Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
EA Goes Free-To-Play: Battlefield Heroes' Producer Speaks
View All     RSS
October 31, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 31, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
EA Goes Free-To-Play: Battlefield Heroes' Producer Speaks

March 31, 2008 Article Start Previous Page 5 of 5
 

It's difficult to wrap your head around that concept, "the new EA". I mean, I was at the DICE Summit, and I saw Riccitiello's keynote speech, and not only was I watching it and saying, "Yes, and..." I immediately talked to some highly placed developers after the speech, and they were like, "Whatever."

BC: Yeah, I mean, it's difficult to get it across to people -- but I've only ever worked for the new EA, because I've only been at DICE for just over a year. And I just don't recognize the company that people have been describing over the years.

So, in the city-state model, then, as he described it, you feel that DICE has its place, and its culture, and it works.

BC: Yeah. And you saw two games today which wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the city-state model -- Mirror's Edge and Battlefield Heroes.

Yeah, I mean it's funny, because Battlefield: Bad Company looks extremely competent. I'm not going to say that it looks like there's anything wrong with that game, because clearly not, but... But the other two, I'm actually interested. And I'm pretty jaded, so...

BC: I would give Battlefield: Bad Company a chance, because it's a really awesome game, and the use of destruction is really revolutionary in that game. I've done things in that game which I've never done before in a previous game. And it's a real tangential shift for shooters, to suddenly not have cover, and to be able to shoot your way through cover.

And the other way in which they're really innovating is with the story. We talked about the incredibly serious war setting? This is a bunch of dudes cracking jokes. And if you look at the movies that the guys on YouTube are sending from Iraq?

Guys in the field of war make jokes! And that's their way of dealing with it. So, Bad Company is really doing two interesting, kind of revolutionary things as well.

Army of Two is another EA product where they've said, "Look, this is actually how it is. If it doesn't seem right to you that the dialogue isn't all serious, but that's how it is."

BC: Absolutely. And like I say, these movies you see on YouTube have got guys on tours of duty in Iraq, there, dealing with this with humor, and that's a fascinating thing.

Another thing that it makes me think about is, it seems most people at game developers are working on serious, dour, extremely overly-dramatic type games, but most developers I know are pretty casual, and actually pretty cool people that you could have a conversation and have a beer with. You know what I mean? So it doesn't jibe all the time.

BC: I think you're right, and the great thing about DICE is, we have the... not "freedom," but we just have a kind of irreverent attitude. Maybe it's because we're stuck out in this backwater in Europe, and we feel kind of disconnected from the world, but we always want to approach things from a different angle. Absolutely.

Obviously, this game is unusual from a couple of different angles -- aesthetically, and being a free-to-play game from DICE. It seems like we're at a crossroads right now, where people aren't sure where the future lies. Packaged software is getting more and more expensive; you can have great success, but it costs more up front, and you need to know that you have a blockbuster. There are lots of different online models, and no one's sure which is right. People are thinking that the subscription model is not going to pan out in the long run, and so they're taking models from Asia and trying to make them work.

BC: I think you saw a huge growth in the industry when the NES came out, and then again when the PlayStation came out. I mean, people didn't realize that -- people felt that all of the growth had been done, but it really feels like, to me, that we're on the cusp of another expansive period of growth, between the DS and the Wii audiences, and there's also an opportunity on the PC now.

PCs are everywhere -- there are hundreds of thousands of internet cafes in India, and this is a poor country that soon will have a completely global, online connected world, for which games will be completely different.

There comes a point where you don't have to own a game to play it. And that's going to become more prevalent. And the thing is, maybe not in every territory, but there are ways you can carve out these chunks. This game could potentially be profitable in Korea, even though you're based in Sweden. Or India, or wherever, and it's an interesting way to carve up what's there.

BC: And that's the web, you know. People like to talk about which platform is more successful, PS3 or Xbox -- well, I mean, the real key platform is the web itself. Never mind PC or Mac or whatever runs the web. That's where we're going to see the next revolution in gaming, is with web delivery, and web gameplay.

That's what people are really realizing, I think, and getting excited. But, of course, that brings the glut. You know, in a year or two we're going to be swimming in absolutely awful free-to-play games.

BC: Yeah, but the beauty of it is you'll have the opportunity to play the game; if you don't like it, you don't play it; if you do like it, you continue to play it. So, for the consumer, you've got all this choice, and all you need to do is just spend a few moments trying each one out.

Spoken as a confident man, though, I think.

BC: I think we're in a really good position with Heroes, because I honestly think that we are the highest quality game out there, within this sector, and I don't think there's anyone else moving into that sector with that kind of commitment and quality. I mean, this is a fantastic game, and we're offering it for free, and I don't think anyone else is doing that.


Article Start Previous Page 5 of 5

Related Jobs

Infinity Ward / Activision
Infinity Ward / Activision — Woodland Hills, California, United States
[10.30.14]

Senior Sound Designer - Infinity Ward
Treyarch / Activision
Treyarch / Activision — Santa Monica, California, United States
[10.30.14]

Multiplayer Level Designer - Treyarch
Petroglyph Games
Petroglyph Games — Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
[10.29.14]

Producer
InnoGames GmbH
InnoGames GmbH — Hamburg, Germany
[10.29.14]

Community Manager The West and Tribal Wars (m/f) on -site






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: