devtrackers.gg
then put that in the road map! god damn it's not complicated
It is when you can't talk about anything or any details in the next fiscal (without massive legalhoops and delays). Which coincidentally starts on April 1st.
So pretty much depends if the people upstairs decide if it's worth it to put more money in the game
No, not sure how you ended up with that conclusion? Reasons to only speak of locked down specific content (which has a set release date) is a financial reporting one in connection to being a publically traded company and the used reporting structure for a bought product like BFV. This doesn't mean we as devs like it - or want it to be this way. It's become both easier and harder in a sans premium world, but I know the next fiscal has less stringent rules, which should translate to more details earlier and more specifics post April 1st.
Honest question, do the people who make these decisions see how much this negatively effects the hype and long term success of the game?
Yes.
Thank you for the reply tiggr. My understanding based on Jeff's statements at the This Week In Battlefield post last Monday was that the roadmap was already being delayed in order for the legal and financial teams to sign off on the roadmap's content, which was indeed complicated by the switch from one fiscal year to another. Presumably, since some maps whose release dates are after April 1st were announced in the roadmap we ended up getting yesterday, the maps being alluded to in the tweets above would have also been made explicit--but I guess that's not the case? All this stuff is over my head
It's complex to say the least - and that's why we keep things unspecific and vague most of the time as it can't get anyone into troubles :). All I know is that theres some really good stuff coming, and the pace is increasing as well, which will make players happy. But, proofs in the pudding - IE released things.
While I have an opportunity to ask someone who is directly working on this game, is there any chance that we could see parts of the Firestorm map cut up and be introduced as multiplayer maps for the base game? And while I still have the opportunity, bitching and moaning aside, I think I can speak for everyone when I say that we all appreciate the work you guys are doing and it doesn’t seem like people tell any of you that enough.
Splitting the map is not something I have insight into if possible or how much work it entails. If there's areas designed that could be a good as another map that seems like a neat way of reusing good content though - but that's just my personal speculation and not any official stance.
THANK YOU. This is what we want. Communication.
Would have been better without the typos.. ;).
I understand how much you guys care about this game, and how much love you want to put into it, but the community is very hungry for new maps outside of a BR-restricted map, and I'm sorry if we are directly coming at you with this barrage of content-hunger.
However, I do have a couple of ideas I want to present in the form of some questions, if you want to read them! I'm obviously not a game dev, so I couldn't tell how difficult these ideas would be in reality, but I'm curious about what would happen if you guys did these.
My first set of questions is; would it be a feasible option for you guys to port maps from BF1 over to BFV, considering both games use the Frostbite 3 engine? If not, why?
Secondly, would it be a feasible option for the Dev Team(s) to port sections of the Firestorm map into Conquest / Other Mode variants for people to play on the base game modes? If not, why?
In general, porting content from other games or remaking/reimagining is actually harder than making from scratch, as you have to conform to not only one set of goals, but two... Technically it is a Kickstart of course to get something playable fast - but finishing is harder to make it fit the current game.
Firestorm map: Technically the map content is "done" to quality and could be reused, but it's a very special map as it is using streaming (which is not normally the case for mp maps). So it for sure would come with some pretty specific issues and gotchas if that was ever considered a course of action to do so. But given the above statement, it's easier to build new than to port/finish in general - and more interesting as well from a content offering perspective most likely.
Keep in mind that's just my personal opinion, no promises or anything this is even considered atm.
I see so many developers saying can't when i think what you mean is won't. What would actually happen if you were to go into some detail and specifics on stuff that's already confirmed to be coming? I understand if you don't want to specifically mention maybe content but what is the actual reason you can't tell about stuff that is 100% confirmed?
No, it's actually can't. Because if we do the income from the full game, or significant part of income for that period (between something getting announced until it's actually in players hands) gets deferred into the next quarter - or worse, the next fiscal year (due to how the books are kept and the stock market rules etc). This is a pretty bad thing if this means impacting the stock price or the mentioned feature gets delayed for some reason (which means even more deferred revenue).
It's called "deferred revenue/income". If you're interested just go research that. It's ultra boring.
I'm the first dev to argue for full transparency however- and I think things like the CTE is the answer there, as it means we can show things in development but not promise or announce anything connected to a date - and the community can be part of the process more openly without deferral issues (or much smaller ones at least). Win-win.
It's nice to tell us that there's some good stuff coming, really. But I feel like you guys have been saying this for months and I just can't see the good stuff. Even the most basic things still haven't made it into the game.
Im not saying that, I'm saying we need to deliver content and that's the proof of service. Talking won't do any difference either way here, and it's proving time. I know the team is hungry to do that.
So, in theory, say in the case of a map like Monte Grappa, it would be easier to do from scratch because it's harder to polish an existing map? I assume it's because BF1 has assets that do not exist in BFV and would be harder to port and polish those assets to meet current standards compared to doing things from scratch?
In a nutshell, yes. Terrain you could just port, but you'd need to polish it etc. Buildings and destructible objects are set up in a new way, which means more work if you want the same ones as well, and so on.
Is it possible to give more information in the new fiscal year? It's info and hype this game needs to shut everyone up
I assume that will be the case yes. It certainly helps to be in a new fiscal. Also do believe the rules/setup changes this fiscal, for the better - but not sure what impact that will have