Battlefield 3 confirmed

During financial presentation, EA COO John Pleasants reveals DICE is already hard at work on a new installment in the shooter franchise, due sometime during publisher's next fiscal year.

Though it helped put military multiplayer first-person shooters on the map, Electronic Arts' Battlefield franchise has seen itself outsold by the Call of Duty series in recent years. Granted, 2005's Battlefield 2 was a hit--selling more than 1 million units in the US, according to the NPD Group--as was its console spin-off, Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, which sold 1.2 million units domestically on the Xbox 360, Xbox, and PlayStation 2. However, 2007's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was the overall best-selling game of 2007 and has sold more than 8 million units domestically (according to NPD) and more than 15 million units worldwide (according to Activision).

Battlefield 2 was a hit--will Battlefield 3 also find glory?

Now, with the release of archrival Activision's Modern Warfare 2--developed by former EA employees at Infinity Ward--looming, EA is planning a comeback in the military shooter sector. Speaking at the William Blair & Company investor conference this week, EA COO John Pleasants revealed that, in addition to this year's sequel to the critically lauded, multiplatinum Battlefield: Bad Company, EA is planning a new installment in its core Battlefield franchise.

"We have a lot of IP in that [shooter] area, and we have not not noticed that Call of Duty has a significant share of that business," Pleasants told analysts during a question-and-answer session. "We are putting a real concentrated effort behind those titles. Battlefield happens to be one of them. ... I've had the luxury of looking at Battlefield 3 over at DICE over in Sweden. I was highly impressed by the way the people were working on that product. That's not for this fiscal year [ending March 31, 2010], but that is a product that is looking very good."

After saying that work on the download-only Battlefield 1943 (due in September) has been "going well," he said the Battlefield franchise is "strengthening and moving to a service model, and it has multiple titles within it which we can lever off of, so I am bullish on the Battlefield franchise, but it's not our only title which we are hoping to gain share with in the shooter category." He offered the forthcoming third-person shooter Army of Two: The 40th Day as another title that would court shooter fans.

382 Comments

  • sharpshooter129

    Posted Feb 8, 2010 6:44 pm PT

    ahh man i hate the new battlefield (bad company 1&2) their just nothing like battle field 2 they just feel to arcadey and unrealistic, i wish you all the luck Dice and hope you come up on top! Battlefield 2 is still the shinit compaired to the bad company franchise

  • IncipitOmega

    Posted Feb 2, 2010 5:47 am PT

    If BF3 does not have prone,I swear I'm going to shoot the lead project designer for BF3.

  • magnusm1

    Posted Jan 4, 2010 4:20 am PT

    Go Sweden! Där fick ni! Era feta amerikaner!

  • PotatoSandWitch

    Posted Dec 27, 2009 5:40 pm PT

    There's no question that the console games are crap, esp. compared to BF2. Have you guys complaining about the split community even played BF2?

    Games in the Halo series were designed well for console play, and I'd argue that without changing fundamental aspects of them, we couldn't get an equal or better experience with PC versions (I'm talking about multiplayere here). In the same way, you simply cannot experience the awesome things about a game like BF2 through a gamepad with two analog sticks.

    What's sad about the split community is that ideally it would be completely pro-PC-exclusive. If you want to play console games you should play good console games, not oversimplified multiplatform BF games. The only support for the BF series should be for PC-exclusive versions - the only versions that can be truly special games.

  • GODSPEEDseven

    Posted Dec 21, 2009 11:44 am PT

    Finally! Although I still love and play Battlefield 2, I would really welcome a newer version. I would like to see a few new features, better graphics, etc.. but I hope they keep the whole Tactical side of the BF2 games (Joining squads, getting/giving orders, commanders, etc..)
    Although I've played CoD Modern Warfare alot, I still rather have a Battlefield 2 game anyday!

    Dice have come a long way, I still remember trying Battlefield 1942 for the first time... I was just totally blown away, same for BF2 and hopefully for the upcomming Bad Company 2 and even more so for BF3!!! Keep up the fatastic work Dice! Don't let us down like the latest CoD games have!

  • Grif-yes

    Posted Nov 25, 2009 11:57 am PT

    @division_9

    I don't really think its the defining game, so much as since its the latest BF game DICE has made, its the latest "true" Battlefield game. And no, I'm not insulting BF3 at all, in fact, i really, really want BF3 as well. However, I find it disturbing that the fan basis is in this much turmoil right now. Which is actually one of the reasons I want BF3 to come out, or at least a spiritual successor of it, so that the BF fan base is whole again.

  • division_9

    Posted Nov 25, 2009 9:53 am PT

    @Grif-yes

    You know why the name "BF3" is so sought after?, Battlefield 2 for alot of guys including myself was the star of the series, and so naturally when we see what looks like a direct sequel WE KNOW ITS NONE OF THIS "BAD COMPANY" or "2142" stuff I don't want to play because to put it plainly for us BF2 was the perfect package, the commander, artillery, UAV, squad system, no vehicles, vehicles, large maps, large scale, fast paced, tactically friendly(by this I mean if I flank a squad it actually helps my team out ALOT), prone friendly, weapon variation, no lock on, front line based, map variation(close quater maps and woodlands etc). Basically it had just the right combination for me to enjoy it ALOT.

    For us BF2 was the game that defined the series and not all of us accept Bad Company or 1943, Bad Company might just be different because of the fact it is on a console and has a limited amount of buttons and so everyone naturally has lock on, but either way I didn't enjoy it and so I'm hoping "BF3" for the PC will bring back what was for me the good old days of BF2.

    For you guys who feel 2142 or Bad Company may be the defining game, good for you so don't turn BF3, the fist direct sequel in 5 ish years into another game like Bad Company that incorporates lock on and the rest of the stuff we generally don't like. Remember were part of the market to and we won't be happy if BF3 is giving up any single feature for a more Bad Company orientated feel.

  • IncipitOmega

    Posted Nov 17, 2009 7:15 am PT

    I hope it has prone. :-/ ffs.

  • John546

    Posted Nov 15, 2009 9:23 pm PT

    When is the next fiscal year?

  • kweeni

    Posted Oct 25, 2009 5:03 am PT

    wouldn't it be better to keep bad company on consoles and not on pc? i mean wouldn't bad company on pc and bf3 hinder each others sales in some way?

    but anyhow battlefield is awesome, one of my favorite franchise out there.

  • jedidonut

    Posted Sep 11, 2009 8:33 am PT

    I want BF1943.

  • ThePeacemaker83

    Posted Aug 28, 2009 12:54 am PT

    BF3 Will probably be purely multiplayer bigger maps more players per game and, hopefully lots of cool new multiplayer innovations>

  • TheKing243

    Posted Aug 21, 2009 1:54 pm PT

    i don't think BF3 will be released on any console. it should be released exclusively for PC.

    But since BC2 is coming to pc there is a possibility that ea will release BF 3 for consoles too. I am going to buy both Bad Company 2 and BF 3 when released next year

  • -KU-

    Posted Aug 20, 2009 10:55 pm PT

    Bad company was a spin-off,
    I enjoyed BF2 for my ps2, the rank up system was great.
    But BF bad company plays like a third rate COD4
    While BF2 and possibly 3 you control the whole army so it's no biggy if you die, but try and stay alive.

    I'm wondering was there like a private to General thing in BF:BC?
    If not then thank God I didn't buy it.

  • Rickiej

    Posted Aug 18, 2009 11:05 am PT

    I don't get it? what is the difference between the badcompany games and the normal battlefield games? they both let you control vehicles they are set in the modern era, so what's different? I do know you can blow up buildings in badcompany, but they eventually want that to be implemented aswell in the normal battlefield series don't they?

  • SirCojocaru

    Posted Aug 18, 2009 10:50 am PT

    I'm just happy they announced BF3. So we know it will come.
    There is no better team, tactical, big map, cars ,tanks ,planes ,helicopters, boats, medics, sniper, and much more game like that so BF3 FTW.

  • Grif-yes

    Posted Aug 8, 2009 3:34 pm PT

    Ok this is sad... The Battlefield community has been split into two with the two being: 1. People who will not be picky and play the BF games they are given (BFBC, 1943, ect.). 2. The people who have been whining about all the new console battlefields, and will only buy a BF game if it is called BF 3.

    Its pathetic. Even if BF:BC 2 has 64 players, more hit damage, and other things BF2 had, there are still many who wont get it because its not called BF 3.

    I'm as excited about BF3 as the next guy because Ive been a fan since Vietnam came out. But I just think its pathetic that the BF community is split in half.

  • Grif-yes

    Posted Aug 8, 2009 3:33 pm PT

    Ok this is sad... The Battlefield community has been split into two with the two being: 1. People who will not be picky and play the BF games they are given (BFBC, 1943, ect.). 2. The people who have been whining about all the new console battlefields, and will only buy a BF game if it is called BF 3.

    Its pathetic. Even if BF:BC 2 has 64 players, more hit damage, and other things BF2 had, there are still many who wont get it because its not called BF 3.

    I'm as excited about BF3 as the next guy because Ive been a fan since Vietnam came out. But I just think its pathetic that the BF community is split in half.

  • kyilmaz

    Posted Aug 7, 2009 9:31 am PT

    If DICE/EA is listening... where have you been? BF2 and BF2142 were brilliant- hours of fun... COD4 and 5 are good/great but not the big environements on the PC...

    Why do you let Activision take over???? EA is a big company(the biggest??) Though I love COD 4,5 theres no helicopters...surely you can hire or have tons of programmers that could have been putting out more BF games. Ive played COD4-5 to death and BFBC is unplayable (shooting dynamics suck) Where have you been ???? we need you ... Ive overplayed COD4-5 , I p[lay 1943- pretty good- why cant you crank them out??/

  • mikegute

    Posted Jul 24, 2009 11:19 am PT

    This is bar none the best combat shooter out there! No room for newbies realistic graphics and game-play make this game the best! As for people taking to many bullets real soldiers wear armor so shooting some in the body may not be affective but shooting them in the head works one shot dead. newbies stick with COD. Real gamers try BF BC or BC2 squad up with GUTE360 and take real strategic approach to devastating a whole map!!!!

  • NakedSnakeSS2G

    Posted Jul 24, 2009 6:28 am PT

    please no console versions!

  • St0Ne4Ge

    Posted Jul 23, 2009 12:45 pm PT

    Bad company's major problem for me was that it took a whole magazine to kill somebody, and 2 shots from a sniper rifle to get a kill. when in close quarter combat having to reload after every kill is extremely annoying. the guns felt like airsoft guns because people could take 10 rounds or so and still keep running like they havent been touched.

  • St0Ne4Ge

    Posted Jul 23, 2009 12:42 pm PT

    i think EA and dice will screw this game hard and develop it with consoles firmly in mind. instead of being a true successor to BF2 and 1942 we will get a watered down console game to keep the masses happy.

  • shani_boy101

    Posted Jul 18, 2009 7:30 pm PT

    can't wait for BF3, hopefully they'll take it a step further with some epic 128, 64-on-64 player battles on a completely destructable battlefield. that'd be pretty freaking sweet.

  • AnonYC

    Posted Jul 15, 2009 10:29 am PT

    Took them a while, but I bet it's going to be worth the wait.

  • viiin2

    Posted Jul 14, 2009 12:04 pm PT

    I absolutely love the battlefield series my favorite one being the first mighty 1942. Cod4 was just ok nothing that revolutionary just good graphics but its mostly just running and gunning with your team. I have to agree with LtReviews the battlefield games make you feel like your in a real massive war tanks,planes,ships and jeeps its so intense. Only bad thing is I might have to buy a new rig for this baby oh well what the hell its going to be a really cool game, I can tell already. Anyway Dice rocks and I'm confident that they will put out a great game.

  • nicebai1224 posted Jul 11, 2009 6:45 am PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    nicebai1224

    Posted Jul 11, 2009 6:45 am PT (hide)

    i still find Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is going to be the best out their ..this looks nice too

  • nicebai1224

    Posted Jul 11, 2009 6:44 am PT

    nice this game looks so good..cant w8 till it comes out..

  • Supermoocow3

    Posted Jul 10, 2009 11:42 am PT

    I am way excited! BF2 has given me the BEST online teamwork experience in any game, so I really hope they keep the core gameplay the same. As far as realism, I know BF2 was not the "most" realistic shooter ever, but way the hell more realistic than COD in terms of spray and pray and teamplay and don't even try to argue though I know somebody will. Can't WAIT!!

  • LtReviews

    Posted Jul 7, 2009 3:04 pm PT

    @Shaun373
    depends on what you mean by "realistic"
    Call of Duty takes realism in terms of graphics, but it doesn't create a realistic battlefield the way EA has- tanks, artillery, airplanes, and a big battlefield to wage war on.

  • CY4N1D3_625

    Posted Jul 7, 2009 11:56 am PT

    @hoossy1

    I know how you feel. That's what I call fun.

  • acsam12304

    Posted Jul 5, 2009 10:19 pm PT

    @hampton2003

    i cant agree more. BF:BC im a big BF fan from BF: 1942, BF :2, BF 2142. but when i got my PS3 and i was like hmm ill try BF: BC out oh man what a waste of money. that game sucks. not the single player but the online it barely supports any players at all. im use to playing BF:2142 with 64 players on a map not 16 on a map. thats why i dont like console versions of BF they dont offer what make a BF game a BF game.

  • acsam12304

    Posted Jul 5, 2009 10:12 pm PT

    YES finally its being made. i cant wait for it. i hope they made a BF2143 as well.

  • AjaxsLastStand

    Posted Jul 3, 2009 7:33 pm PT

    FPS lover makes me sad...

  • hoossy1

    Posted Jul 2, 2009 12:01 pm PT

    I still miss the BF42 days of capture the flag clan matches. Where we would ride on the wings of our airplanes and swoop down to take the flag.

    Or toss planes to each other when we got the flag. Shooting down spitfires with with grenade launchers......

    God those were the days.....

  • hoossy1

    Posted Jul 2, 2009 11:59 am PT

    @fps lover XD

    Have you ever played a bf game before? If so, then you know that it has not nor will it ever be 'realistic'.
    It's meant to be spure of the moment arcady funness. And yes, with a organized team, it can also be a very organized massacre

    if you want tactics... go for Rainbow 6

  • Shaun373

    Posted Jul 2, 2009 11:36 am PT

    I'd still be playing BF2 but I felt that the gameplay of Modern Warfare was better, more realisitc, and had more balance. Impress me EA.

  • fps_lover_XD

    Posted Jul 2, 2009 8:18 am PT

    i hope it's gonna be awesome, and realistic team tactic shooter. =)
    i hope it's gonna be on PS3 and 360, aswell as on PC.

  • Everall

    Posted Jul 1, 2009 1:34 pm PT

    I hope its gonna be a PC exclusive like BF2

  • The-Lord

    Posted Jun 26, 2009 6:41 am PT

    rly hope machine gunners aint black this time, cant wait! bf3 for ever!

  • juztrax

    Posted Jun 26, 2009 4:35 am PT

    Yeh F'n Haa!!! You little beauty! Now thats what I'm talk'in bout! " Battlefield III " This announcment has set a new world record of "Happy Gamers!"

  • ReBornClassic

    Posted Jun 25, 2009 10:51 am PT

    I hope it not for consle's,

    Still running BF2 right now and its hella populated. Love the game to much. To many good times with that game.

    To me, it's my # 1 game. Battlefield, Crysis, C&C are the best series ever!!!

  • bendall01

    Posted Jun 25, 2009 1:37 am PT

    I think it will be epic

  • jabamambajude

    Posted Jun 24, 2009 2:02 pm PT

    I can't WAIT for it!

  • Suicide-Panda

    Posted Jun 24, 2009 9:50 am PT

    YAY

  • daman1616

    Posted Jun 18, 2009 12:53 pm PT

    dev8stator_Ic9
    Ya, I've tried that "hack". It does make it look better still not as good dx10 tho! I also found the game performed better in vista. Maybe cause i was using 32bit xp? And man, you don't need to upgrade to run Vista or Windows 7. Windows 7 also uses less resources than Vista. We have the same vid card and you've even got a better cpu (e6750 right??) You can dual-boot between XP and Windows 7 RC to try it.

  • dev8stator_Ic9

    Posted Jun 17, 2009 4:29 pm PT

    daman1616
    Well frankly I don't care for extra eye candy(and dx10 changes like you said are slight), it really doesn't make the game that much better anyway. I actually have heard of mods that allow you to play Crysis with enhanced settings with XP, but I am a bit suspicious about that. Still, I won't upgrade my comp until either XP support is dropped or my 8800GT is totally fazed out.( also, my CPU will be fine for a while, its a Core 2 2.66GHz OC'ed at 3.7GHz!)

  • daman1616

    Posted Jun 17, 2009 9:25 am PT

    oh and dev8stator_Ic9, try playing Crysis in XP and then install Windows 7 RC, if you dont want to install Vista, and notice the difference between DX9 & DX10. Not HUGE but definately worth the extra eye candy that u can get out of ur 8800gt. Ive also got 8800gt, and an e6420 (OC'ed to 3.2GHz). Im able to play on max settings (except AA)

  • daman1616

    Posted Jun 17, 2009 9:19 am PT

    @Circlestrafe ummmmm why would Microsoft diss their own OS? Have u tried Vista x64 with SP1?? I don't think I've ever had a BSOD in Vista. I've only ever had problems opening a few programs that were ancient and obviously unsupported. Never tried running them as admin tho. One other downer is that 64bit Vista used over 1gb of RAM just for OS. Not a big deal for me since I have 8GBs. If you're gaming and u have a DX10 card, you should be on Vista. If you're not gamin then sure stay with XP if you want but why? Windows 7 is coming out soon enough also so I guess I wouldnt go out and buy Vista or anything but there aint anything bad about it. Turn of UAC so that annoying pop-up doesnt come up whenever u open something. Not hard. Vista was only buggy when it came out like 3 years ago now is it? Windows 7 is looking good though. I like some of the new additions they've added. It seems like another Windows '95 '98 kinda deal. ANYWHO, Battlefield 3 isnt gonna be out for like another 3 years probably. Let me know when you have some gameplay footage Gamespot.

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!