Battlefield Battle: BF3 To Be Supported After BF4′s Launch

By Nathan Grayson on July 28th, 2012 at 2:00 pm.

Come on, Soldier! You've got a giant multi-million dollar gaming corporation waiting for you back home.

EA’s policy with sequelized franchises tends to mirror that of an over-excited puppy or me when I’m talking to anyone and an over-excited puppy prances into view: out of sight, out of mind. Servers quietly disappear, DLC dries up entirely, and empires (mostly of the sporting variety) crumble. DICE, however, swears the same fate won’t befall Battlefield 3. It’s going strong right now with Armored Kill, Aftermath, and Endgame still on the way, but apparently, their end won’t signal the endgame of this game’s endgame. Endgame!

DICE spoke of its plan to foster peace and harmony between two games about eternally waging purgatory wars in a blog post:

“We are committed to providing an excellent Battlefield 3 experience well into the future , past the releases of Aftermath, End Game, and Battlefield 4. DICE is continuing its work on Battlefield 3 alongside Battlefield 4.”

And while those words are definitely encouraging, recent action could be read as suggesting otherwise. After all, official DICE-run servers suddenly went missing from the console version of BF3 a couple months ago, and – though some have returned after fan outcry – it doesn’t exactly set the best precedent. Granted, that’s not quite as much of an issue here in PC land, but it is cause for a bit of concern.

Elsewhere – by which I mean “in the exact same place, but ‘elsewhere’ is an official News Writer Transition Word” – DICE recently sent out official math on BF3′s Aftermath DLC. If urban combat’s up your alley (as opposed to urban combat occurring up your alley, which would require an entirely different set of advice), you’re looking at four new maps, a new game mode, “heavily modified” civilian and military vehicles, and the chance to use “earthquake-damaged terrain” to gain a tactical upper-hand.

Sounds extremely fascinating. Time for a 7000-word analysi– omigosh, a puppy!

__________________

« | »

, , , .

98 Comments »

  1. Jimbo says:

    Ahahahahahahah, no.

    • PoulWrist says:

      No as in how they stopped supporting BFBC2 after release of BF3? Oh, wait, they didn’t and that still runs…

      • gunny1993 says:

        The real question is, did they support BC1 after BC2 came out?

        • shaydeeadi says:

          To be fair BC1 is still chugging along on 360 and PS3. But when they say support they probably just mean ‘not removing battlelog for it or shutting off the master server.’ Big whoop, it’s expected for them to still allow access for a 2 year old game, but rest assured they can’t wait to switch it off. I’ll also wager they will be trying to sell a premium subscription on release this time.

      • Jimbo says:

        No as in ahahahahahahah, no. Keep up.

      • cue kalamos says:

        it still runs because they don’t control the severs

    • Siresly says:

      Don’t know why there’s all this brouhaha over this. This is not something out of the ordinary, nor has it been particularly detrimental to the series. Roughly one Battlefield has been released every other year since 1942.

      What I’m pretty confident was detrimental to the support though was when EA assigned a chunk of DICE to MoH multiplayer. For the first six or eight months DICE trickled out (free!!!) maps for Bad Company 2 that either were done or should’ve been out day one. Game shipped with five maps.

      But whatever. What’s sad about the current situation is that Bad Company single player might be done for. The first one managed to carve out its own identity really well with its openended design and goofy tone. Although it had its issues, I thought it was a good Battlefield campaign and something worth building on.

      • Nethlem says:

        The difference being that they at least used to change themes between games.
        Starting out with WW2 going to Vietnam, moving into a modern setting and then having a future sci-fi themed game. The change of themes made it feel way more like an new experience reaching other costumer bases instead of just “the same game with more stuff”. So people gladly spent their money on a new BF game as they delivered a totaly unique experience.

        Going from BF3 straight to BF4 just feels cheap in that regard. If they stick with the setting, what are they gonna add to the game that won’t feel like it could have been delivered with an expansion? I also doubt they gonna suddenly build Frostbite 3.0, so even “advanced engine/tech” can’t be a big selling point.

        Needless to say that a ton of PC players are still kinda dissapointed with BF3. Sure having 64 players is nice, but the game clearly has not been build around the idea of coordinating 64 players. How about they fix that first, instead of pushing out a new game that will probably address these issues?

        • Tams80 says:

          I agree with this. I think the what gives the impression of them going down the ‘release the same rehash every year route’ is that before they varied the themes. Now it sounds like it’ll be yet another modern war game/slightly futuristic, even it will be two years after the last game.

          That’s assuming BF4 is modern/near future. I’d be on floor laughing if it’s Battlefield 4: Stone Age.

          • Davee says:

            Not to mention that they were developed more or less independently by several studios around the world, not just by DICE in Stockholm or all of them together (BF Vietnam was by the Vancouver studio if I recall correctly) on a 1 or 2 year release-deadline… They took their time. I think the the guys here in Sweden started on BF2 right after BF1942 was patched and good.

            But let’s see what they have in store for us in BF4. I’m not keeping my hopes high though.

        • Tuskin38 says:

          We have no idea what the next BF is other then being Called BF4, it could easily be a new setting.

      • GreatGreyBeast says:

        “Roughly one Battlefield has been released every other year since 1942.”

        ??? ……… :D

        • Tuskin38 says:

          Exactly, Vietnam came out a year after 1942, then BF2, then 2142, etc. and so on.

    • RaviN says:

      BF3 is crap, they stripped all the teamwork features out that were in the previous BF series, like commander, squad orders etc, *(im guessing most of you understand what i mean) i doubt i will ever get BF4 and follow the herd of sheep. im not being milked for my money once again, id rather continue to play BF2.

  2. Smarag says:

    Yeah just as much as BF3 is”totally a PC title” fuck you DICE, we want mod tools. Keep your games and DLC.

    • Orija says:

      EA loves to indulge in these bait-and-switch tactics, remember a DICE head said in an interview that they’d never charge for map-packs?

      • Ranger6six says:

        DICE started asking money for mappacks because the fans DEMANDED to pay money for mappacks.

        At least, that’s their side of the story, I kid you not.

        • Baines says:

          I’m sure there are fans that acted that way.

          Some just like to throw money at a developer or game.

          Then there are the ones that offer money in return for more stuff. “I’d pay money to get the pre-order bonuses that others got.” “I’d pay money for an AK-47 with a Hello Kitty sticker on the stock.” “I’d pay money for a map built around lots of vehicles.”

    • Tuskin38 says:

      Dice has said Mod tools would be very hard to do, and few people would beable to sue them. Maps take hours to compile and that is using several ‘slave’ machines to do it.

      The other issue would be licensing, most of their tools are third party, so that means they would have to buy licenses for them.

  3. chewbaccasdad says:

    Yeeeeeeeah, I believe you.

    I hope a meteor hits EA.

  4. Chandrose says:

    I want to go back to BF3, it was a good game. From the outside looking in though, things have just got wee bit convoluted. And now with 4 coming….

    • PoulWrist says:

      4 coming in 1,5 years from now. BF3 might seem convoluted, but that’s a trick. Game is easily accessible, it just has a lot of content. Which they’ve done a lot to not to make weird and locked away to only old high lvl players. You know, like how MMOs and MOBAs and all that crap goes. Stay out for 6 months and you might as well start over.

      • BOTA49 says:

        The beta is coming in a year and a half, that doesn’t mean the game will be released in that same time frame. It could end up being held up until early 2014 even.

  5. MasterDex says:

    I’m going to go against the grain here and say I’m looking forward to it. Granted, it isn’t the series it was before but everything changes. I still enjoy playing BF3 and I’m sure I’ll enjoy BF4.

    That said, I couldn’t care less about BF4 or 5 or 6. Just give us BF2143. You know you want to. We know we want it.

    • gunny1993 says:

      The real problem is i can’t see any reason for a new one, what exactly are they going to change, and still keep it as BF rather than BC or 2142

      • MasterDex says:

        I hear ya, that’s why I was really hoping for 2143 to be the next release. It seemed to make the most sense from a business perspective as well with Call of Duty jumping onto the futuristic bandwagon, among other games.

        For BF4, I’m hoping for a return of Commander mode and a general clean-up of the work they did with BF3 – a better comm system would be great – Tribes: Ascend’s comes immediately to mind.

        When it boils down to it, I imagine BF4 being a refinement of BF3 as BC2 was for BC.

    • Smarag says:

      If they give us that it wont’t be what we want.

    • NamelessPFG says:

      As much as the idea of a BF2143 sounds great, I lost all faith in DICE after BF:BC2 and BF3.

      BF2142 itself was already the beginning of the end with how they went overboard with the unlock system, which is the one thing that really detracts from an otherwise great game.

      • Tuskin38 says:

        I thought it used the same Unlock system as BF2.

        • NamelessPFG says:

          BF2 did have unlocks too, but here’s the key difference:

          BF2′s unlocks were fewer, and generally just different main weapons. Less balance issues.

          BF2142 forces you to unlock even basic things like hand grenades and the defibrillator, let alone higher-end weapons. If you just happen to be like me and buy BF2142 for $5 on a sale just to check out what I might have missed over the years, that’ll put you at a major disadvantage because you have significantly less options until you take some dead guy’s kit with all the stuff he’s unlocked.

          Fortunately, there appear to be server-side mods that eliminate the need to unlock things, and I really do dig the futuristic setting (if not necessarily the fact that most of the maps are all snowed in).

  6. ntmns says:

    I’m worried that instead of supporting the game and the community, that all of the DLC will just help to fragment the inevitably dwindled player-base once BF4 lands.

    • MasterDex says:

      That’s certainly a worry but I don’t think it’ll be too bad with Premium there, I hope not anyway.

  7. Flukie says:

    When they say “supported” they just mean its going to be playable.

    • squirrel says:

      Bad Company 2 is still “supported” too, so is buy BC2 now a wise decision? It’s just USD10.

      I rather prefer DICE patch BF3 to add LAN functionality and the approval to run private server without requirement to access EA master server first. Or like BF2 in which people are allowed to even run their own ranked server, all these after the launch of BF4.

      Man how I miss those dog tags I earned in BC2.

  8. Azophi says:

    Yeahhh, I find this extremely difficult to believe. Why would EA keep an old game topped up with new updates when they can “compel” BF3 players into the next full-priced iteration by pulling the plug? That’ll be another £40/50 for BF4, another four sets of DLC (one of which is sure to be a rehashed pile of BF3 maps), another “Premium” service for an additional £40, and all the shortcut packs resold all over again.

    EA/DICE would also have to split resources three ways to keep this model up – one team for BF3 updates, one for BF4 DLC and one for BF5 development – so I really don’t see it happening.

    It’s nice that they still value their players enough to pretend they will though. That’s something.

    • PoulWrist says:

      I dunno, maybe like how they also updated BFBC2 after BF3. But hey, whatever.

      • Dreforian says:

        Battlefield will just eventually be like Mario Kart,a round of new maps and then a host of “classic” maps from all the previous titles. And hot rods. BF needs hot rods.

        • MasterDex says:

          I don’t think I’d mind that very much. Hell, if IW never released another Modern Warfare beyond the first and just continued to add new maps, I’d be a happy camper.

    • Tuskin38 says:

      DICE kept supporting BF2 long after it came out, why not BF3? Also BF4 might be a new setting, so different enough from BF3 that support BF3 would make sense.

  9. WebFusion says:

    I suppose they would have to actually START supporting it properly first, which they never did. By their own admission, what little backend server support they cobbled together was done by a few of theri developers in their free time, and they never delivered the community-centric features that they had promised on numerous occasions that they would (reserved slots, etc.)

    DICE can give as much lip service about BF3 being a “PC-first” title as they want, but this was yet another shabby console port at its heart, made even more obvious through their ham-fisted approach to DLC.

    Nope – they lost our community support a long time ago, and unless they wake up and remember how to make PC games again, BF4 will be even shorter lived.

    • MasterDex says:

      You haven’t played the game in a very long time, have you? They’ve released some quite substantial updates to the game and SHOCK! added in reserved slots.

      Also, the game wasn’t a console port. It was a PC-first title but due to time limits, they had to switch the focus towards the consoles to get all the different versions ready for the release date. If you’re going to blame anyone for that, I’d blame EA, not DICE.

      It’d be one thing to complain about the game if you’re still playing it but when it’s clear you haven’t in a while, or at the least, haven’t a clue as to its current state, it’s just whining.

      • Wreckdum says:

        ^ that. I play BF3 a couple times a week and I enjoy it every time I play. It has its down moments. Sometimes you’ll get the occasional 54-3 hacker but that is every PC game nowadays. That is pretty much the only complaint I have is random hackers but that isn’t DICE’s fault. That is just the terrible state of PC gaming.

      • WebFusion says:

        Releasing reserved slots 8+ months after launch is too little, too late, bud. Those kinds of features should have been in the game on launch day, not cobbled together months after launch.

        …but you know,. how dare PC communities actually demand features that have been a staple now for multiplayer servers for 10+ years.

        As far as this not being a console port – keep drinking that kool-aid, bud. The fact that the graphics can scale doesn’t negate the fact that the game was dramatically “dumbed down” to fit into a console model, and the netcode is shit. Keep up with the game? Why? It has zero depth. TF2 is more replayable after 5 years than BF3 was after 5 months.

        Regardless, just as with the MW series, I’m sure they’ll have no shortage of saps willing to line up and keep feeding them $$$ for maps they had said they would never charge for (yep, another broken promise):

        “We don’t ever want to charge for our maps and insisted to EA that this attitude was crucial when it came to keeping our community happy and playing together,” – DICE senior producer Patrick Bach

        • MasterDex says:

          All I hear is “Wah! Wah! Wah!”

          You’re a whiner. You complain about the netcode as if you have an idea of what you’re talking about. The netcode is fine. The “Shitty Netcode” is called sending heavy traffic over a network – i.e. A network-intensive game. It’s the same line all you whiners spout. “The netcode is shitty! DICE don’t know how to code!”. Of course, if you can find a lag and error free solution for sending large packets of information (made up of bullet trajectories, velocities, ranges, damage fall-offs, player co-ordinates, ping, etc, etc, etc) across the world in milliseconds, please enlighten us because I can tell you one thing, no developer in the world has yet to crack that nut.

          Also, as far as adding in reserved slots so late, did you ever stop to think that it was because there were more important things to worry about? Reserved slots are nice but they’re not the be-all and end-all, there are also ways to work around their exclusion – like hopping on Teamspeak/Vent/Whatever and saying “Hey guys! Mind making room for me here, I’m just about to join ye.”

          I totally agree that BF3 has no depth. It’s not like projectile guns, land, air and sea vehicles, large maps, custom loadouts and weapon attachments creates depth. No siree. Now Wolfenstien 3D! There’s a game with some depth!

          • philbot says:

            I’m glad there is someone that realises that BF3 is a technical marvel. The game scales beautifully on PC, and for 64 player MP, there is no lag. If someone is getting lag, they usually have a shit connection. And then there are the people that balance about mechanics being balanced… since when was anything IRL balanced? I have played this game a lot and I see many people’s complaints as not fully informed. There are negatives, of course, but the game is overall pretty damn good.

          • MasterDex says:

            Oh yeah, there are negatives for sure. Half the time I’ve spent with any Battlefield game has been bitching about it – usually when I’m playing. Whether it’s the artillery of 1942, the OP jets of BF2, the glitches of 2142 or whatever, there’s always something to complain about in the series. Still, it’s always been a series I enjoyed despite its problems. I don’t see that changing any time soon.

            I have a saying about DICE that’s been true for as long as I’ve been playing the BF series – Typical DICE, they fix one thing and break two more. I laugh when I read through the Battlelog forums. I imagine half the people bitching on there were still in diapers when BF2 was released.

          • BOTA49 says:

            The complaints of the net code appear to stem from the lag compensation that’s used. When you’re getting shot at, run behind cover, and die a second or two after being out of view of the guy shooting at you, it’s a bit of of a problem. It was absolutely horrendous in MoH 2010, cleaned up a bit when they brought it over to BC2, and now it’s back to being crap again in BF3.

            Unfortunately, as games become more complex, these designs are necessary in order to achieve these technological marvels. The only real solution is to have a faster internet connection.

        • gunny1993 says:

          BF3 works fine for me … your proably just shit at it

        • defunkt says:

          There are downsides to both server-side and client-side hit detection but people just like to moan without considering the alternative. Dieing a second after you reach cover is way less irritating than tagging an enemy just to have them run off into cover un-hurt; for me client-side > server-side. As said above, the only tonic for either problem is a better connection and/or a closer server.

      • Nethlem says:

        Uhm what? 64 Player mode had been an aftertought just shoved in with a total disregard for balance, map sizes and overall team coordination. Had much fun playing metro with 64 players? Sure as hell if you only play to spam shit and level up as fast as possible.

        Don’t even get me started on the absolute lack of any kind of usefull communication. No in-game voice and instead depending on building “parties” prior to joining a server, no proper command rose at all. Why do anything like that? The only reason to come up with half assed solutions like that is if you leave out the whole voice communication backend because you depend on voice chat being delivered by the multiplayer service like PSN or XBL.

        BF3 could have been a great if not awesome game, even without mod support. Instead they chose to turn a formerly teamplay driven experience into a spamfest that’s akin to CoD. Heck even after release they could have made up for it by patching that stuff in, they didn’t and as such the game stayed a giant uncoordinated clusterfuck where people only care about flying an attack chopper or jet and getting nice k:d ratios instead of actually winning rounds or working as a team.

        These issues are among the main reasons that many people got fed up with the game so quickly. There is simply no depth to it in terms of teamplay. Every single round is just a collection of 64 people playing their own game because they can’t coordinate with each other in any decent way.

        • Smoky_the_Bear says:

          Any group of gamers who take teamplay seriously in any way already have a ventrilo/teamspeak etc server to use for communication, so imo voice communication support in a game is the least important thing a game should implement as there are already standalone programs that have been developed and iterated on for years that will always do voice communication much better than a game dev tagging it into their game.
          Most of the time in a game if im playing with randoms the last thing i want is to hear random people babbling on (i.e. counterstrike) as its just annoying and you get crap like people spamming their shitty dance music over the game.

    • PoulWrist says:

      So I guess the whole “being a PC gamer” is about not keeping up with anything, disregarding good games and the tonne of quality content released for them, because it’s preferable to moan for non-essential features and poorly made player junk?

      • Shooop says:

        Oh hey look who it is! Everyone’s favorite EA shill from the PCG comments!

        Got tired of being a tremendous dumbass there, had to go and pollute another site too?

  10. Nokterian says:

    Not sure if serious ea..or wanting to shut down after release of BF4…

  11. wodin says:

    As soon as BF4 is released everyone will rush out and buy it, so really it’s very unlikely that people will still be playing BF3 anyway.

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      People are still playing BF2, and Bad Company 2, and BF 2142. I highly doubt there will be a shortage of players for BF3 once the next one comes out.

    • NamelessPFG says:

      People are still playing BF2, BF1942, and hell, even BF:Vietnam, which had nowhere near the success of those two.

      If anything, I expect those games to last far longer than everything post-BF2 since they don’t rely on EA-run servers.

      (While BF2 has player accounts like BF2142, the former doesn’t force you to log-in even for singleplayer or LAN, unlike the latter. As for BF:BC2 and BF3, EA owns all the servers; they’re just renting them out. If they so choose, they could shut them all down and the playerbase can’t do anything about it.)

  12. ScubaMonster says:

    Even if they continued supporting it, everybody is going to move on anyway. At the very least, the player base would be fragmented leaving BF3 with a significantly smaller community. And if BF4 manages to add worthwhile improvements who would want to stick with BF3 anyway?

    Making Battlefield a yearly franchise like Call of Duty is a bad move. Unfortunately, I’m sure they’ll still make truckloads of money, just reinforcing their decision.

    • Tuskin38 says:

      Battlefield has always been yearly, go google up the release dates for all the games.

  13. NightShift says:

    I really really wish Bioware and DICE break off from EA. Two great developers gone down the drain thanks to a bunch of greedy money grubbers who don’t give a crap about gamers.

  14. Shooop says:

    Anyone who believes anything EA promises probably has to live under house arrest for their own safety.

    EA never even patched the shittastic hit detection in Bad Company 2. Sure the new maps (which were 100% free back then) were nice but they weren’t any fun when the game itself didn’t work. And what happened to public server files?

  15. TwwIX says:

    EA and DICE are full of shit. That’s the only thing that they are capable of providing. A hefty bucket of bullshit.

  16. philbot says:

    Seriously… I love RPS… but fuck I have had enough with the comments on BF3 articles. BF3 was a release that was legitimately better than the console versions (64 player, battlelog, graphics, UI was ultimately resolved). Sure, it had some issues, people complained about battlelog (I see no problem with it), but overall it was a game that delivered. Go on any PC youtube video of bf3 and you see console gamers wishing they had a PC. The support for bf3 hasn’t been perfect, but the game is now polished. I seriously feel sorry for EA and all the shit they get from the PC crowd relating to the bf3 release.

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      The saddest thing here is that the most negative comments come from people who don’t even play the fucking game.

      • Nethlem says:

        What’s sad about that? It’s only logical…
        Tons of people bought into BF3 and ended up being dissapointed by how the whole thing evolved in the long run.
        So they have every right to voice their opinion on what dissapointed them.

        It’s called constructive feedback, not everybody can be a rabid fanboy who likes things just because of branding nostalgia.

        • SkittleDiddler says:

          That’s not what I meant. It’s pretty obvious the most rabid comments are coming from pure EA haters, not those who have actually played Battlefield 3.

          I won’t begrudge anyone from voicing their opinion about Battlefield 3, especially those ex-players who justifiably felt cheated by DICE and EA, but I draw the line at people who inject lies, half-truths, and nonsense into the conversation.

          I’m no EA or BF3 fanboy, by the way. I put EA on my boycott list after the seedier details of the BF3 Premium plan became public. So, yeah, bollocks to you.

    • Smoky_the_Bear says:

      EA deserve shit for the release of BF3 as they did their usual crap of rush the game out when its not in a finished state (same happened with SWTOR a couple of months later) so it would be released before COD.
      I give a lot of credit to DICE, they clearly spent a decent amount of man hours fixing issues post-launch and quickly sorted out some of the bigger issues (It could take a rediculous amount of time even getting into a game with party members for the first month or two for instance). I do get the feeling though that a lot of the people whining about battlelog etc stopped playing after a month and dont realise how much better it was made.

  17. dmoe says:

    Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, you can’t get fooled again.

  18. Valyr says:

    The people at DICE say a lot of things. I’ve learned to take them with huge pinches of salt.
    From claims about BF3′s PC focus (which admittedly bore some fruit, but could have gone much further) to ‘amazing destructible environments’ (that were less destructible than in their previous BF game) to the supposed promise that they’d never charge for maps.. I don’t feel much inclined to believe any promises they make.

    Plus, claiming that they’ll continue to support the game after the release of BF4 sort of misses the point of why it’s potentially a problem.
    It isn’t just about developer support, it’s about the masses switching over to the Next-Best-Thing, which in turn will make server counts plummet; especially if they continue with the ‘expensive licensed reseller subscription’ model for dedicated servers.

    Without mod support, BF3 will never have the longevity that previous Battlefield games had so any claims about future support from the developers are moot, since the playerbase will have moved on anyway thanks to hype, peer-pressure and the next iteration of shiny graphics and the Battlefield versus CoD ‘PR war’.

  19. Cytrom says:

    When was it ever supported to begin with? Bugs i reported in the beta are still in the game or got worse with patches and the hit registration system is as shitty and unreliable as ever.

    Paid dlc’s every few months just kill a game for good by fragmenting an already thinning playerbase, not support it.

  20. Mordsung says:

    Sorry EA, I’ve converted to the alter of Tribes.

    Your game is too slow and easy now.

  21. Shodex says:

    Technology hasn’t advanced long enough for Battlefield 4′s graphics to be any better than Battlefield 3, and they haven’t had enough time to make any significant changes to the way the multiplayer works. So assuming EA plans to take the Call of Duty route with Battlefield, we’ll be seeing pretty much the same game with new maps and a new campaign.

    For a little while, I was okay with this in Call of Duty, Call of Duty campaigns are fun. But sorry Battlefield 3, your campaign was boring and poorly made. Bad Company 2 had an excellent campaign that was entertaining, had a decent story, and played off the strengths of the franchise it belonged to (open, large scale battlefields). But Battlefield 3 was really just DICE’s top 10 favourite Call of Duty moments.

    I bought Battlefield 1942, Vietnam, 2, 2042, Bad Company, Bad Company 2, and even 3. Hell, I’m even buying Black Ops 2 because I like robots. But Battlefield 4 is not on my list.

  22. Ham Solo says:

    Just taking into account the main series… did they stop support for BF2 when BF3 came out?

    • Dark Nexus says:

      They did not. They stopped supporting it years earlier, when Battlefield 2142 came out.

      • AlphaCentauri says:

        Dark Nexus, you’re in the wrong, good sir. BF2 was still supported after the release of BF2142 with new maps and balance patches. Heck, they even released a patch in 2009 (four years after release) with both the DLC included for free for everyone and entirely new maps.

        • Dark Nexus says:

          They must have smartened up after I stopped playing then…. which was a solid few months after 2142 was released. At that point, the game seemed to be in a death spiral of bugs and exploits with no patch on the horizon.

  23. Beelzebud says:

    Those of us dumb enough to buy BF2142 will know how great this “support” will be. A basic bug fix patch will take 3 years to come out.

    • AlphaCentauri says:

      BF2142 was a great game, I don’t know what you’re on about. I still play it. Sometimes.

      • TormDK says:

        If they let us have commanders again, they could charge me just about anything for 2143.

        • EPICTHEFAIL says:

          Hell, a return to the 2142 `verse, period, would be awesome. First time DICE get to make a backstory for a game (and it was actually quite interesting and well thought out) and EA dumps the franchise in favor of the Modern Dudebro bandwagon.

  24. Dark Nexus says:

    Nice to see they’re still peddling the same lies they were 6 years ago.

  25. WinTurkey says:

    Don’t forget, EA rents BF3 servers to PC AND consoles now, they don’t lose money on having people play the game after they buy it, they make it, again and again and again.

    • Shooop says:

      War never changes. Neither does EA’s always-growing need for profit.

  26. Juiceman says:

    DICE is no stranger to releasing follow ups. Anyone crying foul simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about. BF 2142 was released the following year after BF2 came out. So this is nothing new. Not to mention DICE kept updating BF2 with content up until 2009. That’s four years after launch for those who can’t count. But that won’t matter to people with a blind hatred for Electronic Arts. All they see is the EA logo and go insane. Even though that logo has adorned every Battlefield game ever produced.

  27. Xzi says:

    Notice how they didn’t say anything about continuing support for Battlefield 3 after they release Battlefield 5 in 2014.

    The people that believe EA to have the moral high ground over Activision on this stuff are completely delusional. Boy, those few graphical enhancements for the PC are sure worth neutering the series and charging you $120 every year for the privilege, aren’t they?

  28. Sisco says:

    I highly doubt many people will even keep playing Bf3 after Bf4 came out. In this day and age chances are there will only be minor improvements/changes. The “regular” number indicates no branching game (like 2142 or BC), so I bet most of the playerbase migrates soon after launch.

  29. squirrel says:

    I really dont see anything we need to worry about. I see RPS linked this to a previous report about EA pulling server support for a number of outdated games. As I see it those are forgotten titles that most have long quited. We all know from the very beginning while purchasing a game that support for that particular title won’t stay forever. EA is rational, it understands its own position very well, and therefore realize that if it pulls itself from commitment on a popular game just to save a few bucks, they are essentially destroying its consumer base and hence the potential future revenue. So stop comparing Battlefield franchise with titles like Fifa 07, alright? We know from the beginning that those annually sport games have very short product life to begin with.

  30. Sayori says:

    Jokes on you sirs but not so long time ago DICE promised to not charge us for maps.
    So believe them now…if you are foolish enough!

    • Nick says:

      They promised that for BC2 only, to be fair..

      • Sayori says:

        Since actually it was never stated very clear I guess they could use this as a backdoor and excuse themselves But for me it sounded pretty much as “we will never charge for any maps in BF”.
        EA’s lil biatch.

  31. Kromaxx says:

    I’d buy it if they called it Battlefield 3.1.

    Then i wouldn’t feel like they needed to shower me in a ton of new features, just a slight upgrade from 3.0.

    As a consumer I could decide if I wanted this mini upgrade without feeling ripped off when I don’t get a bajillion new features. As it stands right now, my tiny little consumer mind just has to have my hands on 4.0!