoles and PC performance. The next gen of consoles will allow developers to dramatically expand what they can do with their new releases, since the new consoles can handle it.

Put simply: BF3 on console can only handle 32 player matches, whereas PC can handle Planetside 2. The next gen of consoles will be able to handle Planetside 2... You do the math.

And then people upgrade their computers for a game that has even higher requirements for ps2, and consoles take another 5 years to catch up in what time pc has done in a matter of months.

[Endrid]

BF3 is and will still be the better game for E-Sports / Tournaments due to the ability to limit team sizes. They have nothing to fear from PS2 in that regard. As for casual players... yeah they may come over. Remember PS2 won't have the destruction the BF3 engine offers.

BF3 does NOT cater to those that want Esports. The competitive scene has been dying a slow death since it started and it's mostly because key features were not included (spectator, battlerecorder, match making).

I was REALLY excited for this game and it let me and others down in that regard. Dice should be worried if they're not. I made a platoon in bf3 just for people that are going to go to planetside, and it capped out in about a week.

https://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/platoon/2832655241331570304/

[Top Sgt]

PS2's Engine can't do what BF3's Engine can. More players does not make PS2 the better game by default.

fanboys I swear...

yeah fanboys I'll tell you

This is coming from a late 30's Gamer who has owned and played every BF game and mod ever created since the begenning!:


Frostbite 2 actually can't do what Forgelight can do.

1. Support 6000 players on one server

2-Use server side hit detection when BF degressed back to client side hit detection and lied to the public calling it "hybrid". The PC version is a console port period uses Console hit detection networking.

3-FB2 engine still suffers from terrible netcoding to this day..including a new and upcoming much smaller game using it besides dice & BF3.. it's a super bandwidth heavy engine by nature.

4- destruction is way ovverated..unless your 12 years old you get past the destruction crap quickly.. it's great you can blow a hole in a wall but what good is that when you go in that hole and shoot a guy in his back from 10m firing an entire mag into him and it only registers 2 or 3 bullets actually causing damage to him? he then reacts turns around and drops you with a pistol with ease.. You look at scoreboard and realize he in that server with a 300+ ping and with it being client side.. it actually helps him...

Destruction in a game does not make it better mr fanboy when the rest of the gameplay is severely lacking!.

yeah dice is worried. but at the same time they and EA only care about the Console market & money anyways

PC market has been an afterthought to them since bf2142..long time now.

[Sephirex]

I was personally disappointed with the destruction in BF3, and found it a step down from BC2. Either way, it struck me as more of a novelty than a game changer.

[rTekku]

FB2 is a horrible engine. I'm not sure why this Kevin D Lee person is trying to hype it up as this amazing engine that can do anything.

The destruction is horrible. The funniest thing though is how everytime they release a new expansion pack, they always release some type of advertisement that includes something about the destruction.

For B2K, they advertised "Enhanced destruction" and the destruction was really no different.

For Close Quarters, they advertised "HD destruction". Seriously? What in the heck is HD destruction...? Glass flying everywhere?

[MrBloodworth]

FB2 is a horrible engine.

:stoppost:

[rTekku]

:stoppost:

Read Top Sgt's post.

Then take your own advice.

[Stardouser]

snip - stuff about the ForgeLight engine

I'm not saying I want destruction but just curious about ForgeLight, could it do destruction if SOE decided?

[Xaine]

Thats right DICE, fear it..

FEAR.

IT.

[Sephirex]

I'm not saying I want destruction but just curious about ForgeLight, could it do destruction if SOE decided?

Pre-scripted destruction like BF3? I bet it could with a little work. Full dynamic destruction like Red Faction? Probably not.

[ChipMHazard]

This DLC has been in the works for some time now so I really don't see how PS2 could have influenced it in any way. What influenced this was more likely the outcry from the playerbase for larger maps more akin to BF2/Desert Combat.
EA/DICE aren't going to be more worried about PS2 than they are of any other game that comes out which offers the same type of content they offer. They also aren't going to regard it as just a fluke.
If it only took a single new game to make game developers go poop in their pants and scream doomsday the whole market would be in a constant state of panic.

I have always found it puzzeling that some people actually wants a game to "die", why do some people have such hatred/dislike for a company or game that they wish death on it and the subsequent layofs. The more games that are on the market the better off we as consumers are.

I have never been a believer in the whole notion of "this game will kill that game". In general I have never seen a game kill off another game. Games fail on their own merits and time will always make people lose interest.
Every single game that has been proclaimed a WoW killer has failed at being that. Every single one.
The only time I have really noticed what one could deem as one game "killing" another game is when a sequel is released, but even then it seldom results in the "death" of the prequel.
A game will have to offer such new and creative gameplay that it simply outdates everything else that came before it, even then there will still be people who prefer "outdated" gameplay. For that example just look at Half-Life and how it influenced FPS development. Also I don't see PS "dying" until SOE takes down the last server.

So I can't say that I agree with Basti, at all really. BF1942 was an instant success and BF2 improved on just about everything. So I don't see how everything went to shit when BF2 was released, sequels are indeed sometimes just an overall improvement.
There will still be people playing BF3 on the PC after PS2 has been released. People who don't like sci-fi, people who don't want battles that have more than 64/32/24 players, a game that doesn't have matches etc. will still play games like BF3.
Will many FPS players play PS2? Hopefully so. Will other FPS games lose huge chucks of their playerbaes because of PS2? No, I don't see why they would. PS2 is going to be a F2P game and as such there's no reason as to why you wouldn't play PS2 and other FPS's you happen to enjoy. What about time? Yes, that's one commodity we're all short on. Of course I could see more casual gamers, who don't have a lot of time on their hands, to prefer FPS's that mave matches instead of an FPS which has a persistent world. Of course the devs are very much aware that a lot of players will want to be able to jump into a fight right after logging in.

Also like Firearms wrote, BF3 is mainly a console game. Which basicly ends any notion of DICE being worried about a PC exclusive taking their playerbase and leaving BF3 dead. Even though VGChartz isn't to be trusted completely.

I want PS2 to succede on it's own merits, not off the backs of those games it was supposed to "kill".

[Mystwalker]

hey y'all 1st post here
i would think console titles would be more worried about ccp's new console product in beta called dust514 then anything ps2 will do to them sure ps2 might take some market from them but console people are as passionate about there consoles as we are about pc gaming and our rigs
apples and oranges

[Zalmoxis]

This DLC has been in the works for some time now so I really don't see how PS2 could have influenced it in any way. What influenced this was more likely the outcry from the playerbase for larger maps more akin to BF2/Desert Combat.
EA/DICE aren't going to be more worried about PS2 than they are of any other game that comes out which offers the same type of content they offer. They also aren't going to regard it as just a fluke.
If it only took a single new game to make game developers go poop in their pants and scream doomsday the whole market would be in a constant state of panic.

I have always found it puzzeling that some people actually wants a game to "die", why do some people have such hatred/dislike for a company or game that they wish death on it and the subsequent layofs. The more games that are on the market the better off we as consumers are.

I have never been a believer in the whole notion of "this game will kill that game". In general I have never seen a game kill off another game. Games fail on their own merits and time will always make people lose interest.
Every single game that has been proclaimed a WoW killer has failed at being that. Every single one.
The only time I have really noticed what one could deem as one game "killing" another game is when a sequel is released, but even then it seldom results in the "death" of the prequel.
A game will have to offer such new and creative gameplay that it simply outdates everything else that came before it, even then there will still be people who prefer "outdated" gameplay. For that example just look at Half-Life and how it influenced FPS development. Also I don't see PS "dying" until SOE takes down the last server.

So I can't say that I agree with Basti, at all really. BF1942 was an instant success and BF2 improved on just about everything. So I don't see how everything went to shit when BF2 was released, sequels are indeed sometimes just an overall improvement.
There will still be people playing BF3 on the PC after PS2 has been released. People who don't like sci-fi, people who don't want battles that have more than 64/32/24 players, a game that doesn't have matches etc. will still play games like BF3.
Will many FPS players play PS2? Hopefully so. Will other FPS games lose huge chucks of their playerbaes because of PS2? No, I don't see why they would. PS2 is going to be a F2P game and as such there's no reason as to why you wouldn't play PS2 and other FPS's you happen to enjoy. What about time? Yes, that's one commodity we're all short on. Of course I could see more casual gamers, who don't have a lot of time on their hands, to prefer FPS's that mave matches instead of an FPS which has a persistent world. Of course the devs are very much aware that a lot of players will want to be able to jump into a fight right after logging in.

Also like Firearms wrote, BF3 is mainly a console game. Which basicly ends any notion of DICE being worried about a PC exclusive taking their playerbase and leaving BF3 dead. Even though VGChartz isn't to be trusted completely.

I want PS2 to succede on it's own merits, not off the backs of those games it was supposed to "kill".

Basically this.

And they don't have to worry about anything yet. PS2 hasn't even released its CBT yet, let alone get some cash numbers to estimate their potential profit etc.

They will have to worry once PS2 reaches Open Beta because then people can freely come and see what it's made of.

[Mr DeCastellac]

Yeah, they're squirming for sure.
Why wouldn't they be? After PS2 is released, the only people who will still be playing BF3 will be console jockeys (Also known as 7 year olds) and people who haven't heard about this new, FREE, better game.

Think about this. Would you rather play:

With 63 other players on a 1 square kilometer map.
-OR-
With 1999 other players on your choice of three 'maps' each being 8 square kilometers.

The choice is obvious, and DICE sees that. I'd recommend they go change their underwear.

[Braveliltoaster]

i have a feeling after PS2 launches a lot of these companies will start to follow SoE idea for mass battles. I'm surprised they haven't caught on yet

[Sephirex]

i have a feeling after PS2 launches a lot of these companies will start to follow SoE idea for mass battles. I'm surprised they haven't caught on yet

Fingers crossed for a massive Star Wars Battlefront sequel.

[ChipMHazard]

i have a feeling after PS2 launches a lot of these companies will start to follow SoE idea for mass battles. I'm surprised they haven't caught on yet

It still needs to be proven cost effective, or proven to work for that matter hehe.
Hopefully this will lead to more developers putting the massive back in MMO's.

Mr DeCastellac: Really? Here I was hoping that we were done with the whole silly generalization of those who own consoles.

[Siimot]

This thread confirms how shitty this community can be, stop bashing other games while pretending a game you havent even played is the best thing ever. get over yourselves.

Yes im mad.

[Ratstomper]

This thread confirms how shitty this community can be, stop bashing other games while pretending a game you havent even played is the best thing ever. get over yourselves.

Yes im mad.

You're right, people probably shouldn't be praising the gameplay of a game they haven't played yet. People are just excited.

No reason to be mad. This community is like Mother Teresa compared to some others. Try the LoL community, some of those people are only one step above 4chan.

[Pepsi]

- Biggest BF map ever
- Only 10% of the map is playable

I don't care what DICE says they'll do, they've lied to me before.

Prove yourselves, DICE.

[rTekku]

This thread confirms how shitty this community can be, stop bashing other games while pretending a game you havent even played is the best thing ever. get over yourselves.

Yes im mad.

Won't be worse than Battlefield 3.

And it's free.

[Exmortius]

This thread confirms how shitty this community can be, stop bashing other games while pretending a game you havent even played is the best thing ever. get over yourselves.

Yes im mad.
those other companies deserve their bashing after ripping off their customers for years. no one f's up a brand more than EA or Activision.....no one. let's be realistic BF3 screwed the pooch bad with lack of patching/updates/balance/hacking and CoD screwed up by not having dedicated servers for years and letting the hacked lobbies take over. both got their cash and gave the real players the finger. most of us were flat out lied to about and sold short by their latest products. both franchises deserve to go down in flames. period. people are excited cause we know this is the game that will do it. RIP $hitty cod and bf forever. game over.

[Stew]

Read This (http://blogs.battlefield.com/2012/07/building-biggest-bf-map-ever/?sourceid=bf3-fb-wall-na-blogpost%3Futm_source%3Dfacebook&utm_medium=wall-post&utm_campaign=do-not-use&utm_content=blogpost)

They might be, make you own conclusions.

I wasnt sure which forum to put this.

This map is really nice but if they dont unlock the player cap over 128 instead of 64 it will be a lost of time because the map will be a way to big

[Siimot]

Won't be worse than Battlefield 3.

And it's free.

Thanks for proving my point!

Also im not really mad im just slightly annoyed at the few of you that think its impossible for another game to be good.

[Levente]

BF3 is and will still be the better game for E-Sports / Tournaments due to the ability to limit team sizes. They have nothing to fear from PS2 in that regard. As for casual players... yeah they may come over. Remember PS2 won't have the destruction the BF3 engine offers.

Yup E Sports. Too bad BF3 doesnt offer non of the feuteres that should be present to make it to ESports, for example LAN. Destruction? are you fkin kidding? i wouldnt call that destruction , even BC2 has more, but in BF3 is just lol :lol:

[Gonefshn]

I'm pretty sure people will enjoy Planetside 2 in one way and Battlefield 3 in another. There is no rule saying you can't own both :P

Exactly.

Planetside 2 will be out when some of the map packs for BF3 come out and I will for sure play BF3 and try out the new content when it releases. Planetside 2 I will play mostly but I enjoy BF3 so why does one have to destroy the other?

[goneglockin]

Excuse me... but what the F are you on about? They are making PlanetSide... is it logical of them to listen to everybody BUT the ones that actually knows PlanetSide?

I started PlanetSide in August of 2003.

Not long after I started, they reduced the pop locks so the game wasn't so massive any more. They were spreading the players because there was a rapid outflow of them.

Within a year of release, we saw some servers shut down and merge entirely.

Shortly thereafter, Core Combat bombed and those holding out hope left too.

The rest left for WoW, in within 2 years or so, PlanetSide was largely an empty shell. People still played, and perhaps they always will, but the game was largely dead to me by 2006.

I dont want to see a repeat of this.

[Chronic]

It's refreshing to see a thread on here where PS1 preceding 1942 gets forgotten...apples and oranges.

To put some figures to BF3 though -

PC sales - World - 2.02million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/35315/battlefield-3/)
Xbox sales - World - 6.06million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40231/battlefield-3/)
PlayS2 sales - World - 5.52million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40230/battlefield-3/)

So are they worries about a PC only game? Really no.

/thread

NPD doesn't track DD, Amazon, and a some other retailers.

They didn't even start tracking Wal-Mart until recently. Those are incredibly unreliable and for most part are mere guesses. VGchartz is incredibly unreliable.

[Zalmoxis]

Yeah, they're squirming for sure.
Why wouldn't they be? After PS2 is released, the only people who will still be playing BF3 will be console jockeys (Also known as 7 year olds) and people who haven't heard about this new, FREE, better game.

Think about this. Would you rather play:

With 63 other players on a 1 square kilometer map.
-OR-
With 1999 other players on your choice of three 'maps' each being 8 square kilometers.

The choice is obvious, and DICE sees that. I'd recommend they go change their underwear.

The "map" in PS2 is 64 square KM as far as I know.

You're right, people probably shouldn't be praising the gameplay of a game they haven't played yet. People are just excited.

No reason to be mad. This community is like Mother Teresa compared to some others. Try the LoL community, some of those people are only one step above 4chan.

The LoL community isn't THAT bad. You should have seen Dota back in the day, and especially on the semi-competitive side :D. NOTHING can compare to it, LoL is just small remains of it. But it was fun in a way heh.

- Biggest BF map ever
- Only 10% of the map is playable

I don't care what DICE says they'll do, they've lied to me before.

Prove yourselves, DICE.

To be honest, BF3's only spark was the larger than average players on map and vehicle combat. Now that PS2 completely outclasses it, for me there is no more reason to play it. Dice and EA turned it into a money bucket and couldn't care less about the players, and that's why I won't spend anymore money on any game that will be produced/released by either Dice or EA.

[Chronic]

:stoppost:


Another person hyped up by PR bull shit^.

The engine isn't all that great. Lighting, particle effects, and animation are ok but that's about it.

This thread confirms how shitty this community can be, stop bashing other games while pretending a game you havent even played is the best thing ever. get over yourselves.

Yes im mad.

Oh give me a break. How often do spend time on forums? This place is nowhere near bad.

[Stew]

Smedley hinted strongly that planetside 2 would make its way to the PS3 at the very least.

ps4 may be not 3 they have confirm it while ago

[Zalmoxis]

Another person hyped up by PR bull shit^.

The engine isn't all that great. Lighting, particle effects, and animation are ok but that's about it.



Oh give me a break. How often do spend time on forums? This place is nowhere near bad.

What are you talking about?

[Murkie]

It's just marketing hype and positioning be EA. Anyone remember when Novatech boasted aboat how they could host the largst online shooter to try and directly compete with Planetside, but they failed.. this is just a more subtle approach.

[Stew]

Some of you are way too confident/hopeful that PS2 will be a monster hit. I for one am worried. Very worried.

Almost all the first beta testers are going to be PS1 vets. This wouldnt be any concern, except that the devs really do seem to listen to what their playerbase says. PS1 vets are the last people they need to take advice from to build a truly phenomenal shooter. Leave it up to them (the diehard PS1 vets who are still subbed to this day) and we will get a bastardized version of PS1 with prettier graphics. It certainly wont help that this game is going to look old and antiquated in a couple of years when the standard hardware for games takes a giant leap forward due to next gen consoles.

So the Majority of PS1 vets i personally know. All play other FPS excessively and competitively. So your saying Myself and these people who have grown up over the years and gained profound knowledge of the FPS Market & Gameplay. That SOE should not listen to the likes of us? Sorry pal we are top of the list.

actually he his rigth at some point the (( hard core )) planetside 1 vets i mean those who actually still play these days and who hate on every games that arent planetside 1 are by far the worst people to take advice from on thats he is right , because some of those people hate every new gameplay mechanics and some of them want a copy and paste of planetside 1 whith pretty graphics !

thats said , is every ps1 vets are like this ? NO not all like myself iam a old school ps1 vets 2003 to 2007 but i dont play ps1 anymore i was waiting for a sequel and ps1 is to old for me no matters how awesome it was back in the day i have good memories of it but i want it to evolve wich many ps1 actual players (( vets )) dont want the game to evolve thats factual ...

Look at many tread youll see so much DH people crying and asking to copy and paste planetside 1 and those people refuse to understand many aspect of the modern shooter mechanics !

I KNOW THIS ISNT EVERYONES but this guys was talking about them iam pretty much 100 % sure of that !

Iam also worried about who the dev will lisen at, because many DH ps1 players could ruins this game and some others can contribute to make it better so i share the same anxiety !

Dev need to stay true to their vision of the game and have to take feed back but not lisen at every ps1 actual players comments as a divine orders !

Because like i said multiple times many people in here have ideas that could Destroy this game !

[Sephirex]

Because like i said multiple times many people in here have ideas that could Destroy this game !

We must cleanse the player base or we risk total destruction!
Who's with me, brothers?!

Burn the BF3ers!
Kill the CODers!
Purge the Vets!

[Stardouser]

We must cleanse the player base or we risk total destruction!
Who's with me, brothers?!

Burn the BF3ers!
Kill the CODers!
Purge the Vets!

That would leave the BF2 vets! Victory!

[Sephirex]

That would leave the BF2 vets! Victory!

The Inquisitors haven't decided yet. But I think you're okay.

[Ratstomper]

The LoL community isn't THAT bad. You should have seen Dota back in the day, and especially on the semi-competitive side :D. NOTHING can compare to it, LoL is just small remains of it. But it was fun in a way heh.

I play some games where I just never want to turn the game back on. Constantly people being total assholes and generally disrespectful. Add on top of that People who don't even speak your language who LOVE to ping the map constantly, but can't understand a word you're saying.

Bleh.

[Emperor]

This thread devolved into "Our game is better than your game," and some needless "Consoles vs. PCs" discussion towards the middle; skipping over all of that and getting back to the question posed:

Is DiCE worried about PS2? No, probably not. Regardless of which game has a better play experience, like it or not Battlefield has brand influence and a much wider reach. They've got the console audience which PS2 does not have, and regardless of your personal stance on consoles you cannot deny what that means for sales.

Speaking of sales, PS2 is a free to play game; it's free to download, free to play. There's no box to buy or digital copy to purchase. The F2P model works off the hope that being free will get players in the door, and once they're there they'll spend on items in their cash shop. The model works, but you also miss out on those initial sales. There will be people who play your game who never drop a dime on it; anyone who's ever actually been privy to looking at F2P sales figures knows that the majority of users don't spend anything, there's a select amount that spend minimally, and a really, really small number that accounts for most of your revenue--those people who buy a ton of stuff in a store and max out the amount of currency (Station Cash, for example) that they can purchase in one go. (Most games have a cap that can't be bypassed, for fraud protection purposes) Those people who never spend a dime on your game? There's the risk that if your game wasn't free, they might have never picked it up; but on the flipside that might've also been $50 you could've got off them purchasing a box. And let's not devalue the fact that the name "Battlefield" has the clout to make people want to go out and pick up a box.

Honestly, I can't even imagine Planetside having a higher CCU than BF3; you have to consider how many millions picked up BF3 and are still playing the game. Say what you want about how BF3 disappointed its core audience, how many people have left, the game is still doing well. The game is selling. There are people signing up for the Premium service. There are tons of PC servers and tons of console gamers playing BF3 all the time, all around the world.

So, realistically, from a financial standpoint, I HIGHLY doubt DiCE is worried about PS2. This isn't a dis against Planetside 2, mind you--there's no gameplay or personal opinion factored in here. This is strictly coming from a financial standpoint; I just can't see PS2 even being a blip on BF3's neon blue minimap. The only real thing PS2 has going for it--again, with regards to revenue--is the hope that PS2 will be a longer-lasting experience than BF3. If they can maintain a high enough CCU over a number of years they might turn a profit that could be comparable.

Then again, by that time we'll likely have Battlefield 4.

[Chronic]

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

[AThreatToYou]

PS2's Engine can't do what BF3's Engine can. More players does not make PS2 the better game by default.

fanboys I swear...

BF3's engine can't do what PS2's engine can. Destructible environments does not make BF3 the better game by default.

fanboys I swear...

[goneglockin]

My prediction: No one will know what MMOFPS is until someone besides an MMO company makes one.

At this point, I don't see any reason as to why PS2 will not suffer from the same high player turnover as PS1.

I really am impressed the way SOE seems to understand the FPS genre at this time. PS1 clearly resembled a team of folks who specialized in orcs and dorks online RPG games trying their hand at a shooter; so that's an improvement... I just don't think they have what it takes to compete with what are essentially "brand names" in FPS gaming.

We already know you can't expect MMO players to keep an MMOFPS alive. That's where all the PS1 players came from, and that's where they went- to other MMOs. We know we need the FPS crowd. The question is, how is an MMO company going to get them?

[ChipMHazard]

We must cleanse the player base or we risk total destruction!
Who's with me, brothers?!

Burn the BF3ers!
Kill the CODers!
Purge the Vets!

Sounds like an exterminatus might be in order.
No ane does house cleaning as well as the Inquisition. :p

[Zalmoxis]

I play some games where I just never want to turn the game back on. Constantly people being total assholes and generally disrespectful. Add on top of that People who don't even speak your language who LOVE to ping the map constantly, but can't understand a word you're saying.

Bleh.

Well, let's say that in Dota there wasn't a single match ever where at least 2-3 people didn't constantly insult each other, and 1 in every 3 matches people did a "where do you live?" routine ( not exaggerating about either here). I know 3 guys that actually went through with their promise haha. Oh and in internet cafe's, these fights were quite often.

And the ping thing came from W3. Was even more abused in Dota than LoL.

[Haro]

We must cleanse the player base or we risk total destruction!
Who's with me, brothers?!

Burn the BF3ers!
Kill the CODers!
Purge the Vets!

Bring it on.

As one of those PS1 vets who probably has those probably-destructive ideas Stew was talking about, I take it on myself to challenge the Planetside status quo as much as I can because I know most other people won't. And that's fine, there was a lot to love about the original Planetside, but I think my ultimate criticism comes down to this:

Do you think, truthfully, that you would have enjoyed Planetside if it was not an MMOFPS, but instead a conventional 64 man shooter? I know this robs Planetside of it's most unique, fun, and defining feature, but that's the point. Did Planetside rely too much on this one facet of gameplay? Would its fundamental mechanics survive in a vacuum? In some ways, you can't compare it, but on the other hand you have to admit that there are a lot of things about the original really didn't work very well, even from the outset, before the expansions bombed.

I think it's perfectly fine for Planetside 2 to look outwards and see how it can improve. Like it or not, you have to admit that other games, even Call of Duty or Battlefield, have their good points that attract people, and that's important. Planetside 1 would be dead on arrival if it shipped today with a fresh paint job and better net coding, of this I am convinced, but if it learns and adapts and sees where other "dumber," more mainstream games have succeeded and failed, then I don't see why it couldn't surpass all of these games on mechanics alone.

But I am mostly hopeful. I'm glad hundreds of journalists got to jump into a random, cluster fuck of the game and from all that still gave the game some 40 nominations and 20 awards, some of them damn prestigious. Something is going right: the original Planetside would NEVER have gotten that. I think that was the main thing that was missing in the original, and I'm glad it seems to have been specifically improved by the devs.

Well, that's my rant for now. Hope to see you all soon in the beta.

BTW, I don't really think this is a shitty community, though you guys do get under my skin sometimes with all the console hating, CoD bashing, and so on. If anything, I consider the Planetside community to be a kind of West-Brooklyn-esque hipster-gamer commune that really does believe it is all the shit, even though strong arguments can be made that the Village is still a bit better.

[Blackwolf]

I think they should not listen to anyone other than their collected data. Especially nobody who posts on these forums (the 1-2% of players this will eventually account for at best). They need to trust their data and their market research papers, they need to put a survey into the launcher and get the opinions of the other 98-99% of players. Not anyone here.

Why? It's pretty clear to me that the majority will always favor unbalanced and overpowered BS to things that will make the game fun and enjoyable. PS Vets included.

Difference is, we know how PS1 worked, and how PS2 will likely work. We've experienced the 133vs133vs133 battles that you haven't. There are immense differences in how you fight when there are 266 people gunning for you.

It's also fairly easy to tell the difference between a bad opinion and a good one. I've always trusted the PS1 DEVs to do their best, and I've disliked nothing that they came out with. What I hated with a passion? The bickering and whining in the forums that caused those things to be changed repeatedly. The "greater populace" that you speak of essentially ruined the game with their flood of opinions.

The DEVs listen to the player base, but it's not as if they act on every idea. If they did, tanks would require 2 people, 3rdPV would be available to infantry, and vehicle enter/exit animations would exist.

[polywomple]

COD pretty much sucks, though.

By the time you're rank 70 in COD or whatever, you ask yourself why you wasted so much time.

Not in PS, however.

[GLaDOS]

Fingers crossed for a massive Star Wars Battlefront sequel.

YES. So much yes. Also, the guy above me seems right.

EDIT: Woops, the guy 2 posts above me.

EDIT: Damn, 3. Sorry about that.

[Haro]

COD pretty much sucks, though.

By the time you're rank 70 in COD or whatever, you ask yourself why you wasted so much time.

Not in PS, however.

Oh, so that's why soooo many people quit playing Call of Duty so quickly, and how PS has managed to maintain a population of millions even 9 years after it first came out.

But seriously,
http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/your_opinion.jpg?w=720

[Top Sgt]

This thread devolved into "Our game is better than your game," and some needless "Consoles vs. PCs" discussion towards the middle; skipping over all of that and getting back to the question posed:

Is DiCE worried about PS2? No, probably not. Regardless of which game has a better play experience, like it or not Battlefield has brand influence and a much wider reach. They've got the console audience which PS2 does not have, and regardless of your personal stance on consoles you cannot deny what that means for sales.

Speaking of sales, PS2 is a free to play game; it's free to download, free to play. There's no box to buy or digital copy to purchase. The F2P model works off the hope that being free will get players in the door, and once they're there they'll spend on items in their cash shop. The model works, but you also miss out on those initial sales. There will be people who play your game who never drop a dime on it; anyone who's ever actually been privy to looking at F2P sales figures knows that the majority of users don't spend anything, there's a select amount that spend minimally, and a really, really small number that accounts for most of your revenue--those people who buy a ton of stuff in a store and max out the amount of currency (Station Cash, for example) that they can purchase in one go. (Most games have a cap that can't be bypassed, for fraud protection purposes) Those people who never spend a dime on your game? There's the risk that if your game wasn't free, they might have never picked it up; but on the flipside that might've also been $50 you could've got off them purchasing a box. And let's not devalue the fact that the name "Battlefield" has the clout to make people want to go out and pick up a box.

Honestly, I can't even imagine Planetside having a higher CCU than BF3; you have to consider how many millions picked up BF3 and are still playing the game. Say what you want about how BF3 disappointed its core audience, how many people have left, the game is still doing well. The game is selling. There are people signing up for the Premium service. There are tons of PC servers and tons of console gamers playing BF3 all the time, all around the world.

So, realistically, from a financial standpoint, I HIGHLY doubt DiCE is worried about PS2. This isn't a dis against Planetside 2, mind you--there's no gameplay or personal opinion factored in here. This is strictly coming from a financial standpoint; I just can't see PS2 even being a blip on BF3's neon blue minimap. The only real thing PS2 has going for it--again, with regards to revenue--is the hope that PS2 will be a longer-lasting experience than BF3. If they can maintain a high enough CCU over a number of years they might turn a profit that could be comparable.

Then again, by that time we'll likely have Battlefield 4.

umm I hate to burst your buble but please do research.. the PC servers are down like 70% from launch.. yes you can find some but it's way way down than it was before.

it's not doing well on PC at all anymore.. that's why they have even been giving away free premium codes for PC only to certain people.. trying to regain people's interest. They only care about console sales anyways at this point.

[rTekku]

Honestly, I can't even imagine Planetside having a higher CCU than BF3; you have to consider how many millions picked up BF3 and are still playing the game. Say what you want about how BF3 disappointed its core audience, how many people have left, the game is still doing well. The game is selling. There are people signing up for the Premium service. There are tons of PC servers and tons of console gamers playing BF3 all the time, all around the world.


BF3 is dead on the PC, Emp.

http://bf3stats.com/

26k online on PC at this moment. And if you want, feel free to check that number throughout the day. It doesn't get much higher. And keep in mind this game isn't even that old yet and the numbers have already dropped down to BC2 numbers(BC2 had lower than 30k players on average a few months after launch despite BF3 having better sales).

As far as NA and CAN are concerned, there are not many servers and this problem becomes even worse if you like a specific set of maps/modes. For example, there are only 4 or 5 B2K servers that are populated throughout the day. And some of those are running just one map instead of the full rotation and a higher ticket count.

http://beta.xfire.com/games/bf3

Look at the significant drop off in hours over time. Expect that to get lower as the months past. It may see a temporary increase when new DLC releases as it did in June, but the numbers will drop right back off.

So if we're talking PC only here, Planetside 2 will have no problem competing with BF3. I'm sure PS2 will be able to get more than 26k players worldwide...

[TAA]

Why? It's pretty clear to me that the majority will always favor unbalanced and overpowered BS to things that will make the game fun and enjoyable. PS Vets included.

Difference is, we know how PS1 worked, and how PS2 will likely work. We've experienced the 133vs133vs133 battles that you haven't. There are immense differences in how you fight when there are 266 people gunning for you.



Blackwolf, when I say that they should take feedback from forum posters and PS1 vets with a grain of salt I mean this:

They should contract experts to give expert advice. Mr Whisenhunt is a good example of this. Did he play PS1 for years? Did he post on these forums before being hired? I was not aware that he did either. I certainly hope he didnt.
For player input they should rely on what people do, not on what they say. It doesnt matter if a 500 page thread pops up on the beta forums complaining about how overpowered (insert flavor of the month) are. Do the statistics of the game support the hypothesis that the (insert faction) is overpowered? If so then maybe more stats need to be run to see if (flavor of the month) is the main problem.
As for gameplay changes after launch, again it should come down to hired expert advice and consumer surveys. You dont know what the 'majority' will favor because you dont know what they have to say. They dont post on the forums. Use the expert advice for the beta, backed up by data. Then once the game launches use consumer surveys (through the game launcher) and more stats to drive gameplay changes.

[Goldeh]

You're right, people probably shouldn't be praising the gameplay of a game they haven't played yet. People are just excited.

No reason to be mad. This community is like Mother Teresa compared to some others. Try the LoL community, some of those people are only one step above 4chan.

Or the Blizzard Community

Ba-dum-tish

[Sephirex]

Or the Blizzard Community

Ba-dum-tish

If only that was a joke....

[Absentis]

I think the question should be: Is there enough hype to get PS2 on people's radar? I doubt DICE is worried since one could assume they've had their DLC planned from release.

If you look at Google trends for 'planetside 2' searches this month, it is comparable to the trends for 'battlefield 3' searches from a week ago.

PS2: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=planetside+2&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012-7&sort=0

BF3: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=battlefield+3&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012-7&sort=0

This concerns me since PS2 has had so much E3/TB exposure and it has such a low search volume, even a month ago during E3, they were comparable.

PS2: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=planetside+2&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012-6&sort=0

BF3: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=battlefield+3&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012-6&sort=0

While I hope PS2 has plenty of players and is highly successful, I just don't see enough hype (assuming search volume is approximately equal to hype). Ideally, this would be a much higher volume or searches ≤ hype. We need a lot more interest and success before any other FPS developer starts having to compete in the same MMOFPS market. While I have complete confidence in the dev team, the marketing has a long way to go if this project is going to change the FPS market.

To put it shortly, we need more interest from players of all games.

[james]

I would be slightly, well not the same, PS2 and BF3 seem to have similar traits and game play focus. Only thing ps2 doesn't have is destruction.

[Ninjacalypse]

I keep hearing people talking about how PS2 is going to kill BF3, hurr durr. PS2 and BF3 are apples and oranges. Not everyone who plays games like BF3/COD is going to want to play a sci-fi themed MMOFPS where patience, timing and planning take precedence over things like sticking C4 to your jeep and crashing into enemy tanks.

Also, what does EA have to be worried about? That all their BF3 players will migrate from BF3 to another game? EA has already been paid. EA doesn't even host dedicated game servers for BF3. Players do. If some people decide to stop playing it makes no difference to EA's bottom line.

[Sledgecrushr]

When the promise of 2,000 players on one server actually becomes a reality the hype machine is going to explode.

[Deckura]

Are DICE Getting worried about planetside 2..


More importantly, who gives a shit?

[Sephirex]

I think the question should be: Is there enough hype to get PS2 on people's radar? I doubt DICE is worried since one could assume they've had their DLC planned from release.

If you look at Google trends for 'planetside 2' searches this month, it is comparable to the trends for 'battlefield 3' searches from a week ago.

PS2: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=planetside+2&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012-7&sort=0

BF3: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=battlefield+3&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012-7&sort=0

This concerns me since PS2 has had so much E3/TB exposure and it has such a low search volume, even a month ago during E3, they were comparable.

PS2: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=planetside+2&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012-6&sort=0

BF3: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=battlefield+3&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012-6&sort=0

While I hope PS2 has plenty of players and is highly successful, I just don't see enough hype (assuming search volume is approximately equal to hype). Ideally, this would be a much higher volume or searches ≤ hype. We need a lot more interest and success before any other FPS developer starts having to compete in the same MMOFPS market. While I have complete confidence in the dev team, the marketing has a long way to go if this project is going to change the FPS market.

To put it shortly, we need more interest from players of all games.

Bad news but you're doing it wrong.
If you only look at trends for one item, it always puts it in the middle of the graph, since there's nothing to compare it to and Google won't provide hard numbers for actual activity counts.
Here's June's real comparison
http://www.google.com/trends/?q=battlefield+3,+planetside+&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012-6&sort=0

As you can see even with E3 footage, Planetside isn't even remotely comparable.

[Absentis]

Bad news but you're doing it wrong.
If you only look at trends for one item, it always puts it in the middle of the graph, since there's nothing to compare it to and Google won't provide hard numbers for actual activity counts.
Here's June's real comparison
http://www.google.com/trends/?q=battlefield+3,+planetside+&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012-6&sort=0

As you can see even with E3 footage, Planetside isn't even remotely comparable.

Thanks for the link, didn't realize that was how Google made the trend graphs.

All this confirms for me is that PS2 will need some more interest just before release if there are to be plenty of full/highly populated servers.

[PoisonTaco]

BF3's biggest problem isn't the map sizes or the scope. If DICE wanted to go bigger then BF2 or 2142 would have supported more players than 1942. Battlefield 3's problem is that they took away the tools necessary to communicate and coordinate effectively with a team of 32 players.

They nailed squad teamwork. How each of the four classes work well with each other is really great. Unfortunately that's where the teamwork stops. In Battlefield 2 and 2142 you had Squad Leaders and you had the Commander. The Commander could see the entire map, see where squads were going and issue them orders. Squad leaders could also see what other squad leaders were doing. Not to mention there was voip among squads and voip from squad leaders to the commander. Not everybody used the tools available here, but when you have a competent commander and two good squads on your team it makes a huge difference.

In Battlefield 3, my squad can go and capture point A. After that we decide what our goal is. Do we defend A or move onto the next point held by the enemy? Without the commander system, there's no way to tell what the rest of your team is doing. There's no voip at all, you have to rely solely on text chat. Not to mention you have no tools available to really coordinate with the rest of your team. Anything beyond the squad level is a jumbled mess. On top of all that there's nothing significant about being a Squad Leader. In BF2 and 2142 you could only squad spawn on the leader. In BF2142 the squad leader also had some really helpful equipment for the squad. Being a leader and being alive was important, and killing squad leaders could really hurt an enemy advance.

I could see where DICE was going when they spread out the Commander abilities to the various classes (ie mortars, motion sensors and etc.) but they're nowhere near as effective. A well placed UAV from the commander was so crucial and helped bring the team together. Artillery strikes provided excellent area denial and supply drops could really help a people holding a point.

Battlefield needs to bring back mechanics and means to work well with a team of 64 players. In this area, BF3 took a step backwards to that of BF1942 instead of building on excellent systems from BF2 and 2142.

[TAA]

Bad news but you're doing it wrong.
If you only look at trends for one item, it always puts it in the middle of the graph, since there's nothing to compare it to and Google won't provide hard numbers for actual activity counts.
Here's June's real comparison
http://www.google.com/trends/?q=battlefield+3,+planetside+&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012-6&sort=0

As you can see even with E3 footage, Planetside isn't even remotely comparable.


Much more accurate. Here are some more, with stats over all of 2012:

Planetside vs Firefall (http://www.google.com/trends/?q=planetside,+firefall&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012&sort=0)

Planetside vs Blacklight Retribution (http://www.google.com/trends/?q=planetside,+blacklight+retribution&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012&sort=0)

Planetside vs Tribes Ascend (http://www.google.com/trends/?q=planetside,+tribes+ascend&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012&sort=0)

Planetside vs Mechwarrior Online (http://www.google.com/trends/?q=planetside,+mechwarrior+online&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012&sort=0)

Planetside vs Call of Duty (http://www.google.com/trends/?q=planetside,+call+of+duty&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012&sort=0)

Planetside vs Battlefield (http://www.google.com/trends/?q=planetside,+battlefield&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012&sort=0)

Planetside vs Battlefield 3 (http://www.google.com/trends/?q=planetside,+battlefield+3&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2012&sort=0)

If you stretch out the timeline to all years you will see that the small little bump in search volume that battlefield received for the Close Quarter expansion release alone is far bigger than any traffic ever received for the search term planetside - all the way back to 2004. PS2 is not even in the same order of magnitude as COD or BF. It is much more comparable to the the first four games I put on the list.

If you want pessimism, here is one for you: Planetside vs Tabula Rasa (http://www.google.com/trends/?q=planetside,+tabula+rasa&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0)

If you want to be positive here is one for you: Planetside vs League of Legends (planetside, league of legends)

[raidyr]

Why would DICE be worried about Planetside 2, atleast financially? They just announced that over 800,000 complacent idiots re-bought the same constantly broken game for a knew knife skin and some unlocks.

[The Kush]

BF3 devs are shitting their small sized diapers. I mean seriously PS2 doesn't even have to drug BF3 to rape the living fucking shit out of it.

Let's all be men and put our honor on the table.

Everyone who has half a brain can tell PS2 destroys BF3, CoD, Halo, any game you want to name.

Hate it or love it, you got to respect the facts.

[Graywolves]

Blah blah blah blah skipped half the thread blah blah blah

F2P has proven to be effective business model

other AAA FPS games must now compete with a F2P model


Current AAA FPS titles have zero interest in player retention.

Blah blah blah

There's not some finite number of FPS players so it isn't versus 2000 paying $50 to play and 2000 playing for free with minor transactions.


This thread is boring and you should feel boring.

[Sephirex]

BF3 devs are shitting their small sized diapers. I mean seriously PS2 doesn't even have to drug BF3 to rape the living fucking shit out of it.

Let's all be men and put our honor on the table.

Everyone who has half a brain can tell PS2 destroys BF3, CoD, Halo, any game you want to name.

Hate it or love it, you got to respect the facts.

It looks that way, but I've learned many a hard lesson from guessing the quality of a game before I've played it.

[Emperor]

umm I hate to burst your buble but please do research.. the PC servers are down like 70% from launch..

it's not doing well on PC at all anymore..

They only care about console sales anyways at this point.

BF3 is dead on the PC, Emp.

http://bf3stats.com/

26k online on PC at this moment.

So if we're talking PC only here...
Except we're not only talking PC here. And regardless of how the game is doing now, there were still sales. CCU for a game like Battlefield, which has little in the way of persistence beyond unlocks, really doesn't matter. It just doesn't. The game shipped over 15 million units, guys. 15 million times $60 a pop.

Oh, by the way, Battlefield Premium? 800,000 sales in the first two weeks--that's another $50 per.

Now keep in mind, again, CCU for a game without actual persistence or a cash shop does not matter. So if you think it's bursting anyone's bubble that, "Har har, BF3 is doing bad and people are leaving! Suck on that, Planetside rules!" you're deluding yourself. DiCE is rolling in money. Do you honestly think that they care if people are leaving? They already got the cash! You don't want to stick around to play the game anymore? Well, that's too bad; thanks for the dough.

And again, bringing up PC statistics for BF3 is also skewing the argument. PC sales were a fraction of console sales. A fraction. Who did you really think the target audience was with BF3? It certainly wasn't the Battlefield PC vets. You think all those TV ads and SpikeTV trailer reveals were for PC fans? Don't kid yourself. DiCE cares little for what PC fans think or whether they're abandoning the game. They cut into that CoD market.

So, fiscally, they really have nothing to fear from Planetside. Yes, this is a Planetside site; yes, we're all hyped for Planetside; yes, Planetside will undoubtedly be a better game than BF3. But to assume that DiCE somehow fears Planetside 2? Ha ha. I'm sure they're shaking from within their HOUSES MADE OF MONEY.

[polywomple]

Oh, so that's why soooo many people quit playing Call of Duty so quickly, and how PS has managed to maintain a population of millions even 9 years after it first came out.

But seriously,


Did you even read what I said? You're post is pretty non sequitur.

I said COD sucks (along with BC, BC2 and BF3). Because at the end of the day, you only played to rank up to 70, unlock the guns, and hit the leader boards and realize you've been playing a brain-dead game for points and kids with no satisfaction factor. They're games for your average idiot (and child) that can't grasp teamwork.

The only games that truly did it right were Planetside and BF 2142 (kind of)

[rTekku]

Except we're not only talking PC here. And regardless of how the game is doing now, there were still sales. CCU for a game like Battlefield, which has little in the way of persistence beyond unlocks, really doesn't matter. It just doesn't. The game shipped over 15 million units, guys. 15 million times $60 a pop.

Oh, by the way, Battlefield Premium? 800,000 sales in the first two weeks--that's another $50 per.

Now keep in mind, again, CCU for a game without actual persistence or a cash shop does not matter. So if you think it's bursting anyone's bubble that, "Har har, BF3 is doing bad and people are leaving! Suck on that, Planetside rules!" you're deluding yourself. DiCE is rolling in money. Do you honestly think that they care if people are leaving? They already got the cash! You don't want to stick around to play the game anymore? Well, that's too bad; thanks for the dough.

And again, bringing up PC statistics for BF3 is also skewing the argument. PC sales were a fraction of console sales. A fraction. Who did you really think the target audience was with BF3? It certainly wasn't the Battlefield PC vets. You think all those TV ads and SpikeTV trailer reveals were for PC fans? Don't kid yourself. DiCE cares little for what PC fans think or whether they're abandoning the game. They cut into that CoD market.

So, fiscally, they really have nothing to fear from Planetside. Yes, this is a Planetside site; yes, we're all hyped for Planetside; yes, Planetside will undoubtedly be a better game than BF3. But to assume that DiCE somehow fears Planetside 2? Ha ha. I'm sure they're shaking from within their HOUSES MADE OF MONEY.

You're only looking at it from one perspective.

What do you think is going to happen the next time another Battlefield game rolls around? All of those "vets" who were disappointed in the previous title won't be as anxious to run out and purchase the next title. Many of them won't pre-order and purchase at launch and some will just skip the title all together.

Customers they are losing now are customers they have potentially lost temporarily or forever. And even though they may gain more customers, I guarantee you they would much rather keep those customers because it means more money in their pocket from future titles, DLC, etc.

And we're not only talking about Vets here. There are many newcomers that may or may not purchase the next title either.

CCU does matter. Yes, DICE has their money and while this may not be a persistent game with a cash shop, here are the facts. If the community is dead, players will be less likely to purchase future DLC.

Remember Bad Company 2? They released "mode packs" which were basically the same maps we already had access too unlocked for a different mode. DICE says the reasoning behind this was to keep players interested in the game longer by feeding them bits of content at a time instead of just giving them everything at once.

Why would they do this if current player count is irrelevant? I know why. To keep people interested and playing until they released paid content such as the Vietnam expansion. If no one is around to play BC2, who's going to waste their money on Vietnam?

As it stands right now, B2K servers are basically dead. There are maybe 4 or 5 servers with playable player counts and those aren't even running the full rotations. Why would I waste my money purchasing the expansion if no one is playing it?

Ask yourself. Do you think 800k people would have ran out to buy premium if hardly anyone played the game anymore?

That example is a primary reason why CCU is important.

Did you actually follow BF3 or did you only pay attention to a couple of trailers and what not? And even if you weren't, how does advertising on TV automatically mean that the PC does not matter? It's marketing. If you're talking about taking on CoD, you need to advertise heavily and reach as many people as possible.

DICE released statement after statement saying things like "Battlefield 3 is a true sequel to Battlefield 2" and how the PC was the "lead platform". We were fed things like that for the longest until after launch where they come out and say things like "PC was only the lead platform for visuals and such."

The fact is PC gamers were severely mislead until after launch when DICE had already made their money. It wasn't like they told us "Hey, you PC guys really don't matter. This is a console game and we're focusing more on the console market than you guys." Nor did they imply anything of the sort.

[Emperor]

But again, those "disappointed gamers" who aren't going to purchase the next installment of BF3 are likely PC gamers disenfranchised with the direction the series has gone. They are no longer the core audience, so whether or not PC gamers are populating the servers, even in the long run when the next DLC or full Battlefield title comes out, I doubt DiCE is even banking on them.

As far as marketing goes, PC games traditionally aren't marketed through TV ads. Did you notice they only started making TV ads once BC rolled around? Who do you think the primary audience for catching a TV spot is, PC gamers or console gamers?

And you're definitely right, DiCE led PC gamers around by the nose with direct comparisons to BF2. If you preordered on Origin and were in the beta, you'll probably remember how the forums were absolutely clogged with people ranting about how they'd been fooled. DiCE's almost complete absence on the boards, followed by some subsequent tweets from their CM, showed just how much they actually cared about these players' opinions. But that's all the point; BF3 is doing fine on consoles. So even assuming CCU does matter for the game, its new core audience has proven that the next DLC and installments (BF4 or whatever they decide to call it) will do just fine. It's indisputable just based off Battlefield Premium sales. If the community was in any danger, at all, I highly doubt they would've done nearly a million in new sales.

I will concede though, I guess I should say, "PC CCU doesn't matter."

[retrix]

I don't think that DICE will worry about BF3 vs PS2. BF3 is a very different game and the vehicle warfare expansion is just one of 4 for the game, the last one was specifically about close quarter small maps focused on infantry. I intend on playing both games depending on my mood.

Although there is the worry for the 2142 sequel they have been hinting; which would most likely release next year (as a guess).

As a massive fan on Battlefield 2142 and being new to the world of PS (I have not played PS1 so maybe DICE copied elements from there) but I did notice similarities between PS2 and BF2142 which I guess is one of the things which draws me to PS2. Although each game has its pros and cons: PS2 is larger scale but 2142 has its Titan game mode which was brilliant and defined the title.

I'm hoping both franchises can coexist as they are both great series of games in my books but I just hope DICE aren't put off from releasing a 2142 sequel because of competition from PS2.

[TAA]

As a massive fan on Battlefield 2142 and being new to the world of PS (I have not played PS1 so maybe DICE copied elements from there) but I did notice similarities between PS2 and BF2142 which I guess is one of the things which draws me to PS2. Although each game has its pros and cons: PS2 is larger scale but 2142 has its Titan game mode which was brilliant and defined the title.


If BF2143 comes out I will probably drop everything else and fail at life. :eek:

[Emperor]

Wasn't the idea of Titans for PS2 brought up? Could've sworn one of the devs (Might've been Higby, actually) talked about that.

[rTekku]

Battlefield 4 has been announced by accident, so they better worry. Especially with all of the mad customers they are about to have lol. :)

[Zidane]

Be afraid, very afraid! lol

[Pella]

The creative Director and writer announced he was leaving Dice yesterday.

https://twitter.com/locust9/status/223486260285681664

[ChipMHazard]

lets not forget another reason why bf3 sucks: ORIGIN.

That little malware program takes up 80,000kb of my memory on some days and is constantly scanning my computer for whatever the hell it wants

It's not malware and it doesn't scan your computer for whatever it wants. :p
I don't really know how much of a negative impact Origin has had. Gamers today are used to digital distribution DRM services, even though I dinna have any love for any of them.

Battlefield 4 has been announced by accident, so they better worry. Especially with all of the mad customers they are about to have lol. :)

Uh aye, especially considering that openly angry customers have such a good track record when it comes to upholding a boycott. If there's one thing I've learned in recent years it's that those who are openly negative about a game are just as likely to buy it as everyone else.

Battlefield 4 was "announced" about two weeks after the BF3 launch and it doesn't really matter since it was obvious. EA/DICE are trying to compete to cloosely with Activision/CoD and keep trying to emulate their descisions, so we all knew Battlefield would become an annual series. Should be noted that BF2142 was released a year after BF2.

Of course if PS2 ends up being as great as I hope it will then I personally won't care much for future Battlefield titles.

[Falcbe]

Dice should have gone mmofps after battlefield 2

instead they gave their pc fanbase the middle finger and went console only with bad company.

BF3 was a downgrade in terms of options, gameplay and mod support (witch will never appear in any EA game again) compared to BF2.

in they started with a decent mmofps like planetside in 2006 instead of the frostbite engine it would probably have been very succesfull. now the BF franchise had been ruined.

EA and dice got huge profits with bf3, thats the only thing that counts for them.

all in all i dont think dice should be afraid because ps2 is not modern warfare.

80% of those who cry for innovative gameplay or new settings actually just wants to keep doing modern warfare

[lawnmower]

Destruction was a novelty, and it wore off after a month tops.

didnt bad company have equal or better destruction to begin with?


Battlefield 3 isn't a bad game, it didn't evolve much in the FPS multiplayer area (aside from insane destructability).
no way

It's refreshing to see a thread on here where PS1 preceding 1942 gets forgotten...apples and oranges.

To put some figures to BF3 though -

PC sales - World - 2.02million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/35315/battlefield-3/)
Xbox sales - World - 6.06million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40231/battlefield-3/)
PlayS2 sales - World - 5.52million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40230/battlefield-3/)

So are they worries about a PC only game? Really no.

/thread
vgchartz is a complete joke site, also i dont know if EA is going to release its numbers for online sells, and vgchartz didnt account for them


^ very much this. I do think this is why they have given away so many beta keys though, to try and get some modern fps (but non-PS1 vet) players into the beta. They absolutely need input from the BF/COD playerbase, or PS2 is in serious trouble.
LOL, because modern fps people carry so much secret and deep information about how modern fps games work and why theyre "good"

[Nasher]

BF and COD are as good as finished on PC once PS2 gets released (and assuming it's good). Not that they were even close to being the best FPS anyway.

You can't just release the same game every 6 months for years, milk people with overpriced DLC and then expect fans to stay once something bigger and better (and free) gets released...

[rTekku]

It's not malware and it doesn't scan your computer for whatever it wants. :p
I don't really know how much of a negative impact Origin has had. Gamers today are used to digital distribution DRM services, even though I dinna have any love for any of them.



Uh aye, especially considering that openly angry customers have such a good track record when it comes to upholding a boycott. If there's one thing I've learned in recent years it's that those who are openly negative about a game are just as likely to buy it as everyone else.

Battlefield 4 was "announced" about two weeks after the BF3 launch and it doesn't really matter since it was obvious. EA/DICE are trying to compete to cloosely with Activision/CoD and keep trying to emulate their descisions, so we all knew Battlefield would become an annual series. Should be noted that BF2142 was released a year after BF2.

Of course if PS2 ends up being as great as I hope it will then I personally won't care much for future Battlefield titles.


I guess many of us BF players will be taking our talents to Planetside *LeBron voice*.

[ChipMHazard]

I guess many of us BF players will be taking our talents to Planetside *LeBron voice*.

Hopefully so.

[Mister Morden]

i bought a new pc because i loved bf vietnam/2/2142 but bf3 is so damn boring, i only played it 86h since it is out ...
there are games where it doesn't matter that much if you lose, but in bf3 the balance is so horrible, if you are in the losing team you nearly never have fun (btw i have k/d of 1.6).

[lawnmower]

Oh, so that's why soooo many people quit playing Call of Duty so quickly
spot on, thats exactly why

Suck on that, Planetside rules!" you're deluding yourself. DiCE is rolling in money. Do you honestly think that they care if people are leaving? They already got the cash! You don't want to stick around to play the game anymore? Well, that's too bad; thanks for the dough.
theres no way bf3 did a whole lot better than they expected, so that means it wasnt a success and they cant be rolling in cash


And again, bringing up PC statistics for BF3 is also skewing the argument. PC sales were a fraction of console sales. A fraction. Who did you really think the target audience was with BF3? It certainly wasn't the Battlefield PC vets.
source? i think its pretty much a guarantee that the sales werent a fraction

So, fiscally, they really have nothing to fear from Planetside. Yes, this is a Planetside site; yes, we're all hyped for Planetside; yes, Planetside will undoubtedly be a better game than BF3. But to assume that DiCE somehow fears Planetside 2? Ha ha. I'm sure they're shaking from within their HOUSES MADE OF MONEY.
bf3 didnt do well and ps2 and its concept should be a big worry for the future

[EVILoHOMER]

How is this dumb thread not locked already?

[Pancake]

ITS SO BIG AND WE FACED SO MANY CHALLENGES IN DESIGNING IT for 64 players total...
LOL Nice Troll

[OnexBigxHebrew]

How is this dumb thread not locked already?

Agreed.

No amount of disliking battlefield makes it not successful, no matter how much of a jingoist anyone here wants to be. The game sold very well and was Ea's fastest selling game in history at the time.

5 million sold at launch week alone, and the game was later know for its word of mouth sales thanks to negative views of CoD mw3 online play.

Also, bf3's premium service did 800k of sales in two weeks.

So, not including sales after one week, back to karkand OR close quarters (standalone), battlefield 3 made (In revenue):

5,000,000 x 60 = 300,000,000
800,000 x 50= 40,000,000.

That's 340,000,000 dollars not including online passes, both map packs, all retail merchandise and xbl/psn fringe content, and all dedicated server rentals for custom servers on console.

From a non-monetary standpoint, the game is noted for the following:
-frostbite 2 destruction
-ignoring killstreaks
-having dedicated servers on console, which is unheard of for AAA fps's
-the new lighting system (a big deal for tech nerds)
-succeeding in a market that was already saturated.
-constant large scale patching and post launch support
-adding a premium service that actually is a discount for those who'd have bought all dlc.

I guess it would also be important to note that higby cited battlefield as an inspiration while making planetside at fan faire last year, not to mention he had said BF's vehicle combat is "on a pedestal" compared to others. If he can open his mind, so can all of you. Watching 5 minutes of PS2 makes it easy to see how alike in gameplay PS2 is, regardless of its innovations in scale and concept, as several (if not most) of the upgrades are borrowed from or inspired by battlefield 3.

Case and Point: love it or hate it, cool (it isn't everyone's cup of tea) but saying BF3 wasn't 'successful makes you look like a jingoist doomsayer. Battlefield and PS2 will enjoy mutual success. In the video game world, AAA titles with console releases are like movies, and MMO's are like tv series'. Just because game of thrones is popular, doesn't meant the hobbit isn't going to sell a gazillion tickets.

Lock this garbage fucking thread. Just false negativity to breed negativity with misinformation.

EDIT: It should be reiterated and stressed that my point is not to convince anyone tht bf3 is a good game or that they should play it (it wouldn't matter to me and everyone has their own opinion). I'm more concerned with people transforming their negative view of quality into a factual representation of success, retail, critical or otherwise. I'm also worried that threads like this needlessly fracture the community when it's actually come quite far in a short while.

[Emperor]

OnexBigxHebrew summed it up pretty nicely, but just to address lawnmower:

theres no way bf3 did a whole lot better than they expected, so that means it wasnt a success and they cant be rolling in cash
Check the figures OnexBigxHebrew provided. Also, he was only counting the 5 million units sold at launch; to date, they've shipped over 15 million--it's actually probably closer to 18 million now.

source? i think its pretty much a guarantee that the sales werent a fraction
They were. Of those 5 million copies OnexBigxHebrew mentioned were sold at launch, 2.2 million were on 360, 1.5 million on PS3, and 500,000 on PC. Just 500,000! That's 1/3 of units moved on PS3, and both of those COMBINED were less than sales on 360. Assuming PC sales of BF3 declined after launch, it's safe to say that the majority of sales after that point were on console. Again, 15 million units shipped, to date. Just think about that.

You guys all seem to think that because the game is doing terrible on PC that it means DiCE is scrambling to get their PC audience back in the wake of PS2 being announced. When you look at the $105 million dollar ad campaign they had to attract the console audience, I'm not sure if anyone realizes how much they don't care.

[Rivenshield]

BF and COD are as good as finished on PC once PS2 gets released (and assuming it's good). Not that they were even close to being the best FPS anyway.

You can't just release the same game every 6 months for years, milk people with overpriced DLC and then expect fans to stay once something bigger and better (and free) gets released...

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

I don't expect a giant exodus from conventional shooters to PS2 at the beginning.... but I *do* suspect that as each new FPS gets stale, a certain amount of the audience will migrate to Auraxis around that six-eight month mark. Not only because its scale and persistence are unmatched, but because each day is a fresh battle. You may be fighting over the same *spots*, but the dynamics and scale of the battle will be different each time. It's never a fair fight unless both armies are popolocked and all in the same area. Every day is a unique challenge, and that's a big selling point to people who have been fighting over the same goddam maps for weeks on end.

All of this is dependent upon good advertising, natch. It means they can't just shove PS2 out the door with a brief blare of publicity and rest on their laurels; they need to fish for fresh recruits in the long term, for years. Which as we all know is not Sony's long suit. The most rabid and well-organized fan base can only accomplish so much.

[rTekku]

Agreed.

No amount of disliking battlefield makes it not successful, no matter how much of a jingoist anyone here wants to be. The game sold very well and was Ea's fastest selling game in history at the time.

5 million sold at launch week alone, and the game was later know for its word of mouth sales thanks to negative views of CoD mw3 online play.

Also, bf3's premium service did 800k of sales in two weeks.

So, not including sales after one week, back to karkand OR close quarters (standalone), battlefield 3 made (In revenue):

5,000,000 x 60 = 300,000,000
800,000 x 50= 40,000,000.

That's 340,000,000 dollars not including online passes, both map packs, all retail merchandise and xbl/psn fringe content, and all dedicated server rentals for custom servers on console.

From a non-monetary standpoint, the game is noted for the following:
-frostbite 2 destruction
-ignoring killstreaks
-having dedicated servers on console, which is unheard of for AAA fps's
-the new lighting system (a big deal for tech nerds)
-succeeding in a market that was already saturated.
-constant large scale patching and post launch support
-adding a premium service that actually is a discount for those who'd have bought all dlc.

I guess it would also be important to note that higby cited battlefield as an inspiration while making planetside at fan faire last year, not to mention he had said BF's vehicle combat is "on a pedestal" compared to others. If he can open his mind, so can all of you. Watching 5 minutes of PS2 makes it easy to see how alike in gameplay PS2 is, regardless of its innovations in scale and concept, as several (if not most) of the upgrades are borrowed from or inspired by battlefield 3.

Case and Point: love it or hate it, cool (it isn't everyone's cup of tea) but saying BF3 wasn't 'successful makes you look like a jingoist doomsayer. Battlefield and PS2 will enjoy mutual success. In the video game world, AAA titles with console releases are like movies, and MMO's are like tv series'. Just because game of thrones is popular, doesn't meant the hobbit isn't going to sell a gazillion tickets.

Lock this garbage fucking thread. Just false negativity to breed negativity with misinformation.

EDIT: It should be reiterated and stressed that my point is not to convince anyone tht bf3 is a good game or that they should play it (it wouldn't matter to me and everyone has their own opinion). I'm more concerned with people transforming their negative view of quality into a factual representation of success, retail, critical or otherwise. I'm also worried that threads like this needlessly fracture the community when it's actually come quite far in a short while.

Misinformation? If anyone's posting misinformation, it's you.

Especially with your statement about "constant large scale patching and post launch support". You mean patching that fixes next to nothing and a bunch of balance changes that usually break the weapons and game mechanics even more than they are already screwed?

Yeah, sounds like some great post launch support.

[Goldeh]

Sorry boys the best FPS was already made and it was called DOOM.

Ba-dum-tish.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

Misinformation? If anyone's posting misinformation, it's you.

Especially with your statement about "constant large scale patching and post launch support". You mean patching that fixes next to nothing and a bunch of balance changes that usually break the weapons and game mechanics even more than they are already screwed?

Yeah, sounds like some great post launch support.

Feel how you want, doesn't make this thread any less troll or stupid, nor does it actually mean the game is any less successful.

This thread shouldn't even be in a planetside 2 discussion forum. period.

[rTekku]

Feel how you want, doesn't make this thread any less troll or stupid.

I'm not sure if you understand what trolling is.

If it's that stupid, don't respond and let the thread die.

[GhostSpartan]

BF3 is and will still be the better game for E-Sports / Tournaments due to the ability to limit team sizes. They have nothing to fear from PS2 in that regard. As for casual players... yeah they may come over. Remember PS2 won't have the destruction the BF3 engine offers.

In its current state BF3 has no potential for an E-sports scene due to DICE not implementing any of the recording/spectator stuff they said the game would have. I believe they plan to add it in the future however it will most likely be too little too late.

The little destruction that BF3 offers is nice but I do not think the feature is enough to keep players from swapping over.

[DiabloTigerSix]

BF3 is and will still be the better game for E-Sports / Tournaments due to the ability to limit team sizes. They have nothing to fear from PS2 in that regard. As for casual players... yeah they may come over. Remember PS2 won't have the destruction the BF3 engine offers.
LoL! BF3 engine has no procedural destruction. It's all just large scripted disappearing chunks of walls that spawn debris when they disappear. You could do that with Quake 3 Arena engine if you wanted. In fact it was done in 2 Medal of Honor: Allied Assault sp missions back in 2001.

What the BF3's scriptstruction does is taking away man hours from modellers. The result is a severe lack of objects&variety and shoebox-sized urban maps becuase they have to fiddle with each model for extented periods of time.

I don't think that DICE is too worried about PS2. BF and PS has different gameplay and selling points.

What I DO think they feel, is the pressure to increase the number of players in a match beyond 64. Perhaps they will look into that more carefully with the next console generation.

The only reason BF3 doesn't have more than 64 players is because they designed the maps for consoles and only 24 players. Even BF2 had 64 players, but it could be modded to run smoothly with up to 256.

[Sephirex]

LoL! BF3 engine has no procedural destruction. It's all just large scripted disappearing chunks of walls that spawn debris when they disappear.

It's true. I was very pissed when I started BF3 and realized all the damage was just pre-set triggers that would fire off.

True procedural destruction is more like Red Faction.

[shadar]

BF3 is and will still be the better game for E-Sports / Tournaments due to the ability to limit team sizes. They have nothing to fear from PS2 in that regard. As for casual players... yeah they may come over. Remember PS2 won't have the destruction the BF3 engine offers.

BF3 as an esport you are trying to troll us right? Of the top of my head im having troble thing of any game baced on the "modern" bullet ADS combat beside CS is competive let alone espors. Hell even Tribes ascend is having problems when it come to esports due to the difficult of checking if someone is hacking BF3 would be much worse than that. BF3 has nothing to fear from planetside 2 when it comes to esports because BF3 isnt an esport. The casual players might comeover maybe but i think the hardcore clan players will be more atracted as they were rather vocal about BF3 screw ups and the larger scall better tools and locisical ascpect will atract them more so than the casuals.

it went down hill from there with smaller scale and longer and longer TTK until we end at BF3.

you do realize planetside 2 will most likly have noticable longer TTK than any of the BF games (though hopefully not as long as the first planetside). also wouldnt the consolfication encorage shorter TTK not longer (havent played in a while so idk) scale you dont have to worry about planetside 2 got it but if your looking for short TTK CoD is that way. Long TTK is required given the scale as you could have (though this is highly unlikly to happen between baces) you and 200 others on your faction run into 300 on one of the enemy faction. Low TTK would mean you die in 3ish shots which when you got hundreds of poeple firing at you would not work out to well.

It's refreshing to see a thread on here where PS1 preceding 1942 gets forgotten...apples and oranges.

To put some figures to BF3 though -

PC sales - World - 2.02million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/35315/battlefield-3/)
Xbox sales - World - 6.06million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40231/battlefield-3/)
PlayS2 sales - World - 5.52million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40230/battlefield-3/)

So are they worries about a PC only game? Really no.

/thread

KEYWORD RETAIL which unless they changed the deffinition since last time a looked mean bought in store. Most PC user dont buy disk anymore we prefer to get our games on steam, gamersgate, origan, ect. So the firgure offerd there are inacuate

:evildrop: In that case we need to worry less about DICE worrying and more about PS2 being "Tweaked" to work on consoles :cry:
Although I don't know the spec of the ps3...it's prolly better than my PC. Negative mouse and assisted aim are all fun though...:D

Im pretty sure that unless your pc is a 2010, 200 dollor laptop that a ps3 is better than it. Admitaly probly exagerated a little but still. I think i read an artical saying specfical that PS2 would not be out on the ps3 due to none of the current gen consoles being able to handle it. It may however be a launch title for the ps4 but hopfully its far enough down the line for it not to affect us

[QUOTE=Kevin D Lee;781895]If Forgelight could do what Frostbite could I'm sure we would have been seeing a lot of news about the destructible QUOTE]

Am i imaging things or was there an artical or interview saying that wanted to make it so you had to repair baces after an attack which suggest destrutibly and in the future allow outfits to capture bases or build there own pretty sure that means that forgelight is capable of destrucible stuff

[Pella]

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Nvidia-Game-Sales-Data-640x357.jpg

Digital sales are what's pushing the PC games market. Thats why so much has been invested in Origin.

Thoose stats though include Zynga, who make FarmVille and all that facebook rubbish. But they account for 5% of the total pc gaming market in 2010 which was still a massive $600mill.

In 2012 the PC market is worth an estimated $20 Billion. Now to get any % of the market is top priority of any games company.

[shadar]

I think they should not listen to anyone other than their collected data. Especially nobody who posts on these forums (the 1-2% of players this will eventually account for at best). They need to trust their data and their market research papers, they need to put a survey into the launcher and get the opinions of the other 98-99% of players. Not anyone here.

While we may be somwhat on the small end of the potental playerbase and they should get the opion of other poeple no deniing that we are the best informed. You want to get poeple who atleast know and have played a game where to driver isnt the main gunner (which i personal hate) because they know the pros and cons of the system. Do you really want to ask random poeple what the effect range of "hip fire" (really shoulder fire is you have any resoning cabiltys or LOOK AT THE GUN) vs ADS should be. Would a random person know what ADS even stands for or would they emedanty be bias based on the misleading term of hip fire. Not saying we know best or that we even agree with eachother often but we care enough to look at the isue instead of just marking a box on a survey

[Stew]

LoL! BF3 engine has no procedural destruction. It's all just large scripted disappearing chunks of walls that spawn debris when they disappear. You could do that with Quake 3 Arena engine if you wanted. In fact it was done in 2 Medal of Honor: Allied Assault sp missions back in 2001.

What the BF3's scriptstruction does is taking away man hours from modellers. The result is a severe lack of objects&variety and shoebox-sized urban maps becuase they have to fiddle with each model for extented periods of time.



The only reason BF3 doesn't have more than 64 players is because they designed the maps for consoles and only 24 players. Even BF2 had 64 players, but it could be modded to run smoothly with up to 256.

The battlefield (( scriptruction )) like you seams to be please to call it just to ignore the purpose of it and probably because you dont like the game for X reason ... Dont make any sens any way to me

BF destruction is not based on technical amasingness or competition

Destruction in BF games is great and well done it offer many tactical aplication

someones camp on x or y places you can blow up hes cover you can use it i many many differents ways and it offer more tactical destruction than any games ive seen


BF3 is all about tactical destruction and it work well this way you can chip corner of a structure or compleatly make a building colapse but alway with a tactical purpose in mind most of the time !

Haters on BF are ridiculous the major failure on BF is the lack of VOIP and leadership structure ! Most thing as been fix in term of gameplay guns balanced etc.. i said most not all but its like thats for everygames but Bf3 is far to be a broken game ...

[Canaris]

The battlefield (( scriptruction )) like you seams to be please to call it just to ignore the purpose of it and probably because you dont like the game for X reason ... Dont make any sens any way to me

BF destruction is not based on technical amasingness or competition

Destruction in BF games is great and well done it offer many tactical aplication

someones camp on x or y places you can blow up hes cover you can use it i many many differents ways and it offer more tactical destruction than any games ive seen


BF3 is all about tactical destruction and it work well this way you can chip corner of a structure or compleatly make a building colapse but alway with a tactical purpose in mind most of the time !

Haters on BF are ridiculous the major failure on BF is the lack of VOIP and leadership structure ! Most thing as been fix in term of gameplay guns balanced etc.. i said most not all but its like thats for everygames but Bf3 is far to be a broken game ...

All the structures in BF were obviously made by the first two little piggies, huff and puff and they all come down. Not very realistic at all, as I would say LAME!

[Stew]

All the structures in BF were obviously made by the first two little piggies, huff and puff and they all come down. Not very realistic at all, as I would say LAME!

LOL find me a single Multiplayer game with the destruction level of BFBC and BF3 game lol you will call on Redfaction lol because it will be the only ones but red factions suport How many players ? you have to remember that In frostbite and Bf games each piece of chunk and walls taken out by a explosion is a part of a data thats need to be send to all players in real time so the map will look the same for everyones after all building colapse or wall are taken out

I have never seen anyones making this playable for a online game DICE did it and it work pretty well

All the little BF hater in here make me laugh so much ignoring everything thats make BFBC and BF3 a unique game with unique gameplay and tactical destruction elements !

Red faction yeah its mostly a building colapse festival it suport like 8 players online and the gameplay is BAD !

If it was so easy to make destructible environement and making it playable why their is Not much games like this ? Just because they simply cant achive it ;)

[GhettoPrince]

Does anyone else just laugh when they hear the word esports? I get that some people play a lot of video games and get really good at them, but it just doesn't compare in any way to someone who works through years long, painful training regimens to compete against other athletes.

If you're sitting down in an air conditioned room it isn't a sport, it's a game. Some people get really good at chess too, but we don't say it's a sport, and they sure as hell aren't athletes.

http://i.imgur.com/6pJM5.jpg
Fast Man

http://i.imgur.com/OQOof.jpg
Fat Man

[MacXXcaM]

If you're sitting down in an air conditioned room it isn't a sport, it's a game. Some people get really good at chess too, but we don't say it's a sport

Actually German Olympic Sports Federation does.

[Exmortius]

bf3 destruction is a joke compared to bc2. and client side hit detection is also a joke. it's the 2 reasons why bf3 sucks.

[LegioX]

Cilent side hit detection is probably the worst thing about BF 3.

1. You can run behind cover and die 2-3 sec later

2. You can dive behind cover (rock) only to get headshotted from the front 2-3 seconds later. Fning sucks!

[Wakken]

It's refreshing to see a thread on here where PS1 preceding 1942 gets forgotten...apples and oranges.

To put some figures to BF3 though -

PC sales - World - 2.02million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/35315/battlefield-3/)
Xbox sales - World - 6.06million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40231/battlefield-3/)
PlayS2 sales - World - 5.52million (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/40230/battlefield-3/)

So are they worries about a PC only game? Really no.

/thread

But that is only retail sales, not counting digitals :O

dum dum dum duuum..

[Madcut]

I think a lot of developers in studios would be excited to see innovation in the genre they are making games in. The only ones who would need to worry are the higher-ups in production companies, like EA; and I highly highly doubt anyone in EA is watching or cares about PS2.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

I think a lot of developers in studios would be excited to see innovation in the genre they are making games in. The only ones who would need to worry are the higher-ups in production companies, like EA; and I highly highly doubt anyone in EA is watching or cares about PS2.

Nailed it.

Either way, from the eyes of EA: PS2 success = good business model to build upon/ripoff, innovation, etc. PS2 failure = example of what NOT to do, less market share, etc.

So no matter what happens, PS2 success will be beneficial or, at the very least, a non-factor in the eyes of major console developers.

As much as I personally wish it weren't true, this game does not have the muscle to make any major publisher or developer worry, nor does it really have the same player base. When it does intersect player-wise, just as a really good TV show wont stop movies from making billions of dollars, a good mmo (especially free) is not going to stop people from buying the big titles that are "in".

All-in-all, I'm just really excited to play this game and I hope it's very high in quality, which it seems to be. I'm just not enough of a fanboy to falsely and inexplicably hope that this game crashes the rest of the industry for no reason.

[Karrade]

Unless someone were to announce another massively multiplayer online shooter being released tomorrow, I don't see how the smaller arena shooters compare. They have their niche, PS2 pretty much owns its niche, nobody else brave enough to take it on.

All good as far as I am concerned, variety is good, not negative.

[NePaS]

LOL find me a single Multiplayer game with the destruction level of BFBC and BF3 game lol you will call on Redfaction lol because it will be the only ones but red factions suport How many players ? you have to remember that In frostbite and Bf games each piece of chunk and walls taken out by a explosion is a part of a data thats need to be send to all players in real time so the map will look the same for everyones after all building colapse or wall are taken out

I have never seen anyones making this playable for a online game DICE did it and it work pretty well

All the little BF hater in here make me laugh so much ignoring everything thats make BFBC and BF3 a unique game with unique gameplay and tactical destruction elements !

Red faction yeah its mostly a building colapse festival it suport like 8 players online and the gameplay is BAD !

If it was so easy to make destructible environement and making it playable why their is Not much games like this ? Just because they simply cant achive it ;)


You do know that the destruction is all pre scripted right?There is nothing tactical about it,if that was the case you could blow a hole in ANY wall,not just the 3-4 that DICE let you.

[IronMole]

LOL find me a single Multiplayer game with the destruction level of BFBC and BF3 game lol you will call on Redfaction lol because it will be the only ones but red factions suport How many players ? you have to remember that In frostbite and Bf games each piece of chunk and walls taken out by a explosion is a part of a data thats need to be send to all players in real time so the map will look the same for everyones after all building colapse or wall are taken out

I have never seen anyones making this playable for a online game DICE did it and it work pretty well

All the little BF hater in here make me laugh so much ignoring everything thats make BFBC and BF3 a unique game with unique gameplay and tactical destruction elements !

Red faction yeah its mostly a building colapse festival it suport like 8 players online and the gameplay is BAD !

If it was so easy to make destructible environement and making it playable why their is Not much games like this ? Just because they simply cant achive it ;)

I'm sorry, are we supposed to take this post seriously? Especially with all the bad spelling mistakes and poor grammar?

[Sephirex]

I'm sorry, are we supposed to take this post seriously? Especially with all the bad spelling mistakes and poor grammar?

It's a typical Stew post. He's not native-english, so you can't fault his spelling/grammar too badly.

And yes, he expects you to take it very seriously or he'll drop another wall o' incomprehensible text. It's his number #1 defense and very effective at that.

[TheDAWinz]

it's a typical stew post. He's not native-english, so you can't fault his spelling/grammar too badly.

And yes, he expects you to take it very seriously or he'll drop another wall o' incomprehensible text. It's his number #1 defense and very effective at that.

god emperor of man follows you around!

[Sephirex]

god emperor of man follows you around!

Don't make me launch another Horus Heresy.

[TheDAWinz]

Don't make me launch another Horus Heresy.

Impossible, the God Emperor will always prevail

[Noivad]

I play 9 different free to play games now - Why would I want to buy a game - except to say - Hey dude I just spent 60 bucks on this new game dude. The FTP model is going to kill the BTP games. And offer as much or better quality then the pay models.

[Rago]

I play 9 different free to play games now - Why would I want to buy a game - except to say - Hey dude I just spent 60 bucks on this new game dude. The FTP model is going to kill the BTP games. And offer as much or better quality then the pay models.

It´s not true Maybe Multiplayer Games, yeah.
I would be more happy with a Boxed Version of PS2, same goes for RPG´s Single Player.Or FSP SP Games.

[SniperSteve]

Yup DICE is squirming. If PS2s gameplay is as tight as it looks in the vids then they really are screwed. Why in the hell would someone PAY for a 2.4km 64 player map when you can get 3x8km maps with 6k total players for free.

this

[Talek Krell]

If the date is accurate then this probably isn't a direct response, but I wouldn't be shocked if they were a little concerned. The major selling points of BF compared to its competition is basically "larger, more players, has vehicles". Planetside isn't so much beating them on those counts as it is loading them into a catapault and launching them directly into the core of the sun at the speed of light, which leaves them with just the destruction physics. I don't know about you, but "our buildings crumble a bit when you shoot at them" doesn't seem like as strong a selling point to me.

Even losing "only" their PC consumers would cost them millions of customers, not to mention trap them on the console where they're playing second fiddle to CoD.


It's a typical Stew post. He's not native-english, so you can't fault his spelling/grammar too badly.I'd like to know what language he does speak natively. I have a sneaking suspicion that he's not very good at that one either.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

Lmao anyone who thinks that this game will come CLOSE to touching major publisher's control of the FPS playing demographic is seriously delusional and puts way too much bias on their love for PC gaming. While the PC fanboy in me wants to believe it could hit that level, the realist in me says that's a naive and false view. Period.

The only large market that will make this game wildly profitable is F2P junkies. Everyone else is niche. Dads, normal guys and kids with no gaming rig are still buying call of duty For PS3 or BF4 for Xbox whether you think they will or not. No one is going to hear about how cool planetside is and buy a gaming rig to play it when they have an Xbox. Sorry. Wish things were different, because I love the concept and plan on playing FOREVER, :D, lol. Just being objective.

[Eyeklops]

It's a typical Stew post. He's not native-english, so you can't fault his spelling/grammar too badly.

And yes, he expects you to take it very seriously or he'll drop another wall o' incomprehensible text. It's his number #1 defense and very effective at that.
LOL..that made my day. Makes me wanna swap out his name in place of 4chan in my sig

Lmao anyone who thinks that this game will come CLOSE to touching major publisher's control of the FPS playing demographic is seriously delusional and puts way too much bias on their love for PC gaming. While the PC fanboy in me wants to believe it could hit that level, the realist in me says that's a naive and false view. Period.

The only large market that will make this game wildly profitable is F2P junkies. Everyone else is niche. Dads, normal guys and kids with no gaming rig are still buying call of duty For PS3 or BF4 for Xbox whether you think they will or not. No one is going to hear about how cool planetside is and buy a gaming rig to play it when they have an Xbox. Sorry. Wish things were different, because I love the concept and plan on playing FOREVER, :D, lol. Just being objective.

I only think this will be the case for the first few years. PS2 will dominate the large scale FPS market on PC. SOE will hammer out all the bugs, and get the gameplay/balance tight. Then when the next gen consoles release you will see major hype about PS2 coming to console. Now will it support the 2000 players they are expecting on PC? Hard to tell, but even if they scale back to 750 per map most console players will go apeshit for it. Remember, it's a Sony game, Sony console, and Sony network. They will make it work if they think the money is there. We are just phase one.

[Karrade]

Lmao anyone who thinks that this game will come CLOSE to touching major publisher's control of the FPS playing demographic is seriously delusional and puts way too much bias on their love for PC gaming. While the PC fanboy in me wants to believe it could hit that level, the realist in me says that's a naive and false view. Period.


You've created a perception of a personal condition of something. Then said its delusional for someone to compare their own personal perception of this condition, to their own personal standards?

No. Its delusional for someone to compare their standards on what 'touches' a a major publishers FPS, and what qualifies as getting close to it - to your standards as you are doing to theirs.

Its all an illusion you've just created without offering anything tangible to debate, and are now arguing over something that doesn't exist.


*snip* Just being objective.

Its just feeding into an argument without anything to argue over, I apologise if this coming across harsly but I am just trying to get you to step back and look at it. If its not facts and figures, or something that is there and tangible to hold or see, then its just perceptions and no one is right or wrong.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

You've created a perception of a personal condition of something. Then said its delusional for someone to compare their own personal perception of this condition, to their own personal standards?

No. Its delusional for someone to compare their standards on what 'touches' a a major publishers FPS, and what qualifies as getting close to it - to your standards as you are doing to theirs.

Its all an illusion you've just created without offering anything tangible to debate, and are now arguing over something that doesn't exist.



Its just feeding into an argument without anything to argue over, I apologise if this coming across harsly but I am just trying to get you to step back and look at it. If its not facts and figures, or something that is there and tangible to hold or see, then its just perceptions and no one is right or wrong.

You just found an overly wordy way of saying my statement is an opinion (my 'comparing my personal perceptions to my own standards') lol. This thread is dealing with forecasting, and sorry to tell you, but in a speculative video game forum there is rarely a 'right and wrong'. If you don't like what I have to say, fine. But let's not pretend some unreleased game's discussin forum is going to produce any scientific debate, especially when this thread is basically trying to predict what great effect a PC game will have against a company who's main product was already released with a huge amount of success.

It's a forum dude, everybody is just shitting their opinions or retweeting. Don't get so sad about it.

[Karrade]

You just found an overly wordy way of saying my statement is an opinion (my 'comparing my personal perceptions to my own standards') lol. This thread is dealing with forecasting, and sorry to tell you, but in a speculative video game forum there is rarely a 'right and wrong'. If you don't like what I have to say, fine. But let's not pretend some unreleased game's discussin forum is going to produce any scientific debate, especially when this thread is basically trying to predict what great effect a PC game will have against a company who's main product was already released with a huge amount of success.

It's a forum dude, everybody is just shitting their opinions or retweeting. Don't get so sad about it.

Everything is opinion. Little need to state that. - You'll find some points that do have substance and others that don't have anything, like the man using sales figures, good solid post that to make a point. - Trying to help you see that nothing was there to disagree about, but calling people dellusional for doing what you are doing seemed odd ;). - If it didn't help to state that, my apologies again.

Little emotion in my post though.

[WolfAlmighty]

DICE isn't, or shouldn't be, squirming in the slightest. They no longer care about the people that want the old BF-style of games back, this is evident by how BF3 turned out, and how you can undoubtedly expect BF4 to go. I doubt very much PS2's release will even touch their fanbase since the people who want big open maps and large-scale combat have already left BF3. Speaking personally, I no longer have any interest in any sequel in that franchise nor in any DLC (I didn't even d/l the B2K pack despite it being free with my preorder as I had already stopped caring about the game by the time it was released), and neither do most of my BF-gaming buddies who started with BF1942/BF:V/BF2. All of them are very much looking forward to PS2 to scratch that itch.