|
So, it's interesting --
what I was thinking about is, you talked
during your presentation about shipping with two maps, and that implies
to me that you're planning to upgrade later
-- I mean, obviously, the game is not going to persist on two maps.
BC: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, what
we did is, we come to this from two angles. The first one is that in
every Battlefield game, we bust our asses making 50 maps, and
then within six months of the game being released, everyone's playing
two maps. The two best maps. So, we just decided to make just the two
best maps, and not the other kind of maps.
And the other reason is because this
is a service, not a product. We're going to have ongoing support. The
live team for the game are almost as big as the dev team. We want to
have people coming back to the game over time, but we also want the
community to inform us what type of game they want to play.
So we're launching with an infantry-focused
map, and a vehicle-focused map, and if they want to play the infantry-focused
map then we will continue to make infantry-focused maps. And, similarly,
if they think of this as a vehicle-based game, then we'll make the maps
which reinforce that feel. So it's down to the community to define what
type of game this is, really.
It's interesting. Min Kim from Nexon
has said that when they ship a game, it's probably about 50% of the
amount of game that a western publisher might ship, but then they add
to it consistently; is that how you're looking at it?
BC: Absolutely, and I think that's
a really liberating kind of business model, or development model. Usually,
when you're making a western game, you bet all your money on this disc,
and you put it into stores, and you cross your fingers that it's going
to review well and people are going to buy it.
But what we have an opportunity
to do, because it's free, is produce a small amount of content, see
what people like, see what people don't like, and then adapt to people's
tastes.
When it comes to microtransactions,
are you doing them via a card system?
Nexon has Nexon Cash and Habbo Hotel has cards --
you can go to Target, in America, and you can buy them.
EA's Pogo has a system, too, and I'm assuming you're not crossing over
with what Pogo's got in mind.
BC: We're really keen to have any kind
of payment system available, and if you look around the world, there
are different systems -- it might be cards, or PayPal, or credit cards.
It might be on your broadband bill -- that's quite popular in Germany.
Prepaid SMS text messages are really popular in the UK and other parts
of Europe. We just want it to be as easy as possible to fill up their
wallet and get involved in the game that way. So, yeah, we're open to
any type.
I noticed
that when you were demoing the website, it had a section for the player's
region. Is that a payment issue, or is that a gameplay issue?
BC: We need to know where you are so
that we can recognize revenue per territory. That's just to help out
the guys in EA Poland, or whatever. Also, we want to quickly put you
toward servers where you're probably going to have a better ping.
And
the other reason is because we want to localize leader boards. So I'm
not just interested in the fact that I'm 250,000, worldwide; maybe I'm
the number five guy in my town, or maybe I'm the number five guy in
my city.
I'm assuming that this game has
a global market target -- but when we say "global," do we
say global the way we usually mean it when we're talking about an EA
SKU? Which is Western Europe and North America.
Or are we talking about really
global?
BC: I would love it to be really
global, and it's been great meeting the guys from some of the smaller
territories in EA, who are very excited about this game, because they
have a business which is made difficult by piracy -- and, of course,
when you have a free game, there's no piracy problem.
So I'm really
excited to be talking to guys from EA Brazil, in Eastern Europe, in
India, in China, and really, there's no geographical barriers to this
game at all. And I love that idea.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
Thats just a stupid answer. They've created way more than 2 great maps. These guys have years of experience. Aaah well, it's "free". So I shouldn't complain.
I don't think shooting for the extremes (2 great maps only or 50 mixed bag ones) is the way to go either. Optimize and go for quality, but continue to give people some variety so that the game doesn't get old.
BF 1942: 16 maps included with retail release.
BF 2: 15 maps included with retail release
BF 2142: 13 maps included with retail release.
Even with all the expansions/boosters/patches, I dont think any one BF game had 50 official maps
The maps EA includes have been going down with each release. In general they tend to sell expansion packs if they want to include more maps.
Anyway, dont get me wrong, I think its good to concentrate on a few good maps (look at Team Fortress 2, I love that game and it had about 6 official maps on release) but I'm just arguing about someone claiming the specific number "50"
Also, you don't always know which few maps will end up being the favorites, look at TF2, valve was hyping up the Hydro map new gameplay style before release, and it's dropped to the 4th most played map out of the 6:
http://www.steampowered.com/status/tf2/tf2_stats.php
So 2 maps may be enough to begin, but get at least a couple more out quickly :)
Interesting use of the phrase 'slightly quicker' to describe 'double the rate'. I'm sure most would-be players would like to know exactly how much of an effect the experience points have on gameplay. If XP translates to better stats, whether speed, damage, rate of fire, new weapons/items or whatever) it sounds very much like this system will leech off the same mindset that has XBox achievement whores buying shoddy, shoddy games simply to rack up another easy 1000 achievement points.
If players can pay to get their stat-boosting experience points faster and therefore have a greater chance of surviving/killing, etc., the 'free to play', 'fun' and 'friendly' aspects kinda go down the drain.
In the trailer DICE promised in no uncertain terms, that you won't "get shot in the face repeatedly by a swearing, ultra-skilled 15 year old [sic] boy who plays the game every day for 8 hours". What they haven't confirmed, is whether the gameplay deifnitely does NOT permit you to get shot in the face repeatedly by a zero-skill billy-no-mates with more money than sense, who gets double experience points every day for $8.
Works brilliantly in my experience. I'm a 'decent' (vague I know) FPS player but I still get massacred if I just drop in on most open servers for BF2 of TF2. Some level of matchmaking makes a lot of sense.
"our matchmaking system ensures you only play with people of equal skill level."
So I can't play with my brother downstairs who happens to just be a lower skill level than I am? Or with my friend who hasn't managed to put in the same amount of time that I have so has less experience?
More info on how matchmaking and experience points interrelate, please. How do these systems coexist to allow me to play with who I want and still not get owned by someone who simply has more money than I do?
By whites, for whites?
Let me guess, the concept guy who ripped off TF2 is white and the art director is white and the creative director is white and the producer is white. Ignorance is gross.
What you're talking about in terms of proportional player systems and art direction are malleable variables that are always open for revision and redesign. The structure of these features and elements should all be based on a 'future business' structure that creates a consumer's process:
1. Anticipation;
2. Interraction;
3. Loyalty; and then
Future business for the company, newer ideas and I dare say, better ideas, and around we go again.
To answer your topics directly:
50 Maps: Have you researched, referenced, conceptulised, pitched, designed, blueprinted, modelled, textured, rigged, skinned, scripted, animated, shaded, play tested, revised and finalised 15 maps before? It 'feels' like you've created 50 maps and I think that's what BC was generalising.
Skill Purchasing: Do you really care if 'Johnny85' has puchased his skills when you're having as much fun as anyone could? Think about the entire consumer market and how the business can develop a product that wraps it's arms around the majority of that consumer market and what works for both.
Matchmaking Systems: It's a great idea. A proper system has been a long time coming. Independently, I had come to the same conclusion with a research team last year to improve the gaming experience of online games (FPS in particular) as a solution for larger consumer interest. HOWEVER, servers can easily be marked 'ranking/experience/skill'-based while others can be open slather to play with friends and brothers, regardless of statistics. After all, we're talking 1s and 0s; of course we can appropriate the system.
Character Design: I highly doubt DICE are going to exclude any particular race from the final product, as it wouldn't affectively target the fullness of their market. At the same time, there's hundreds of counties, et cetera. I wouldn't suggest that the creative department has prejudice when the same company varied cultural status within Battlefield. My default character in BF2 just happens to be African American.
In the industry, we don't open a meeting for questions without receiving solutions from those who ask, even if they're stabbing in the dark, it's still an attitude of solving problems. Having said that, I'd honestly like to hear your suggested solutions for an appropriate server system and creative design that millions of dollars can be securely invested into; and a way that DICE can affectively retrive substantial profit with this product to create future business. How would you do it?
Obviously matchmaking can be made to work in the ways you described ('matchmaking on/off' SVAR), but this was at odds to the comment Cousins made about ONLY being able to play at the same skill level. I believe this is too prescriptive (probably just a slip of the tongue on his part) but I'd like to know for sure how the experience system ties in with the game.
And he shouldn't say 50 maps if he wants to be hyperbolic, he should be more general and say 'scores' or 'dozens' of maps. Claiming 50 maps is just asking to be called up on it, as anyone who hasn't played BF will just believe the figure, so it smacks of liberal 'factoid' use.
Lastly, as a business model, yes it's all fine and dandy, but from the perspective of someone who will PLAY the game, I honestly don't care if it makes good business sense, all I care about is that the game is fun, fair and doesn't compromise my entertainment in any way (e.g. by saturating the game with more ads later down the line when player numbers begin to tail off).