BF2S Forums Battlefield 3 - Main Thread

Mekstizzle wrote:

Finray wrote:

War Man wrote:

Fricken people thinking bf3 will be just be like bf2 with better graphics.

Why wouldn't it, more to the point, why shouldn't it? I'd MUCH rather have BF2 sexy than BF:BC2, 2.

Ooh ambitious eh, I'm sure publishers would love to have someone like you onboard.

To be fair, it's almost the same as BF2 in terms of core gameplay, the only truly massive major change is the destructive environments.

We don't know quite exactly how bf3 will turn out. We haven't been given any screens or vids at all.

Someone please predict the system specs for BF3 in case I need to buy a new PC in the near future which will be forward compatible.

I'm hoping BF3 is more like BF2, but with some of the nifty features of BFBC2 (mainly the frostbite engine). More city maps and a commander would be cool, but who knows what we'll get - I bet even the developers don't have a concrete idea yet.

Miggle wrote:

there will be no bf3. you heard it here first.

Why is everyone saying this? They've announced it many times, there's lots of links with interviews saying otherwise.

Finray wrote:

Miggle wrote:

there will be no bf3. you heard it here first.

Why is everyone saying this? They've announced it many times, there's lots of links with interviews saying otherwise.

people external to the company have referred to BFBC2 as BF3 multiple times.

There is no way they would make a game that would be unprofitable. A good battlefield game focused on PC would be unprofitable.

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Finray wrote:

Why is everyone saying this? They've announced it many times, there's lots of links with interviews saying otherwise.

people external to the company have referred to BFBC2 as BF3 multiple times.

There is no way they would make a game that would be unprofitable. A good battlefield game focused on PC would be unprofitable.

BC2 made most of its money on the PC.

that's a sign of a failed game.

Trotskygrad wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

BC2 made most of its money on the PC.

that's a sign of a failed game.

Failed for the consoles.

so for next game they're going to step it up for the consoles.

BFBC2 was already a console game. The idea that they're going to go against the direction that the entire market is going and de-consolize a game is preposterous. They may get marginally improved PC sales, but lose all of the console sales.

Companies try their best to avoid losing money.

Trotskygrad wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Failed for the consoles.

so for next game they're going to step it up for the consoles.

BFBC2 was already a console game. The idea that they're going to go against the direction that the entire market is going and de-consolize a game is preposterous. They may get marginally improved PC sales, but lose all of the console sales.

Companies try their best to avoid losing money.

Or they could develop it for the PC, and release it on console. That's what Valve did for L4D2, primarily for PC, released on console.

Console kids don't want PC games.

You bought BC2 for PC, right? I think most people who want a BF3 did. As such, a full on PC battlefield game would probably achieve around the same PC sales. That said, a lot of console gamers didn't buy BC2, because it sucked. Even though it was hugely consolized, it still failed on the consoles. The way they can make more money off of the franchise is to heavily advertise and consolize the game, to try to pull in new console customers.

The worst thing they can do for themselves is make a game even less appealing to the console crowd.

Uzique wrote:

wait a minute... bc2 is considered a failure on consoles already?

why?

Miggle thinks the gaming industry is out to get him. While it's not completely baseless, he's just gone too far with it.

that post makes little to no sense. it's just pretentious fucking drivel.

Jenspm wrote:

Miggle wrote:

I'm being realistic.

It is financially retarded to make what everybody seems to want.

expliquer, s'il vous plaît.

most people who would buy a serious PC battlefield bought BFBC2. as such, a serious PC battlefield wouldn't get much more PC sales than BFBC2. Correct?

However, a serious PC Battlefield would get less console sales than BFBC2, because it wouldn't be very good for them.

Since BFBC2 made more money on PC than consoles, and most of the industry's money is in consoles, financially, they should try to reach out to console gamers to earn more money, right?

If EA/DICE want to make money, the best thing they can do is heavily advertise their next games and focus entirely on console development.

BF3 has been announced as an independant game, seperate from BC2 in an interview about BC2. So the claim that BC2 is BF3 is simply incorrect.

Miggle wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

BF3 has been announced as an independant game, seperate from BC2 in an interview about BC2. So the claim that BC2 is BF3 is simply incorrect.

What the PC version is going to be, Battlefield 3, I think it’s going to absolutely blow everyone away, but I can’t tell you what it is, but it will blow people away.

"What the PC version is going to be" He's talking about the PC version of BFBC2. He inaccurately refers to it as BF3, perhaps BF3 was an early working title for BFBC2?

Or perhaps its because BF3 is going to be released on all platforms? As was rumoured? You know, like Crysis 2 is going to be?