Why ‘Battlefield 4′ Replaced ‘Bad Company 3′

Published 2 years ago by , Updated July 23rd, 2012 at 3:32 pm,

Bad Company 3 Battlefield 4 DICE

Unlike the certain perpetuity of the core Battlefield franchise, DICE’s Battlefield: Bad Company series exists in a state of perpetual uncertainty.

Since Battlefield: Bad Company 2 released in 2010, boasting magnificent multiplayer and a stirring second chapter in the saga of its misfit-outfit namesake, fans of the series have been on standby for an announcement of Bad Company 3. A glimmer of hope for 2013 flashed by this May – a trio of developer resumes listed “prototype feedback” work with the game – but this week’s confirmation of  Battlefield 4 as the next Battlefield release has placed Preston Marlowe on the back burner for the foreseeable future.

With Battlefield 4’s presumable October 2013 launch date (EA confirmed the game would shortly follow its Fall 2013 beta, unlocked through Medal of Honor: Warfighter), set to mark the shortest interval between two releases in the main series’ history, many have become vocal with a logical question: Why isn’t DICE developing Bad Company 3 instead?

Bad Company 3 Battlefield 4 EA

DICE community manager Ian Tornay fathomed a partial answer recently on Reddit. After an initial posting in he which he promised DICE would continue support for Battlefield 3 (“past the release of End Game and Battlefield 4“) and offer ways outside of Warfighter to access the beta (“At this time, however, it is the only way to guarantee entry.”), Tornay responded to a commenter who simply asked, “Why not BC 3?”:

“I can tell you that it’s not due to any lack of love for BC inside of DICE. Everyone I’ve talked to there is very proud and fond of it.

What features from BC would you like to see in future games (which is not to say we won’t make another)?

Would be very interested to nail down for myself what it is about BC that is special to everyone and how we can incorporate that magic.”

Following reviews of Bad Company 2, DICE has every reason to take pride in its work with one of Battlefield’s more successful offshoots. Letting it rest until the team finds room for a quality successor is nothing to shun. And yet, we can’t help but feel that the layoff is also a product of what, in this generation, has sprouted into gaming’s biggest corporate rivalry: Electronic Arts vs. Activision.

EA has developed a voracious appetite in recent years for stealing away Call of Duty‘s – thus, Activision’s – first-person shooter crown. With Battlefield 3 shattering franchise sales records and Battlefield Premium enlisting 800,000 subscriptions in a mere two weeks, there’s no question an explosive growth potential exists within the corpus of the series that, in the eyes of EA and DICE, even the pyromaniac private George Haggard Jr. couldn’t concoct.

Bad Company 3 Battlefield 4 Release Date

Battlefield has a new momentum to it thanks to 3, a momentum that no doubt invigorated EA after the staid reception of Medal of Honor. Only time will tell if Battlefield 4’s accelerated release capitalizes on or squanders it. But until something spoils the fruitful Battlefield [insert number]-plus-two-years-of-Premium-DLC cycle, the frenetic FPS competition EA aspires to partake, and win in – Battlefield tipping its spear – isn’t opening any doors for the offbeat, humorous, discernibly-different-to-market Bad Company.

But then again, in referencing Tornay’s future-minded question, perhaps its that very spirit DICE can channel into one element of Battlefield 4: singleplayer. Similar to Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3‘s campaign specialized in popcorn action while weaving a brink-of-world-war narrative – though it felt like a step backwards: Our Bad Company 2 review complimented campaign as “enjoyable”; our Battlefield 3 review referred to it as “tacked on”. If Bad Company 3 is truly in a development deep freeze, the least DICE’s next offering could do is throw its fans a T-bone.

Ranters, when – if ever do you expect so see Battlefield: Bad Company 3? Do you think EA and DICE are attempting to establish a bi-annual pattern of major Battlefield releases for the long-run future?

Follow me on Twitter @Brian_Sipple.

Source: Reddit [via CVG].

TAGS: Battlefield, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Bad Company, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Battlefield Bad Company 3, DICE, Electronic Arts, PC, PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One


Post a Comment

  1. “Ranters, when — if ever do you expect so see Battlefield: Bad Company 3?”

    I don’t know. Maybe DICE will make a great campaign for BF4 and that will give BC fans what they want. Then DICE wouldn’t need to make BC3.

    “Do you think EA and DICE are attempting to establish a bi-annual pattern of major Battlefield releases for the long-run future?”

    Most definitely. EA is really trying to compete with Activision, so they’re going to release a BF game every 2 years and a MoH game every other year. That way there will be an EA FPS to compete with CoD every year.

  2. Was hoping for a 3rd Bad Company, but I guess that won’t be for a while. I used to be a MOH fan, but not much anymore. This must be where the BF franchise finally goes down hill. Then again DICE could lighten things up.

  3. What we love about BF:BC is the characters. Such memorable characters! At least I do. Kept me laughing and always interested.

  4. My gym trainer once told me, not to compete with others but compete with yourself. Battlefield is going to go downhill for sure if it’s going to be rushing more games in every year to compete with Activision.

  5. Isn’t Bad Company 3 expect in that the ending of 2 suggested a sequel, and also that its a great game?

  6. It will be MOH then BF cycle each year, these are two completely difrnt games and have 2 years to develop which is more than enough time to make changes and improve on the way a game looks and feels.
    I think DICE are going to w8 until a next gen console is ready before unvailing BFBC3, to launch a spectacular game in 2014 some time, probably running on frortbite 2.5 or even frostbite 3.
    I would put money on this to happen.
    Do u think this is a reasonable comment or not?

    • Somewhat reasonable. If BC3 were to be the first next-gen BF, then it would release in 2015, as BF4 will release in 2013, and most likely a MoH game will release in 2014. Any next-gen games will all be using new engines, so EA shooters will run on Frostbite 3.

    • Don’t count on there being a Frostbite 3 for next-gen. Frostbite 2.0 debuted in 2011, and I’m sure EA poured a hefty amount of cash into making it. Read this


      • What do you say now? Lol

    • The games you see now using Frostbite 2 are scaled down due to limited hardware, the engine is capable of much more.

    • this really saddens me. EA (well DICE) doesnt need to compete. their games are typically better than COD in every way. *sigh* greed. thats all i can say. and that really makes me sad and mad at the same time.

      • The console version of BF3 is a joke “looks wise”. So they are looking to turn profit on the next-gen harware. For one COD cant look any better and with the current 10+ year old engine its not gvoing t ollok any better even if the tried. Even the PC version’s looks outdated. But frosbite is def scaled down, So the engine will be around for a while. Bad Company 3 will never happen “yes the story line was grerat” but nobody buys BF for single player. I personally have never played either BC2 or BF3’s single player. Its worthless and its just an add on for main stream players. On top of that even on console BC2 maps were small, EA/Dice arent about to go backwards and make smaller maps then BF3. Hopefully BF4 will actually be 2143.. Its to soon for another modern shooter.

  7. In order to understand why they’d do BF4 before BC3, all you need to do is press your thumb into your index finger and rub.

    • yeps so true

    • It took me a few seconds to figure that one out lol. :P

  8. I actually buy about 50% of my games for the campaign, the multiplayer is a bonus feature for me. Bad Company 2 had one of my favorite campaigns, and Battlefield 3 chills up and down my spine at certain parts, with its amazing graphics and accompanying audio. Its multiplayer is pretty fun, but I only like playing on the big maps and using vehicles. To me, its big open maps and vehicles are some of the reasons I like BF and BC better the CoD. I have MOH but I got it after I got BF so it was hard for me to enjoy. I didnt get very far in its campaign, and I couldnt stand its multiplayer, as I was a noob fighting among experienced veterans who knew every inch of the map and had every piece of equipment to their disposal. That, and due to my extremely old 480p CRT tv, I had a hard time reading the class customization menus. I regret putting on my shelf and never playing it again. I feel bad so Im going to pull it out again and start its campaign over as well as not rage quit its multiplayer so I can actually give it a fair chance. I had MOH as well as CoD for my Xbox original, and I like MOH better then CoD, and this is before I understood the rivalry between the two games. Im definitely going to buy BF 4 cause I love the EA/DICE games, as well as Warfighter, and I am pretty disappointed that BC3 isnt their next release.

    • Crap, I hate it when I post a comment then read it over only to find mistakes. There should be an “it” when I talk about MOH on my shelf, and it should be “liked” when I talk about MOH and CoD for Xbox original. *facepalm*

  9. I really hope Bad Company 3 comes within the next few years. BC2 had such an engaging story; admirable theatrics, adequate sandbox opportunities, and best of all: fantastic, lovable characters. Sure, they took the overused “Gonna nuke the world” idea, but they mostly used it a backdrop so we could have great characters and such.

    As for the multiplayer? Way, way, waaaay better than Battlefield 3. BF3 has decent multiplayer, but it’s got too much space and not enough players. There’s not enough destruction, either. BC2 had so much destruction, it made each match a new game. You could destroy every building, tree, fence, and pretty much everything else. It allowed for much more varied strategies, and forced quick thinking if your favorite sniping spot was obliterated by a tank, for example. It was pretty much a new game everytime I played it, and I had so much more fun on it than Battlefield 3. BF3 was a decent game, no doubt. But it lacked the charm and lasting appeal that BC2 had. In my opinion, the only thing that BF3 has over BC2, was the weapon/equipment trees. That was fantastically done. Also, the inclusion of a few new game modes (team deathmatch is my favorite to play in BF3).

    Battlefield 3 is just too similar to other modern shooters out there: the maps are, for the most part, too static. Only a couple buildings can be somewhat destroyed per map. This allows for very easy camping. The mechanics are just awful, too. It takes way to many shots to kill another player, and the vehicles are much too difficult to destroy; they just overpower everyone else. This is the main reason I enjoy playing Team Deathmatch (plus the maps aren’t as big; the matches are faster paced).

    Not to say it isn’t fun flying a helicopter around, cause it very much is. In my opinion, the helis are the only vehicle that Dice did very well with in BF3. The jets just seem like more of a gimmick than anything else, and the tanks are way overpowered, especially when there’s like, 3 engineers constantly repairing the damn thing whenever so much as a rock is thrown at it. The vehicle warfare in BC2 was much more balanced, especially with the recon class’s targeted mortars. (I also had much fun just farting around on quads; driving as fast as I could off of a cliff, or just speeding into the enemy side with a rocket-toting squadmate on the back.)

    The maps in BC2 were amazing. The graphics were stunning, and the audio simply immersive, especially on the jungle maps. I play on this way old SD box tv, and I was still dragged in by the scenery and sound. There’s crickets and birds, rodents and other animals, as well as incredible acoustics for the explosions, gunfire, and destruction sounds. BF3 has great graphics and sounds, but nothing compared to BC2. There was so much more destruction in BC2, but I’ve already covered that. It just allowed for more pathways and strategic play.

    The maps weren’t all as big in BC2. Too tell the truth, bigger isn’t always better. In BF3, there’s a measly maximum of 24 players. I say measly, not because it’s a small number (24 players would be beyond amazing in Halo, for example.) but because it’s a small number FOR THE MAPS. There’s just way too much unused space. On the computer version, I have no doubt it’s a different story with 64 players. But the maps just aren’t scaled down enough on the consoles. I am forced to just run around aimlessly looking for a stray enemy to fire at far too often. It makes the game boring. In Bad Company 2, I was nearly always in frantic combat and fun vehicular situations.

    Honestly, I hope BC3 gets developed and released on the next gen consoles. It would hopefully allow for more destruction, better graphics, and more players. Imagine 64 player Battlefield matches on consoles! And if that was possible, the amount of players that could be achieved on PC! It would be so much fun.

    If anyone at DICE is reading this, you guys are a huge team full of incredibly talented and creative people. Don’t allow yourselves to be stifled by EA or Activision. Believe it or not, the vast majority of the players don’t give a rat’s fart about the “war” between CoD and Battlefield. Make the games you want, how you want them, and take however long is needed to produce the amazing games you people are more than capable of producing. We don’t need bi-annual releases, ’cause if you care to take longer than that on a game, chances are we’ll want to enjoy that game for much longer than 2 years.

    I hope the points I illustrated help DICE to make BC3 and BF4 better than any other game they’ve ever produced, because the only competition that matters is between you and yourself. To hell with other companies, let them do what they want, and you guys do what you want. If you make us fans happy by making awesome products, does it really matter whether you sell more copies than CoD? With the content you create, you will doubtlessly turn a huge profit, so who cares about the “competition”?

    And if any DICE members see this, good luck on your future endeavors; we can’t wait to enjoy them. And thank you for many years of fine enjoyment of your wonderful games.

  10. Its just sad that BF3 is a stinking pile of s*** these days. Trust in EA to f*ck things up!I’m not buying your half-assed BF4!

  11. Okay. I LOOOOOOOVE BF3. But I’m not a PC gamer so I feel like I didn’t get the full BF experience. BF:BC2 was honed and optimized for consoles. Every square inch of every map was used by the players, the terrain in the maps wasn’t as flat or as boring as BF3. Also, I feel it was a little more intense and that because of the more cramped quarters the battles actually seemed bigger. But that just might be me.

  12. Battlefield bad Company was and still IS an incredibly playable game, multiplayer is FUN and is still very well populated, so why in gods name apart from sheer greed would they toss us another COD replica….its getting BORING.

    Oh and for the love of GOD DONT change the ‘feel’ of Bad company multiplayer, it’s what Dice does WELL…really well.. we do not need another MW or COD clone, don’t screw it up and change what we all love about BC2 under the guise of ‘shiny new graphics’ or ‘playability’ it’s F’n perfect, they had the possibility of making a ton more money as it is.

    Hell, all they had to do to keep the dollars rolling in on BC2 was add more maps and a few more vehicles here and there….why EA…why?

  13. F Battlefield 4. THE MAPS ARE TOO BIG FOR CONSOLES. CONQUEST IS NOT EVEN PLAYABLE ON CONSOLES IN BF3. For Battlefield 4 to be good on consoles you need to make it at least 16 v 16. Get a clue EA and DICE.

    • battlefield 4 is coming out for the new consoles that are coming out in 2013 and will be able to run 64 player servers and can run 80% of the frostbite 2 engine instead of 20%

  14. 1st. EA & DICE should have never hired Infinity Ward or Respawn Entertainment which they call themselves now after leaving Activision (Former creators of CoD Modern Warfare series). That was just an epic fail on their part trying to steal the CoD players and bring them over to BF, CoD players have been told from day 1 that the BF series was superior to CoD and didn’t come playing BF until BF3 came out knowing that the creators of the Modern Warfare worked on it. Now I have to deal with lame CoD gameplay all cause EA wanted to make money, I hope now that EA’s CFO has been released from his job we all can get better games and not the polished turds they call cake. In my fact (not opinion) BF3 was exactly that. We need bigger destruction because you guys said, “Destruction 2.0″ and I felt I got ripped off because that destruction was on par with 1943’s, another epic fail. The only thing that was good about BF3 was the weapon and vehicle load outs. For my last rant all I have to say is that the game is called Battlefield meaning open warfare, you should be encouraging more vehicle use in the game and not this CoD based style of playing.

    • @bad company fan

      Wow, just wow. So much to say with so little knowledge.

      • Just cause you post something about dice’s 2.0 engine 9 months ago doesn’t make you smart or have knowledge on any of this. I have researched all this since the release of bf3 and I would think someone who has batman as their avatar would do more research before talking out their @$$ because that’s what batman would before assuming he knows it all.

    • 1 you sound like a politician who pulls whatever he wants out of his @$$ and calls it fact

      2. you are obviously referring to the console version of BF3. that would be why it sucks so bad.

      • Here a fact to you gaygamer 1. You need to stop worrying what comes out a politicians @$$ and need to star worrying about what goes up yours and 2. Yes I am talking about the console version and how they cater the whole game to the CoD fans instead of the true veterans who played from the start.

  15. OMG I must have awaken sleeping trolls who look at this everyday just to see what’s posted new and yet haven’t posted anything in 9 months

  16. Excuse some of my bad typing big fingers and a small tablet = bad typing.

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

marketing automation