EA statement on Battlefield franchise

Comments

  • BaronVonGoon
    6990 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    They are either deluded, stupid or lying to say a difficult release window and the lack of Battle Royale is what hurt the launch.

    It's the bad design, incomplete and missing features, bugs and, yes, the pre-launch furore that hurt the game.

    They are lying and delusional.
  • Ameriken05
    451 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    crapjon wrote: »
    The 'largest' battlefield comment has to be in terms of gigabytes installed. It doesn't make sense to my brain any other way.

    It has the largest current player base. Not too crazy to understand. Won't be that way for long though if the game goes stale.
  • xeNizKing
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I must admit 7 Million is more than what I was expecting. It may be noted somewhere but they said units sold. They count sales as sales to retailers not to end customers. So without knowing the direct digital sales. That number could be and I stress COULD BE misleading unless they confirmed that the number was sales to end players not. Sales to stores. But as I said I fully admit I’m a little surprised. I was expecting around 5 million. It most likely would have been if not for the permanent reduction in sales price. We may get more player numbers at some point. They also have no excuse to hold back population numbers from battlefield tracker.

    Too be honest, sales vs actual revenue needs to be taken into account here.

    For instance many of us here preordered or we payed full price but we are only a small fraction of the community, A lot of people waited and brought it on sale at an insanely cheap price in november/december.

    So while only losing 1 million in sales vs 7 million actual sales doesn't seem bad on the surface, we'd need to know how many of those sales were bought cheap and not at full price because then even if it is infact 7 million with no "odd" data then that means that;

    7 million sales at full price = $420,000,000 (standard edition)
    7 Million sales at full price and cheap (assuming its half the player base like many suspect then it will probably be somewhere in the figure of): $290,000,000

    As I recall the dirt cheap sales some places were doing were almost 70% off. That all said looking at it this way, it was a dismal performance and I seriously cannot see how a battleroyale mode could of changed any of that. Hell these guess work numbers dont even factor in the people who haven't actually bought the game and are using origin access instead.

    We need actual revenue numbers for the specific product here.
  • crapjon
    160 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Ameriken05 wrote: »
    crapjon wrote: »
    The 'largest' battlefield comment has to be in terms of gigabytes installed. It doesn't make sense to my brain any other way.

    It has the largest current player base. Not too crazy to understand. Won't be that way for long though if the game goes stale.

    As in, it has more players than the previous titles currently have? That's a pretty useless metric.
  • Redstripe101
    2628 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    bigiain wrote: »
    alienstout wrote: »
    I've brought this up before... I'm thinking they are going to make Firestorm freemium and toss us some bones to make up for it. They need to make money and they are more likely to make some with higher profit margins by selling skins and stuff than physical copies of this game at this point. Firestorm will be the hook to sell the actual full game. Just wait for it, it's coming.

    I'm sure it will go free eventually, but there would be a huge uproar from people who already feel a bit ripped off by deluxe if it went free too quickly. Six months of polish from it being available to owners of the base game might be a good idea.

    It'll be free via EA Access, which is what they are trying to push all of their titles in. A live service type game model. I've already cancelled my EA Access, I believe any non purchase is a vote for change in developing patterns. Which for them is still a winning way to lose since BF4 and BF1 are free with subscritption which in turn gives them numbers to call "active players". Shareholders might not know much about games, but they are recognizing that EA has bigger issues than an annual report.
  • alienstout
    680 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    We need actual player counts, with a chart showing numbers since launch. That is more important than sales, especially with the "boins" plan.
  • Ameriken05
    451 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    crapjon wrote: »
    Ameriken05 wrote: »
    crapjon wrote: »
    The 'largest' battlefield comment has to be in terms of gigabytes installed. It doesn't make sense to my brain any other way.

    It has the largest current player base. Not too crazy to understand. Won't be that way for long though if the game goes stale.

    As in, it has more players than the previous titles currently have? That's a pretty useless metric.

    Well - it just means it's the BF most people are playing right now and so there is some incentive to feed it, keep players engaged, maybe try to grow it with more exciting content. People say players are done with this game and are not coming back - but I would be curious if that holds true if Firestorm ends up being a solid BR and future content includes some of the sexier maps and factions. I'm still quietly rooting for DICE to deliver...
  • NLBartmaN
    3715 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I also wonder how the 7.3m copies is calculated:

    - there are giveaways (also with other products like graphics cards)

    - The origin Access and EA Access and other subscription services, are they also taken into the numbers as sold copies?

    - are these the numbers of copies sold to retailers (a part still not sold to consumers) or consumers?
  • Ernie_Shavers
    131 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    anken555 wrote: »
    That's partially true. The single player is pretty bad, especially compared to COD WW2 campaign. 4 more maps for multi or Battle Royale at lauch instead of this solo campaign would have help sales.

    But its seems BFV will be support through 2020, and this is really a good news.

    It's awful. DICE put far too much effort into a single player mode that their player base could not care less about....and they did a poor job.

    Another example of DICE being out of touch with their player base.
  • warslag
    1594 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    warslag wrote: »
    l_water_l wrote: »
    FantaPantz wrote: »
    It shows how disconnected EA is from the Battlefield community. Who the hell wants to play a Battlefield Royale?

    This wasn't a comment to the battlefield community. It was directed at shareholders who know nothing of gaming in general. EA's stock has not been doing very well recently and yesterday took a nosedive when they reported earnings.

    those shareholders knew enough to pull investments when they delayed the launch, and by huge numbers. and EA hasnt been doing well at all, in any aspect of finance markets. They will also continue to slip, for years as a result.

    I don't think that's completely true, as EA's share price has climbed a little bit since the new year.

    But to be honest, I don't really care about EA as a company, since I think it's pretty solid. I'm only concerned with the direction it is taking it's games in.

    I'm not into FortNite, Pubg or any of these games. I also don't like loot boxes. Which means EA's games won't appeal to me at all, and that's a bit worrying.

    EA shares went down 10% with the delay news, in Jan it was down 45%, on top of tech in general being on the decline prior to that. The market reacted negatively to everything BF 5. Still is, go google their stocks currently and since this report.

    I think the fact that the shares are creeping back up is what is important to business people. If a company weathers a storm, is resilient and shows signs of coming back, then it's seen as being solid.

    I'm not a businessman. Nor pretending to be. It seems obvious to me that EA is just changing it's products inline with current trends and it's getting some buffeting from that.

    All I'm saying is that I'm probably not interested in the direction the products are going, and it's bit sad. I think the current crop of Apex, FIFA, FortNite, Pubg etc. games don't appeal to everyone, but that they do have mass appeal.
  • Redstripe101
    2628 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    alienstout wrote: »
    We need actual player counts, with a chart showing numbers since launch. That is more important than sales, especially with the "boins" plan.

    they wont do it. they wouldnt be able to dance with words by saying things like "largest bf ever". but its clear they are betting on previous success while announcing BF4 and BF1 numbers. kinda redundant huh?

    so lets look at the big picture of developing pattern.

    - Delayed launch (how many titles can you name besides BF5)
    - Pushed through fiscal years (investment side equivalent to delay on earnings)
    - Player retainability (unknown number but we know its lower than BF1 and BF4 currently)
    - Releases revunue report (zero accountability)
    *if you believe BF 5 did poorly because of a crowded release window or singleplayer "content" priority over "firestorm", then i have nothing for you but some cheap EA stock i'll sell you for its current value.
    -Foreshadows potential (but based on this rinse/repeat cycle they seem to love, more money is staying away and does anyone see Anthem, Apex, Sims, or C&C mobile breaking records?)

    We also know EA plans to "support" BF5 until fiscal 2020. So, based on what we know with developing patterns, they will do one of two things. They will content dump into a form of "freemium" as mentioned, so all release windows get pushed up to increase attraction. Or, they shelve ideas and deliver the bare minimum in order to recoup loss and/or focus future spending on the next "title", which is already in development. If you had a million dollars to bet on it, are you trusting EA to provide a return?


  • alienstout
    680 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    alienstout wrote: »
    We need actual player counts, with a chart showing numbers since launch. That is more important than sales, especially with the "boins" plan.

    they wont do it. they wouldnt be able to dance with words by saying things like "largest bf ever". but its clear they are betting on previous success while announcing BF4 and BF1 numbers. kinda redundant huh?

    so lets look at the big picture of developing pattern.

    - Delayed launch (how many titles can you name besides BF5)
    - Pushed through fiscal years (investment side equivalent to delay on earnings)
    - Player retainability (unknown number but we know its lower than BF1 and BF4 currently)
    - Releases revunue report (zero accountability)
    *if you believe BF 5 did poorly because of a crowded release window or singleplayer "content" priority over "firestorm", then i have nothing for you but some cheap EA stock i'll sell you for its current value.
    -Foreshadows potential (but based on this rinse/repeat cycle they seem to love, more money is staying away and does anyone see Anthem, Apex, Sims, or C&C mobile breaking records?)

    We also know EA plans to "support" BF5 until fiscal 2020. So, based on what we know with developing patterns, they will do one of two things. They will content dump into a form of "freemium" as mentioned, so all release windows get pushed up to increase attraction. Or, they shelve ideas and deliver the bare minimum in order to recoup loss and/or focus future spending on the next "title", which is already in development. If you had a million dollars to bet on it, are you trusting EA to provide a return?


    I'm going with the cut-bait scenario.
  • Kayback
    367 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Ugh battle royale. Even reading it makes me sick. They might as well call it sell out mode.

    I enjoyed Gunmaster style game but a fully battle royale Ala well, Battle Royale and PUBG? Nah thanks. I'll play PUBG and Battle Royale.
  • Redstripe101
    2628 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    alienstout wrote: »
    alienstout wrote: »
    We need actual player counts, with a chart showing numbers since launch. That is more important than sales, especially with the "boins" plan.

    they wont do it. they wouldnt be able to dance with words by saying things like "largest bf ever". but its clear they are betting on previous success while announcing BF4 and BF1 numbers. kinda redundant huh?

    so lets look at the big picture of developing pattern.

    - Delayed launch (how many titles can you name besides BF5)
    - Pushed through fiscal years (investment side equivalent to delay on earnings)
    - Player retainability (unknown number but we know its lower than BF1 and BF4 currently)
    - Releases revunue report (zero accountability)
    *if you believe BF 5 did poorly because of a crowded release window or singleplayer "content" priority over "firestorm", then i have nothing for you but some cheap EA stock i'll sell you for its current value.
    -Foreshadows potential (but based on this rinse/repeat cycle they seem to love, more money is staying away and does anyone see Anthem, Apex, Sims, or C&C mobile breaking records?)

    We also know EA plans to "support" BF5 until fiscal 2020. So, based on what we know with developing patterns, they will do one of two things. They will content dump into a form of "freemium" as mentioned, so all release windows get pushed up to increase attraction. Or, they shelve ideas and deliver the bare minimum in order to recoup loss and/or focus future spending on the next "title", which is already in development. If you had a million dollars to bet on it, are you trusting EA to provide a return?


    I'm going with the cut-bait scenario.

    bingo, but they still have to play the part as salesman. the only thing righting the ship is sports titles
  • alienstout
    680 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It's funny, the whole "everyone's battlefield" thing just killed them. They should look at today's successful politicians to see what they should be doing: Cater to your base, do not try to "win" the other side because it won't work - it never works. Just make the Trump/AOC of Battlefields that goes in one direction, balls-to-the wall with no regrets.
  • WhiteRabbit_swe
    619 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    FantaPantz wrote: »
    It shows how disconnected EA is from the Battlefield community. Who the hell wants to play a Battlefield Royale?
    100% agree! Its ridicilous...
  • duellingcarl
    160 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The problem is they ran alphas over the summer and I read the feedback. They ran a beta in September and it was basically the same as the first alpha from what I understand. It was not that fun. Most people I know were completely turned off and did not buy the game. When BF1 came out half my friends bought and played BF1. I wrote very nice descriptive feedback on the things my friends and I thought would make the game a lot more fun like BF1 was. A lot of other people wrote similar feedback on the forums as well. When the game came out it was pretty much exactly the same as the beta. Oh and that comment, "if you don't like it, don't buy it." Well no one else I know bought it like I did for $80 and I have yet to even want to try the MP even once until these three things are addressed.

    1. Attrition. Ugh I love my passive medic/ammo crates. Also, they don't give nearly enough ammo. I love so long in BF1 I run out of ammo all the time and have to scream for supports to drop ammo for me.
    2. Player visibility was horrid. My game is so dark even with my brightness turned up I can't see people. I can't adjust my HDR for the boxes to match. The value in game doesn't go high enough and my game is just dark. There's way too many shadows that just look like black holes and combine that with no spotting it just makes the game frustrating not fun. Even single player it's hard to see enemies.
    3. The TTD/ netcode needs work. They had it amazing in BF1 then they killed it with the Lupkow pass. I don't like insta deaths with long TTK. And I have not read one thing from DICE on this issue lately.

    I've preordered and played every Battlefield game to date but this game just never gave me the feel I'm looking for from Battlefield. They are trying too hard to be too Battleroyale thinking all the fortniters and PUBGers will come over and it backfired. Four hours of the beta even being top player in most of my matches and I just couldn't deal with the frustration anymore. But, BF1 is still very populated so when I want my BF fix I just play that.

  • warslag
    1594 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    xeNizKing wrote: »
    I must admit 7 Million is more than what I was expecting. It may be noted somewhere but they said units sold. They count sales as sales to retailers not to end customers. So without knowing the direct digital sales. That number could be and I stress COULD BE misleading unless they confirmed that the number was sales to end players not. Sales to stores. But as I said I fully admit I’m a little surprised. I was expecting around 5 million. It most likely would have been if not for the permanent reduction in sales price. We may get more player numbers at some point. They also have no excuse to hold back population numbers from battlefield tracker.

    Too be honest, sales vs actual revenue needs to be taken into account here.

    For instance many of us here preordered or we payed full price but we are only a small fraction of the community, A lot of people waited and brought it on sale at an insanely cheap price in november/december.

    So while only losing 1 million in sales vs 7 million actual sales doesn't seem bad on the surface, we'd need to know how many of those sales were bought cheap and not at full price because then even if it is infact 7 million with no "odd" data then that means that;

    7 million sales at full price = $420,000,000 (standard edition)
    7 Million sales at full price and cheap (assuming its half the player base like many suspect then it will probably be somewhere in the figure of): $290,000,000

    As I recall the dirt cheap sales some places were doing were almost 70% off. That all said looking at it this way, it was a dismal performance and I seriously cannot see how a battleroyale mode could of changed any of that. Hell these guess work numbers dont even factor in the people who haven't actually bought the game and are using origin access instead.

    We need actual revenue numbers for the specific product here.

    But whether BFV was bought whilst on sale or not, the sales figures are still incorporated into the report.

    It's not like they would be pretending to have sold all the copies at full-price. I think that would actually be against the law. Just suggesting it, though, seems a bit silly. If that was what you were suggesting.
  • Redstripe101
    2628 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    alienstout wrote: »
    It's funny, the whole "everyone's battlefield" thing just killed them. They should look at today's successful politicians to see what they should be doing: Cater to your base, do not try to "win" the other side because it won't work - it never works. Just make the Trump/AOC of Battlefields that goes in one direction, balls-to-the wall with no regrets.

    this is a marketing strategy, DICE counted on emotional spending by people typically out of video gaming markets that spend big money on "items" only because of the dividing issue its wrapped around. they even built a marketing campaign around it. problem is, regardless of what side you support the game still sucks.
  • alienstout
    680 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I agree it's a marketing strat, but they went beyond that and included it in the product dev. It's ingrained and therefor probably not fixable. Dump some maps on us, give us some server options and go away at this point.
Sign In or Register to comment.