Ben starts off with a short history of his professional life and how he spent most of it playing Battlefield until he went on at Dice to actually work on the series.

Shows a quite funny movie he used to internally promote the vision for Battlefield heroes. At the time the project was called Battlefield West.

The idea behind the game was:

- Play 4 Free Cartoon Shooter service
- PC only, low system specs
- Launches from the heroes website
- Create, customize and level-up your own unique war hero
- Classic Battlefield gameplay simplified for a broader audience

The idea came from South Korea where many games are free, for PC only, and users buy microtransaction items. The top South Korean Titles as of 10th June 08 are:

1- Sudden Attack (counter strike clone)
2- Starcraft
3- Lineage II
4- World of Warcraft
5- Special force (counter strike clone)
6- Lineage
7- Warcraft 2
8- Dungeon & fighter (side scrolling beat them up)
9- Twelve Sky 2
10- Audition (dancing game)

Were did we start? It all came down to money: ARPU. Madden has an ARPU of 59,99$ per year per user. But a Korean “Play 4 free game” is 3 to 6$ per year from each user. So to hit a smilar margin with “Play 4 free” you need to increase the number of users and cut costs. This reality had an effect on many areas:

- Art direction: Cartoony for low system specs, mainstream appeal and lower cost (reuse of BF 2142 engine technology). Simpler asset generation.

Ben then shows the evolution of concept art on character and backgrounds. They wanted to move away from the typical aesthetics of games about war which are mostly “brown”.

- Game Design: Battlefield has a very simple, fun, core gameplay derived from a physic-based sandbox. The question was how to make this more casual. And there were iron gates that needed to be overcome:

The iron gate -> How they solved it
High system specs -> Cartoony Graphics
First person -> Third Person
Skilled opponents -> Matchmaking based partly on number of hours played
Hard to find matches -> Make matchmaking easy
Hard to learn -> Tutorial, simplicity
Requires high skill -> Less “twitch”-based by including a layer of strategic decisions.

- Backend, Billing, Web, Meta Services:

Designing a Play 4 Free is fundamentally different.

The website is more the half of your user experience. The game is only 2 percent of the effort. You also have to rethink the whole distribution chain. Building the distribution chain is great because you control it but not so great, because it’s a lot of work.

- Deployment of a Product vs Service:
No “release date”, it trickles out over time.

Development impact, you don’t have to make all decisions up front. It’s all about responding to the desires of the community. You can fix things “on the go”. But you can’t bugger off on holiday after you release the game. Think of the hotel business: building the hotel is not the hardest part and it’s only the start.

- PR + Marketing impact:
No “Big splash” release. Who remembers the release date of Youtube or Myspace?

The state of play in the west:
There’s a package goods console market: publishers and press focus on this BUT the online delivered gaming market is NOT up and coming, NOT a future model, it’s HERE.

At this point he showed a slide comparing package good games to web games:

Then he made that slide into a very smart analogy simply by changing the tags at the top of the slide, replacing “Packaged goods” by “Cinema” and “Web games” by “Television”. Ben explained that back in the 1930’s the cinema industry insiders would never have believed television would have such an impact that it would eventually overtake their business as they felt TV was “less immersive”, “lower res” and “shorter”. He argued that we are now in a comparable situation with packaged goods games versus web games.

And I’m certainly not one to disagree…