Backwards compatibility has been a hot topic in recent years, and it's gone full steam for many in the FPS community after Activision confirmed that a remastered version of "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" would be packaged alongside "Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare" later this year, but only for the Legacy/Legacy Pro editions.
As expected, the revelation caused quite a bit of a stir. On one hand, many were upset that Activision would force players to pay extra money to play a remastered version one of the most-well received "CoD" games of all time. On the other hand, many saw the news as a possibility that EA may soon release remasters of "Battlefield" titles.
The reasoning behind this expectation was simple. EA's "Battlefield" has an established rivarly with Activision's "Call of Duty," and the two are always locked in a contest to determine which title will reign supreme among the console FPS market. This year will be no different, with Activision releasing "Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare" while EA is releasing "Battlefield 1" to match.
However, while the two new games are poised to come out later this year, Activision's announcement of "Modern Warfare" coming to current-gen consoles was left uncontested by EA, leaving some to wonder if they would ever get the chance to play remastered versions of earlier "Battlefield" games.
The folks over at International Business Times had similar concerns, and while speaking to Patrick Soderlund, EA Studios Executive VP, in an interview that covered zeppelins, the ability to ride horses, submarines and other topics, they asked if fans can expect a remastered "Battlefield" in the future.
In his response, he revealed there are no plans for a remaster at the moment, but that can all change if there is enough demand from fans.
"I wouldn't say never. We're not doing it right now, we're focused on 'Battlefield 1' - but if we think the fans want that I see no reason we couldn't," he said.
This is great news for fans of the earlier games, and EA has a lot to gain from making remasters of its earlier games. Aside from the obvious tit-for-tat with Activision, the origins for the "Battlefield" franchise was in World War II and it never strayed overly far beyond that. Chronologically, the highest the series has ever gone to was 2142 in "Battlefield 2142," and since then, outside of some outliers, the series has retained a modern setting.
In addition, despite being around since 2002, "Battlefield" only started being consistently released for consoles in 2011. There are some outliers like "Bad Company" and "1943," but it wasn't until "Battlefield 3" that every single title was released on consoles. In contrast, "Call of Duty" has been around since 2003 and every single title has appeared on at least one console.
In both cases, EA can let players get a feel for the franchise roots and see where it came from while letting them see that they haven't strayed far beyond it. Similarly, many of the earlier "Battlefield" games were exclusive to computers, so it wouldn't hurt to introduce them to consoles.
Most importantly, fans clearly wanted a "Battlefield" game that took place in the past (as evidenced by the critical acclaim that the trailer has received), so why not double down on that by remastering other games that took place during older time periods as well?
Of course, none of this can happen unless fans say something, so they should definitely voice their opinions and hope that EA listens.
