Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
gamers say it simply lacked compelling content
EA president Andrew Wilson has blamed its long development cycle
“You should expect that we will be more innovative and more creative around both marketing campaigns and how we bring games to market and more diligent in our operation against execution of the project plans around development of video games going forward,” he said. “I mean, it’s something we are taking very seriously across the full landscape of development.” Wilson later went on to note that “Titanfall 2” also struggled with a marketing problem.
I'm still waiting for someone to do a modern take on the Gulf War. Prior to Battlefield going all Tolkien on us it seemed like the perfect series to go there.You guys need a modern Battlefield game EA srly......
Nobody is buying these WWI WWII games because it's like your Grandpas COD. Battlefield Hardline I thought was a pretty decent game even I got a free copy from the Intel Retail Edge program but it was a fun game untill the servers went empty like last year or so.
But you know what? People generally do not understand conditional sentences. They will ignore the "if" part.
they put out the least known battles of WW2, most of them are before D-Day
I used to play BF4 but after a while I found having to repeat the whole chapter if I got killed (even if near the end of that chapter) rather stupid so I no longer play the game
injecting the kinds of politics they did into the game marginalizes the WW2 horrors and is pretty offensive
This is one of the dumbest comments I've seen. First, if you wanted a game about Auschwitz or Babi Yar, you must have misunderstood the ads. I can't remember any game that has ever focused on the horrors - but you pick on BF V as being remiss in this?
Second, what "politics" were injected? Are you saying the proto-SBS, African and German troops, and Norwegian resistance actually weren't there? And how is setting these less-known episodes "offensive"? It's offensive to imply that none of these people or what they did should be remembered at all, even to the extent of one episode in one game.
Finally: this is a game, not a simulation. As such the writers are working in the time-honored genre of historical fiction. That's what movie writers do too, which is why "Saving Private Ryan" wasn't marketed as a documentary. To mix all this up and then complain of the result is just meaningless bitching.
You can be sure that many people read the full Sony quote. And what they took away from it was "get a second job". This is the exact same situation that we are seeing with BF5 and it was, like totally expected for anybody who knows even the slightest bit about PR.Yes - especially if it's left out of a quote. The game dev responded forthrightly and isn't responsible for his remarks being misrepresented down the line, especially by journos who can read English. The people who misrepresent them are responsible. And what Sony did or didn't ever say - possibly equally misrepresented - has nothing to do with this story. Throwing that in is just more fuddle-talk, only pretending to make a point.
You're obviously ignorant of just how badly EA botched the job. I recommend you go do some research before just spitting out ignorant "woke" talking points. EA/DICE marketed the game, especially during the release event with Trevor Noah, as the most realistic and immersive simulation of World War 2 that has ever been produced. Then they released a game where they rewrote history and attempted to add Fortnite-type customizations to get some of those sweet microtransaction bucks.
Extremely well-researched video detailing just how badly they rewrote history to be more "inclusive", which is political in 2018/2019:
Additionally to this, DICE told players that if they weren't interested in their revisionist history (totally disregarding their campaign saying it was the most realistic and immersive evah!) they shouldn't buy the game. They trotted out woke talking points saying that they wouldn't release a game where their daughters couldn't play as girls, just like in Fortnite. Obviously this is a big mistake if you are trying to market it to grown adults who know the difference between WW2 and a cartoon style battle royale game.
Then if it really did go up at 50% almost right away then they made far less than then they probably only made close to 300 million not nearly enough to even pay for development on the next title, so yeah a complete failure. But blaming this on a small development delay is pure scapegoating and somebody is trying to just butter up investors hard.It went on sale 50% after two months already , i think i even saw it for 15-20$
Anyway , i think the real issue with BF5 is content , they put out the least known battles of WW2 , most of them are before D-Day , no Russian/American armies , No pacific front , no naval warfare, so what did they expect?
This is in a way a step back from BF1942 that had some of the 'greatest' battles of WW2 , perhaps they are saving those for the next year of updates till BF6
I would count myself among those who don’t care, but I think it still had a measurable impact on sales because:
A) A lot of people I saw online were turned off principally by the smug, virtue signalling attitude coming from the lead designer. They weren’t necessarily incels, but they were people fed up with lectures from corporate types who, at the end of the day, is primarily concerned with making money.
B) Incels and people suffering from male fragility play a lot of video games.
C) DICE really could have had it both ways as you said. Do lady campaigns on British SOE missions or Soviet snipers/tank crews/Night Witches, whatever, and then silence the opposition by saying they chose things specifically from history. They still might have lost incel customers, but they would have retained core players that were just turned off by the general virtue signalling of it all.
I don't think the "women in the game" angle has anything to do with it. I think the primary factors are as follows in order of impact.
- You are selling a game that is basically a mod or expansion pack for a game that came out recently(battlefield 1)... For $60-90.
- You release said game in a heavily crowded time of year.
- You give said game away to people with origin all access passes(your diehard fans).
- Profit?
BF5 had a 2 year release window from BF1 and you call it a mod even though it's quite a dramatic change in mechanics/shooting and the engine is also graphically updated. Wouldn't call it an expansion oack.. What was needed was a year more of development time and Dice's leaders not being far left wing and trying to please all genders/LGBT.I don't think the "women in the game" angle has anything to do with it. I think the primary factors are as follows in order of impact.
- You are selling a game that is basically a mod or expansion pack for a game that came out recently(battlefield 1)... For $60-90.
- You release said game in a heavily crowded time of year.
- You give said game away to people with origin all access passes(your diehard fans).
- Profit?
To mix all this up and then complain of the result is just meaningless bitching.
take into consideration EA massive overheads as well as their commitment to their shareholders (we will have 10million copies) is bad for a board. They won't except that the product is bad, their treatment of the community is badI'm sorry, am I missing something here? 7.3 million sold copies is a "low number"? I think if a product that sold more than 2 million copies would be considered a success.
Extremely well-researched video detailing just how badly they rewrote history to be more "inclusive"
... Obviously this is a big mistake if you are trying to market it to grown adults who know the difference between WW2 and a cartoon style battle royale game.