Here’s the one reason why I’m not buying Battlefield 6 – Reader’s Feature

A reader explains why he’s taking a stance against EA and the way they are developing Battlefield 6 and criticises Activision for using similar methods.

As I write, Battlefield 6 is two months away from release. This is the do or die release for EA’s long-running rival to Call Of Duty. With the latter franchise going through an identity crisis (I’d like to meet the person who thought putting Beavis and Butthead into Black Ops 6 as operators was a good idea) now is the chance to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, following the disaster that was Battlefield 2042.

So far, things seems to be going okay. The reveal trailer and in-depth dive has received mostly positive feedback from fans. And with the open beta now up and running, EA may very well have a much-needed win on their hands, following the flops of Dragon Age: The Veilguard and EA Sports FC 25. But I cannot in good faith support Battlefield 6 for one main reason: because the development of this entry has put my favourite game series on hold indefinitely, and I fear what’s happened here may become a recurring trend in game development if it is not raised.

In February, EA announced the formation of Battlefield Studios to oversee development of Battlefield. Those four developers in question are series creators DICE, Ripple Effect (formerly DICE LA), Motive Studio, and Criterion Games – who are currently in charge of Need for Speed. Or were. Because Need For Speed is on hold, with all of Criterion working on Battlefield.

Now, you may call me biased for holding this opinion, considering I adore Need For Speed, but I am not happy with this decision from EA. It is not the job of any studio to have to come in and help out another developer with whatever it is they are working on, certainly not at the expense of their own projects in development.

I understand that in some cases, developers may need a helping hand, and I am not opposed to the idea of two studios collaborating on a project. Criterion had some help from DICE when they made Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit in 2010, and they themselves co-developed Need For Speed: Rivals in 2013, whilst Ghost Games (who would take over ownership of Need for Speed shortly afterwards) was still being built.

But permanently reducing a developer to nothing more than a support studio is where I draw the line, because I cannot understand why anyone would endorse the idea of abandoning IPs that create rich new worlds to explore (such as Dead Space, remember that?) and provide customers with a diverse line-up from a publisher, in favour of offering only a few titles that have at least half a dozen studios working on permanently.

This is the approach Activision has taken when it comes to Call Of Duty and as a result developers like High Moon Studios and Raven Software have been downsized and placed in support roles, with neither studio having released a game as a main developer for more than a decade now.

Such talent, such passion, that could have gone into building new worlds and franchises, is instead relegated to designing new skins and guns for Warzone (don’t get me started on the new American Dad! bundle). Do I want the four studios working on Battlefield 6 to immediately start work on a new Need For Speed once the game releases? No, because that isn’t fair either. Let DICE work on Battlefield, let Motive work on their Iron Man game (which is still being made in conjunction with Battlefield, so why is that, EA?), and let Criterion work on Need For Speed.

Let these teams work on their specific franchises and give them the manpower and time they need to make it good without pulling other studios off their own projects. If EA and Activision refuse to see that having multiple studios work on only a few franchises is a bad practice, then eventually they will find out the cold reality sooner or later. Black Ops 6 has been in decline for a while now, and Black Ops 7 has only served to sour the mood.

And with EA targeting a minimum of 100 million players for Battlefield 6, you realise that these publishers’ reliance on big hits for every entry is a risky strategy. What may work for Rockstar Games (who actually take their time with their projects, even if all of their studios are, from now on, working together on every new release) doesn’t always translate into an effective corporate strategy elsewhere.

So as Battlefield 6’s release comes closer with every passing day, let me summarise my thoughts. I do not care whether this game succeeds or fails. I am not betting on how well this game performs in the hope that EA will greenlight a new Need For Speed game. I simply believe that their decision to focus on fewer franchises in the hope they will keep the company afloat will cause more problems than it is worth.

Apex Legends and The Sims are getting long in the tooth, and the new Skate reboot has had mixed feedback so far, leaving Battlefield 6 to do the heavy lifting. EA CEO Andrew Wilson might like to think all looks bright for EA going into the future, but in reality, the executives are the ones actually having to navigate a battlefield just to keep their jobs. Certainly, I won’t be shedding tears if they depart.

By reader G W

The reader’s features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.

You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@metro.co.uk or use our Submit Stuff page and you won’t need to send an email.

MORE: Top 5 video game developers that have wasted their talents – Reader’s Feature

MORE: Road Rash Is the best Sega Mega Drive racing game – Reader’s Feature

MORE: Why is Nintendo trying to make the Switch 2 seem so unexciting? – Reader’s Feature