GAME JOBS
Contents
EA Goes Free-To-Play: Battlefield Heroes' Producer Speaks
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Social Point
Senior Game Developer
 
Treyarch / Activision
Senior Environment Artist
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America - Santa Monica
Senior Staff Programmer
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America - Santa Monica
Sr Game Designer
 
Trendy Entertainment
Gameplay Producer
 
Trendy Entertainment
Technical Producer
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Postmortem: Game Oven's Bam fu
 
Tenets of Videodreams, Part 3: Musicality
 
Post Mortem: Minecraft Oakland
 
Free to Play: A Call for Games Lacking Challenge [2]
 
Cracking the Touchscreen Code [4]
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Blog Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Mike Rose, Kris Ligman
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
Education:
Gillian Crowley
 
Contact Gamasutra
 
Report a Problem
 
Submit News
 
Comment Guidelines
 
Blogging Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  EA Goes Free-To-Play: Battlefield Heroes' Producer Speaks
by Christian Nutt [Design, Production, Interview, Console/PC]
13 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
March 31, 2008 Article Start Previous Page 3 of 5 Next
 

There's a lot of business reasons to do this title, but it also gives off that feeling of enthusiasm. You know what I mean? I have the feeling that the developers are not disappointed to be working on it.

BC: We make a lot of really awesome titles in our studio, but I think Battlefield Heroes is the most popular team to work on. Because we're working with tried and tested technology, we have a kind-of "anything goes" feel, we've got this fun, cartoony art style.



And this is, you know, we've gone out there and announced as part of EA's new play-for-free strategy, but this is an idea that originated in DICE, and all the guys on the team -- myself included -- really believe in it. We're not out there to screw people; we're out there to create something which is fun and free, and blows things wide open for a new consumer.

One thing that Min Kim also said, to refer to his words again -- I mean, on one hand it's kind of cheesy to keep referring to things he said, on the other hand, Nexon is industry-leading.

BC: He's the dude. Yeah.

Nexon's games don't attract the same people that play other MMOs. He said one misconception is that people expect that Nexon's sharing an audience with WoW, but really it has a whole different audience, and the games attract different people. And that seems to be the same with your game. I mean in terms of the gameplay -- the fact that one sniper round is not going to hit you in the head and kill you, as you mentioned. Can you talk about that?

BC: Yeah. We kind of see ourselves as an opportunity for Battlefield. And I've been a Battlefield fan since before they were called Battlefield games. DICE, before they were DICE, made a game called Codename Eagle, which I used to love back in 1999.

And I saw in that great potential for a mainstream game. And there's just something so fun and so easy about jumping in and out of vehicles, shooting your gun, and just the free-form sandbox nature of the game.

So yeah, we are targeting a new demographic, I think, and one of the key new demographics is going to be younger guys who maybe can't afford the high-end PC, they can't afford an Xbox 360, but they want to be playing a game that's kind of like what their big brother plays.

Or maybe they've got a laptop for school, and it's kind of low system spec. So we want to try to engage an audience that is frustrated because they don't have access to gaming the same way that the rest of us do.

Well, it's funny, because -- I'll do this again -- I was at Austin GDC, and Raph Koster said that consoles are a niche market.

BC: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, I love Raph, and I'm always inspired when I hear him speak. He really comes out of left field, but if you follow what he's talking about, what he predicts kind of tends to come true a couple of years later.

And I think he's absolutely right. If you look at the amount of PCs that are out there, we're talking hundreds and hundreds of millions; if you look at the amount of PS3s and 360s, we're talking tens of millions, barely. So, absolutely, people think that the PC is dying, but that's a crazy idea.

It's not dying, it's changing. What I think is dying -- and I'll be brutally honest about it -- is I think that sixty dollar packaged software on the PC is dying, and I think that non-connected experiences on the PC are dying, and I think that if people want the single player experience in this generation they're going to -- you know, they sold, you know, 7 million copies of Call of Duty 4, but they sold 250,000 of them on PC. Not a huge percentage; not like in the past.

BC: I think we're going to continue to see high-end packaged good games on the PC. But I think they're going to, as you say, have an element of connectivity; they're going to have an element of persistence which you need to be connected online to do; and they're going to be, probably, more multiplayer focused.

So I think that the Battlefield franchise is well placed, not only to continue in this more casual market, with Battlefield Heroes, but as we continue our more traditional line of Battlefield games, we're going to continue to do the same kind of game, and the same kind of service as we have done in the past.

One thing that's also very striking about it is the aesthetic. Not just the character aesthetic, but the big anime blue sky, clouds, and flowers. That contrasts wildly with Battlefield's traditional look.

BC: Yeah, and we deliberately contrasted with ourself, because we've got two very successful games out there -- there are still hundreds of thousands of people out there playing BF2 and Battlefield 2142, and we didn't want to confuse them by creating yet another realistic-looking game.

And also, our art director is kind of frustrated by this gritty, realistic fashion. And if you look at the success of the Wii, for example, there's definitely a market, a frustrated market, that want a more fun experience. They don't want to be crawling around in mud for their entertainment.

 

 
Article Start Previous Page 3 of 5 Next
 
Top Stories

image
How Kinect's brute force strategy could make Xbox One a success
image
Microsoft's official stance on used games for Xbox One
image
Gearbox's Randy Pitchford on games and gun violence
image
Why you can't trade items in MMOs anymore
Comments

Eric Diepeveen
profile image
"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."



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.

Lorenzo Wang
profile image
You may be right, but I have yet to play a successful online FPS where players consistently rotated through 50 maps. I'd have to agree that two great maps are superior to the shotgun approach. Most I've played range from 2-8 maps.

Joe Stude
profile image
Personally, I liked a LOT of the BF2 maps that didn't always end up in the rotation, particularly some of the ones in the Special Forces expansion. The maps that did become popular and were rotated the most got that way because they allowed for the quickest point scoring (Karkand in particular). Meh to that.



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.

Anonymous
profile image
Since when did EA release a BF game with anywhere close to 50 maps?

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 :)

Anonymous
profile image
"so maybe I'll buy an item which gives me double the experience points for a couple of days. So I'm still playing the game, I'm still having to be skilled at the game, but I'm just leveling up my character slightly quicker."



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.

Ben Cousins
profile image
Anon - our matchmaking system ensures you only play with people of equal skill level.

CRISAN Cristian
profile image
I have the feeling there will be large amounts of beta testing to be done to get this right. And in many aspects, the "right" balance will imply a reduced playing and interacting experience... It is doable though and, at least, it's an interesting approach so... good luck!

dan seamans
profile image
The idea of a matchmaking system makes sense, and I'd happily see that in this kind of game. A strategy game I still play has divisions based on the number of points won across all the games you play (you only play people in your division, winning more points for taking on people, less for people below). You then create a promotion/relegation policy and all is well.



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.

Stuart Bentley
profile image
Looks like somebody's taking the Source approach to map shipping.

Anonymous
profile image
@Ben Cousins



"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?

Anonymous
profile image
How come all the characters are white???



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.

Aaron Green
profile image
Anon - I think an oversite that people outside of the industry make is the actual core of developing games - present business and future business. The reason why we develop fun games is because we're in the games industry - no brainer. But that doesn't change the formula for any business structure.



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?

Anonymous
profile image
@Aaron Green



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).


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Tech