http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-26-battlefield-3-the-state-of-playAs posted on another forum.
I think it's too long to quote in its entirety here, so I'll pull out a few gems from our favorite DICE executive producer.
Of course, three months before shipping, I would have loved to have said, f*** it, let's ship it six months later. But you can't do that when you're that close. I don't like developers who push their dates. It feels a bit like, come on, I want your game. You promised it. And now you're saying it's not ready.
Confirmed, rushing a product out to meet a deadline is better than withholding it to better ensure a more stable, bug-free, and enjoyable experience.
So am I happy? Absolutely. Am I satisfied? No. Absolutely not. I think we can do much better. We can push this even further.
Not COD enough! Needs more COD...
We have people only looking at telemetry, matching that towards the feedback that people actually write in forums. In a lot of cases it doesn't match up. It's like, no, this isn't a problem. You claim it's a problem. It's not a problem. The numbers tell me this is not a problem.
The almighty telemetry > forum feedback.
One interesting one is, people have been complaining about Operation Metro in the original game, that it's tight infantry, it's not Battlefield, people hate this, this is what makes people move away from Battlefield. Actually, it's the most popular map on all platforms.
[Interviewer]: Why do you think that is?
It's a great map. It's an awesome map.
No comment needed.
But there's a reason why we also revealed the future expansion pack, Armored Kill. Armored Kill is quite the opposite. It's the complete polarised version of Close Quarters, where it's only about the big open landscapes, it's only about vehicles and the more tactical way of playing Battlefield.
Doesn't jive with Gustav's comment "we can't forget about the infantry!"
Downloads