-- the leading Battlefield 3 fan site, with news, updates, videos, screenshots, rumors, and more.
On May 1st, 2012 in News

BF3 soldier
In a recent interview, DICE’s Patrick Bach said the studio is focusing on giving players 12 to 18 months of value for Battlefield 3 through DLC and expansions. Speaking to VG24/7 regarding Battlefield 3′s upcoming DLC, Close Quarters, Bach said:

“We make sure that if you’re a Battlefield player, there should be plenty of Battlefield for you to spend your days on. And again, we are focusing on giving you 12-18 months of value for Battlefield 3 and the expansion packs we’re releasing.”

Battlefield 3 is set to receive 3 DLC packs over the next 6 or so months, starting with Close Quarters in June, followed by Armored Kill this Fall, and Operation Endgame towards the end of 2012. Compared to Battlefield 3′s main competitor, Modern Warfare 3, three DLC packs don’t sound like much: Modern Warfare 3 has so far seen 4 DLC packs, with another 5 planned this year. However, Battlefield 3 DLC tends to be more than just a few maps.


  1. nextdoorsoccermom
    May 1st, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    12-18 months??

    I was expecting to be playing this for 4 years alongside diablo 3

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 94 Thumb down 2
    • Bf2Guy
      May 1st, 2012 at 11:23 pm

      congrats on not saying first. You sir, win an internet cookie. P.s. You are awesome

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 58 Thumb down 10
    • average joe
      May 1st, 2012 at 11:51 pm

      they are saying that they are spreading out the 3 DLCs in that time period, then we get Battlefield 2143 at around April of 2013. and honestly, im not lookng forward to that.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 22 Thumb down 10
      • Implied
        May 2nd, 2012 at 12:26 am

        “We have no plans to annualize Battlefield” (Nope, but since DICE is so big, we did find out we could create two Teams with “3 year” Development Windows, as such successfully pumping something out every 18 months! Huzzah! We’re geniuses!)

        Spring 2013? Hm. I don’t know what’ll be the bigger failure to spend my cash in. Whatever DICE cooks up next (with more Marketing BS attached I’m sure) or the Crysis 3 “Sandbox” with likely more CoD Multiplayer.

        Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12
        • liar
          May 2nd, 2012 at 4:24 pm

          I’ll certainly be keeping an eye out for what DICE does next. The new direction they are heading could be great if they get some things under control, especially balancing issues, bugs, and I know it’s personal, but I would also add map design to that as well. They’ve lost their touch for intense shootout maps. NONE of the bf3 maps are good for it.

          It’s a wait and see for me. I’m hoping their next game doesn’t make some of the same mistakes of bf3 and only takes it’s strong points forward. They have a history of great games, so I’m more than happy to see what they have in store. Though next time I’ll probably try the beta before buying their next game.

          HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
        • Implied
          May 2nd, 2012 at 9:58 pm

          Beta? LOL. After BF3′s Beta, I’m ignoring what the Devs say about PC Lead and Post-Launch Support and “True Sequel” to whatever and listening to what people say. Oh, and I’m also ignoring whatever Crap Beta they’ll shovel out next.

          Hell, I’m waiting till Post-Launch to even CONSIDER buying it anymore.

          Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5
        • liar
          May 4th, 2012 at 1:45 am

          Hehe oh sure the beta’s might not give a decisive experience. But if it’s really bad, I won’t even bother.

          Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
        • asdada
          May 5th, 2012 at 11:29 pm

          was this before or after bc2? and i’m sure 2143 will come out next year, as much as i’m sure the world will not end December 21.

          Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • ಠ_ಠ
      May 2nd, 2012 at 7:53 am

      cant wait till they get to support the game!

      Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
      • rob
        May 2nd, 2012 at 1:12 pm

        they should bring out more co-op missions or even a whole co-op campagin that allows 4 players not just 2!!! that would be bad ass!!!!

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3
        • FDSDH 011i
          May 3rd, 2012 at 4:00 pm

          and split screen on console
          and LAN

          Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
    • Tristan-killed
      May 2nd, 2012 at 10:34 pm

      You sir are a god of gaming and I will join you in this crusade of awesomes Just to tell the idiots who think there going to release 2143 as an expansion for bf3 ….. Well there not , bf 2142 was a huge game and dice/EA won’t wast the oppertunity to make s he’ll of slot more money

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
    • M
      May 10th, 2012 at 10:24 pm

      12-18 months of value….for who?!?! The gamers? Or EA?!

      Im getting quite bored of this game. It’s arrival impressed in the graphics department, but I feel it’s too arcade like & the pending DLC is going in the wrong direction for a ‘Battlefield’ game.

      Bring on Arma 3

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  2. Mr.SabadoDomingo
    May 1st, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    Then Battlefield 2143?

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7
    May 1st, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    Let the dislikes begin! for i am first and the first moron on this blog!

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 38
    • WOOT FTW
      May 1st, 2012 at 10:46 pm


      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 27
    • WOOT FTW
      May 2nd, 2012 at 1:05 am

      Well you weren’t first but you are the first moron on this page! Comment about BF3 instead of how great you thought you felt! YOU STUPID PUNK!

      Thumb up 6 Thumb down 24
  4. Implied
    May 1st, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    Referring to them as “Expansion Packs” is just insulting to actual Expansion Packs. Game Mode, 4 Maps and 10 Weapons =/= Expansion Pack. That = DLC, no matter which way you look at it. Simply trying to pass them off as Expansion Packs to justify the 15$ price tag is ridiculous.

    For an MW3 Comparison, MW3 could arguably provide the better deal. 4×15$ = 60$ spent on DLC, if you buy them all, and all at full price. By comparison, one year of CoD Elite Subscription nets you ALL the DLCs, for 50$. Less Multiplayer Maps as they’re spread between the various Game Modes however, so win/loss. Plus the yet still lacking version of a PC CoD Elite…… Bla bla bla.

    Pity he didn’t address the “3x Bad Company 2 DLC” Statement from last year. They hoping we forgot about that? >.>

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 43 Thumb down 6
    • Not So Fast Palooka
      May 2nd, 2012 at 3:30 am

      Actually this DLC could be considered expansion packs considering how much value you got with DLC from BF2.

      Special Forces gave us 6 maps and eight weapons but Euro Force and Armored Fury only had 3 maps apiece and limited weapons and new vehicles.

      DLC=Expansion Packs=Booster Packs. The new content will equal or surpass the total amount of new content we’ve ever gotten from a BF game.

      DICE continues working hard in this industry to include trying to make the next generation consoles bigger and better for all gamers. Why the childish hate?

      No one has a gun to your head over this content

      Thumb up 12 Thumb down 14
      • Implied
        May 2nd, 2012 at 12:46 pm

        Not sure what you remember/read about Special Forces, but we got 2 Multiplayer Maps, an assortment of Gameplay Gadgets, and several new Vehicles. That is pretty much your standard FPS Expansion Pack.

        Euro Force added an entire Faction, with new Weapons and Vehicles from EU Countries.

        Armored Fury added Maps and two Vehicle Classes, along with a bunch of Vehicles.

        By comparison:
        Back to Karkand offered 4 “re-imagined” Maps with uh, a few Weapons and some new Vehicles. 12 Euro worked for me in this case, we got 7 Objective Maps back, “Improved” Destruction etc. Conquest “Assault” Game Mode, or “Classic Conquest”.

        Close Quarters brings (likely) 4 small Maps, Conquest “Domination” and 8 weapons I believe? In Maps which are simply NOT Battlefield. Again, for 15$. Yeah, Pass.

        Armored Kill – “Biggest Maps in Battlefield History” (hopefully these aren’t re-sized 24 Player Maps with 60% of them locked off for Jets again….) new Vehicles and likely some Weapons. If the Maps are good, worth 12 Euro/15$. Otherwise, meh.

        End Game – Blank.

        Today, they have over 200 people working there, and we still lack Mod Tools. 6 years ago we had an endless supply of Content from Mod Tools, and they had half the Team they have now, if even. Today, they have double the Team, and we get less content than before, at terrible pacing, along with false marketing. Not to mention the constant “Noob Weapons” which they seem incapable of avoiding to create each Patch (or maybe they’re doing it on purpose?). First the FAMAS, then the USAS, now its the Dart?

        Also, 7 years ago the Maps were natively designed around supporting 64 Players, and there were a lot more than 10 Maps at Launch. Current Day we get 10 Maps re-sized from their 24 Player Versions, many of which are unplayable on Conquest, the main focus of most Battlefield fans, because? Oh, right. CoD. Beating CoD is far more important than making sure Operation Metro isn’t a failfest on Conquest. Or making sure the UI doesn’t suck.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 32 Thumb down 4
        • pr0faker
          May 4th, 2012 at 7:30 pm

          I get your point and somewhat agree to it but you twist the facts to your opinion, at least for the bf3 dlc.

          The fact is that if the game would be great and balanced, such DLC are not going to get a lot of complaints. Its the fact that the game is hardly balanced, maps aren’t great and sometimes downright poorly designed, weapons getting overbuffed or overnerfed. Stuff is STILL BROKEN AFTER PATCHING, for example the AA rockets/countermeasures. No squad voip on pc, no battlerecorder, only recently more squads to be made by players instead of the game deciding it. That and the upcoming dlc clearly aiming at the COD scene is just making a lot of hardcore fans not so happy.
          The strategy is not focussed on us, but on new players being drawn in. I enjoyed the game a lot and if you look through the problems it is a great game. We are getting more critical every year which is making a great game harder for the devvers. BUT that being said, dice did drop the ball quite a few times if you see the above.

          For the dlc, B2K gave us 10 new weapons, some that were over and underpowered, now mostly fixed. the vehicles were the same or worse then what we had. the buggy sucks ass due to the gun turn limit, the bmp is pretty much the same as the lav’s we allready had. A ‘new’ game mode in bf3 at least.
          The maps aren’t as good as in bf2, and some bf2 maps we like much more then the ones in B2K. But apart from that, I think the dlc was okay especially when bought with the pre-order.

          The next dlc will give us probably 4 small maps, 10 new weapons, no new vehicles, but a couple of ‘newish’ game modes, at least for the bf scene.
          The size of the maps will mean it will be less traditional battlefield as we know it, but more like the current CQB combat what is modern warfare nowadays. Still it would be much much better to give armored kill first and then the cqb dlc for the fans. We have to wait a year to get the ‘real’ battlefield dlc. (hopefully)

          And lets not forget that mod tools, IF they will be available, still aren’t.

          Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • Johnny Neat
      May 2nd, 2012 at 12:51 pm

      I’m still bitter about the “3x Bad Company 2 DLC” statement. I play BF3 religiously, so to speak, and have abandoned CoD for obvious reasons, but DICE seems to have hit all kinds of sloppy fail with BF3. It’s one statement after another that can’t be backed up or denied all together. Plus they can’t get this game right. Maybe this game has little business on outdated consoles and should have been toned down a bit to work at its best with limited resources. This is what I am hoping Medal of Honor does.

      I’ll just sit here and stomach the sloppiness of BF3 till Medal of Honor and eventually the next gen consoles. I’m still interested in seeing how BF3 will look on WiiU after DICE claimed it was making a WiiU version. Maybe it will run better, closer to PC. I know it’ll be dumb of me to hope for a BF3 next gen console port and why should I when it will be old news by next year’s holidays.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
      • Implied
        May 2nd, 2012 at 10:06 pm

        I doubt its really much to do with Consoles as far as poor Management. Whoever was the Lead Designer on this just did a bad job of it, I’m starting to think. I mean, let’s break it down –
        “Battlefield 3 has been in Development for 3 years.”
        “Battlefield 3 Development is PC Lead.”
        “We had to switch to Lead Consoles Mid-Development because we RAN OUT OF TIME.”
        I’m sorry, but it took them 3 years to make 10 Maps and one terrible Hackjob Campaign? Yeah, no. It really plays far more like an 18 month hack job, and considering how long its been between BC2 and BF3, I’d be inclined to believe it.

        Or who knows, maybe they did really spend 3 years on it, but “3 years” to them = 18 months of creating the Engine, and then 18 months of actual Development. Either way, whoever was in charge made some terrible decisions, not the least of which being the UI (for example) among other things. Things which will unfortunately never be fixed. IMO they should really just move on and dedicated the extra time and man power to make sure they don’t make the same mistakes again.

        MoHW will likely play like its 2010 version, but on Frostbite 2. If they were doing big things with the Multiplayer they’d have said so by now, but we haven’t heard anything.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
    • cammanron
      May 2nd, 2012 at 1:51 pm

      Weapons and vehicles also count toward “DLC”……… meh,… I could really give a rats ass about weapons… they all shoot and kill pretty much the same, as for vehicles…whatever,…. but a few maps that are included in DLC seems to be a bit of a ripoff. The best designed maps in my opinion, are the ones from ‘back to Karkand’….. which were designed what, YEARS ago?
      We gotta wait a full year for real ‘BF’ style maps… :|

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
    • Tenzing
      May 2nd, 2012 at 10:18 pm

      Battlefield: 3= DLC
      CoD: MW3= Map Packs.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
    • WLF62
      May 8th, 2012 at 8:27 am

      Most true Battlefield maps are actual maps. COD maps are more like arenas. There is just as much value in 4 big maps as 8 small maps. Unless there’s way better destruction in Close Quarters, Dice would have put way more work into bigger maps. I will be getting CQ, but mostly because of map rotation.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. lespauled
    May 1st, 2012 at 9:57 pm

    Cool. Not much value now. When does the value start?

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 39 Thumb down 2
    • Your Friendly Neighborhood Poster
      May 2nd, 2012 at 12:20 am

      Let me try predicting EA’s response to that…

      Professional Version: “Dear loyal Battlefield patron; we assure you that our developers are doing their best to give you a quality, content-filled expansion. Rest assured the upcoming DLC will offer many new weapons and maps for endless hours of fun.

      We do appreciate any constructive criticism or concerns about the upcoming Close Quarters DLC which you can leave on our forums.We want nothing better than to give our customers a fun and enjoyable Battlefield experience.

      EA customer support”

      What they are REALLY saying:
      EA: “What? Can’t hear you over the sound of us counting money”

      So the answer is; never. We’re doomed.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3
      • Indi
        May 2nd, 2012 at 8:37 am

        HAhah so true, BF3 is turning into the biggest Joke just like CoD has…I guess FPS games are getting Sh*%$^ by the year!
        What happened to the Commander feature from BF2?Battle recorder?Big maps? Not seine crossing and Operation metro and the new DLC!
        What happened to the free Map packs from Bad company 2?
        What happened to the weapons that were perfectly balanced?
        What happened to EA servers now saying “You have been disconnected from EA online”
        What happened to the promises of “24 players is the hotspot for consoles”
        Its sooo borrring in Caspian border Conquest on Consoles… Half your team is in vehicles base camping, and the other half is sniping 1000 metres away while only two on your team are actually capturing flags!
        What happened to Teamwork when your team mates dont even bother giving out health and ammo?
        Filthy DICE & EA liars… And the Sh*&#* players…

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3
        • Implied
          May 2nd, 2012 at 12:53 pm

          Well, in the defense of pricing the BF3 DLCs, the Maps in the BC2 VIP Program were mostly the same Maps with new Game Modes, like White Pass – Conquest, some Campaign rips, and one/two Map/s which were favourites of the BC1 Crowd. Charging for those would have been like charging separately for BtK on Conquest, and then Rush.

          However I would have personally loved to see the Campaign sacrificed in BF3 if it meant more Launch/Post-Launch Content. Especially a New York DLC… Can’t help but wonder what we’d have gotten if we hadn’t gotten the Campaign.

          HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
        • Jared
          May 2nd, 2012 at 3:18 pm

          It’s not dice’s fault that players siphoned over from COD and play like idiots. Idiots will be idiots.

          Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
        • Jared
          May 2nd, 2012 at 3:22 pm

          No, they are only releasing DLC to add content, not to make up for the bugs. There are players like me who look forward to new guns and maps. Guns are the whole reason I play Battlefield. You can customize them, etc. On COD the best you can do is put camo on a limited number of guns. Big whoop. I want to outfit my weapons to function for different jobs. I can do that on this game. I can live with the few minor bugs (and they will fix the M26 dart bs, so that’s a non issue).

          Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6
        • SZ_95
          May 2nd, 2012 at 3:38 pm

          Commander for PC is cool but on consoles?

          I think they really should up it to 36 or 48 players on both sides, but alas it may never come to be. Perhaps this is why I feel so odd about Armored Kill on consoles because Caspian Border and Operation Firestorm are already huge maps and can feel boring (as a conquest map Caspian, I feel, is the most boring on consoles but pretty fun in Rush.) Next they promise the “biggest map in BF History” for PCs that is not so bad because of 32 v 32 but 12 v 12 on a gigantic map? we’ll be fighting over one damn flag the whole map while one guy just takes a pleasant Sunday afternoon drive into the other flags.

          Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
        • Your Friendly Neighborhood Poster
          May 2nd, 2012 at 6:58 pm

          @ SZ_95

          ““Everything is a compromise. It’s not that we’re evil or stupid. We didn’t choose not to have more players – we would love to do 64 players on console but then we would have to cut away so much; people would get very upset that it looked worse, played worse and wasn’t as fun as the PC version. We would never do that because the fun is always more important.” Quoted from Patrick Batch
          (Source taken from:

          DICE is basically saying that consoles simply can’t do it because of lower end hardware. To get Battlefield to run on consoles they had to reduce and leave out graphical features and work the shit out of the consoles hardware. Even from all this, the consoles still do get lag from time to time. Because of this, 64 players is way out of the question with Battlefield 3′s graphics.

          However, the next generation consoles will be more powerful. By how much exactly? I’m not really sure…but if they’re powerful enough, it is possible for us to get the next Battlefield on consoles with 64 player compatibility. Or, at the least, increased player count if they can’t go full blown 64 players.

          -Slight off topic warning:
          I know someone is going to say/thinking “M.A.G could support up to 256 players on the PS3. Why can’t Battlefield do 64?”

          Sony built some specific custom monster servers specifically designed to run M.A.G. They had to work the engine and PS3 rendering software to its limits and divide up the maps into sections. Each section holds 32v32 players, on one big map divided into 4 sections. So really, you NEVER see the other 224 something people…ever. Not to mention M.A.G.’s graphics are, what some say, the equivalent to really good PS2 graphics.

          In conclusion, the only way Battlefield on current generation consoles could run 64 players is if they were to take away processor heavy vehicles, and/or reduce the graphics dramatically down.

          Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
        • Implied
          May 2nd, 2012 at 10:12 pm


          Caspian is boring because its designed so stupidly its just stupid. The Objectives are all placed close to one another (same thing with Firestorm) so outside of that one tiny area where all the Objectives are, the Maps are huge but the rest is of them is pointless. Its like they took the 24-Player versions, slapped one more Objective somewhere random and expanded their total size by a factor of 4 or something, with another 20-60% of the Maps locked off exclusively for Jets.

          If you have 20$ to spare, grab BF2. There you can find some real 64-Player Maps, done right. Its really a unique experience.

          Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
        • TheFrypo
          May 5th, 2012 at 4:20 am

          There no more ways to go COD franchise(dead) and sadly battlefield 3 franchise(going to die) sad news, ehh o well im gonna play Gotham City Impostors

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Kalubka
    May 1st, 2012 at 10:08 pm

    I have a lot of fun playing this game, and the DLC plan is cool etc…But I want the value of this game to come through its quality! A game without bugs (soundengine, falldamage) and exploits (USAS (R.I.P) and M26 DART (yet to die)). DICE’s aim should really not be new maps and new weapons to maintain the value. The game itself must work properly! Otherwise it just feels like DICE has given up to fix their game and are desperate to keep it alive through DLC. :(

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
  7. WIllKill
    May 1st, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    12-18 months so the greedy owners of EA can start cranking these out every year like CoD. We haven’t got any new DLC since December, nearly 7 months ago. The game has lost any signs of newness that it had. It needed DLC in Feb (like they had promised) to keep it going. This new June DLC doesn’t even have the capacity for 32/64 players (what most people play). So us BF3 players who play normal Conquest/Rush won’t be seeing anything fresh until Fall. Nearly a year later.

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
    • oEFo
      May 6th, 2012 at 2:15 am

      There is no way Battlefield will ever be like COD. DICE will definitly not pump out a new BF next year. They are only making the next DLCs for a year because they must prepare for the next BF title. And im pretty sureDOCE and EA have realized the faults of CoD. So your statement is false.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • DangerC1ose
      May 7th, 2012 at 6:42 am

      I doubt it will be a yearly thing like CoD… But what we may see instead is BC3, then BF4 and so on every couple of years months… Kind of the same thing I guess, but I think we should all realise by now that DICE circa BF2 days were a studio 100% dedicated and committed to quality, but now they are 100% dedicated to EA’s demands and of course their shareholders, and therefore the $$$…

      I would have loved to be playing this game for years to come, hell, if it was patched correctly, it could be the best shooter of this gen of consoles… But who really knows if it will get to those heights…

      Im just holding out for a new WWII era shooter on this engine…

      BF1944 DICE how about it!!!???

      Less gadgets and techy equipment to distract players… and an increase on the focus of the gunplay…

      Plus not to mention that theatre of war is just PERFECT for Frostbite 2…

      Imagine levelling towns like Carentan with the current engine… awesome!

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      • DangerC1ose
        May 7th, 2012 at 6:45 am

        *couple of years

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Sedargo
    May 1st, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    I just heard that a new COD is coming out. They must’ve lost hope in MW3! :D

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
    • Trollzor
      May 2nd, 2012 at 3:43 am

      No, it’s just their next game since they release one EVERY FRIGGIN YEAR! >:(

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
      • FPS Russia is a fake
        May 2nd, 2012 at 5:06 am

        Black ops 2 is gonna fail, like all of their games after cod 4.

        I can’t wait for another bullshit confusing story with ugly multiplayer.

        HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
        • bf3 is awesome
          May 2nd, 2012 at 6:03 am

          dude black ops 2 loooks sooo shit its in the future robots and shit aslong as bf3 keeps keeping customers happy treyarch are fucked :)

          Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
        • Indi
          May 2nd, 2012 at 8:40 am

          Actually i Love the CoD single player…its well sorted out and planned ahead, Always Action in it and never boring… unlike BF campaign, its always lame and boring
          But i do agree the multiplayer In CoD is absolute $*^%

          HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
        • Hellsrage
          May 2nd, 2012 at 9:23 pm

          I’m not a huge fan of CoD single player CoD 4 was great the story was great but after that they all became generic. I like a deep story one that you can connect with not just explosions something that has meaning and can’t be figured out in a second. BF3 had a decent story to it better than Black Ops and MW3 anyways….

          Which really isn’t saying much. lol

          Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
      • Sedargo
        May 2nd, 2012 at 6:22 am

        I wonder what goes on in their offices…

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
      • Implied
        May 2nd, 2012 at 1:05 pm

        I don’t know, likely part of it is Marketing BS, but it seems they actually want to change the CoD Formula, at least for Single-Player. They haven’t talked about Multiplayer changes yet, but from what I gather, most people prefer Blops Multiplayer to MW3′s, so…. Yeah.

        Either way, the change to Futuristic Setting is interesting. Sci-Fi rather than “Cold War Military Shooter Number XYZ”

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
        • SZ_95
          May 2nd, 2012 at 3:43 pm

          I’m sorry to say this but its kinda like their pulling a 2142, something futuristic and out there from the original formula, a leap of faith. I hope BF2143 and BO2 come out so I can enjoy both of them. I haven’t been excited for a CoD release since WaW/BO1 because Treyarch is actually creative with their concepts (WaW was the first CoD to recognize WW2 had more Axis powers than just Germany!)

          Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
        • Implied
          May 2nd, 2012 at 9:53 pm

          Only CoD Game I ever did was CoD 4, since I skipped WWII Shooters.

          Think the reasoning behind this one is they don’t want to add to the already overcrowded Modern Military Shooter Market. By comparison, the Sci-Fi Market rather lacks on the Shooter front. With this they can tap into that Market and still retain a huge presence in the Modern Military Shooter Market. It would be like making a WWII Game one year, and a Modern Military game the next, but a Sci-Fi Game instead of the WWII Game.

          Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
        • Hellsrage
          May 3rd, 2012 at 2:07 am

          No they never should have touched the future type games lol the last things CoD players wanted was mechs.

          I’ve haven’t heard very many positive out looks for this game from CoD players. And after MW3 people are really not liking the franchise much well the smart ones the idiot kids are well idiots.

          I myself am very skeptical of futurist games there is a lot that can go wrong and if there is one thing that can be guaranteed in a CoD game. It’s overpowered weapons and killstreaks that all the fags will use. That and glitches/problem that haven’t been solved in years….

          At least DICE fixes things it may take awhile but they do it.

          Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
  9. LongShanx
    May 1st, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    Ehhh…………. whatever.

    Gave up a while back with all the endless bullshit. Moved on to games that are like, actually, you know. Fun.

    But uh, yeah, (lol) DICE you keep patting yourselves on the back for…….whatever it is you think you did right with your sad, endless quest of patching, upatching, re-patching, and lolpatching MW– I mean, BattleDisaster 3.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
    • Indi
      May 3rd, 2012 at 5:36 am

      same here XD…im not going back to BF3 until there servers begin to work again…Ever since the patch i keep on disconnected at least twice in a game
      This happens to a lot of my friends on PS3
      I just borrowed games from my friends,,its Amazing when you have a break from a game youve been playing for months on end…now playing Dead Space 2, Uncharted 3, Skyrim, NPPL Paintball, Assassin creed brotherhood (Only ACR i haven’t played)!

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  10. Alejandro Rojas
    May 1st, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    Not adding 12-18 months of value.. just spreading the dlcs in that time frame

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
  11. Bf2Guy
    May 1st, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    I dont think i could last 12-18 months with just new guns, maps, vehicles, and achievements. Maybe add some unique and fun gamemodes, throw in some more attachments, and new gadgets. Hell, even make the new gadgets free so even people who dont have the DLC can unlock them; just release them along with the DLC and everybody will be happy.

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
    • Jared
      May 2nd, 2012 at 3:25 pm

      Why the hell does everyone need something new every 3 months to keep a game good anymore? What happened to the days when we played games for years? LOL I played Battlefield 2 long after it was obsolete. You know what they need? An offline multiplayer, one with bots like on battlefield 2 so you can train and still play the game many years after the multiplayer is dead.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
      • Implied
        May 2nd, 2012 at 9:55 pm

        Welcome to the PS3/Xbox 360 Eras, where Publishers make sure Games last only long enough for you to want to jump ship to the next one upon release.

        Welcome to FPSs without Mod Tools, so people get bored and move on once they drop Support.

        Welcome to the present.

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
  12. FPS Russia is a fake
    May 1st, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    Maybe if the DLC was free.

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
  13. Kevin Blueberry
    May 1st, 2012 at 11:38 pm

    Hey, it’s the white Assault guy! I missed you!

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
  14. LMT15
    May 1st, 2012 at 11:45 pm

    This is complete bullshit. What happened to having a ton of DLC for this game. I only bought it because they said it would get a lot of DLC. Karkand and three more dlc is just not cutting it. Why did they claim more dlc than bfbc2

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
    • Not So Fast Palooka
      May 2nd, 2012 at 3:41 am

      BF2 had a total of 29 maps

      BFBC2 had 14 maps

      BF3 will have 25 when all the DLC comes out.

      so much crying here for no good reason

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
      • Bandwidth Bandito
        May 2nd, 2012 at 10:00 am

        Yeah but will it have sharks with friggin lasers?!!??

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
        • cammanron
          May 3rd, 2012 at 2:02 pm

          HAHAHA !!!!!! ….nice

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      • Implied
        May 2nd, 2012 at 1:08 pm

        People have been assuming we’d get 21 SEPARATE DLC Packs since before Launch. If that’s not what they meant, they had 8+ months to clarify. Instead they let us keep assuming that likely as a part of their Faux Facts Marketing Campaign.

        Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
      • Implied
        May 2nd, 2012 at 1:12 pm

        P.S.- “Aggressive DLC Strategy” =/= 3 DLCs several months apart from each other. EA lies even to their own Investors….. LOL >.>

        Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
  15. average joe
    May 1st, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    anyone else notice the Black Hawk in the backround? when do we get to use that in the game?

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
    • PTFO or GTFO
      May 2nd, 2012 at 12:01 pm

      Isn’t that a chinook?

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
    • Jared
      May 2nd, 2012 at 3:30 pm

      Uh, dude, The Venom helicopter? With no pilot weapons and two miniguns in the doors? That’s a blackhawk noob. And the Viper attack chopper? That’s really a Super Cobra marine assault chopper. Now they need to include the dreaded AH-64H Apache!

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
      • FPS Russia is a fake
        May 2nd, 2012 at 11:26 pm

        Isn’t the Apache used by the Army? Remember, you play as the U.S. Marines in BF3.

        What they need to do is add more teams/factions!

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • kelleroid
      May 2nd, 2012 at 6:34 pm

      That looks more like an AH-1 more than anything.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
      • average joe
        May 3rd, 2012 at 2:31 am

        the chopper on the right definately looks like a BlackHawk, i just want that in the game even tho the Huey does the exact same thing.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
        • kelleroid
          May 3rd, 2012 at 8:49 am

          Oh I was talking about the other chopper. Only now I noticed the blackhawk in the smoke.

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  16. John
    May 1st, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    “However, Battlefield 3 DLC tends to be more than just a few maps”

    What Battlefield 3 are you playing ?
    The one ive got promised “an agressive DLC program”

    We have had FUCK ALL, and the only crap that out in JUNE is a 16 player console port
    Anyone renting or playing on pc servers wont see anything at all till the end of the year
    Dice and EA are crap, the DLC program is a pathetic joke and as for 12 months of “value” ? your out of your fucking minds

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
  17. John
    May 1st, 2012 at 11:50 pm

    64 player servers that is

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
  18. Luck7
    May 2nd, 2012 at 12:01 am

    12-18 months before Bad Company 3 arrives?

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
    • LongShanx
      May 2nd, 2012 at 10:01 pm

      God willing.

      And all the BF vets can get their panties twisted as much as they want, ’til their camel-toes bleed, but BFBC2 was fun. What a strange word… FUN.

      This game lacks it. Utterly and completely. Fun comes from splendid map design, enthralling gameplay, not the same 700 different red dots and holos for each small arm, copied and pasted and reskinned from each other. Fun comes from weapon diversity, environmental diversity, not 24-player-designed sunny fields with a random stream thrown across the middle that leads to Cluster of Random Empty Buildings No.2.

      (“Vet” myself here. Been playing since 1940Fabulous.) As pared down as the BC series was, it was a positive evolution in this franchise’s timeline. BF3 is a fantastically boring ten steps backward. Why does the info feed in BC2 promote BF3 as:

      “…featuring the destructive power of the Frostbite 2 engine!”

      There is no fucking destruction in BF3, none that counts or matters anyway. But I guess they needed to protect the legions of COD kiddie campers that they so desperately recruited over. No mod tools, no battle recorder, the shittiest commander, being forcefed Battlelog (a feature NO ONE asked for, and one that is equal parts bafflingly bad and downright infuriating) Origin, the endless succession of weapons so overpowered they are downright laughable.

      Naw mean? Yeah you do naw mean.

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
    • John
      May 2nd, 2012 at 10:44 pm

      id rather drink piss than buy it

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
    May 2nd, 2012 at 12:28 am

    What does the smoking soldier pic has to be with all of this?

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
    • phill
      May 2nd, 2012 at 9:03 pm

      “he is smoking because the sun… is so damn beautiful!” – BF3 Art Director

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
      • DDP73
        May 4th, 2012 at 3:20 pm

        More likely to be Tac-Light flash burns.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • MosquitoPower
      May 3rd, 2012 at 2:21 pm

      You know, we have a big-ass super-nova sun in actual game, so it literally makes soldier to catch fire.
      Damn sun glare, flare, tint effects. Why we can’t have a game which is pleasant to look? Like previous BF games and Arma? They bingo the contrast value.

      About this news: It’s a shame for EA/DICE *IF* they’d give a fudge about us (they don’t give so they don’t care, they got our money.). EA forces DICE to milk the franchise, DICE wants to get more money and casualizes gameplay-elements (especially core ones.)

      BF has always been an unique-FPS, filling the gap with arcade and simulation. We’ve used to cross BF-bridge to have fun while thinking twice before acting.

      I didn’t touch BF3 like a month (about 80-hours of total gameplay since release, which makes 25-minutes-play per day.) and I don’t feel like I want to play it anymore. I play BF2 (especially PR, yummy!) and a little bit of Arma (feels some boring without friends.). All my hopes are up to PR’s future (which seems strong, I hope there won’t be any reason to close their PR servers), Arma III (which takes part in Lemnos island, looks like we’re going to have a lot of variation in combat.) and Heroes and Generals (I actually don’t like WWII games that much but it looks tactical, being able to destroy a tanks tracks, clouds blocking the sun and making an area darker (clouds are dynamic too.), vehicles and etc.)

      I also thought not buying another DICE product until they make a true Battlefield game. I’ll understand if I’ll buy it from EAUK forums and here.

      Sorry for long-post, friends. This is an outburst of my anger towards DICE. (without raging, lol.)

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  20. Go Back 2 Your Root's Dice
    May 2nd, 2012 at 1:12 am

    That’s what the original Assault guy looked like, thats why he was a brother with white arms for the first 6 months the game was out..

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
    • Your Friendly Neighborhood Poster
      May 2nd, 2012 at 4:09 am

      I don’t understand why DICE doesn’t release multiple soldiers for the same role. They could design multiple soldiers and have a random model chosen every time they spawn.

      For example; if they put both the white assault soldier and black assault soldier in the game, they could have it randomly choose which soldier model is loaded upon spawning. Same thing with every other soldier.

      Or of course, have it to where you can even customize or choose which soldier you spawn as.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
      • Jared
        May 2nd, 2012 at 3:32 pm

        Yeah we should be able to customize the looks of our soldiers: headgear, skins, not just the uniform camos (although that’s a good start). Also weapon camos would be nice to match our uniforms or the environment. You know, desert camo for operation firestorm etc.

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
        • cammanron
          May 3rd, 2012 at 2:08 pm

          …YA!, just like in COD!

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      • Go Back 2 Your Root's Dice
        May 3rd, 2012 at 12:46 am

        Would have been nice if the gave us a little more customization options for each solder.. Not just camo that for some reason all looks black until your standing next to someone and looking through your optics at the pattern. In BBC2 you could hide in the bushes and have people walking by you all day and not notice you. In BF3 you get within a few feet of the enemy and you see a black blob against a light brown back ground..At least on PS3…

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
  21. Blonderbuss
    May 2nd, 2012 at 1:13 am

    I wouldn’t mind another single player story mode. I found the single player in BF3 to be quite fun, I had to keep playing just to find out what happened next.

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
    • Go Back 2 Your Root's Dice
      May 3rd, 2012 at 12:48 am

      You guys are joking right?

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
  22. kill5432111
    May 2nd, 2012 at 1:24 am

    just cant want BC3

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
  23. bnajbert
    May 2nd, 2012 at 4:25 am

    No one will be playing in 6 months…..

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
  24. Peter
    May 2nd, 2012 at 4:29 am

    I think it’s good that they are focusing on giving value out of one game instead of releasing a new game every 12 months (AHEM CoD), and I’m INCREDIBLY excited for Armored Kill!! I think the main issue is 1) DLC is being released wayy too late (B2K was December. a 7-month wait for DLC is terrible), and 2) unfortunately for DICE, nobody asked for or seems to care about Close Quarters. I for one am looking forward to CQ just because it’s a change of pace and will offer some new content to chew on, but I’d much rather have Armored Kill first, and SOONER!

    Fortunately BF3 is so massive that recently after I maxed out my Jet proficiency I’ve been working on upgrading my soldier and getting the guns w/upgrades that I want (THE REAL WAY–NOT PAYING FOR IT–which, by the way, I am furious about), and I’ve been playing different game modes that’s been fun, I mean, I love BF3 and there’s a lot to this game. But again, this DLC is too spread out, and the lack of VOIP for PC is incredibly aggravating for a game that is so team/squad-oriented.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
    • Go Back 2 Your Root's Dice
      May 3rd, 2012 at 1:08 am

      They announce CQ and BF3 blogs all over the Net are full of hate and anger.. But i know for sure, had they just stuck to what they do best and the formula that got BF to were it is today the masses would be pumped up about this game.. Of course there would still be the expected trolling by haters from time to time on the BF3 forums..The biggest mistake EA/DICE made with BF3 is releasing it before MW3, it converted to many simple minded players from COD.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  25. WarrenH
    May 2nd, 2012 at 4:51 am

    I invested a lot of time and a few buckaroos $60 which is a fortune now a days! I bought this game believing that it was going to be amazing, since BFBC2 was pretty awesome with a substantial amount of DLC… At the moment I’m sorely disappointed. I still haven’t lost hope, but alas, the future of Battlefield appears to be bleak and mediocre. Oh looky here, by copy of BF2…

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
    • WarrenH
      May 2nd, 2012 at 4:55 am

      BLAST! I meant *my copy

      Sincere apologies for the typo

      Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>