PC Battlefield Onslaught, 1943 cancelled

By Robert Purchese Published 3 February, 2011

DICE doing "whatever it takes" for BF3.

The long-awaited PC versions of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 - Onslaught and Battlefield 1943 have been cancelled, developer DICE has announced.

Simply, they took too many resources away from the golden egg: Battlefield 3.

"There comes a time when we as a studio have to choose where to best put our efforts," wrote DICE general manager Karl Magnus Troedsson.

"In my day to day work, I look at our release schedule and the studio's capacity, weighing them against our wild ambitions to create awesomeness. This is one of those crossroads where I need to make a hard decision.

"It's time to look ahead to the next giant leap for DICE – the release of Battlefield 3.

"We know some of you eagerly have been awaiting Battlefield 1943 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Onslaught on PC," he added. "I'm sad to say that these two titles are now officially cancelled."

Troedsson said that with Battlefield 3, the goal is "crystal clear": "build the best Battlefield game ever" and "do whatever it takes to make this the biggest launch in DICE's history".

Battlefield 3 will be built on what Troedsson described as "the mighty Frosbite 2 engine". And that's about all we know. We haven't seen Battlefield 3 and we don't know when it will be released.

Battlefield 1943 was released summer, 2009 on PS3 and Xbox 360. PC owners had to twiddle their thumbs. An error on the EA Store made it look like the game had finally been released in September. But, excruciatingly, it wasn't so.

Onslaught, a fantastic addition to Battlefield: Bad Company 2, came out last summer. Eurogamer gave it a gigantic 9/10.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (26) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • dsmx #1 1 year ago

    So long as they make bf3 have at least 64 players maps and have tanks, planes, helicopters and ships I'm don't mind the cancellation. Anything less and it simply wouldn't be a battlefield game.

  • FireMonkey #2 1 year ago

    Good decision. BFBC2 and 1943 were just stop-gaps till BF3 was released for me. I love BFBC2, but can't wait to see what they do with BF3.

  • matrim83 #3 1 year ago

    I can live with that. But they better make PC version of BF3 fuck awesome.

  • Syrette #4 1 year ago

    I'm not a programmer but why would it have been difficult to port the console version of 1943 over to the PC?

  • Spekingur #5 1 year ago

    The 'taking too many resources from BF3' is a bullshit reason and they know it. They just decided that they weren't ever going to do it, otherwise it would have been out around the same time as the console versions. This makes me dislike DICE quite a bit eventhough I really like BFBC2. On the PC.

  • bobfish09 #6 1 year ago

    As long as BF3 is a sequel to BF2 and not just a new version of BFBC2... I'm okay with this.

  • Spekingur #7 1 year ago

    I just hope they won't go the 'consoles first' route with BF3.

  • Hunam #8 1 year ago

    Meh.

    1943 was good but after BC2 and Vietnam it doesn't really have much of a reason to exist on PC anymore.

  • arcam #9 1 year ago

    "We know some of you eagerly have been awaiting Battlefield 1943 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Onslaught on PC,

    Trust me, we've been much more eagerly awaiting Battlefield 3. Good decision I reckon.

    Just please, please, please don't limit the PC game to 16 players a side. Battlefield should be a war, not a skirmish.

  • hiddenranbir #10 1 year ago

    ""In my day to day work, I look at our release schedule and the studio's capacity, weighing them against our wild ambitions to create awesomeness."

    I put trust in you!

    Edited by hiddenranbir at 03/02/11 @ 16:48

  • Derblington #11 1 year ago

    The 'taking too many resources from BF3' is a bullshit reason and they know it.

    o rly?

  • itsallwater #12 1 year ago

    "Eurogamer gave it a gigantic 9/10." - I followed the link and I believe it says 6/10. Unless the monitors upside down.

  • Ranger101 #13 1 year ago

    @foreverafternothing @Spekingur @daninthemix

    Ports take a lot of time and money in QA (and Dev of course). Key developers from BC2 who move on to new projects (i.e. BF3) may not have time/budget to deal with issues in the ports without costing development on their new project. Project Manager's and the business directors have to offset the cost in losing that developer against the potential gain in releasing the port.

    If the cost of losing key developers to a port means a significant delay or loss of feature in the new project (which is likely to generate more revenue if released on-time/fully-featured) then you have to re-resource (costs money) or cancel.

    Cancelling port projects mean a loss of potential revenue, but this revenue can be regained by delivering another higher quality, on-time project.

    BC2 sold bucketloads on the 360 and ps3, versus the PC. It's gained a massive new audience, and it's a fools folly to ignore this new market when it eclipses the old.
    Edited by Ranger101 at 03/02/11 @ 17:15

  • Spekingur #14 1 year ago

    @Ranger101: If they could do it with Vietnam they can do it with Onslaught. They had previously mentioned that Onslaught would most likely not come out for PC but didn't rule it out. They claimed that the biggest problem would be with players who did not have the maps - which could easily be rectified by just releasing it for free.

    Sorry but the code architecture between XBox 360 and PC isn't that dissimilar. This is nothing but a large failure for DICE - especially the BF1943 part. I know quite a few PC gamers that have been waiting for an updated BF1942 game, which the 1943 could have provided some whiff of. Hell, it could even have brought in enough money for additional development.

    They already have 'key developers' working on BF3. They pulled most of devs towards that project after the console releases of Onslaught and BF1943. Key devs of BF3 on ports? No. QA? Yes.

    Two most likely scenarios: The teams doing the ports were doing a really bad job or they had no plans to put those on the PC at all (possibly had a small team doing research stuff). Like I said, had they put the time in developing it alongside the console versions they would have seen a return on the money spent right away. This is what they would have done if they had been serious about releasing those on PC. Which they obviously weren't.

  • SAMagic #15 1 year ago

    Really, what Ranger101 said. People need to remember that games are software projects where resources are always being monitored, analysed and managed.

    @Spekingur : DICE aren't evil mustache-twirling villains cackling as they dash the hopes of PC gamers. They very likely spent time planning out doing the ports but realised how much time and resources they would take from BF3 and decided that financially it wasn't worth it. A PC port isn't just a case of converting a few files and releasing the final version.

  • L0cky #16 1 year ago

    The main difference between a PC and console version is the investment required in the test/fix cycle, as pc's have many more setups to test and fix for. If they didn't have the resources to achieve that for these ports when they don't have any other releases on the horizon then it makes me doubt their future investment in PC.

    Silver lining: Unless they've started testing for BF3.

  • L0cky #17 1 year ago

    I think the review link is supposed to go here. The one in the article links to the Onslaught review. Strangely, the score is also wrong on the game page for 360.

  • orangpelupa #18 1 year ago

    eurogamer, the onslaugh review is a SIX ( 6 ) not a 9/10.

  • uninspiredcup #19 1 year ago

    It didn't stop them making it for the console.
    Oh, the console is more important than the pc? I see.

  • TASTYRYAN #20 1 year ago

    And this is exactly why people are hacking, pirating and what more not.
    Companies tend to piss-off people/gamers/users with their business models making the most provid $$$$. And turning there own supporters/fanbase against them.

    Just like a company named google did today with youtube(forcing you 2 link google account).

    Keep it up with the false promises.

  • MadDave123 #21 1 year ago

    @uninspiredcup

    Of course they were going to make any expansions for BF:BC2 on the consoles first, BC2 is the console version of BF. PC gamers (and I'm one of them) have had 4 wonderful Battlefield games over the years and plenty of attention. Bad Company was DICE's (very successful) attempt at bring the IP to the console market. So any DLC or expansions for BC2 are going to be aimed at the same market as the main title is.

    DICE are one of the last devs I would accuse of giving the consoles more love than the PC.

    I'm upset that onslaught won't be coming to the PC, but I also understand that games companies aren't well oiled machines that operate under perfect conditions. Things change, plans get scuppered and costs ALWAYS cause objectives and intentions to be reconsidered. It's just how things work.

  • azic #22 1 year ago

    Again a franchise that started on the PC now gets shit canned on the PC.
    I fucking hope dice do not rape us PC players again.

    WTF why so much hate on the PC.

  • Ryuken #23 1 year ago

    We’re confident this will lead to an even better experience in Battlefield 3, not only on PC, but on all platforms.”

    We don't even ask for a PC exclusive, just for a version that gets the most out of a platform. BC2 was decent, even on PC, but it was also hamstrung by a console design first and foremost and it lacked some basic features. Mod tools, large maps, high player numbers, loads of visual customisation and a persistent war as a bonus on top of all that, anything less and BF3 won't come close to furfilling our needs. Also, a f*cking working server browser right from the start would be rather essential too.

    BC2 sold bucketloads on the 360 and ps3, versus the PC. It's gained a massive new audience, and it's a fools folly to ignore this new market when it eclipses the old.

    The PC market is still a significant chunk of any Battlefield multiplatform title, BC2 pretty much proved that from release up until now, despite some aggravating issues which weren't fixed for a long time. Both sales and online activity of BC2 are nothing to sneeze at on PC. No, there isn't any economical reason not to port BF1943 or Onslaught to PC other than that Sony and MS probably paid off EA. On PC there's no big company giving EA any money even though if they're smart they can make more money: they have all the freedom of the world on PC, unlike on consoles.

    Openly saying how far you want to go with a certain version seems to be the biggest taboo this gen and the platform with the most options/scaleability available gets the short stick as usual because of that. Don't let this happen with BF3, Dice.
    Edited by Ryuken at 03/02/11 @ 22:45

  • geox30 #24 1 year ago

    I think we all want the best possible BF3 for PC.If this is the case,cancel everything!

  • menschenfracht #25 1 year ago

    Mirror's Edge 2, Mirror's Edge 2, Mirror's Edge 2.
    Also, Mirror's Edge 2.

    Did I mention it's time to release Mirror's Edge 2?

  • daver #26 1 year ago

    @azic

    Because they've realised that a handful of people will buy it, and the rest of the PC pirating scum brigade will knock it soon as it's cracked.

    Makes perfect sense - why waste valuable resources on that?

    However, as usual, PC brigade, wa wa wa like children, torrents screaming down the Internet pipe in the background.