Analysts say Battlefield 5 may put EA's financial guidance at risk.

[Mcgeezaks]

I'm not on any high horse, friend, I'm just sick of people seeing connections between Fortnite and ''bad decision'' for a game when there's none.

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. BF5 not only has a battle royale mode, but the push to have the "extreme!" cosmetics (not just talking about girls, I'm talking about everything does make it seem like it's trying to ride Fortnite's coattails.

I haven't seen any extreme cosmetics, maybe the hook hand? If that's even a cosmetic in the actual game, so far from BFV videos like ''The Company'' trailer the only cosmetics I've seen are things like facepaint, gas masks, flight helmets etc, it's not Fortnite extreme where you can be the Nutcracker or John Wick. I'd say Black Ops 3 is more extreme with skins like these:

Spoiler

The game has skins that make you look like a gnome and other ridiculous things, and this was before Fortnite.

For comparison, BFV retains its single player campaign and introduces a battle royale mode.

The omission of single player in CoD is not about the total playtime of the campaign though, because CoDs campaigns have been some of the finest spectacles around for years. Not only do they tend to include a bunch of high profile actors (Gary Oldman, Kevin Spacey, Kit Harrington etc.), they also contain some of the best set pieces in FPS gaming. All of it baked into a very sleek package of high production values. Considering that estimates generally put the CoD campaign as taking up most of the development budget, this is a huge cut in content and value for the gamer, because it is being replaced with a cheap to develop battle royale mode. I can get my battle royale in lots of places today, I can't get the spectacle of a CoD campaign anywhere else.

Yeah sure if you can call ''War stories'' for a single player campaign, sure. They are 4 different campaigns that can be completed in just over 4 HOURS


They could've left it out and focus more on the multiplayer for all I care. That's nice, I could do the same back at you. ''Oh I can get my singleplayer in a lot of places but I can't get my CoD BR anywhere'', doesn't make a lot of sense since it's not out yet but hey, since we are assuming. You have no clue what the BR in Call of Duty's gonna be like, no one really knows yet so I don't know how you know it'll be a ''cheap battle royale''. In my opinion, it's promising, it's a triple-A studio made battle royale with its ten years of heritage of Black Ops put together, through weapons, characters, environments, vehicles?land, sea and air.

Also it's funny how Battlefront 2015 was panned for its lack of singleplayer only for Battlefront 2 to be panned for its singleplayer, a single player doesn't make a game automatically better, the amount of great content does, single player or not.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Yeah sure if you can call ''War stories'' for a single player campaign, sure. They are 4 different campaigns that can be completed in just over 4 HOURS

Which is still infinitely more than BlOps4 total lack of single player. Further, as I alluded to in my previous post, the total playtime of a campaign is of secondary importance to the enjoyment the individual derives from them. Much like how a movie doesn't become good just because it is 4 hours long or it automatically better then a 20 minute episode of a television series.

They could've left it out and focus more on the multiplayer for all I care.

Which is a valid opinion. It doesn't change the fact that Activision is charging the same while including less.

That's nice, I could do the same back at you. ''Oh I can get my singleplayer in a lot of places but I can't get my CoD BR anywhere'', doesn't make a lot of sense since it's not out yet but hey, since we are assuming. You have no clue what the BR in Call of Duty's gonna be like, no one really knows yet so I don't know how you know it'll be a ''cheap battle royale''.

When I said cheap, I meant cheap. As in literally a lot less expensive then a full fledged single player campaign. A CoD campaign of the last decade has been something close to a 100 million dollars worth of development funds. It has been that expensive because it has included famous actors, extensive mo cap, massive set pieces that requires extensive iteration and thorough play testing to ensure it all runs smooth. It is being replaced by a game mode that Epic managed to tack onto Fortnite in 2 months once they realized it was more profitable then the base game of Fortnite. That doesn't mean BR is a bad mode, it is just simple fact that multiplayer modes are a lot cheaper to develop, especially once the network infrastructure is in place.

If you like Battle Royale more then single player that's fine. But it won't change the fact that Activision is taking away the really expensive part of their development process and replacing it with something a lot cheaper, without even bothering with adjusting the price.

In my opinion, it's promising, it's a triple-A studio made battle royale with its ten years of heritage of Black Ops put together, through weapons, characters, environments, vehicles?land, sea and air.

Look, I don't disagree with this. My contention is not about whether BlOps4 will have a good BR mode. My contention is with the business practice of substituting high cost content with low cost content and not even bothering to adjust price. It sets a dangerous precedent if successful, because it means more companies might try to exclude expensive content with an argument like 'it is what gamers wants', while charging the same money for a much cheaper to make product.

a single player doesn't make a game automatically better, the amount of great content does, single player or not.

I can agree to this too, but it is irrelevant to the argument I am making.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

So if you employ the don't like it, don't buy it argument, does that mean you'll shut up about BFV now? Because you can't really employ that argument without coming off as a massive hypocrite.

The only hypocrites are the ones defending this garbage who haven't pre-ordered it (probably because they know it's garbage). That's really the best part of this whole thing and the bit that makes me laugh. A hypocrite is someone who claims to have a moral conviction that they do not. I'm saying this game is pandering garbage, hence i won't buy it. I'm true to my conviction. The hypocrites claim the inclusion of wimin is so amazing and that more games need to be like this and if only more games were like this we could include everyone and represent everyone and diversity and representation and inclusion and wimin... but they aren't buying it. I predicted that this game would turn out this way and I was right. I didn't predict Soderlund getting fired for the disaster tho, that's just a bonus.

As Hades said, there's a real danger in getting caught up in the culture war nonsense here. BFV is getting lambasted for adding a feature that's "pandering",

Precisely. That's exactly what I said would happen. It's exactly the culture war that's sparked the controversy.

while CoD is going unchallenged with a massive cut in content and still asking the same price as previous installments.

Again, I have no idea why anyone is talking about CoD. I'm not defending CoD, I don't care about CoD, I have no interest in CoD, I'm not going to buy it and I don't care whether it succeeds or fails. Although I would use its success as a further indictment of BF5 if anything; that gamers are willing to settle for less game if the only competition is a social-justice/progressive ideology fuelled alternative.

This discussion is about BF5's failure and the controversy that began with the execs telling customers not to buy it, calls gamers uneducated, panders to the social justice crowd and the inevitable bomb in pre-sales. No one wants this game, least of all the social justice/feminist crowd who don't buy these kinds of games. I don't care a fig about CoD, that can be a separate discussion in another thread entitled "Removing single player campaigns from MMSs" or the like. This game is bombing badly because it's pandering garbage, grossly offensive to both the men and women who did take part in the war and on the back of Andromeda and Battlefront 2, it's no surprise that there's no faith in EA games.

 

[Elijin]

So if you employ the don't like it, don't buy it argument, does that mean you'll shut up about BFV now? Because you can't really employ that argument without coming off as a massive hypocrite.

The only hypocrites are the ones defending this garbage who haven't pre-ordered it (probably because they know it's garbage). That's really the best part of this whole thing and the bit that makes me laugh. A hypocrite is someone who claims to have a moral conviction that they do not. I'm saying this game is pandering garbage, hence i won't buy it. I'm true to my conviction. The hypocrites claim the inclusion of wimin is so amazing and that more games need to be like this and if only more games were like this we could include everyone and represent everyone and diversity and representation and inclusion and wimin... but they aren't buying it.

It's only hypocritical if you can prove one of the following:
They would pre-order it if it didnt have women in it.
They pre-order every game.


Otherwise it's just you talking big, trying to sound tough. For instance, a whole bunch of the people you're arguing with can be found to have stated many times on these forums that they only purchase triple A games when they go on sale well after their release. Stating they're hypocritical because they arent pre-ordering this game is absurd, because it's outside of their normal behaviour.

 

[Hawki]

The only hypocrites are the ones defending this garbage who haven't pre-ordered it (probably because they know it's garbage). That's really the best part of this whole thing and the bit that makes me laugh. A hypocrite is someone who claims to have a moral conviction that they do not. I'm saying this game is pandering garbage, hence i won't buy it.

First of all, someone could easily buy the game without pre-ordering.

Second of all, to quote an earlier post:

If you don't like it, don't buy it. I don't like CoD, nor do I like Battlefield.

So basically you were never going to buy it anyway. Claiming you're "true to your conviction" doesn't mean much if the actions from a lack of conviction are the same as those if you possessed it.

Again, I have no idea why anyone is talking about CoD.

-Because it was brought up in the very first post of this thread, and in the article said post linked to.

-Because the entire article is based on BF5's pre-orders being 80% lower than Black Ops 4 (which isn't odd in of itself, since CoD has always outsold Battlefield, and the one time this was reversed was when Battlefield 1 went up against Infinite Warfare, which was more panned on arrival than BF5 was), just that the percentage itself is much lower than previous differences.

-Because there's a risk that the wrong lessons can be taken, that "less game" is preferable to "more females." As in, as long as a game panders to SQWs, it can get away with anything. It isn't just BF5 that's lagging in pre-orders, it's Fallout 76 and Red Dead Redemption as well. And while I'd be happy to let CoD do its own thing, art doesn't exist in a vacuum. If CoD's going to lose its singleplayer, that's a loss I can live with, but if it starts spreading to the series I DO care about, then, yeah.

But least those series will have fewer females, so, yay?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

It's only hypocritical if you can prove one of the following:
They would pre-order it if it didnt have women in it.
They pre-order every game.


Otherwise it's just you talking big, trying to sound tough. For instance, a whole bunch of the people you're arguing with can be found to have stated many times on these forums that they only purchase triple A games when they go on sale well after their release. Stating they're hypocritical because they arent pre-ordering this game is absurd, because it's outside of their normal behaviour.

No dude, it is hypocrisy and it's precisely the reason why this game is bombing. The people defending this game so much aren't buying it, and it's great to watch. It is the dictionary definition of the word hypocrisy, to claim a moral conviction that they don't in reality have.

They claim one thing but the pre-orders do not reflect it. Why? Because the social justice types don't buy these games. That's why it's bombing, I predicted it and it is coming to pass. Pandering to an audience that doesn't buy your product, making a game for an audience that doesn't exist. This game and its defenders is a massive exercise in "virtue signalling", contriving the appearance of having virtue. I think this game is gross and offensive and I'm glad to see it bomb. It's just icing on the cake to see that its most vocal defenders aren't buying it either, so much so that Soderlund got fired.

Anyway, I'm tired of repeating myself and have nothing left to say. Feel free to continue defending this crap that I'd be confident to say you haven't pre-ordered either.

 

[Elijin]

It's only hypocritical if you can prove one of the following:
They would pre-order it if it didnt have women in it.
They pre-order every game.


Otherwise it's just you talking big, trying to sound tough. For instance, a whole bunch of the people you're arguing with can be found to have stated many times on these forums that they only purchase triple A games when they go on sale well after their release. Stating they're hypocritical because they arent pre-ordering this game is absurd, because it's outside of their normal behaviour.

No dude, it is hypocrisy and it's precisely the reason why this game is bombing. The people defending this game so much aren't buying it, and it's great to watch. It is the dictionary definition of the word hypocrisy, to claim a moral conviction that they don't in reality have.

They claim one thing but the pre-orders do not reflect it. Why? Because the social justice types don't buy these games. That's why it's bombing, I predicted it and it is coming to pass. Pandering to an audience that doesn't buy your product, making a game for an audience that doesn't exist. This game and its defenders is a massive exercise in "virtue signalling", contriving the appearance of having virtue. I think this game is gross and offensive and I'm glad to see it bomb. It's just icing on the cake to see that its most vocal defenders aren't buying it either, so much so that Soderlund got fired.

Anyway, I'm tired of repeating myself and have nothing left to say. Feel free to continue defending this crap that I'd be confident to say you haven't pre-ordered either.

So to be clear, your stance here is that anyone who defends the games right to have female MP avatars, but doesnt buy the game, is a hypocrite.

You are comedic gold, my friend.

 

[Hawki]

No dude, it is hypocrisy and it's precisely the reason why this game is bombing. The people defending this game so much aren't buying it, and it's great to watch. It is the dictionary definition of the word hypocrisy, to claim a moral conviction that they don't in reality have.

One that you don't apparently have either.

So to be clear, your stance here is that anyone who defends the games right to have female MP avatars, but doesnt buy the game, is a hypocrite.

You are comedic gold, my friend.

You can add the whole "I was never going to buy the game anyway, but I'm claiming I won't buy the game because of my conviction, even though I've previously stated that I don't even like Battlefield, so I'm claiming personal conviction that doesn't even exist, but I'm not the hypocrite, those SJWs are."

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

-Because the entire article is based on BF5's pre-orders being 80% lower than Black Ops 4 (which isn't odd in of itself,...)

Quote from the article:

-The firm's analyst said preorders for ?Battlefield V? are tracking more than 85 percent behind ?Call of Duty: Black Ops 4,? which is substantially worse than previous instances.
-?Battlefield 3? and ?Battlefield 4? titles lagged ?Call of Duty? by about 20 percent to 40 percent and ?Battlefield 1? actually tracked ahead of ?Call of Duty? at this point before launch.

Essentially 20-40% is the norm. 85% is "substantially worse."

But least those series will have fewer females, so, yay?

It has nothing to do with female characters; there are great games with fantastic female characters in them. It has everything to do with forcing female characters where they do not belong for the sake of "progress", disrespecting to real sacrifices made by both the men on the frontline and the women who gave everything to the war effort at the time.

I'll sum up the issue since I think it's escaped so many people, is different from what I've said before and will be my last thoughts on this topic. Joan Clarke was a mathematician who worked at Bletchley Park during WW2. While Alan Turing is without doubt the most famous code-breaker of the era, Joan Clarke was an instrumental and vital part of the effort to crack the Enigma machine. Without her contribution, the entire war could've ended quite differently. She was a gifted individual, played a tremendous role in defeating Nazi Germany and is rightly recognised as a national hero, despite that so much of her accomplishments are still kept secret.

And this game completely undermines Joan Clarke's accomplishments. Since making a game about code-breaking would be dull and EA wanted a military shooter, progress/diversity/inclusion demanded they put a woman on the frontline, in effect saying that the only contribution worthy of recognition is that made by the men on the frontline. The *actual* efforts and heroism of the women who were part of the war effort, being away from the frontline weren't worthy enough and so we have to put a woman in the role of the man.

It also disrespects the men that did die on the frontlines. The horrors and death that befell them was unlike anything I can even begin to imagine and to have fictionalised women placed there diminishes the suffering the men went thru. They died in untold numbers so that their women wouldn't have to. Conscription and frontline warfare was the sad fate of able-bodied men then and this game utterly disrespects that reality.

I cannot explain it any better. You can continue to defend this game all you like but it's bombing for all the reasons I've said. It's pandering to people who don't buy it, it's put social justice ideology where it's unwanted and unneeded, it's insulting to everyone else and it's coming on the back of disasters like Andromeda and Battlefront 2. The people defending it aren't buying it, Soderlund is out and predictions for it are low. I hope EA will learn from it, but even if they don't it doesn't bother me. It's their bottom line that's suffering. I've explained the reasons as best as I'm able, believe me or don't, argue or don't, these are the reasons why the game is bombing just as I knew it would.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

So to be clear, your stance here is that anyone who defends the games right to have female MP avatars, but doesnt buy the game, is a hypocrite.

No, I never said anything about the game's "right to have female MP avatars". The game can have anything it likes and I will defend any developers right to create any game they wish. I never said a word about "the right" to anything. I will absolutely defend EA's right to put wimin in this game. If they wanted to create a WW2 game where every single character is female I'll defend their right to make it. But I will call it out for the pandering garbage it is and I certainly wouldn't pay for it.

"So to be clear", anyone defending this game for its "progressive"/social justice bent (ie. putting wimin on the frontlines) but then not putting their money with their mouths are, those are the hypocrites. They are the hypocrites and they are the reason this game is bombing. And they are a source of amusement for the rest of us.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well the reasoning for this is incredibly petty, I'm not going to shed a tear for EA. Although I do wish people would drop the pretense of actually caring about historical accuracy and just admit to being menanists.

 

[Hawki]

It has nothing to do with female characters;

Another lie.

there are great games with fantastic female characters in them.

I know, and?

It has everything to do with forcing female characters where they do not belong for the sake of "progress",

The option of playing as females in multiplayer isn't "forcing" anyone to do anything.

You could argue that the singleplayer is "forcing" females because at least one of them is female, but that's about it.

disrespecting to real sacrifices made by both the men on the frontline and the women who gave everything to the war effort at the time.

Right, so, turning WWII into a videogame is fine, but as soon as females became optional in singleplayer, it crosses the line into "disrespect."

I also noticed that you completely evaded my points about Medal of Honour forcing OSS agents into theatres they never served in, or fuck, Wolfenstien.

I'll sum up the issue since I think it's escaped so many people, is different from what I've said before and will be my last thoughts on this topic. Joan Clarke was a mathematician who worked at Bletchley Park during WW2. While Alan Turing is without doubt the most famous code-breaker of the era, Joan Clarke was an instrumental and vital part of the effort to crack the Enigma machine.

I've visited Bletchly Park and seen The Imitation Game, I know who they are.

Without her contribution, the entire war could've ended quite differently.

Debateable. The cracking of the enigma code shortened the war, claiming a different outcome could have ensued is stretching a lot. It's general consensus that Germany would have lost eventually because it couldn't compete with the manpower of the Allies (not least of which was the Soviet Union).

She was a gifted individual, played a tremendous role in defeating Nazi Germany and is rightly recognised as a national hero, despite that so much of her accomplishments are still kept secret.

All true.

And this game completely undermines Joan Clarke's accomplishments. Since making a game about code-breaking would be dull and EA wanted a military shooter, progress/diversity/inclusion demanded they put a woman on the frontline, in effect saying that the only contribution worthy of recognition is that made by the men on the frontline. The *actual* efforts and heroism of the women who were part of the war effort, being away from the frontline weren't worthy enough and so we have to put a woman in the role of the man.

No, that isn't like that at all.

By your own logic, Foyle's War "disrespects" all the men who served because it shows a male who's offerred a role in British Intelligence turning it down to remain on the police force. Throughout the series, there's the constant conflict between him and Allied forces as the needs of the war overturn war and order. Likewise, Sam leaves the MTC to be his driver. That's not even touching on Medal of Honour: Underground (which, if it was released today, would be criticized as "promoting the femnist agenda." Taking this train of thought to the end statement, any piece of war media that depicts anyone in an atypical role is disrespecting the war it's based on.

Similarly, as you yourself has admitted, codebreaking was done by both men and women. There isn't a 1/1 divide. And while it's true that females didn't serve on the frontlines on the Western Front, you could just, I dunno, NOT play as a female.

It also disrespects the men that did die on the frontlines. The horrors and death that befell them was unlike anything I can even begin to imagine and to have fictionalised women placed there diminishes the suffering the men went thru. They died in untold numbers so that their women wouldn't have to. Conscription and frontline warfare was the sad fate of able-bodied men then and this game utterly disrespects that reality.

Right, so, turning WWII into entertainment that already sanitizes the effects of war is fine. To quote a previous post

-Turning WWII into a game to be played = fine.

-Taking liberties with historical technology = fine.

-Replacing historical forces with a-historical forces = fine.

-Letting people play as girls in multiplayer = not fine.

That's not even touching on the sanitization of the war for entertainment in the first place.

I cannot explain it any better.

Well you can't explain it any worse.

You can continue to defend this game all you like

And you can rationalize all you like.

but it's bombing for all the reasons I've said.

Potentially.

It's a pretty sad inditement on society (or at least gamer culture), but that's still potentially true.

No, I never said anything about the game's "right to have female MP avatars". The game can have anything it likes and I will defend any developers right to create any game they wish. I never said a word about "the right" to anything. I will absolutely defend EA's right to put wimin in this game. If they wanted to create a WW2 game where every single character is female I'll defend their right to make it. But I will call it out for the pandering garbage it is and I certainly wouldn't pay for it.

Except you've made it clear that you never liked Battlefield to begin with, so claiming you never would have paid for it doesn't say that much.

Again, if you were never going to buy something, then try to claim that it's a matter of principle that you don't buy something, then call other people hypocrites for not buying the thing that you were never going to buy, then yes, that makes you a hypocrite.

"So to be clear", anyone defending this game for its "progressive"/social justice bent (ie. putting wimin on the frontlines) but then not putting their money with their mouths are, those are the hypocrites. They are the hypocrites and they are the reason this game is bombing.

Any putting of women on the frontlines is at player discretion. Your whole "social justice" angle might work better if players were forced to play as females. You don't "force" someone by giving them a choice. Likewise, multiplayer isn't really making a statement about anything, unless you want to read into it and say:

-The Norwegians and Dutch never defended their homelands, the British did it for them.

-The French never tried to defend France, the British did it for them.

-Bullet wounds meant nothing, medics could revive you on the spot?

-Civilians? Frostbite? PTSD? Hah, what nonsense! Now, where am I going to respawn?

Luckily, most people don't go looking for statements in multiplayer (of all the Battlefield games I've played, the only one approaching any kind of 'statement' is Bad Company, and only if you squint). Now if BF5 presented girls as being on the frontlines in its singleplayer, then you might have a leg to stand on, but aside from the presence of a female Norwegian resistance fighter, we haven't seen any evidence of that.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

-The Norwegians and Dutch never defended their homelands, the British did it for them.

Ackshually, it holds some water with the Norwegians. The only reason the fighting in Norway lasted until June was because France and the UK sent troops up to Narvik, more troops then Norway itself mustered in Narvik's defense. So there's definitely precedent for British troops in Narvik in 1940 and from a purely logistical perspective, it is probably a lot cheaper to re-use the same British models then it is to make Norwegian models to use in just one map.

But your point is still correct, in that women and minorities as customization options being "too much" is a weird hill to die on in terms of BF authenticity, when you look at all the other compromises it makes for all kinds of reasons.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

Which is still infinitely more than BlOps4 total lack of single player. Further, as I alluded to in my previous post, the total playtime of a campaign is of secondary importance to the enjoyment the individual derives from them. Much like how a movie doesn't become good just because it is 4 hours long or it automatically better then a 20 minute episode of a television series.

Yes but that doesn't mean the game is worth more just because it has a quickly put together single player. You can't possibly make me like a campaign that's a little more than an hour in length. Maybe if they could've chosen one of them and made it a ~ 6-hour experience then they could've done something worthwhile but no, they're sticking to this rubbish layout.

Which is a valid opinion. It doesn't change the fact that Activision is charging the same while including less.

This is up to the individual, if someone's getting more enjoyment and more game time out of the BR than they had with the SP the last 7 years then I'd say it's a good substitute.

When I said cheap, I meant cheap. As in literally a lot less expensive then a full fledged single player campaign. A CoD campaign of the last decade has been something close to a 100 million dollars worth of development funds. It has been that expensive because it has included famous actors, extensive mo cap, massive set pieces that requires extensive iteration and thorough play testing to ensure it all runs smooth. It is being replaced by a game mode that Epic managed to tack onto Fortnite in 2 months once they realized it was more profitable then the base game of Fortnite. That doesn't mean BR is a bad mode, it is just simple fact that multiplayer modes are a lot cheaper to develop, especially once the network infrastructure is in place.

If you like Battle Royale more then single player that's fine. But it won't change the fact that Activision is taking away the really expensive part of their development process and replacing it with something a lot cheaper, without even bothering with adjusting the price.

It's obviously cheaper since they aren't putting an A-list real-life actor in their game, which is a total waste of money when everything else is lackluster, pouring money into something doesn't automatically make the product worth more. Why do singleplayer games cost 60 bucks when I can get a game with singleplayer and multiplayer for 60 bucks? Should games like Metro cost less since it has less content?

Look, I love Fortnite, I've put 360 hours into it in almost a year now but the Battle Royale has been in a rough shape since it was ''released'', I'm saying ''released'' because it's still in Early Access and you can tell it was hastily put together. They just took things from their PvE version of the game and made a Battle Royale out of it, that's not what they are doing with Black Ops 4, they are recreating maps (and weapons/characters) from the previous Call of Duty's along with new ones to make a big diverse world, they are adding useable sea, land and air vehicles etc etc, it's obvious that they aren't just putting it together in the last second. I'd rather have a cheaper made game that is more fun than an more expensive made game that is mediocre, 60 dollars or not.

Look, I don't disagree with this. My contention is not about whether BlOps4 will have a good BR mode. My contention is with the business practice of substituting high cost content with low cost content and not even bothering to adjust price. It sets a dangerous precedent if successful, because it means more companies might try to exclude expensive content with an argument like 'it is what gamers wants', while charging the same money for a much cheaper to make product.

I see where you're coming from but we don't know how expensive (or not) Blops 4 was to make, I'd be very interested to see how much money went towards actual development. Then again, they are putting a ridiculous amount of money into advertising, I think Modern Warfare 2 still is the most expensive game made only because they poured 40 million into the development and then 200 million on advertising. I wouldn't be surprised if they put a 60 dollar price tag on it to keep covering the marketing.

 

[Hades]

Snip

Hold your horses there. The Dutch did defend their homeland....for 3 days. Then the Germans bombed Rotterdam and razed it to the ground, so we stopped doing that.

 

[Squilookle]

Not everything is connected to Fortnite, to me it sounds like you're blaming Fortnites existence for BFV's customization options.

I'm not on any high horse, friend, I'm just sick of people seeing connections between Fortnite and ''bad decision'' for a game when there's none.

BFV is combining extensive visual and weapon customisation with a Battle-Royale game. The two main games to popularise this- indeed the two most popular shooters in the entire world right now- are PUBG and Fortnite. Take your pick which one you think influenced Battlefield to ride the coattails if you like but make no mistake: those are your only two options.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

Not everything is connected to Fortnite, to me it sounds like you're blaming Fortnites existence for BFV's customization options.

I'm not on any high horse, friend, I'm just sick of people seeing connections between Fortnite and ''bad decision'' for a game when there's none.

BFV is combining extensive visual and weapon customisation with a Battle-Royale game. The two main games to popularise this- indeed the two most popular shooters in the entire world right now- are PUBG and Fortnite. Take your pick which one you think influenced Battlefield to ride the coattails if you like but make no mistake: those are your only two options.

This doesn't make any sense to me. So if there was no BR but it still had customization options, it wouldn't be copying Fortnite/Pubg? The customization is for the regular multiplayer too. I mean like I said before, games like Call of Duty already had ''extensive'' visual and weapon customization before Fortnite and PUBG was even out, did they copy Call of Duty?

 

[Squilookle]

Not everything is connected to Fortnite, to me it sounds like you're blaming Fortnites existence for BFV's customization options.

I'm not on any high horse, friend, I'm just sick of people seeing connections between Fortnite and ''bad decision'' for a game when there's none.

BFV is combining extensive visual and weapon customisation with a Battle-Royale game. The two main games to popularise this- indeed the two most popular shooters in the entire world right now- are PUBG and Fortnite. Take your pick which one you think influenced Battlefield to ride the coattails if you like but make no mistake: those are your only two options.

This doesn't make any sense to me. So if there was no BR but it still had customization options, it wouldn't be copying Fortnite/Pubg? The customization is for the regular multiplayer too. I mean like I said before, games like Call of Duty already had ''extensive'' visual and weapon customization before Fortnite and PUBG was even out, did they copy Call of Duty?

It's not about copying the games verbatim. It's about poaching as much of their playerbase as possible. They are doing this by including features/game modes of these popular shooters to provide players with an alternative to meet that aim. The two games that most closley embody the marriage of cosmetics and Battle Royale are PUBG and Fortnite. Those are the key target playerbases for Battlefield, just as it is for the next COD. You can say this bit comes from some earlier game or that bit comes from somewhere else. Doesn't matter. In fact it doesn't make a shred of difference to what their ultimate intention is.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

oh and the guy with a Katana, how did a brit get a bloody katana?

I'm not a fan of Captain Katana, but...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hong_Kong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Borneo_(1941%E2%80%9342)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Timor

Not sure how likely it is they'd transfer someone from the Pacific to European theatre, but definitely plausible.

 

[Erttheking]

Hey question. Everyone saying BFV was claiming to be historically accurate? According to whom?

EA and DICE did. Through Twitter and their teases they kept teasing us with BFV as the "most authentic and immersive Battlefield yet" and kept showing all these super-detailed authentic looking concept and game design docs/art.

They spend a good chunk of the original BFV reveal talking about it too;


Then they go and reveal....BFV. And it all goes downhill from there.

The words "authentic and immersive" have nothing to do with realism. Also can you give me a timestamp? I'm not digging through an hour and a half of video.

Dude I loved the Modern Warfare campaigns, even 3. I think MW3 was the last COD campaign I thought was great, every SP after that have ranged from meh to straight up awful. It's obvious that they're incapable of making a good singleplayer game since it's been 7 years since the last good one, at this point I don't care if the game has a SP or not, at least they're replacing it with a game mode that I greatly enjoy so I can't complain.

Well I can't make you care if the game has a SP or not, but I and quite a few other people don't think the best approach to making a game is trying less and less with iconic parts of a series before eventually dropping it for shallow trend chasing. Also I'm fairly certain they could make a good SP campaign. It would just require them to, you know, try.

the last battlefield had automatic weaponry everywhere and no one gave a crap.

Oh people gave a crap alright- we hounded BF1 from its first day until its last about the stupid prevalence of auto and semi auto guns dominating the "WW1 era" game. There was a common line of 'if they wanted to make a WW2 shooter so badly they should've just made it a WW2 shooter' In the end DICE tried to silence the crowd when they realised they could jerry-rig a mode from existing weapons quite easily. Hence the Standard Issue Rifles mode. But make no mistake, people were pissed about all the prototypes and weren't afraid to let it be known.

And I didn't hear any news about BF1 having a massive drop in pre-orders the way V did. Which makes me concerned that the mainstay of Battlefield fans are going "Historical inaccuracy is ok except when it's with women, in which case it's the most important thing in the world." We're certainly seeing some of that in this thread.