I think the thing a lot of people don't realise when trying to make the next runaway hit game is that most of the games they're trying to emulate weren't produced with that intent, and didn't get their popularity with a running start as some massive AAA behemoth.

Fortnite itself was originally a base-building PVE zombie game that Epic cranked out a battle royale mode for in a couple of months after seeing that PUBG (which at the time was a janky, unpolished and presumably cheap-to-develop standalone version of an ARMA mod) was a huge success. Then after it's out, Epic restructures behind it as a cash cow, makes it into a modding platform, uses it to improve Unreal Engine, etc.

Minecraft was a little solo project in Java - now 350m copies sold. It didn't start off as a platform for other games, available on every console with cutting edge graphics and $100m in marketing spend behind it.

Ark sold 80 million copies. It was an Early Access game on Steam by a team of 35, then it took off and they ported it to everything.

Battle Royale's been done and been a huge hit for PUBG (2017), then Fortnite, then Warzone. I think it's about time that people would be getting sick of it, same as open world survival crafting games were the big thing (Minecraft, DayZ, Ark) and MMOs. Next Battlefield is $400m, all those other big hits were probably more in the $100k-$1m range. Maybe it would be better to make a bunch of $1m-$10m range games, see which one is a hit, then move resources behind it. I imagine changing the structure of a big business like EA to be able to make a move like that would be a very, very difficult undertaking though.

I've dedicated over 4,000 hours to the Battlefield series, with Battlefield 4 being my absolute favorite for its immersive, tactical gameplay and vibrant community. I eagerly played every title in the series until Battlefield 2042, which I found unplayable due to its departure from the core elements that made the franchise special. My frustration stems from a trend I see in companies like EA and even Samsung: chasing the "flavor of the year" instead of enhancing their unique strengths. If I wanted a Fortnite-style experience or an Apple-like ecosystem, I would have chosen those—I want Battlefield to be Battlefield.

One of my biggest issues with modern gaming, including Battlefield 2042, is the shift from community servers to matchmaking lobbies. I’ve never enjoyed lobbies, as they prioritize quick, transient matches over meaningful player interactions. Community servers allowed players to build relationships, strategize together, and create lasting memories, fostering a sense of camaraderie. Playing in lobbies feels like facing bots—there’s no human connection, and you’re unlikely to see those players again, making the experience feel empty and disconnected.

Gaming used to be my way of meeting like-minded people, and my Steam friends list is filled with players I met through Battlefield and other games. However, I haven’t added a new friend in years, as modern gaming’s focus on fast-paced, disposable matches makes it nearly impossible to form meaningful connections. I hope developers like EA return to the series’ roots, emphasizing tactical gameplay and community-driven servers to recapture the magic that made Battlefield a platform for both thrilling gameplay and lasting friendships.

Its EA... they're idiots. Too many MBAs thinking they can make the next multi-billion dollar moonshot game without thinking about what matters. Also they're addicted to subscription revenue models.

Is it feasible to get 100 million people to play this game even if it was free? I have to imagine that once you get to $400 million, every additional dollar has effectively no value add. When is it not better to just target a smaller user base and spend way less money? I’m unfamiliar with the ins an outs of this industry, so I am genuinely unsure.

I used to spend way too much time, and money, playing the mobile game Tap Sports Baseball. A fairly simple take on a baseball simulator, but with an insanely set of team/club competitiveness and upgrade mechanics. After EA bought the company that owned it, it literally lasted a year before they decided to end it, as its tens of millions of dollars in revenue each year apparently didn't meet their goals.

Really a shame battlebit player count tanked, that was a perfect battlefield emulator. Now, without either, I am stuck in warzone

There is nothing wrong with setting high goals and trying to reach them. That they are failing is a different issue. This article is trying to farm outrage but there isn't any.

What is the point of this post, there is barely any content to it

Its basically blogspam

EA did recently release another corpus of C&C source code so I’m quite chuffed with their leadership in that regard. Now we just need BfME and E:BfD source code and maybe toss in NoX and a few other classics and we are cruising. But Renegade? Fuck. What a masterstroke. Whoever thought to release that is an absolute ledge.

not only EA but Ubisoft as well. Online only single player followed by a burning desire to convert everything into generic open world games followed by another strong burning desire to shutdown servers for everything without providing a LAN alternative or a way for people to play that game again with friends followed by another burning desire to add microtransactions into everything everywhere

I can imagine the ‘inflation’ to get to 100 million might be sort of like the way Chinese prefectures (?) would inflate their rice harvest estimates - a ‘great leap forward’ that leaves destruction behind it.

Is it fair to compare full price games with a maybe free-to-play title.

How would this comparison look for the Epic games like Unreal vs. Fortnite?

Looks very in-group. I don't think drive-by readers are supposed to understand it.

They've been out of their mind for 20 years, how's that newsworthy?

In some sense, that's working as intended for a lot of people, not just developers.

A lot of people who consume games don't want to foster lasting relationships, they want to tick the box saying "played game for X hours today" and move on.

I think that's pathological and, as you say, leads to lots of knock-on toxic effects in gameplay and community.

But it is the reality this is engineered for - a lot of people who play multiplayer games do not want to feel like they're doing something with other people when doing it, which is part of why you get lots of toxic interactions or entitled complaints about something which might be a good strategy but ruins the game experience for some of the people in the match.

Partly agree with your sentiment. Made with friends on Valorant alone. Around 318 people and 100 people on Blizzard things, Diablo and Overwatch 2.

Battlefield 4 was amazing. It's sad that after all they went through with the community engagement and updates to that game to make it so good, they threw it all away to start from scratch making vibrantly coloured battle royale slop worse than everyone else was already doing it.

I put somewhere over 12k hours into BF4 alone, and I've barely touched the series since. That game had the special sauce that they've failed to capture ever since. An updated remastered Battlefield 4 would perform incredibly well; ironically, my biggest fear for it would be that EA wouldn't be able to help themselves, giving a huge budget to a massive team and completely wrecking it by doing too much.

It’s important to set attainable goals. My guess is that this will put incredible, undue stress on the staff.

Business idiots, as Ed Zitron would say.

These goals, and their 'approach' to reaching them is a complete self-cannibalizing snake moment. Further, there can definitely be something _wrong_ with how someone might try to 'reach their high goals', like ethics violations, etc.

And saying the article is trying to 'farm outrage' is extreme- it's barely an article if anything, more of a blog-post, with a matching tone, there's not exactly any call-to-action.

The article also feels a little dishonest comparing total unit sales to cumulative player statistics over an extended time period. If you click through to the linked Ars Technica article, it says the cumulative player number for the previous entry is 22 million and 30 million for the best of the series. Is a 3-5x increase from going from presumably a $60 game to free to play really that crazy of a goal?

That isn't to say that EA doesn't suck. This 100m goal just wouldn't be among the top 100 reasons I would point to as evidence.

It sounds like they tried to achieve their goals not by making a game that people wanted to play, but by resurrecting The Mythical Man Month and not only believing that this zombie anti-science idea works, but that it could produce a massively fun game.

every video game is a financial gamble, it's not his money so who cares if they try to make a battle royale and it flops