With two successful Open Beta weekends under their belt, EA appear to have revived Battlefield for the most part. Of course, it hasn’t been all praise, as Battlefield 6 does have its fair share of issues, but the core experience is chaotic and satisfying. More importantly, it’s the perfect palate cleanser from the exhausting, annualized model of Call of Duty. However, an industry analyst claims that the annual release schedule is something Battlefield could pivot towards in the future.
Details on the subject are courtesy of Michael Pachter, who doesn’t have the most spotless of records, but is acquainted with some influential game creators. In the latest episode of the Pachter Factor Show, the analyst claimed that the General Manager of the Battlefield Franchise, Byron Beede, told him about EA’s plans to adopt an annual release model in five to six years.
Pachter stated, “I talked to EA, Byron Beede, who’s running the Battlefield franchise, and their goal is three studios making Battlefield on a three-year basis so they can get Battlefield annually. He said it’s going to take five or six years before they get two in a row, so we’re not going to get there for a while. So that’s their plan.“
“By the way, they should have done that 15 years ago. They told everyone they wanted to catch up to Call of Duty, and they’re finally doing it. Call of Duty figured that out: three studios making games. They’ve had their troubles, Sledgehammer shut down, Infinity Ward’s been kind of subsumed into Treyarch, and Treyarch has two or three studios now. But it’s always been three guys working on three different games for annual release,” he added.
Based on his comments, the gap between Battlefield 7 and 8 will likely be much shorter than the long wait for Battlefield 7. Pumping out new titles at a regular cadence is one thing, but convincing audiences to buy into the idea is another. Initial reactions to the report have been far from encouraging, with fans online vehemently opposing the idea.
You’ll find a barrage of negative reactions under this post, ranging from angry rants to more brief displays of annoyance. “WORST IDEA EVER,” said one user before summarizing the community’s sentiment by adding, “THIS IS WHY COD IS TRASH.” Their sentiment was echoed by a fellow commenter saying, “That’s how CoD turned into the trash it is today….BF vets like me don’t want a new BF game every year….just updates and maps!“
Another comment stated, “Uh oh.. already digging a grave if they go for full game releases like that. If there isn’t a whole lot of innovation or improvements, all they’re doing is forcing players into buying games often to create an artificial need for the latest as they boot the previous games offline without a whole lot of value added.“
Call of Duty’s annual model found success by carving out distinct identities for each of its sub-franchises. Depending on the studio, fans already have an idea of what to expect from the next CoD, even before receiving a glimpse of the gameplay. Battlefield will need to nail this aspect and ramp up its production cycles to deliver annual entries that seem worthy of a $70 (or god forbid $80-$90 by 2030) box price. They’ll also need to shake off the sense of franchise fatigue that comes with this model.
But of course, all of this is irrelevant if EA fail to stick the landing with Battlefield 6. With that being said, would you be interested in a new Battlefield title every year? Be sure to let us know in the comments.