Are DICE Getting worried about planetside 2.. - Page 13

rTekku · 2012-07-14, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

It's not malware and it doesn't scan your computer for whatever it wants.

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 · 2012-07-14, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by rTekku

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

Hopefully so.

Mister Morden · 2012-07-14, 07:45 AM

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 · 2012-07-14, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Haro

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

spot on, thats exactly why

Originally Posted by Emperor

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

Originally Posted by Emperor

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

Originally Posted by Emperor

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 · 2012-07-14, 07:51 AM

How is this dumb thread not locked already?

Pancake · 2012-07-14, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by BlueSkies

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

LOL Nice Troll

OnexBigxHebrew · 2012-07-14, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by EVILoHOMER

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 · 2012-07-14, 02:33 PM

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

Originally Posted by 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 · 2012-07-14, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by 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...

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 · 2012-07-14, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by OnexBigxHebrew

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 · 2012-07-14, 07:29 PM

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

Ba-dum-tish.

OnexBigxHebrew · 2012-07-14, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by rTekku

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 · 2012-07-14, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by OnexBigxHebrew

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 · 2012-07-14, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin D Lee

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 · 2012-07-15, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin D Lee

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.