Battlefield 6 Development Strategy Sparks Concerns Over Industry Trend
EA’s focus on a few key franchises, exemplified by the development of Battlefield 6, is raising alarms about the potential stifling of creativity and diversity within the gaming industry.
A growing debate centers on Electronic Arts’ (EA) development strategy for Battlefield 6, slated for release in approximately two months. The game is positioned as a critical response to Activision’s Call of Duty franchise, which one observer noted is currently navigating an “identity crisis,” citing questionable creative decisions like the inclusion of characters like Beavis and Butthead in Black Ops 6. Despite positive initial reactions to trailers and beta testing following recent EA disappointments like Dragon Age: The Veilguard and EA Sports FC 25, a core concern is emerging regarding the cost of Battlefield 6’s development on other EA properties.
The crux of the issue lies in EA’s restructuring, announced in February, which consolidated Battlefield development under “Battlefield Studios.” This entity comprises four key developers: DICE, Ripple Effect (formerly DICE LA), Motive Studio, and Criterion Games. However, this consolidation has come at a price. According to a concerned reader, the entire Criterion Games team, previously dedicated to the Need for Speed series, has been reassigned to Battlefield.
“It is not the job of any studio to have to come in and help out another developer… certainly not at the expense of their own projects,” the reader stated, expressing frustration that Need for Speed is effectively on hold. While acknowledging that inter-studio collaboration can be beneficial – citing past instances of DICE assisting Criterion with Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit in 2010 and co-development of Need for Speed: Rivals in 2013 – the reader argues that permanently relegating a studio to a support role is detrimental. The concern extends beyond Need for Speed, encompassing the potential abandonment of IPs that foster unique gaming experiences, such as Dead Space.
This approach mirrors a trend observed at Activision, where studios like High Moon Studios and Raven Software have been downsized and relegated to supporting roles on Call of Duty titles, primarily Warzone, for over a decade. “Such talent… could have gone into building new worlds and franchises, is instead relegated to designing new skins and guns,” the reader lamented, referencing the recent American Dad! bundle as an example of this trend. The reader emphasized a desire for studios to focus on their core franchises – DICE on Battlefield, Motive on Iron Man (which is reportedly still in development alongside Battlefield), and Criterion on Need for Speed – with adequate resources and time.
EA’s ambition to attract 100 million players to Battlefield 6 underscores a reliance on blockbuster titles, a strategy that carries inherent risks. The reader draws a comparison to Rockstar Games, which prioritizes development time and quality, even with multiple studios involved, suggesting that EA and Activision’s approach may not be universally effective. The current EA portfolio – Apex Legends, The Sims, and the recently rebooted Skate – is facing challenges, placing significant pressure on Battlefield 6 to succeed.
Ultimately, the reader expressed indifference to Battlefield 6’s commercial performance, stating a belief that EA’s focus on a limited number of franchises will ultimately prove counterproductive. “Apex Legends and The Sims are getting long in the tooth,” the reader noted, adding that EA CEO Andrew Wilson and other executives are facing a challenging landscape.
