I know, no new content BUT...

2

Comments

  • Magikf1ngers
    251 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    @Loqtrall

    I'm not going to quote all of that and make it an even worse TLDR.  

    However - I'm going to address some of the finer points that you seemed to have either missed, ignored, or just flat out didn't understand in my post.

    First of all - I used the example of Titanfall because it's a different studio that's owned by EA, just like DICE.  EA gives the marching orders.  EA only cares about shareholders.  EA ignores its customers.  Hence, the games being abandoned before the normal life cycle of them. 

    Battlefield 1942 was released in 2002.  The next installment, Battlefield Vietnam was released in 2004 - but 1942 continued to receive support until Battlefield 2 was released in 2005.  Battlefield 2 was supported during Battlefield 2142 (released in 2006) and until Battlefield: Bad Company 2 came out in 2010.  (There were some console-only releases in there with the first Bad Company, Battlefield Heros, and Battlefield 1943) Battlefield 3 was released in late 2012 and BF: BC2 continued to receive support for a period of time after it's release.  

    I remember this all fairly well, as I was a clan leader, and we had our own servers for all of those versions.  I was the lead admin for those servers, interacting with the rental agency, collecting funds, kicking in my own cash when we didn't get the donations, etc.  I remember the nightmare of the network issues with BF:4 very clearly.  I can't attest to what everyone else remembers. 

    Again - I have nothing to say about Battlefield 1.  I didn't enjoy it, didn't play it (I think I only have about 200 hours or so in it) much, and just didn't care.  I know my opinion of BF 1 isn't popular, but it is MY opinion after all, and the game felt overly gimmicky and just felt like tarnish on what Battlefield used to be.  I don't care that it was a best seller or anything like that, because again - this is MY opinion that I'm conveying.  

    Hardline isn't even worth being mentioned here, so I'm not going to grace that with a mention other than to say it's not worth it.

    You say that BF:V had more content than the other DLC - I don't know what version you're comparing it to.  BF2 had a TON of content in its expansion packs, as did 3 and 4.  The problem I have with V's weapons is that so many of them feel gimmicky, or they feel like reskins of other weapons that perform equally.  The imagination is gone out of them.  Same with some of the vehicles, as they definitely ARE gimmicky - like having a mobile AA unit that can fire on infantry in a flat trajectory, when the real-life counterpart could not fire that way.  When an explosive device that damaged tracks should be stopping a tank cold, instead does basically nothing of consequence to the tanks because they can repair while moving.  

    NOT ONLY THAT - I'm not just talking about content that way, but features.  RSP has been removed.  Being able to switch teams has been removed.  Any sort of team balance has been removed.  There's basically zero response to Voldemorts.  Hard Core mode is gone.  The way they fight with the balance in BF:V is ridiculous.  Nerf this, buff that, then nerf it again.  Then they ignore things like the death bug where you can't spawn until you either quit the server or your entire squad gets wiped.  That's been there since day 1.  

    Plus we'll add into this stew of jackassery the unfulfilled promise of more content.  There were supposed to be further installments in the SP mode for example. 

    Overall - when you compare to previous versions of Battlefield, 19 months of support is a shortened support cycle that left us hanging after promises of further content, the game feels unfinished with bugs that have been in the game since launch, and features are removed from previous versions of the game for basically no good reason. 

    I'm honestly glad you're satisfied with BF:V.  Good on you.  But as someone who's been playing this game since launch day in 2002, and who helped build a successful community around RSPs that have been taken away, as well as competed in the game up through BF3 in amateur ladders, BF:V has left a terrible taste in my mouth.  Add to that the fact that it's following the pattern of other EA franchises and having support cycles shortened, lackluster content, and features removed in favor of microtransactions - that's my problem with EA.  My problem isn't with DICE, it's not with Respawn (Except the fact that Vince Z is a lying knob), or the various studios that have done NFS.  EA is the driving force behind it all.  There's a pattern whether you choose to see it or not.  Just like EA dictating that major issues in their games aren't allowed to be discussed in the official forums (as a moderator for the Respawn TF:2 forums, I have a ton of sympathy for the moderators here).  

    EA has gone from an awesome games studio/publisher (Back in the 90s, I used to work upstairs from them in Bellevue, WA, and got to know some of the guys in the then-fledgling EA Sports studio) to this huge conglomerate that just doesn't seem to give two squirts about their customers. 

    Again - honestly - I'm glad you're satisfied.  However, I - and many others who have been here for the last nearly 20 years playing in this franchise - are not.
  • CloneTrooperCT
    403 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)

    i would not hold my breath on these implementations, there has been no new infos regarding any of these to my knowledge and since DICE is in summer vacation mode i wouldn't be surprised if they announced afterwords to delay everything indefinetly depending on how work on the next issue is well and truely underway

    Its holiday, but after the summer holiday is over Dice peoples continue with the patch.
    See here
  • CloneTrooperCT
    403 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    @Loqtrall

    I'm not going to quote all of that and make it an even worse TLDR.  

    However - I'm going to address some of the finer points that you seemed to have either missed, ignored, or just flat out didn't understand in my post.

    First of all - I used the example of Titanfall because it's a different studio that's owned by EA, just like DICE.  EA gives the marching orders.  EA only cares about shareholders.  EA ignores its customers.  Hence, the games being abandoned before the normal life cycle of them. 

    Battlefield 1942 was released in 2002.  The next installment, Battlefield Vietnam was released in 2004 - but 1942 continued to receive support until Battlefield 2 was released in 2005.  Battlefield 2 was supported during Battlefield 2142 (released in 2006) and until Battlefield: Bad Company 2 came out in 2010.  (There were some console-only releases in there with the first Bad Company, Battlefield Heros, and Battlefield 1943) Battlefield 3 was released in late 2012 and BF: BC2 continued to receive support for a period of time after it's release.  

    I remember this all fairly well, as I was a clan leader, and we had our own servers for all of those versions.  I was the lead admin for those servers, interacting with the rental agency, collecting funds, kicking in my own cash when we didn't get the donations, etc.  I remember the nightmare of the network issues with BF:4 very clearly.  I can't attest to what everyone else remembers. 

    Again - I have nothing to say about Battlefield 1.  I didn't enjoy it, didn't play it (I think I only have about 200 hours or so in it) much, and just didn't care.  I know my opinion of BF 1 isn't popular, but it is MY opinion after all, and the game felt overly gimmicky and just felt like tarnish on what Battlefield used to be.  I don't care that it was a best seller or anything like that, because again - this is MY opinion that I'm conveying.  

    Hardline isn't even worth being mentioned here, so I'm not going to grace that with a mention other than to say it's not worth it.

    You say that BF:V had more content than the other DLC - I don't know what version you're comparing it to.  BF2 had a TON of content in its expansion packs, as did 3 and 4.  The problem I have with V's weapons is that so many of them feel gimmicky, or they feel like reskins of other weapons that perform equally.  The imagination is gone out of them.  Same with some of the vehicles, as they definitely ARE gimmicky - like having a mobile AA unit that can fire on infantry in a flat trajectory, when the real-life counterpart could not fire that way.  When an explosive device that damaged tracks should be stopping a tank cold, instead does basically nothing of consequence to the tanks because they can repair while moving.  

    NOT ONLY THAT - I'm not just talking about content that way, but features.  RSP has been removed.  Being able to switch teams has been removed.  Any sort of team balance has been removed.  There's basically zero response to Voldemorts.  Hard Core mode is gone.  The way they fight with the balance in BF:V is ridiculous.  Nerf this, buff that, then nerf it again.  Then they ignore things like the death bug where you can't spawn until you either quit the server or your entire squad gets wiped.  That's been there since day 1.  

    Plus we'll add into this stew of jackassery the unfulfilled promise of more content.  There were supposed to be further installments in the SP mode for example. 

    Overall - when you compare to previous versions of Battlefield, 19 months of support is a shortened support cycle that left us hanging after promises of further content, the game feels unfinished with bugs that have been in the game since launch, and features are removed from previous versions of the game for basically no good reason. 

    I'm honestly glad you're satisfied with BF:V.  Good on you.  But as someone who's been playing this game since launch day in 2002, and who helped build a successful community around RSPs that have been taken away, as well as competed in the game up through BF3 in amateur ladders, BF:V has left a terrible taste in my mouth.  Add to that the fact that it's following the pattern of other EA franchises and having support cycles shortened, lackluster content, and features removed in favor of microtransactions - that's my problem with EA.  My problem isn't with DICE, it's not with Respawn (Except the fact that Vince Z is a lying knob), or the various studios that have done NFS.  EA is the driving force behind it all.  There's a pattern whether you choose to see it or not.  Just like EA dictating that major issues in their games aren't allowed to be discussed in the official forums (as a moderator for the Respawn TF:2 forums, I have a ton of sympathy for the moderators here).  

    EA has gone from an awesome games studio/publisher (Back in the 90s, I used to work upstairs from them in Bellevue, WA, and got to know some of the guys in the then-fledgling EA Sports studio) to this huge conglomerate that just doesn't seem to give two squirts about their customers. 

    Again - honestly - I'm glad you're satisfied.  However, I - and many others who have been here for the last nearly 20 years playing in this franchise - are not.

    You're posting a ton of misinformation in response to a retort addressing misinformation.

    First off - EA does not "give the marching orders" when it comes to devs outright abandoning their games, which didn't happen in any of the examples you listed. And EA does not have a history of forcing its devs to abandon games. You're basing that information on Respawn, a small studio compared to other AAA studios, supporting its second Titanfall game LONGER than they supported Titanfall 1. Because I'm not sure if you remember, but the first Titanfall title was released in March 2014 and recurve all its content and its last major update before the 2015 year had even come.

    Ffs, look at Anthem, a game that was near universally lambasted and lampooned, made by revered devs who are currently working on the next Dragon Age title, and after all this time EA is STILL allowing them to completely revamp the game - a game that was damn near given away for free in recent sales.

    If what you say is true and there's a "pattern" to EA canceling support for games prematurely and abandoning them - Apex Legends should have ended development months ago and would be "abandoned" already.

    Secondly - no, BF1942 was not actively supported with major additions and updates until 2005. Secret Weapons of WW2, the last expansion for 1942, was released in September 2003, before the release of Vietnam in 2004. Of course, the OSX version of the game didn't release until mid 2004, but using that as an excuse to say BF1942 was actively supported into 2005 is a weak argument. It just received incremental updates that the PC version had received long beforehand.

    And just like BF1942, BF2 was not actively supported with content into 2142s life cycle. BF2 received one full expansion and two booster add ons between its release in 2005, and June 2006 - 4 months before 2142 was even released.

    Annnnnnd JUST like 1942 and BF2, BC2 was not supported with major updates well into BF3s life cycle. It launched in March 2010 and received its last dlc update, BF Vietnam, in September of the same year. I can't even find one piece of info online about ONE update released for that game in 2012.

    So excuse me if I have issues with what you claim to remember - because factual data doesn't seem to be backing it up, and you definitely weren't the only long time player in a clan, running servers, and being dedicated to the franchise at that time. Running your own servers and being dedicated to games has nothing to do with how long the developers actually supported those games. It's all public and easily accessible information.

    LOL and I really have to point out - you definitely don't attest to what "everyone" remembers - there are plenty about this community who don't remember the actualities of BF4s launch state at all. There are some members here and abroad who have been a part of the community for years and didn't even start playing Bf4 until 2015-2016 and actively praise it and use it as a comparison toward BF5 in order to point out how much "better" BF4 was - despite the game receiving the longest post launch support out of any BF game and still being an issue-ridden mess and balancing nightmare to this day.

    And it doesn't matter if YOU have nothing to say about BF1 because you didn't like it and didn't play it - it's a part of this franchise and, despite being similar to BF5 in how it's setting was handled and how it was developed post-launch, it's the best selling game in this franchise. You csnt make arguments wherein you claim BF4 was the last game that DICE expressed support toward its fanbase, and then outright ignore the fact that the next major DICE BF title was loved by many and is literally the best selling BF game - solely based on you not liking the game.

    It wasn't your opinion you were conveying - you insisted, quite matter-of-factly, that BF4 was the last game where DICE cared about their players. That's a pretty damning accusation if you're basing it on your subjective dislike of a game.

    At that point you're ignoring fact, based on your opinion, to further an argument that is now proven to be based entirely on your own opinion. I mean, Ffs, you literally just attempted to tell me not to even qualify Hardline as worthy of being in a discussion about BF games, despite being a part of this franchise. That's not how it works in an objective discussion about how long DICE supported their games and whether or not they actively cared about customer feedback.

    Now, I'm going to directly quote this part because it's pretty egregious in its falsity and I want to make sure you know I'm addressing this specific part now:
    You say that BF:V had more content than the other DLC - I don't know what version you're comparing it to.  BF2 had a TON of content in its expansion packs, as did 3 and 4.  The problem I have with V's weapons is that so many of them feel gimmicky, or they feel like reskins of other weapons that perform equally.  The imagination is gone out of them.  Same with some of the vehicles, as they definitely ARE gimmicky - like having a mobile AA unit that can fire on infantry in a flat trajectory, when the real-life counterpart could not fire that way.  When an explosive device that damaged tracks should be stopping a tank cold, instead does basically nothing of consequence to the tanks because they can repair while moving.

    I say that because it's statistical fact regardless of how much dlc you THINK BF2, BF3, and BF4 received. BF2 is my all time favorite BF title (look at my sig, Ffs) so it's not as if I'd willingly and falsely claim BF5 got more content than that game just to make a shaky point.

    Doing a cursory a count up of content for all 3 games based on expansion and dlc pages for each game on the BF Fandom wiki:

    BF2 got one major expansion and 2 smaller dlcs that added a total of:

    14 maps, 7 weapons, and 20 vehicles

    Bf3, the closest another game has gotten, got the most dlc packs out of any BF title and got:

    20 maps, 20 weapons, and 18 vehicles - with some dlc packs not adding weapons, others not adding vehicles.

    Bf4, another contender for most dlc content, got:

    23 maps, 25 weapons, and 7 vehicles. With Dragons Teeth adding no vehicles and Final Stand adding no weapons.

    Please - give me another BF game so I can post similar numbers to those seen above. It's the same story every time and this isn't even remotely the first time I've had this specific discussion.

    As for the second half of that quote above, you're not expressing a "lack of imagination", you're expressing something that has been present in plenty of past BF titles. For instance, a good portion of BF4s overall arsenal are statistically identical firearms. DICE added a final 5-weapon free dlc drop at the end of BF4s life cycle and literally didn't add a sniper rifle because, and I quote, "there was no way to balance an additional rifle in a way that would make it statistically different to any other rifle in the game". BF4s MAA was also capable of killing infant and was quite infamous for it.

    What you're arguing for when you reference "AA that can attack infantry even though it's real life counterpart couldn't" or "that explosive should stop a tank dead in its tracks" is realism, not imagination.

    But, moving on.

    I'd hate to break it to you, but past BF games were not known for stellar anti cheat or team balancing either. That's why rented servers (which do exist in BF5 despite not being set up exactly the same as titles beforehand) were such a popular option in BF games. Because admins would run their own servers to manually boot cheaters, manually balance teams, or have plug ins that did that for them. BF3 and BF4 had notoriously bad team balance and anti cheat that was alleviated solely through people paying to rent their own server to prevent it. The "I reported this guy for hacking 6 months ago and just saw him in another match" threads were abundant on BL Forums at that time as well.

    It's not as if BF was known for stellar anti cheat and well balanced matches, and then BF5 launched and had none of that. Both of those aspects have been heavily criticized in damn near every BF title I've played.

    Now moving on to these supposed "unfulfilled promises" of content. Please, for me as someone trying to have a level headed discussion, for everyone else reading it - post some evidence of these supposed promises and claims. Because I never remember DICE promising a specific type or facet of content that they either didn't deliver on, of outright didn't release without saying anything (because they WERE developing a 5v5 mode that got canned and they made an entire announcement about it and stated reasons why, and them doing the same thing with body dragging, which was confirmed to not be in the game before it even launched). About the only thing I can't think of that truly falls under the category of "unfulfilled promises" is them insisting in promotional material and interviews that combat roles would be expanded upon. Which isn't a major facet of content, like a supposed expansion to single player war stories.

    Because, imo, baselessly insisting DICE made promises, which can't be found upon actually trying to search for them, is a completely moot point.

    Lastly - what I've said has nothing to do with how I subjectively feel about BF5. What I've been saying pertains to how BF5 objectively and factually compares to other BF games in terms of post launch support, how DICE addressed feedback, and how long said games received updates and bug fixes.

    This isn't about how I feel about BF5 and nowhere in the vast swaths of words I've posted here have I posted about how I feel about BF5 or whether or not I think it was worthwhile. This is about giving BF5 a fair and objective chance in the face of people spreading misinformation about how past BF games were handled just in attempts to take a dump on a game they merely dislike. I've had plenty of criticism toward BF that I've posted here. I had an insanely lengthy post on the first page of the "ttk 2.0 megsthread" where I attempted to tear DICE a new rear end because of the pointless changes they made to gunplay. There's still plenty in the game I lament about when I play it.

    But that's literally no different than any other BF title I've played. I can hop on BF4 or BF1 right now and I'd guarantee I'd find thighs to criticize in just a single match. I guarantee I'd run into some glitch/bug/inconsistency in the same time frame. That's Battlefield. Viewing past games through welded-on, rose tinted nostalgia glasses doesn't change that.

    You're making completely baseless and easily disproven claims like games nowadays have support cut short compared to past games and having lackluster content, when you're talking about a game that has received the second longest span of active support out of any other game in its franchise and that received literally more of every other type of post launch dlc aside from maps than any other game in its franchise.

    Do you realize how asinine that seems?

    There is no pattern of games being cut short. You referenced two games that had longer supported post launch lifespans than their predecessors. You claimed that features from past games were removed in favor of micro transactions despite BF5 having LESS egregious mtx than BF games you give praise to and not even having paid currency or cosmetics in the game for the first 5 months of its life span.

    Like I said, you're not the only one here who has been playing these games for 18 years and who actually cares about the franchise - and you're spreading some pretty blatant examples of misinformation about this franchise as well as another in what seems to be an attempt to baselessly take a dump on BF5 further than just saying you simply didn't enjoy the game - all in response to my initial comment that was easily proven with factual evidence that other BF games received bug fixes over a year after launch. And then you go on to make blind assumptions that I'm fully satisfied with the game and have nothing bad to say about it.

    There's still NOTHING you've said indicating that DICE actually would go back on the updates they've said are coming later this year. All you've essentially done in this back and forth is lament about BF5 not being the game you wanted, giving praise to past BF games, and then baselessly claiming EA outright forces their devs to fully abandon games at the drop of a hat.
  • ragnarok013
    3876 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Loqtrall said:
    Fixes in a game that’s been on the market for nearly 2 years!
    Lost for words is an understatement.
    Never again dice.

    There were fixes going on in BF4 for nearly 3 entire years and the game was still largely in a poor state well after the 1 year mark. And everybody now coddles that game like they owe it their life.

    Bf5 hasn't even been out 2 years yet. Literally every game in this franchise has received updates and fixes as long as BF5 has so far. At this time after release in regards to past games in this franchise (just over 1 1/2 years after launch of any given toitle), the next game in the franchise hadn't even been released yet.

    BF4's support was extended for an extra year directly due to Hardline's lack of market success; there was even talk about a making Premium Pass number 2 for BF4 which never panned out but we did receive some excellent community night maps. Hardline on the other hand only continued to get content in order to fulfill the Premium pass' advertised content drops.  If Hardline was part of a Live Service I'm sure all development would have ceased when EA determined it was not the commercial success they projected like we see with BF5 since in a Live Service a Premium Pass with guaranteed content was not sold.
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    BF4's support was extended for an extra year directly due to Hardline's lack of market success; there was even talk about a making Premium Pass number 2 for BF4 which never panned out but we did receive some excellent community night maps. Hardline on the other hand only continued to get content in order to fulfill the Premium pass' advertised content drops.  If Hardline was part of a Live Service I'm sure all development would have ceased when EA determined it was not the commercial success they projected like we see with BF5 since in a Live Service a Premium Pass with guaranteed content was not sold.

    I referenced as to why BF4 received extended support earlier in the thread. In reality the extended support for BF4 resulted in one night map (golmud and siege night maps got scrapped and never made it out of CTE), the community map project map, and the Dragon Valley remake from BF2 - as well as a free 5-weapon dlc drop - over the course of two years. That was after BF4 got all of its originally planned content in under 1 year after release.

    I fail to see how BF5's reception and failure to meet corporate sales expectations (despite still selling millions of copies) somehow negatively affected the length of BF5s support. It was already set at an incredibly unrealistic expectation of outselling BF1, the best selling title in the franchise, by 3+ million copies at release. They expected a slam dunk for the franchise and got a game that performed in market as well as any other average BF game.

    It was supported with content additions as long as any other BF title and received an absolute boat load of post launch content despite it being free, the game having no battle pass or loot boxes, and the only mtx being cosmetics and not even being present in the game until 5 months after release. Not only that, but it received updates at an exceedingly faster pace than other BF titles under the Premium system, and for a longer span of time.

    If we're using the "if it was a live service" logic, I'd argue BF4 would have been canned immediately, it wasn't even in a playable state for most of the user base until 6 months after launch and was still glaringly flawed even a year after launch when it had already received all planned post launch content. It failed to sell as many copies as its predecessor, the former best selling game in the franchise and one that was hailed as "the best BF ever", and garnered generally unfavorable reviews.

    Nowadays, like I stated above, after 3 years of fixes and additions, the community coddles that game like they owe it their life despite it still being heavily flawed and crazily unbalanced.
  • emerson1975
    598 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    Fixes in a game that’s been on the market for nearly 2 years!
    Lost for words is an understatement.
    Never again dice.

    There were fixes going on in BF4 for nearly 3 entire years and the game was still largely in a poor state well after the 1 year mark. And everybody now coddles that game like they owe it their life.

    Bf5 hasn't even been out 2 years yet. Literally every game in this franchise has received updates and fixes as long as BF5 has so far. At this time after release in regards to past games in this franchise (just over 1 1/2 years after launch of any given toitle), the next game in the franchise hadn't even been released yet. It's not uncommon for BF games to receive fixes this long after launch at all.

    If that was really the "never again, DICE" moment, you wouldn't have played two BF titles total.
    For starters I said NEARLY out for 2 years and secondly I never bough bf4 at launch so I can’t comment on how long it had taken to fix it or if they ever did!
    Your very typical of the battlefield fan of today thinking and talking like it’s ok to still have bugs in games 2 years later, it’s NOT!
    And just to let you know I have played this franchise from the very beginning starting with an old ti4200!
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    For starters I said NEARLY out for 2 years and secondly I never bough bf4 at launch so I can’t comment on how long it had taken to fix it or if they ever did!
    Your very typical of the battlefield fan of today thinking and talking like it’s ok to still have bugs in games 2 years later, it’s NOT!
    And just to let you know I have played this franchise from the very beginning starting with an old ti4200!

    You couldn't name me a single game that's absent of outstanding technical issues in some way, shape, or form regardless of how long its been out. Let alone a single BF game. I can go back and play BF2 (my favorite title and a game I shower with praise) and can find issues, inconsistencies, and bugs in just a single match.

    It's not typical of a BF fan to point out the realities and complexity of the inner workings of high end, big budget video games and how they will never be bug-free pieces of software - that's typical of any person using logic and reason, and/or who has played at least one popular and praised game for an extended period of time. Ffs, Microsoft Word still has bugs and crashing issues, and that's a simple word processor software that's been developed for Windows OS over the course of decades.
  • Magikf1ngers
    251 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall said:
    For starters I said NEARLY out for 2 years and secondly I never bough bf4 at launch so I can’t comment on how long it had taken to fix it or if they ever did!
    Your very typical of the battlefield fan of today thinking and talking like it’s ok to still have bugs in games 2 years later, it’s NOT!
    And just to let you know I have played this franchise from the very beginning starting with an old ti4200!

    You couldn't name me a single game that's absent of outstanding technical issues in some way, shape, or form regardless of how long its been out. Let alone a single BF game. I can go back and play BF2 (my favorite title and a game I shower with praise) and can find issues, inconsistencies, and bugs in just a single match.

    It's not typical of a BF fan to point out the realities and complexity of the inner workings of high end, big budget video games and how they will never be bug-free pieces of software - that's typical of any person using logic and reason, and/or who has played at least one popular and praised game for an extended period of time. Ffs, Microsoft Word still has bugs and crashing issues, and that's a simple word processor software that's been developed for Windows OS over the course of decades.
    I absolutely agree with you on this 100%.  

    The rest - obviously - we have differing viewpoints, even if you want to be a jackhole and call it "misinformation" when I was there, I was playing the games, I was leading a popular community around the game, and I remember the way things were at the time.  I also have been an EA customer for damn near 30 years, and have been a happy one up until about 2015, when the decline started.  

    You can throw all of your opinions out there and all of that, but that doesn't change the simple fact that EA has set a pattern with other franchises of having studios abandon games, take away features, etc. in favor of ridiculous microtransactions and subscription services.  Again - what I put out to you before was MY opinion, and I'm just as entitled to post my opinion as you are without you crying about misinformation when it's not.  The fact is, DICE / EA promised more content for BF:V and didn't deliver.  The fact is, EA has made other studios shut down support promising quality of life updates, and then didn't deliver.  It's a pattern with EA.  It's out of DICE, Respawn, etc hands.  They'd rather sell out to EA than retain their autonomy.  
  • Red_Label_Scotch
    1557 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Ah crap, EA owns Dragon Age now?  Yet another game I won't play.
  • emerson1975
    598 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    For starters I said NEARLY out for 2 years and secondly I never bough bf4 at launch so I can’t comment on how long it had taken to fix it or if they ever did!
    Your very typical of the battlefield fan of today thinking and talking like it’s ok to still have bugs in games 2 years later, it’s NOT!
    And just to let you know I have played this franchise from the very beginning starting with an old ti4200!

    You couldn't name me a single game that's absent of outstanding technical issues in some way, shape, or form regardless of how long its been out. Let alone a single BF game. I can go back and play BF2 (my favorite title and a game I shower with praise) and can find issues, inconsistencies, and bugs in just a single match.

    It's not typical of a BF fan to point out the realities and complexity of the inner workings of high end, big budget video games and how they will never be bug-free pieces of software - that's typical of any person using logic and reason, and/or who has played at least one popular and praised game for an extended period of time. Ffs, Microsoft Word still has bugs and crashing issues, and that's a simple word processor software that's been developed for Windows OS over the course of decades.
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    For starters I said NEARLY out for 2 years and secondly I never bough bf4 at launch so I can’t comment on how long it had taken to fix it or if they ever did!
    Your very typical of the battlefield fan of today thinking and talking like it’s ok to still have bugs in games 2 years later, it’s NOT!
    And just to let you know I have played this franchise from the very beginning starting with an old ti4200!

    You couldn't name me a single game that's absent of outstanding technical issues in some way, shape, or form regardless of how long its been out. Let alone a single BF game. I can go back and play BF2 (my favorite title and a game I shower with praise) and can find issues, inconsistencies, and bugs in just a single match.

    It's not typical of a BF fan to point out the realities and complexity of the inner workings of high end, big budget video games and how they will never be bug-free pieces of software - that's typical of any person using logic and reason, and/or who has played at least one popular and praised game for an extended period of time. Ffs, Microsoft Word still has bugs and crashing issues, and that's a simple word processor software that's been developed for Windows OS over the course of decades.

    And this is a typical response of an apologist!
    You have just 3 platforms to make the game for and they all have x86 architecture and all use the same engine and you think it’s acceptable to be fixing bugs nearly 2 year later?
    It’s know wonder they think it’s ok to release games in a beta state with fans like you.
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    I absolutely agree with you on this 100%.  

    The rest - obviously - we have differing viewpoints, even if you want to be a jackhole and call it "misinformation" when I was there, I was playing the games, I was leading a popular community around the game, and I remember the way things were at the time.  I also have been an EA customer for damn near 30 years, and have been a happy one up until about 2015, when the decline started.  

    You can throw all of your opinions out there and all of that, but that doesn't change the simple fact that EA has set a pattern with other franchises of having studios abandon games, take away features, etc. in favor of ridiculous microtransactions and subscription services.  Again - what I put out to you before was MY opinion, and I'm just as entitled to post my opinion as you are without you crying about misinformation when it's not.  The fact is, DICE / EA promised more content for BF:V and didn't deliver.  The fact is, EA has made other studios shut down support promising quality of life updates, and then didn't deliver.  It's a pattern with EA.  It's out of DICE, Respawn, etc hands.  They'd rather sell out to EA than retain their autonomy.  

    So now I'm a "jackhole" because I used the word "misinformation" to describe false information you're claiming is true? That's literally the definition of misinformation. You claimed games were actively supported with updates well longer than they actually were. You claimed games were supported for a lesser amount of time when they weren't. You insisted BF5 didn't get more content than other BF games to the extent you questioned which version of the game I was playing when I made the claim, despite what I said being absolutely true. You said DICE promised content and didn't fulfill those promises despite there being no evidence of those promises being made and you not posting evidence of it at all.

    Most of the points you've argued are easily disproven. Like how you insisted BC2 was updated well into BF3s life cycle in 2012, despite getting all of its content in less than a year and there being no evidence of any BC2 updates being released in 2012, let alone AFTER the release of BF3.

    That's why I said what you claim to remember doesn't matter. Because there's actually evidence proving whether what you remember is true or not. We shouldn't base an objective comparison between games on the capability of someone's memory.

    I wasn't stating opinions, I was countering your claims with factual information, information I actively researched WHILE typing up my responses to make sure what I was posting was correct. I spent from 7:30AM to 8:45AM my time yesterday posting that response above because I was looking up dates Titanfall games were supported through, looking up release dates of games, researching whether games somehow received updates after the release of successors that I was just completely unaware of, looking up exactly how much content BF2, BF3, and BF4 got, etc, etc, etc.

    For the second time - nothing I've said pertains to my opinion about the game, and honestly, attempting to boil what I've argued down to "throwing all my opinions out there" is pretty weak and a little insulting. I'm merely defending a game from people who are spreading false information about it or who seem to want to make it less about them merely disliking a game and act as if BF5 is somehow a smack in the face and a deep act of disrespect from DICE just because they didn't like a game.

    And for the second time, it's not your opinion when you're making claims in a matter-of-factly way in a discussion that solely pertains to facts about these games. You were making very bold claims that you obviously believed were fact and had nothing to do with subjective opinion aside from those claims being wrong.

    Either post some evidence or numbers supporting your claims or stop insisting that me claiming what you're saying is misinformation is somehow "wrong". Because the things you've been claiming are true are actually easily disproven with publicly accessible and easily researchable information online.

    And that's aside the fact you addressed nothing I said. When it comes to EAs supposed track record of forcing studios to abandon games, you didn't address how BF5 is the second longest supported game in the franchise, how SWBF2 was supported longer than SWBF1, how TF2 was supported longer than TF1, nor did you address the fact that after a hard failure, a launch sales flop, a huge controversy, and damning reviews - EA is still allowing Bioware to completely revamp Anthem, a game that lost nearly it's entire playerbase and literally went on sale for 3 dollars.

    You didn't address the statistical information pointing to BF5 getting generally more content than othet games despite disputing that claim when I made it.

    You didn't address where I asked you to post one single shred of evidence wherein DICE explicitly promised future content and didn't fulfill that promise.

    Then you expect me to take what you say seriously when you claim it's just a fact? After all of that? And now you call me a Jackhole for pointing out the glaring inconsistencies and falsities in what you've posted?
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    For starters I said NEARLY out for 2 years and secondly I never bough bf4 at launch so I can’t comment on how long it had taken to fix it or if they ever did!
    Your very typical of the battlefield fan of today thinking and talking like it’s ok to still have bugs in games 2 years later, it’s NOT!
    And just to let you know I have played this franchise from the very beginning starting with an old ti4200!

    You couldn't name me a single game that's absent of outstanding technical issues in some way, shape, or form regardless of how long its been out. Let alone a single BF game. I can go back and play BF2 (my favorite title and a game I shower with praise) and can find issues, inconsistencies, and bugs in just a single match.

    It's not typical of a BF fan to point out the realities and complexity of the inner workings of high end, big budget video games and how they will never be bug-free pieces of software - that's typical of any person using logic and reason, and/or who has played at least one popular and praised game for an extended period of time. Ffs, Microsoft Word still has bugs and crashing issues, and that's a simple word processor software that's been developed for Windows OS over the course of decades.
    Loqtrall wrote: »
    For starters I said NEARLY out for 2 years and secondly I never bough bf4 at launch so I can’t comment on how long it had taken to fix it or if they ever did!
    Your very typical of the battlefield fan of today thinking and talking like it’s ok to still have bugs in games 2 years later, it’s NOT!
    And just to let you know I have played this franchise from the very beginning starting with an old ti4200!

    You couldn't name me a single game that's absent of outstanding technical issues in some way, shape, or form regardless of how long its been out. Let alone a single BF game. I can go back and play BF2 (my favorite title and a game I shower with praise) and can find issues, inconsistencies, and bugs in just a single match.

    It's not typical of a BF fan to point out the realities and complexity of the inner workings of high end, big budget video games and how they will never be bug-free pieces of software - that's typical of any person using logic and reason, and/or who has played at least one popular and praised game for an extended period of time. Ffs, Microsoft Word still has bugs and crashing issues, and that's a simple word processor software that's been developed for Windows OS over the course of decades.

    And this is a typical response of an apologist!
    You have just 3 platforms to make the game for and they all have x86 architecture and all use the same engine and you think it’s acceptable to be fixing bugs nearly 2 year later?
    It’s know wonder they think it’s ok to release games in a beta state with fans like you.

    And this is the typical response of someone deflecting becuase they lack a legitimate response.

    You still couldn't list me a single game regardless of its release that is free of issues. You couldn't do it because it is legitimately, factually, objectively impossible to code and program a piece of such complex software without having random bugs and issues.

    So if you're going to respond in kind again, at least leave an example of game you THINK has no bugs, so I can look it up on Google and find recent bug reports in less than 2 minutes.

    Apologist? More like 'realist'.
  • mesterKG
    165 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ...
    And this is a typical response of an apologist!
    You have just 3 platforms to make the game for and they all have x86 architecture and all use the same engine and you think it’s acceptable to be fixing bugs nearly 2 year later?
    It’s know wonder they think it’s ok to release games in a beta state with fans like you.

    You don't know much about software development, do you?

    Software, and games in particular, are just too complex for us mere humans to get right. And if you try, you'd go bankrupt before you release the game, and if you have unlimited resources, you release your perfect game and then the first user in the first game will find a bug you didn't find before release.

    Getting Sony onboard with the x86 has certainly simplified the process of delivering on that platform.. but other than that, you still got a myriad of variance in the pc market that could lead to issues.

    Add to that the complexity of distributed systems, ie multiplayer online games..

    Simply put, there is no way to make a game like Battlefield bug-free. Your best hope is to get rid of game breaking bugs.

    I've player BFV since launch. Tracker tells me 34D 11H 33M Play Time.
    In this time the game has crashed on me a couple of times and I got the stuck in bleedout-state a couple of times. There's been a few days where the servers were down due to issues (at least one of them was due to DDOS attack). So all in all, I think Dice and EA have done a good job with BFV on the technical side.

    That being said, with every patch there has been some minor issues that while not breaking the game, gives the impression of poor QA. Oh.. and I now remember they messed up the looting in firestorm in a patch which made it more or less unplayable. That for sure felt like something that should be discovered during QA. So.. they have made mistakes, for sure.




  • CrashCA
    1361 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member

    Do not hold your breath on either of these.
  • Magikf1ngers
    251 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Loqtrall said:
    (Quote)
    I absolutely agree with you on this 100%.  

    The rest - obviously - we have differing viewpoints, even if you want to be a jackhole and call it "misinformation" when I was there, I was playing the games, I was leading a popular community around the game, and I remember the way things were at the time.  I also have been an EA customer for damn near 30 years, and have been a happy one up until about 2015, when the decline started.  

    You can throw all of your opinions out there and all of that, but that doesn't change the simple fact that EA has set a pattern with other franchises of having studios abandon games, take away features, etc. in favor of ridiculous microtransactions and subscription services.  Again - what I put out to you before was MY opinion, and I'm just as entitled to post my opinion as you are without you crying about misinformation when it's not.  The fact is, DICE / EA promised more content for BF:V and didn't deliver.  The fact is, EA has made other studios shut down support promising quality of life updates, and then didn't deliver.  It's a pattern with EA.  It's out of DICE, Respawn, etc hands.  They'd rather sell out to EA than retain their autonomy.  

    So now I'm a "jackhole" because I used the word "misinformation" to describe false information you're claiming is true? That's literally the definition of misinformation. You claimed games were actively supported with updates well longer than they actually were. You claimed games were supported for a lesser amount of time when they weren't. You insisted BF5 didn't get more content than other BF games to the extent you questioned which version of the game I was playing when I made the claim, despite what I said being absolutely true. You said DICE promised content and didn't fulfill those promises despite there being no evidence of those promises being made and you not posting evidence of it at all.

    Most of the points you've argued are easily disproven. Like how you insisted BC2 was updated well into BF3s life cycle in 2012, despite getting all of its content in less than a year and there being no evidence of any BC2 updates being released in 2012, let alone AFTER the release of BF3.

    That's why I said what you claim to remember doesn't matter. Because there's actually evidence proving whether what you remember is true or not. We shouldn't base an objective comparison between games on the capability of someone's memory.

    I wasn't stating opinions, I was countering your claims with factual information, information I actively researched WHILE typing up my responses to make sure what I was posting was correct. I spent from 7:30AM to 8:45AM my time yesterday posting that response above because I was looking up dates Titanfall games were supported through, looking up release dates of games, researching whether games somehow received updates after the release of successors that I was just completely unaware of, looking up exactly how much content BF2, BF3, and BF4 got, etc, etc, etc.

    For the second time - nothing I've said pertains to my opinion about the game, and honestly, attempting to boil what I've argued down to "throwing all my opinions out there" is pretty weak and a little insulting. I'm merely defending a game from people who are spreading false information about it or who seem to want to make it less about them merely disliking a game and act as if BF5 is somehow a smack in the face and a deep act of disrespect from DICE just because they didn't like a game.

    And for the second time, it's not your opinion when you're making claims in a matter-of-factly way in a discussion that solely pertains to facts about these games. You were making very bold claims that you obviously believed were fact and had nothing to do with subjective opinion aside from those claims being wrong.

    Either post some evidence or numbers supporting your claims or stop insisting that me claiming what you're saying is misinformation is somehow "wrong". Because the things you've been claiming are true are actually easily disproven with publicly accessible and easily researchable information online.

    And that's aside the fact you addressed nothing I said. When it comes to EAs supposed track record of forcing studios to abandon games, you didn't address how BF5 is the second longest supported game in the franchise, how SWBF2 was supported longer than SWBF1, how TF2 was supported longer than TF1, nor did you address the fact that after a hard failure, a launch sales flop, a huge controversy, and damning reviews - EA is still allowing Bioware to completely revamp Anthem, a game that lost nearly it's entire playerbase and literally went on sale for 3 dollars.

    You didn't address the statistical information pointing to BF5 getting generally more content than othet games despite disputing that claim when I made it.

    You didn't address where I asked you to post one single shred of evidence wherein DICE explicitly promised future content and didn't fulfill that promise.

    Then you expect me to take what you say seriously when you claim it's just a fact? After all of that? And now you call me a Jackhole for pointing out the glaring inconsistencies and falsities in what you've posted?
    So - you're obviously not reading my posts.  I did.  How support for many of the early titles went beyond the next title of the game with updates / patches.

    The fact is, you just think you always have to be right, and in this case - you aren't.  Games, treatment of the community and fans, etc - that's much more than simple numbers.  If you can't see that, then you're part of the problem. 

    Just not going to engage with you anymore.  Go back under your bridge with the rest of the trolls.


  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    So - you're obviously not reading my posts.  I did.  How support for many of the early titles went beyond the next title of the game with updates / patches.

    The fact is, you just think you always have to be right, and in this case - you aren't.  Games, treatment of the community and fans, etc - that's much more than simple numbers.  If you can't see that, then you're part of the problem. 

    Just not going to engage with you anymore.  Go back under your bridge with the rest of the trolls.

    No, I most definitely did read what you posted. I've been actively responding to literally everything you've said in damn near chronological order in which your points are posted.

    What you argued is just objectively false, it can be proven so, and you've provided no evidence proving otherwise aside from yourself saying "what I'm saying is right, because I say so".

    Let's use some of your arguments as examples: for starters, that BF2 was actively supported through 2142s life cycle and up to the release of BC2. In reality - BF2 got its second to last patch in 2006 right before the release of 2142, it was update v1.41. Then, THREE YEARS LATER in 2009, it received a random update primarily focused on making its booster expansions free for everyone, it was update v1.5 and released a year before BC2 even came out.

    But what you said was "fact", huh?

    How about another one? That BC2 was supposedly supported well into BF3s life cycle. Meanwhile, in reality, BC2 received its final client update, titled "update CR11" in September of 2011 - a month before BF3s release. Other than that, it got a server-side sever stability update.

    Neither of those games were actively supported as long as you claim they were. Which I'm arguing against because not only is it spreading misinformation itself, but it's using that misinformation to spread even further misinformation about BF5 and how it was supposedly "not actively supported long enough".

    And yeah, fall back on the weak as hell "troll" stance because you have nothing better to say. That always works out.
  • DerDoktorMabuse
    377 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Who knows if there ever was "new" content in the game... i think everything that got into the game was already finished when they released the game... all they did was unlocking this content...
  • ragnarok013
    3876 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Loqtrall said:
    (Quote)
    BF4's support was extended for an extra year directly due to Hardline's lack of market success; there was even talk about a making Premium Pass number 2 for BF4 which never panned out but we did receive some excellent community night maps. Hardline on the other hand only continued to get content in order to fulfill the Premium pass' advertised content drops.  If Hardline was part of a Live Service I'm sure all development would have ceased when EA determined it was not the commercial success they projected like we see with BF5 since in a Live Service a Premium Pass with guaranteed content was not sold.

    If we're using the "if it was a live service" logic, I'd argue BF4 would have been canned immediately, it wasn't even in a playable state for most of the user base until 6 months after launch and was still glaringly flawed even a year after launch when it had already received all planned post launch content. It failed to sell as many copies as its predecessor, the former best selling game in the franchise and one that was hailed as "the best BF ever", and garnered generally unfavorable reviews.

    Nowadays, like I stated above, after 3 years of fixes and additions, the community coddles that game like they owe it their life despite it still being heavily flawed and crazily unbalanced.

    No I don't believe that BF4 would not have been canned immediately under a Live Service because despite the bugs many players experienced, players still had fun playing the game when they didn't crash so there was still a large amount of players who continued to play despite being justifiably vocal about the large amount of issues the game had at launch. Also unlike  in BF5 DICE LA corrected the issues and turned the game around whereas BF5 just languished in its bug filled state with little improvement, then had two hugely unpopular TTK changes on top of that sealing its fate. One could argue that if BF4 was a Live Service EA could have pulled the plug early instead of spending resources fixing the game but that in itself is a justification on the value of the Premium system. Also I never said BF4 was the best game ever; I enjoy it but for me BF2 (for Refractor) and BF3 (Frostbite) are the pinnacles of the series in their respect time periods. I will say unlike BF1 and BF5 I always have fun playing BF4 so old DICE had a secret sauce that is sorely missing from recent entries.
  • Loqtrall
    12468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 5
    (Quote)
    No I don't believe that BF4 would not have been canned immediately under a Live Service because despite the bugs many players experienced, players still had fun playing the game when they didn't crash so there was still a large amount of players who continued to play despite being justifiably vocal about the large amount of issues the game had at launch. Also unlike  in BF5 DICE LA corrected the issues and turned the game around whereas BF5 just languished in its bug filled state with little improvement, then had two hugely unpopular TTK changes on top of that sealing its fate. One could argue that if BF4 was a Live Service EA could have pulled the plug early instead of spending resources fixing the game but that in itself is a justification on the value of the Premium system. Also I never said BF4 was the best game ever; I enjoy it but for me BF2 (for Refractor) and BF3 (Frostbite) are the pinnacles of the series in their respect time periods. I will say unlike BF1 and BF5 I always have fun playing BF4 so old DICE had a secret sauce that is sorely missing from recent entries.

    Sorry, but it sounds like you're insisting or at least implying that players don't have fun with BF5, that there aren't many people playing it, and that BF4 had even most of its issues corrected. All of which would be unfounded, as plenty in the community enjoy BF5, plenty of people still play it (including a large number of those who actively criticize the game), and BF4 is definitely still rife with issues and inconsistencies. It still, to this day, suffers from things people complain about in BF5 like bad team balance, bad anti cheat, and OOR players - which people alleviate in BF4 solely by renting their own servers and manually balancing teams, banning cheaters, and kicking high ping players.

    It's not as if BF5 is filled to the brim with universally experienced technical issues. And it's not exactly as if BF5 is lacking in players especially considering its nearly 2 years old and the competition in the industry it's put up against is abundant. I have nearly 900 hours played in BF5, have been playing since day 1, and the number of serious issues I've run into in that time played is outrageously small. Hell, the most outstanding bug in the game, the infinite bleed out bug, has happened to me TWO TIMES since the beta before the release of the game. I experienced the "M" bug more than I experienced anything actually game breaking bugs or issues that outright negatively affected my experience.

    I play primarily at early hours of the morning (5AM-8/9AM) on the Eastern US and have NEVER had an issue finding a populated match. Matches are filled to the brim with new and experienced players alike.

    Of course, it's all subjective and based on personal experience - but I play with at least 5 other people regularly and none of them, in hundreds of hours playing together, have ever regularly lamented about how horrible the game is and how they run into bugs all the time.

    Fun and enjoyment are two completely subjective experiences and I hardly believe it boils down to some special formula or 'secret sauce'. It boils down to personal taste and subjective preference. It's not as if nobody finds BF5 enjoyable, or that it's an objective misfire from DICE and that's a universally accepted fact. I'll never understand why gamers have this overwhelming need or desire to reach beyond "I simply don't like this game that much" to insist that a single title by a developer is some egregiously wrong move or something they objectively shouldn't have done.

    There are so many people in the BF community who don't enjoy Bf4 its not even funny. The amount of people at BF4s launch who said the game was a BF3 wannabe, denounced it, and insisted they'd stay with BF3 was hilarious. The person I play BF with the most (a former regular poster here) absolutely despises BF4 because of what the first year of the game was like.

    Let's all be reminded that the current best selling game in this franchise is a horrendously inaccurate, inauthentic, and fantastical ww1 game that nobody asked for, that overcasualized multiple facets of gameplay, that received less total content than its predecessor, that was supported for a lesser amount of time than its predecessor, that didn't have RSP at launch and when it was added it had limited options and no support for 3rd party plug ins, that had its fair share of issues many of which were similar to issues experienced in BF5, and that DICE had to convince EA to let them develop because EA believed it'd be a flop in the first place.

    Hell, the entire debacle over the "historical inaccuracy" side of BF5 in the face of what BF1 was and it being the best selling game in this franchise and being regularly showered with praise is a direct example of how people's stances toward BF games are utterly and entirely based on subjective opinion, perception, knowledge, and preference. Not that other games had some universally appreciated secret formula that made them better games.
    Post edited by Loqtrall on
Sign In or Register to comment.