Population Died off Quickly?

Halcyon_Creed_N7

Last week when searching for servers to play Conquest on I'd get at least 30 results. This week I get less than 10, tonight at one point I couldn't even get a single result.

I only get to play late at night/early morning so that explains partially why there are so few servers in NA, but still that much of a drop off seems ominous...

6r67uvv1n25z

I’ve noticed this as well. Perhaps its the reason we’ve not gotten a hardcore mode?

GSGFawcett

Could it just be people chasing their "Tides of war" awards? They generally focus on a specific game type, so people will be playing those modes instead..just a thought

RASTAKUVZ

With the apex legends out, i think BFV servers are dead. Have they even said anything about the rented servers?

GrimeySix

GSGFawcett wrote: »

Could it just be people chasing their "Tides of war" awards? They generally focus on a specific game type, so people will be playing those modes instead..just a thought

I'm betting this is a factor. I forever play Conquest, but the last couple days I've been mired in Frontlines trying to get the new MMG.

sabersun

But the fact people go for the TOW content AND that impacts the other game modes implies there are not enough players filling the expected available servers. That is not a good thing.

Anyone tried BF1 and checked how things are over there?

sbvaughn88

I know, this worries me and I think is the source of a lot of the netcode problems. This happens when you have everyone spread out trying to play the same match. If the game had sold well you’d have a 100 people in your hometown playing and it would be a much better experience.

Hopefully this will change after Firestorm is released.

And to all the people who said something to this effect in response to many of the posts that showed up on the forum...”quit complaining, nobody wants to hear it, nobody cares if you leave and go back to BF1...and other things to that effect....we’ll they did quit. And now you have much less people to shoot at and enjoy the game with.

If it continues well have nobody to shoot at.

So for any of those who are frustrated and thinking of leaving. Give the new patch a chance and play with a squad, I think this game has huge potential.

zack9912000

My time has almost double When I do a search for a quick match and most of the games are half full when I do find them. When metro and new dawn come out this month it will drop off even more

Halcyon_Creed_N7

sbvaughn88 wrote: »

I know, this worries me and I think is the source of a lot of the netcode problems. This happens when you have everyone spread out trying to play the same match. If the game had sold well you’d have a 100 people in your hometown playing and it would be a much better experience.

Hopefully this will change after Firestorm is released.

And to all the people who said something to this effect in response to many of the posts that showed up on the forum...”quit complaining, nobody wants to hear it, nobody cares if you leave and go back to BF1...and other things to that effect....we’ll they did quit. And now you have much less people to shoot at and enjoy the game with.

If it continues well have nobody to shoot at.

So for any of those who are frustrated and thinking of leaving. Give the new patch a chance and play with a squad, I think this game has huge potential.

I'm really considering just quitting myself now.

What's the point of continuing to TRY to play when I get back no servers and/or every server I try to join says is full even though it also says there are empty spots? It won't even let you stay queued to a server for whenever a spot opens, so I just have to constantly refresh and hope a server pops up AND didn't get filled immediately. And then if I finally manage to join it's always on the losing end of a stomp. So the whole experience is just 10/10 fun.

ENKkii87

Because people are not happy that they've bought a f2p game. This really should have been a f2p game that monetized on cosmetics


Takeaway the upgrade system on guns and customization and you're left with a barebones game. I'm sure the devs worked hard but as a customer I am not impressed with what I bought and don't care for any excuses they may have for this game.

OldSkoolzFinest

ENKkii87 wrote: »

Because people are not happy that they've bought a f2p game. This really should have been a f2p game that monetized on cosmetics


Takeaway the upgrade system on guns and customization and you're left with a barebones game. I'm sure the devs worked hard but as a customer I am not impressed with what I bought and don't care for any excuses they may have for this game.

Well said

moosehunter1969

ENKkii87 wrote: »

Because people are not happy that they've bought a f2p game. This really should have been a f2p game that monetized on cosmetics


Takeaway the upgrade system on guns and customization and you're left with a barebones game. I'm sure the devs worked hard but as a customer I am not impressed with what I bought and don't care for any excuses they may have for this game.

Why is barebones? It isn’t but the people who cried about paid DLC have a lot to answer for as it could have been so much more. As it stands I feel I’ve more than had my money’s worth out of it and will be playing it for a good time yet.

zack9912000

moosehunter1969 wrote: »

ENKkii87 wrote: »

Because people are not happy that they've bought a f2p game. This really should have been a f2p game that monetized on cosmetics


Takeaway the upgrade system on guns and customization and you're left with a barebones game. I'm sure the devs worked hard but as a customer I am not impressed with what I bought and don't care for any excuses they may have for this game.

Why is barebones? It isn’t but the people who cried about paid DLC have a lot to answer for as it could have been so much more. As it stands I feel I’ve more than had my money’s worth out of it and will be playing it for a good time yet.

Bs companies have been cutting content for a long time now and still are demanding 60bucks if we are lucky and then demand we pay for the rest of the game in DLC which is wrong. Star Wars battle front comes to mind. Now we get buggy games that don’t even pass. As a beta tested game with virtually no content at all with micro transactions for the rest of the character content with a deluxe prices for games running 80-150 bucks so knock that nonsense off about people upset about this game and complaining, then asking how is this game barebones. Are you nuts or just used to getting screwed . Let’s sell you a new car with no wheels or transmission as a standard package and another 10gs for the rest of the car and a DLC fee for your warranty. Customers are given a horribly non functioning games with no content and then developers demand more then 60 bucks to get the rest of the game in DLC. Then get all high and might about the customers they screwed over crapping all over their game.

moosehunter1969

zack9912000 wrote: »

moosehunter1969 wrote: »

ENKkii87 wrote: »

Because people are not happy that they've bought a f2p game. This really should have been a f2p game that monetized on cosmetics


Takeaway the upgrade system on guns and customization and you're left with a barebones game. I'm sure the devs worked hard but as a customer I am not impressed with what I bought and don't care for any excuses they may have for this game.

Why is barebones? It isn’t but the people who cried about paid DLC have a lot to answer for as it could have been so much more. As it stands I feel I’ve more than had my money’s worth out of it and will be playing it for a good time yet.

Bs companies have been cutting content for a long time now and still are demanding 60bucks if we are lucky and then demand we pay for the rest of the game in DLC which is wrong. Star Wars battle front comes to mind. Now we get buggy games that don’t even pass. As a beta tested game with virtually no content at all with micro transactions for the rest of the content with a deluxe prices for games running 80-150 bucks so knock that nonsense off about people scream and complaining. Let’s sell you a new car with no wheels or transmission as a standard package and another 10gs for the feast of the car and a DLC fee for your warranty. Customers are given horribly functioning games with no content and then developers demand more then 60 bucks to get the rest of the game in dlcs

No people are just entitled nowadays. They don’t want to pay for anything regardless of the work that’s gone into it.
This crying about DLC is a newish phenomenon, never used to happen. Back in the day people couldn’t wait to get the newest map packs and DLCs. They paid the, pretty cheap price, and enjoyed it rather than whinging that they couldn’t play because they didn’t have the same content.

As far as the car analogy goes it’s wrong. It would be people complaining that they haven’t got the optional extras on their car that others have because they wouldn’t pay for them.
DLC has always been an optional extra. Either buy it and enjoy it or don’t. But don’t whinge about it.

zack9912000

moosehunter1969 wrote: »

zack9912000 wrote: »

moosehunter1969 wrote: »

ENKkii87 wrote: »

Because people are not happy that they've bought a f2p game. This really should have been a f2p game that monetized on cosmetics


Takeaway the upgrade system on guns and customization and you're left with a barebones game. I'm sure the devs worked hard but as a customer I am not impressed with what I bought and don't care for any excuses they may have for this game.

Why is barebones? It isn’t but the people who cried about paid DLC have a lot to answer for as it could have been so much more. As it stands I feel I’ve more than had my money’s worth out of it and will be playing it for a good time yet.

Bs companies have been cutting content for a long time now and still are demanding 60bucks if we are lucky and then demand we pay for the rest of the game in DLC which is wrong. Star Wars battle front comes to mind. Now we get buggy games that don’t even pass. As a beta tested game with virtually no content at all with micro transactions for the rest of the content with a deluxe prices for games running 80-150 bucks so knock that nonsense off about people scream and complaining. Let’s sell you a new car with no wheels or transmission as a standard package and another 10gs for the feast of the car and a DLC fee for your warranty. Customers are given horribly functioning games with no content and then developers demand more then 60 bucks to get the rest of the game in dlcs

No people are just entitled nowadays. They don’t want to pay for anything regardless of the work that’s gone into it.
This crying about DLC is a newish phenomenon, never used to happen. Back in the day people couldn’t wait to get the newest map packs and DLCs. They paid the, pretty cheap price, and enjoyed it rather than whinging that they couldn’t play because they didn’t have the same content.

As far as the car analogy goes it’s wrong. It would be people complaining that they haven’t got the optional extras on their car that others have because they wouldn’t pay for them.
DLC has always been an optional extra. Either buy it and enjoy it or don’t. But don’t whinge about it.

You have the audacity to tell paying customers that they’re getting what they are paying for, because they clearly aren’t. Fallout 76 is the perfect example of what has been going on for decades to the gaming community. Developers filling their games with far less content and asking for more money. DLC is a way a developer is making players pay for the rest of a games content that should have been in the basic game. Customers are extremely happy to pay over $100 for a game package thinking they are getting a lot more for their money.

You sir are the perfect example of the drone a company wants who is excited to get less and less content for more money, you are required to debug your own game and we are supposed to be happy if they ever get around to fixing the game .

What EA and others have released is down right insulting to players and my car analogy was the perfect for what we are seeing. We are trying to get the same triple a product and are asked to pay for more of an investment in the game, and manufactures of these games are giving us less and less content the. Advertised. They then demand that if pay additional funds or buy a high tier package, then we may get to have the rest of what was coming to basic $60 game not even 10 years ago.

What is being given to us now would not even be a passing Alpha stage of the games development and we according to you and others that we should be exited and thankful for what we are given as a “finished game”. Because of people like yourself defending their actions as acceptable they continue to do it. If we did a poll on here that if players knew what we knew now about how incomplete and buggy this game was before it was released would they still buy it. I would bet 75% of those who did buy it before and are very disappointed in what was delivered would not even look at the cover at the store. The game wouldn’t even sell 1million

GrimeySix

I'd still buy it. I love the game, warts and all. I've tried going back to BF1 but it instantly felt dated and old to me after playing BFV (and I absolutely loved BF1)

This one definitely feels like it launched as more of a work in progress, but BF1 wasn't without it's issues as well, and it ended up being retweaked and massaged into an outstanding all around game in my opinion. I'm thinking similar will happen with this one, but I think even with it's flaws, it launched with some "good bones" so to speak.

Outside of PubG, I haven't played any other shooters aside from Battlefield, so maybe my perspective is skewed, but I just don't see this game as being close to "non functioning".

Mishkin37

I don’t get the “non-functioning,” “barebones content” comments either. They seem like a lot of hyperbole and dramatics.

Based on my playtime, this game has cost me about $0.66 per hour to play.

I am confident that I don’t have as many hours logged as most - especially some of this game’s harshest critics - so the game is even more cost-effective for them.

I’ve said it many, many times before, but video games have cost at least $60 since 1991 (they dropped to $50 during the Xbox cycle, but then went back up for the 360).

The content we get in 2019 blows away what we got in 1991, not even accounting for inflation.

zack9912000

When I have to restart the console because of it freezing on the log in screen orbthw black screen and I can’t even make it 4 matches before I have to waste time restarting it. The constant netcode issues not fixed. That’s a non functioning game. For as much as the deluxe copy of the game cost me, I shouldn’t have to constantly restart my Xbox to play more than four matches

moosehunter1969

zack9912000 wrote: »

When I have to restart the console because of it freezing on the log in screen orbthw black screen and I can’t even make it 4 matches before I have to waste time restarting it. The constant netcode issues not fixed. That’s a non functioning game. For as much as the deluxe copy of the game cost me, I shouldn’t have to constantly restart my Xbox to play more than four matches

Thing is though your experience isn’t that of everyone it’s cetainly not mine mines never crashed. Perhaps your XBox is dodgy, there’s so much going on processor wise in a BF game if it’s worn out or malfunctioning I’m not surprised it crashes.
I am in agreement with Mishkin37, my game currently works out at around 60p an hour. Compare that to the movies, around £5 an hour, watching my football team play, £12 an hour, it’s bloody good value and that cost per hour will go down even more as I intend to keep playing.

As Mishkin points out game prices haven’t really changed but they are much better value nowadays. I remember buying a game for the Megadrive back in 92, it cost me £50, think it was Terminator or some such and I’d finished it in about 3 hours.

In fact I’ve been buying video games since I got a Spectrum in 1982 and I’ve never had the value or time played that I get from Battlefield titles.

I stick to my original comments.

moosehunter1969

It makes me laugh when someone with 400hrs in posts that the games boring. No **** Sherlock you’ve been playing it for nearly 17 days out of the less than 3 months it’s been out. You’ve had plenty of value out of it stop whining.

Aflag666

At the end of the day, a lot of us are unsatisfied with AAA titles upon release more often than not. I personally am enjoying BFV and I'm happy with the $60 I spent as I've gotten much more than 60 hrs from this game. In fact, I'm almost at 200hrs by now. BUT, the discussion that has evolved towards the end of this post is one that can be broadened to a lot of AAA titles. Poor content, bugged gameplay, connection issues, basically an unfinished or barely playable game right out the gate, not worth the $$ we paid. One thing we all have in common is we blame the Devs for these half **** releases. But the truth is, WE are to blame. Gamers. We cry and cry and cry over all the problems that come with game releases, yet we all go out and pre-order games en masse everytie the "next big thing" is announced. Or purchase day of release because we don't want to be left out since our friends all pre-ordered. Better to waste money on a broken game than be left out right? If the bulk of gamers would just WAIT a couple of weeks after release to make purchasing decisions, it would change the industry so much in our favor. There are endless YouTubers who run out and put up videos within hours of a games release. Why are we not using these videos as product review BEFORE making a purchase? Everyone always wants the newest thing out there and we buy into the hype, and buildup false hopes based on pre-release marketing promises of what a game is going to be. Only to be disappointed time and again across the board. What we should be doing is waiting until AFTER release and doing a bit of homework to make sure we will get our money's worth before forking over our $$$. If the bulk of gamers did this, then devs would be forced to make sure their game was REALLY ready for release before doing so. Because if they kept doing what we are seeing now, people would get past the hype and see the reality of a game BEFORE they bought it, which would result in less sales if the game is not really solid upon release. It's all the pre-order/day of release purchases that allow Devs to pump out less than complete games that we end up paying to Beta test for months or years. Stop buying into hype and pre-ordering or even just purchasing games before you KNOW if it is a solid title or not. Let the Devs PROVE to you the game is worth your money, instead of giving up your cash on faith and becoming one more paying beta tester!!!! Stop following your friends down the rabbit hole of pre-ordering crappy AAA releases. Or don't. Keep financing beta releases if you want. But quit complaining about how you got ripped off or how unhappy you are with the game. Because by now, based on AAA release trends over the last few YEARS, you can't be too surprised when a game that you pre-ordered does not live up to the hype you built around it. Hopefully you end up happy with the game a year from now after 82 patches and updates, and countless tears, endless whining, and embarrassing ranting that no one really cares to hear. HOPEFULLY. BTW, when I say we, yes that includes me. I have been just as guilty of this as anyone else. But I know my pre-order is no different than putting that $60 on black at the roulette table. If the game fails to live up to my expectations, I acknowledge it's my own fault for being an enabler to the company that produced such junk by pre-ording instead of waiting for confirmation of exactly what I'm buying.