Gaming News

Skerries

Battlefield Bad Company 3 predicted for next year

Varik

Skerries wrote: »

Battlefield Bad Company 3 predicted for next year

No interest in Bad company, rather they just continue to WW2. They never seemed like real BF games.

Skerries

the main stories were fun and played like a comedy war film but the MP was serious enough and lead the way to BF3

gizmo

Varik wrote: »

No interest in Bad company, rather they just continue to WW2. They never seemed like real BF games.

There'll more than likely be a different team working on the follow up to Battlefield 1 so it looks like we should all get what we want eventually.

I was a big fan of the first two games with both the story and Rush in MP being massively fun with friends. Kind of disappointed that they're not keeping the same cast and plot as the previous games but I guess the whole Russian invasion angle may be a little overplayed at this stage.

Kiith

Bad Company 2 was fantastic. Probably my favourite BF game since BF2.

Varik

gizmo wrote: »

There'll more than likely be a different team working on the follow up to Battlefield 1 so it looks like we should all get what we want eventually.

Danger Close/ DICE LA have just been doing DLC for the other BF games so it's not them as there no news of any large recruitment drive.

From prior project I don't think they'd have 3 games in the pipeline, and if we get any kind of Battlefield game in 2018 then short of any trouble on EAs part it's be another Star wars game in 2019.

gizmo wrote: »

I was a big fan of the first two games with both the story and Rush in MP being massively fun with friends. Kind of disappointed that they're not keeping the same cast and plot as the previous games but I guess the whole Russian invasion angle may be a little overplayed at this stage.

Russia wasn't also invading anyone back then much, other than Georgia.

gizmo

Varik wrote: »

Danger Close/ DICE LA have just been doing DLC for the other BF games so it's not them as there no news of any large recruitment drive.

From prior project I don't think they'd have 3 games in the pipeline, and if we get any kind of Battlefield game in 2018 then short of any trouble on EAs part it's be another Star wars game in 2019.

I meant internally in DICE Stockholm, they have multiple teams in-house. Projects wise, they would have had three games on the go as of 2016 with Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Battlefield 1 and Battlefront II all in production at the same time. I'd wager it's probably the guts of the former team with additional help from elements of the Battlefield team.

J Mysterio

Zero-Cool wrote: »

New cinematic trailer for Overkill's The Walking Dead releasing next autumn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=non_0jlOXew

Sweet!

Varik

gizmo wrote: »

I meant internally in DICE Stockholm, they have multiple teams in-house. Projects wise, they would have had three games on the go as of 2016 with Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Battlefield 1 and Battlefront II all in production at the same time. I'd wager it's probably the guts of the former team with additional help from elements of the Battlefield team.

Delete a bit of that post by mistake, first part is about LA, but by they I meant Stockholm with the below.

"From prior project I don't think they'd have 3 games in the pipeline, and if we get any kind of Battlefield game in 2018 then short of any trouble on EAs part it's be another Star wars game in 2019. "

Wouldn't think they'd have had many on Mirror's edge, but in any case I didn't mean in terms of numbers. EA would have been unlikely to put many people on a game with a questionable return.

Just in terms of project releases and timing, BF "2", BC3, SW BF3. Unless something terrible for EA happens and they lose the Star wars licence we'd be getting another game in 2019 to go along with episode 9. So it's either BC3 in 2018 or BF "2" but not both.

Varik

New rumour now is that it's actually Dice LA's game which will be BF Bad Company, but Stockholm will be next with whatever they have.

Retr0gamer

Deleted User wrote: »

If Sony say something its PR bull****, I'd Nintendo come out with an identical statement it's a bold and daring move. I think that Sony like all companies have made numerous missteps but when they do they generally hold their hands up to it, I never got the impression that Sony was considering games as a service though that is the direction gaming is going.

We're in a world where Nintendo can lock difficulty levels behind season passes and cheap plastic toys and no one seems to mind, any other company does it and angry gamers unite. It's a case that no matter what Sony does people will have a go at them for some perceived injustice

Not having a go at Sony. Just stating a fact. It's PR guff and nothing more. If Sony weren't doing so well you would see shareholders pushing for these same money making tactics. In fact look what happened to Nintendo when the shareholders were unhappy with the WiiU. It was that which prompted Amiibo, DLC and Nintendo going mobile. I've absolutely no issue with what Sony have said but don't mistake it for some manifesto were Sony have you and its other customers at heart. It's guff to make Sony look good next compared to a company that is doing everything wrong. It's been the Sony strategy since the big E3 Microsoft mess up. Don't do anything special but look like a saint next to a company that is screwing up big time. 'Hey we might be charging for online now but at least we aren't Microsoft'. It's actually a pretty genius PR strategy and it's working.

As for Sony holding their hands up for doing something wrong, don't make me laugh. Sony are a massive multinational corporation and are as bad if not worse than the competition and have done some really sneaky and consumer unfriendly things. All their consoles have had questionable build quality issues which Sony addressed in the most consumer unfriendly way possible (barring the PS4 and Vita which uncharacteristically and thankfully are pretty robust machines). They're no worse or no better than any multinational corporation at the whim of shareholders. What they aren't is your friendly company with the consumer first at their heart but they like to but that persona forward when their main competitor is floundering so badly they don't even have to bother. And if you disagree with me I just hope you never have to deal with Sony customer service if you want a good example of how much Sony really care about the consumer.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote:

Not having a go at Sony. Just stating a fact. It's PR guff and nothing more. If Sony weren't doing so well you would see shareholders pushing for these same money making tactics. In fact look what happened to Nintendo when the shareholders were unhappy with the WiiU. It was that which prompted Amiibo, DLC and Nintendo going mobile. I've absolutely no issue with what Sony have said but don't mistake it for some manifesto were Sony have you and its other customers at heart. It's guff to make Sony look good next compared to a company that is doing everything wrong. It's been the Sony strategy since the big E3 Microsoft mess up. Don't do anything special but look like a saint next to a company that is screwing up big time. 'Hey we might be charging for online now but at least we aren't Microsoft'. It's actually a pretty genius PR strategy and it's work.

As for Sony holding their hands up for doing something wrong, don't make me laugh. Sony are a massive multinational corporation and are as bad if not worse than the competition and have done some really sneaky and consumer unfriendly things. All their consoles have had questionable build quality issues which Sony addressed in the most consumer unfriendly way possible (barring the PS4 and Vita which uncharacteristically and thankfully are pretty robust machines). They're no worse or no better than any multinational corporation at the whim of shareholders. What they aren't is your friendly company with the consumer first at their heart but they like to but that persona forward when their main competitor is floundering so badly they don't even have to bother. And if you disagree with me I just hope you never have to deal with Sony customer service if you want a good example of how much Sony really care about the consumer.

Not saying they're better or worse but that you can't read an agenda into everything they do. Your argument is based on an assumption, you assume that they would be doing underhanded things based on the fact that it's what Nintendo do. You're making up things just to have a go. I don't expect any company to put customers first but Sony, if one did I would question their motives.

I've no great love for Sony but when it comes to gaming they're better than most. But you clearly have inside information no one else does.

Also, dealt with Sony customer service once due to a faulty PS3. They were helpful as could be and had a new console to me in a few days. They then offered me a free game to make up for the issue. Had issues with MS and Nintendo and gave up on both as their customer service was beyond awful.

Billy86

Where have Microsoft messed up so badly, esp the E3 reference? Just curious since I spent years away from gaming and don't use console so hadn't heard of it, unless it was referring to the XBox One release yolky a few years back with the camera etc that went down like a lead balloon.

Penn

Billy86 wrote: »

Where have Microsoft messed up so badly, esp the E3 reference? Just curious since I spent years away from gaming and don't use console so hadn't heard of it, unless it was referring to the XBox One release yolky a few years back with the camera etc that went down like a lead balloon.

That is what was being referenced. Microsoft's whole announce of the Xbox One, but particularly their E3 conference that year was just insane. Between the forced use/inclusion of Kinect (which they rolled back on pre-release), forced internet connectivity at least every 24 hours (which they rolled back on pre-release), their incredibly confusing policy on game sharing (which they rolled back on pre-release) and how utterly confusing and contradictory their release of all this information was before, during and after E3 was just insane to watch. Considering both XB1 and PS4 were being released with two weeks of each other, they gave Sony a huge headstart months before the release of the consoles.

They've made up a lot of ground since then with some smart decisions and a much clearer message, but they banjaxed themselves right from the start.

heebusjeebus

MS still have a long way to go.
The Guardian's top games of the year include only 2 games available on the XBox.
This year is dominated by Japanese publishers and Phil Spencer has said he's looking to improve the relationship between these publishers and Microsoft so next year may improve.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/dec/13/the-top-10-video-games-of-2017

CatInABox

Billy86 wrote: »

Where have Microsoft messed up so badly, esp the E3 reference? Just curious since I spent years away from gaming and don't use console so hadn't heard of it, unless it was referring to the XBox One release yolky a few years back with the camera etc that went down like a lead balloon.

Basically, if you ever need an example of how not to launch a product, look up the Xbox One launch and aftermath. One epic car crash after another, with absolutely terrible messaging all over, it's hilarious.

Retr0gamer

I think Microsoft were a generation too early with what they were planning. I hear Sony had similar plans going into E3 then when they saw the public reaction did a 180 on it and threw MS under the bus. It was a very clever move on their part.

Honestly thought the worst I've seen was the PS3. It was total comedy but Sony pulled it back after a few years. It might have been worse than the MS launch but what happened to MS was far more damaging.

CatInABox

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think Microsoft were a generation too early with what they were planning. I hear Sony had similar plans going into E3 then when they saw the public reaction did a 180 on it and threw MS under the bus. It was a very clever move on their part.

Honestly thought the worst I've seen was the PS3. It was total comedy but Sony pulled it back after a few years. It might have been worse than the MS launch but what happened to MS was far more damaging.

Hmmm, I think the PS3 launch was funnier, but the MS launch was definitely worse.

Highlight of the PS3 launch: "This is a historical battle, which actually happened in Japan" <Ten seconds later> "So here's this giant enemy crab! We can flip him over to attack his weak spot for MASSIVE DAMAGE!!!"

Retr0gamer

There was also the press conference sony held with the developers at Insomniac to explain that Resistance didn't look like garbage because the grenades had individually modelled pieces of shrapnel.... yet is still looked like garbage next to Gears of War. Felt sorry for the developer in that case.

Varik

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think Microsoft were a generation too early with what they were planning. I hear Sony had similar plans going into E3 then when they saw the public reaction did a 180 on it and threw MS under the bus. It was a very clever move on their part.

Honestly thought the worst I've seen was the PS3. It was total comedy but Sony pulled it back after a few years. It might have been worse than the MS launch but what happened to MS was far more damaging.

Sony rewrote their script and made a video trolling MS game lending system, but suggesting they did anymore than that in the 5 odd hours is ridiculous.

MS didn't even change straight away, they kept saying it wasn't possible to change. They only changed when pressure built up, at the start it was easier to dismiss as it hadn't reached any critical mass.

But Sony who have an issue changing PSN names, through insane foresight managed to 180 something that even excluding the technical work involved would have had them spending a lot of time just remaking deals with publishers. This isn't something they could change unilaterally.

If MS had been better received as it should have been(personally would have preferred it), it would have been a big upset for Sony, and they might have tired to copy it but it didn't and they didn't.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think Microsoft were a generation too early with what they were planning.

<snip>

If either Microsoft or Sony (or even Nintendo) do this in future generations, I'll hang up my joypads.

You buy a game, you get to play it... shouldn't be any restrictions around that.

ERG89

Deleted User wrote:

You buy a game, you get to play it... shouldn't be any restrictions around that.

Imagine having to download 100GB 4k games just to play the latest game?
It'd put you off buying anything on a whim if it's challenges your monthly broadband allowance which is like 300GB I think....
I can't see it happening even though the Gamestop model I find is unsustainable too.

Varik

Deleted User wrote: »

If either Microsoft or Sony (or even Nintendo) do this in future generations, I'll hang up my joypads.

You buy a game, you get to play it... shouldn't be any restrictions around that.

The issues people had were on second hand games and requiring an internet connection. Steam/Origin/Uplay already do it but do have an offline mode.

There's already restriction, as with any copyright work and licensed software.

ERG89 wrote: »

Imagine having to download 100GB 4k games just to play the latest game?
It'd put you off buying anything on a whim if it's challenges your monthly broadband allowance which is like 300GB I think....
I can't see it happening even though the Gamestop model I find is unsustainable too.

Well MS' abandoned plan and the current system on PC was that when you bought a physical releases you'd just install it, no need to download more than you'd do already.

It's already happened on PC, and digital sales are also gaining parity with physical sales on PC. when it hits a certain point they'll change over.

Penn

Varik wrote: »

The issues people had were on second hand games and requiring an internet connection. Steam/Origin/Uplay already do it but do have an offline mode.

There's already restriction, as with any copyright work and licensed software.

Well MS' abandoned plan and the current system on PC was that when you bought a physical releases you'd just install it, no need to download more than you'd do already.

It's already happened on PC, and digital sales are also gaining parity with physical sales on PC. when it hits a certain point they'll change over.

Wasn't MS's plan not that you bought the game on disk and then installed it, but then if you wanted to lend the game to someone you'd have to log in to your account on their Xbox and reinstall it there, but then it'd uninstall it from your own one the next time you logged in until you got the disk back?

But then if it was installed on yours and with their digital family sharing thing, Mark could play it on yours through the sharing thing so long as you weren't playing it, and then Billy could play one of Mark's installed games, but you couldn't play one of Mark's games because Billy was playing one of Mark's games, and you now couldn't play your own game because Mark was playing it...

If they'd simplified it even a little and managed to explain it coherently, the digital sharing thing might have been great, but they completely ballsed it up to, quite likely, the point of no return. I doubt they'll try bring it back next-gen as it'll pour petrol on a fire they don't want to reignite again. I think they'll focus on the power of the console and try have some exclusives at the ready, and keep it simple.

Retr0gamer

Varik wrote: »

But Sony who have an issue changing PSN names, through insane foresight managed to 180 something that even excluding the technical work involved would have had them spending a lot of time just remaking deals with publishers. This isn't something they could change unilaterally.

Honestly it's rumours and conjecture but the sources were from some people well established in the industry, apparently. Nothing to really back it up. However saying Sony couldn't have made those changes in that quick a time doesn't really hold water considering Microsoft pretty much did that.

Benzino

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Honestly it's rumours and conjecture but the sources were from some people well established in the industry, apparently. Nothing to really back it up. However saying Sony couldn't have made those changes in that quick a time doesn't really hold water considering Microsoft pretty much did that.

MS didn't change it hours before a presentation, bit of a difference there. It all sounds a bit Jim Sterling with "my sources in the industry".

Billy86

Penn wrote: »

If they'd simplified it even a little and managed to explain it coherently, the digital sharing thing might have been great, but they completely ballsed it up to, quite likely, the point of no return. I doubt they'll try bring it back next-gen as it'll pour petrol on a fire they don't want to reignite again. I think they'll focus on the power of the console and try have some exclusives at the ready, and keep it simple.

Was 2017 just a bit of an anomaly or does Playstation routinely beat MS that ridiculously badly when it comes to exclusives? Because that's a major issue if it's the latter - going by the last 12 months or so if I had to switch from PC to console it would take less time to decide which to go with than it would to log onto Amazon and buy the PS4.

Mickeroo

Billy86 wrote: »

Was 2017 just a bit of an anomaly or does Playstation routinely beat MS that ridiculously badly when it comes to exclusives? Because that's a major issue if it's the latter - going by the last 12 months or so if I had to switch from PC to console it would take less time to decide which to go with than it would to log onto Amazon and buy the PS4.

It was definitely the worst year ever in that regard I can remember but Sony have had the edge on exclusives for a while now.

Retr0gamer

Yeah it is a bit like that. Nothing concrete but there was a wealth of those rumours before and after the conference.

Also saying Sony just changed it a couple of hours before the conference is nonsense. They had a number of hours to change their strategy and presentation. Then a a good few months to change their system if it did go down that way.

What I'm saying is its not beyond the realms of possibility and this was a very aggressive Sony coming off the back of a massive defeat with the PS3 due to their own complacency and a company in dire financial crisis. (PS3 wasn't a disaster but giving away a virtual monopoly on the market to sharing it with MS and missing out on the Wii/apple market was a big defeat for Sony).

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Yeah it is a bit like that. Nothing concrete but there was a wealth of those rumours before and after the conference.

Also saying Sony just changed it a couple of hours before the conference is nonsense. They had a number of hours to change their strategy and presentation. Then a a good few months to change their system if it did go down that way.

What I'm saying is its not beyond the realms of possibility and this was a very aggressive Sony coming off the back of a massive defeat with the PS3 due to their own complacency and a company in dire financial crisis. (PS3 wasn't a disaster but giving away a virtual monopoly on the market to sharing it with MS and missing out on the Wii/apple market was a big defeat for Sony).

So basically what you are saying is that you have no evidence to back up anything you said about this beyond rumours that went around at the time. While I do think Sony changed the PS4 in light of that E3 I don't think that in the hours before their presentation that they drastically changed the direction they were planning on taking the PS4.