Battlefield 6 must be same as BF3 and BF4...otherwise will fail

2»

Comments

  • dogred
    18 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    dogred said:
    The same as BF3/4 would kill the game. DICE will be accused of being lazy and just saying more maps, vehicles or weapons want fix it.

    At this point many in the community would say DICE is listening to the Community if we received a BF3\4 type game and would be quite happy. I've personally loathed the class systems in BF1\5 as well as the many game play "improvements" since BF1.
    Well, i think you'd have to show evidence in who this "community" you speak of, is? Is it people who post on gaming forums or social media all day? Or the masses of people who actually play the game.

    I think DICE cited their own evidence in one instance, in gun changes and other matters they made on BF V, that the 'community" on social media, was not at all folks at home. And in that, made the changes. Data they were getting from surveys, in game habits, and other matters that show much more in depth what gamers at home want.

    The uproar on social media made them turn tail, if only because in hindsight, they knew they were not working on the game anymore and let it die, whilst keeping social media happy on at least the gun changes..

    I'm bringing this up, being i tend to think folks at home are much more casual players than post on social media or you tube, and more than anything, want a game that's fun to play. No matter what "era" it takes place in, i believe the old formula of the BF 3 and 4, no longer would work in todays gaming age.

    I think they have to make massive changes, and i believe actually making the game more like "Battlefront" and less like "Battlefield" may bring in many more gamers than they would lose.

    dogred if the casuals actually liked both times the TTK changes went through then DICE would have kept them no matter what the uproar on social media would have been because that would have meant the player count increased. However DICE reverted the unpopular (and that term is being overly generous) changes both times because the player count tanked and these mythical satisfied "casual players" apparently stopped playing as well as the hard core community.

    Regarding BF3\4 the servers are quite populated compared to BF5's server numbers so I'm not so sure they don't work in today's gaming age.
    Could you show evidence as to how populated those servers are as compared to BFV? I doubt that very much on Xbox. And likely PS.  But i'd love to see it .

    In fact, it was just last week (or the week prior) BFV left the Xbox Store as the Top 50 Most Played Games. In fact, i haven't seen BF 3/4 on there in the Top 50, ever at all. You'd have to go back many years, likely prior to when they tabulated such a thing.

    Maybe, you're talking about PC, a quarter of the whole playerbase? Lets not make that mistake. 

    Even BF 1 likely has more playing that, than BF 4 or and certainly 3, a back compatible game, and PS, only on PS3.

    I'm not trying to be disrespectful at all, but only pointing out you're obviously wrong, or talking about a platform most do not play, at least on BF.

    As far as the assertions i made as to the gun changes, it was by their own statement in that they rationalized the changes by what folks were saying on surveys and monitoring in game data.

    Which is to say, folks at home wanted the changes, and in DICEs words "many more than tend to post on forums or on social media'. That was their words, and i could look at present it to you. Were they lying ? And so, no. It's that they likely didn't care if the counts plummeted if they reverted it, being the game was done anyhow in that were not going to support it further.

    Anyhow, i think a case can be made, BF needs change. COD had to change. They have Warzone. So, i think pretty firm in saying, if we get BF 4 type yet again, it may die pretty quick being it may just feel too played out. 
  • DingoKillr
    4348 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    dogred if the casuals actually liked both times the TTK changes went through then DICE would have kept them no matter what the uproar on social media would have been because that would have meant the player count increased. However DICE reverted the unpopular (and that term is being overly generous) changes both times because the player count tanked and these mythical satisfied "casual players" apparently stopped playing as well as the hard core community.
    Regarding BF3\4 the servers are quite populated compared to BF5's server numbers so I'm not so sure they don't work in today's gaming age.

    I think it is a bit disingenuous to say players numbers tanked when players did not even have a week of play. The first had streamers demanding boycott against before even public release.

    As for playing older game I heard BF1 still has better numbers than BF4.
  • shaggysk8er
    77 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Modern day would be awesome if they did this. The last two games they dropped were WW1 and 2. Throw it back to modern day 
  • dogred
    18 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    dogred if the casuals actually liked both times the TTK changes went through then DICE would have kept them no matter what the uproar on social media would have been because that would have meant the player count increased. However DICE reverted the unpopular (and that term is being overly generous) changes both times because the player count tanked and these mythical satisfied "casual players" apparently stopped playing as well as the hard core community.
    Regarding BF3\4 the servers are quite populated compared to BF5's server numbers so I'm not so sure they don't work in today's gaming age.

    I think it is a bit disingenuous to say players numbers tanked when players did not even have a week of play. The first had streamers demanding boycott against before even public release.

    As for playing older game I heard BF1 still has better numbers than BF4.
    You're right. I just reinstalled BF 4, and at least on Xbox, the tally i have on all modes, locations etc,  is 3 servers on BF 3, 28 servers on BF 4, 78 servers on BF V, and i was shocked, more than 100 servers on BF1.

    So, at least on Xbox (and likely PS the same), folks prefer BF1 than BF4 or any of them lol.

    That may go to the fact folks prefer the slower ttk, and in addition, just an overall better game than the others. I understand BF 4 is years old, but so it BF1 and they're playing that...by far. 

    I guess the overall point i'd make, is even DICE mentioned their in game data and surveys more effective than social media in guaging folks opinions. And so, idk who this 'community' Ragnarok speaks of, but i assume it's the echochamber he has to work in every day lol.

    But that's not at all a gauge as to where "players" are, and i think they prefer a game that's more about 'fun', than about sweatlord type play. In addition, BF1, was "different'. It offered new modes, new factions, a different war, and that's my overall point, in that i don't believe at all another BF 4 or 3 like game would last very long, i think it would die quick being we just been there done that with an inundation of modern war games.



  • MarauderFox
    113 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    The average consumer/gamer doesn't provide feedback when asked, participate in a survey when prompted  or sufficiently praise or disparage a product by their own free will in their own time; at most they critique it amongst their friends IRL on or their private social media. The average consumer does change brands and products with no/little warning if the current product is insufficient & there's a superior alternative; they do not take the time to complain along the road to them quiting or when/after they quit.
    To judge the development and populations of Battlefield based on the fist is irresponsible

    You method to determine which BF is more popular has a few faults: You only tested XBox, servers =/= players and servers =/= hours played; you did not account for people who play both or only 1 game; you aren't justified to make any judgement on that phony 'evidence'.
    The numbers don't lie, BFV needed players to spend $$$; you don't revert huge fundamental changes unless players leave & that cash flow stops.
  • ragnarok013
    3877 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    (Quote)
    dogred if the casuals actually liked both times the TTK changes went through then DICE would have kept them no matter what the uproar on social media would have been because that would have meant the player count increased. However DICE reverted the unpopular (and that term is being overly generous) changes both times because the player count tanked and these mythical satisfied "casual players" apparently stopped playing as well as the hard core community.
    Regarding BF3\4 the servers are quite populated compared to BF5's server numbers so I'm not so sure they don't work in today's gaming age.

    I think it is a bit disingenuous to say players numbers tanked when players did not even have a week of play. The first had streamers demanding boycott against before even public release.

    As for playing older game I heard BF1 still has better numbers than BF4.

    I follow a large number of BF streamers and none I saw demanded a boycott; they did however report on the issue which many of us were rightly angry about both times the TTK issue was forced upon the playerbase.  I keep seeing the BF1\4 player numbers going back and forth - and that's saying something considering BF4 came out in 2013.  I'm also still seeing people playing BF4 on last gen consoles such as PS3.


  • ragnarok013
    3877 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    dogred said:
    (Quote)
    dogred if the casuals actually liked both times the TTK changes went through then DICE would have kept them no matter what the uproar on social media would have been because that would have meant the player count increased. However DICE reverted the unpopular (and that term is being overly generous) changes both times because the player count tanked and these mythical satisfied "casual players" apparently stopped playing as well as the hard core community.
    Regarding BF3\4 the servers are quite populated compared to BF5's server numbers so I'm not so sure they don't work in today's gaming age.

    I think it is a bit disingenuous to say players numbers tanked when players did not even have a week of play. The first had streamers demanding boycott against before even public release.

    As for playing older game I heard BF1 still has better numbers than BF4.
    You're right. I just reinstalled BF 4, and at least on Xbox, the tally i have on all modes, locations etc,  is 3 servers on BF 3, 28 servers on BF 4, 78 servers on BF V, and i was shocked, more than 100 servers on BF1.

    So, at least on Xbox (and likely PS the same), folks prefer BF1 than BF4 or any of them lol.





    Ah you're console that explains it.  BF3 is backwards compatible on Xbox but it's still the last gen console experience so fewer players makes sense whereas on PC it's still has a thriving community.  On PC on a Sunday morning I see 21 active servers in BF3, BF4 has many more than that. I'm a multiplatform gamer and through BF1's lifecycle played on both console and PC and you are correct, BF1 was much more popular on console than on PC but console still has a large BF4 community.

  • dogred
    18 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    dogred said:
    (Quote)
    dogred if the casuals actually liked both times the TTK changes went through then DICE would have kept them no matter what the uproar on social media would have been because that would have meant the player count increased. However DICE reverted the unpopular (and that term is being overly generous) changes both times because the player count tanked and these mythical satisfied "casual players" apparently stopped playing as well as the hard core community.
    Regarding BF3\4 the servers are quite populated compared to BF5's server numbers so I'm not so sure they don't work in today's gaming age.

    I think it is a bit disingenuous to say players numbers tanked when players did not even have a week of play. The first had streamers demanding boycott against before even public release.

    As for playing older game I heard BF1 still has better numbers than BF4.
    You're right. I just reinstalled BF 4, and at least on Xbox, the tally i have on all modes, locations etc,  is 3 servers on BF 3, 28 servers on BF 4, 78 servers on BF V, and i was shocked, more than 100 servers on BF1.

    So, at least on Xbox (and likely PS the same), folks prefer BF1 than BF4 or any of them lol.





    Ah you're console that explains it.  BF3 is backwards compatible on Xbox but it's still the last gen console experience so fewer players makes sense whereas on PC it's still has a thriving community.  On PC on a Sunday morning I see 21 active servers in BF3, BF4 has many more than that. I'm a multiplatform gamer and through BF1's lifecycle played on both console and PC and you are correct, BF1 was much more popular on console than on PC but console still has a large BF4 community.

    Well as i explained. The PC is a quarter of the BF base. BF 4 is a current gen game, and is not being played on Xbox and PS4 (20 servers). They're playing BF1 . We're the vast majority.

    And so what we may want to do, is look at what the majority of gamers at home are playing, and look to that as compared to our various echochambers. I mean i don't blame you, if you have to be here on social media all day, listening to what hardcore gamers want all day.

    Accordingst to them, they may want a HC mode on an already HC game. They may want Community Games. They want fast ttk. But, the opposite is true when you look at what console players play and want.

    Consoles don't care about "cheaters" or anti cheat. Console gamers don't play HC mode (the mode was totally dead on BF1). We don't want fast ttk (the game died when they reverted the nerf as they went to BF1). And given all the Modern war titles on consoles with hardly any historical titles, they may not even want yet another Modern war era game.

    And again, that was DICE making that claim in regards to how they get their data, in they get data that is much more reliable than what's being said on social media. And so we can't go by me, but they should go by what folks at home want.

    If i were to take a guess, most here, on the other social media platforms and you tube, most all play on "PC". But as i explained, that's a total different way of playing, a total different taste in games, and a minority as to their views.

    Hopefully DICE this time around, starts sending our surveys to folks emails who actually play their games, and get more accurate data, being another BF3/4 is gonna flop beyond proportion given the inundation of these generic played out run and gun fps..
  • ragnarok013
    3877 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    dogred said:
    dogred said:
    (Quote)
    dogred if the casuals actually liked both times the TTK changes went through then DICE would have kept them no matter what the uproar on social media would have been because that would have meant the player count increased. However DICE reverted the unpopular (and that term is being overly generous) changes both times because the player count tanked and these mythical satisfied "casual players" apparently stopped playing as well as the hard core community.
    Regarding BF3\4 the servers are quite populated compared to BF5's server numbers so I'm not so sure they don't work in today's gaming age.

    I think it is a bit disingenuous to say players numbers tanked when players did not even have a week of play. The first had streamers demanding boycott against before even public release.

    As for playing older game I heard BF1 still has better numbers than BF4.
    You're right. I just reinstalled BF 4, and at least on Xbox, the tally i have on all modes, locations etc,  is 3 servers on BF 3, 28 servers on BF 4, 78 servers on BF V, and i was shocked, more than 100 servers on BF1.

    So, at least on Xbox (and likely PS the same), folks prefer BF1 than BF4 or any of them lol.





    Ah you're console that explains it.  BF3 is backwards compatible on Xbox but it's still the last gen console experience so fewer players makes sense whereas on PC it's still has a thriving community.  On PC on a Sunday morning I see 21 active servers in BF3, BF4 has many more than that. I'm a multiplatform gamer and through BF1's lifecycle played on both console and PC and you are correct, BF1 was much more popular on console than on PC but console still has a large BF4 community.


    Accordingst to them, they may want a HC mode on an already HC game. They may want Community Games. They want fast ttk. But, the opposite is true when you look at what console players play and want.


    Now that just isn't true about HC  dogred. I used to play both core and HC based on which friends I was with on console (stayed with core on PC) and HC was popular in BC2, BF3, and BF4, but the changes to HC in BF1 really killed the mode for many HC players and they stayed in BF4's HC mode and largely didn't play BF1.


  • dogred
    18 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    dogred said:
    dogred said:
    (Quote)
    dogred if the casuals actually liked both times the TTK changes went through then DICE would have kept them no matter what the uproar on social media would have been because that would have meant the player count increased. However DICE reverted the unpopular (and that term is being overly generous) changes both times because the player count tanked and these mythical satisfied "casual players" apparently stopped playing as well as the hard core community.
    Regarding BF3\4 the servers are quite populated compared to BF5's server numbers so I'm not so sure they don't work in today's gaming age.

    I think it is a bit disingenuous to say players numbers tanked when players did not even have a week of play. The first had streamers demanding boycott against before even public release.

    As for playing older game I heard BF1 still has better numbers than BF4.
    You're right. I just reinstalled BF 4, and at least on Xbox, the tally i have on all modes, locations etc,  is 3 servers on BF 3, 28 servers on BF 4, 78 servers on BF V, and i was shocked, more than 100 servers on BF1.

    So, at least on Xbox (and likely PS the same), folks prefer BF1 than BF4 or any of them lol.





    Ah you're console that explains it.  BF3 is backwards compatible on Xbox but it's still the last gen console experience so fewer players makes sense whereas on PC it's still has a thriving community.  On PC on a Sunday morning I see 21 active servers in BF3, BF4 has many more than that. I'm a multiplatform gamer and through BF1's lifecycle played on both console and PC and you are correct, BF1 was much more popular on console than on PC but console still has a large BF4 community.


    Accordingst to them, they may want a HC mode on an already HC game. They may want Community Games. They want fast ttk. But, the opposite is true when you look at what console players play and want.


    Now that just isn't true about HC  dogred. I used to play both core and HC based on which friends I was with on console (stayed with core on PC) and HC was popular in BC2, BF3, and BF4, but the changes to HC in BF1 really killed the mode for many HC players and they stayed in BF4's HC mode and largely didn't play BF1.


    "Now that just isn't true dogred. "I USED TO play both core and HC..." . I understand. That is "you".

    But i'm been playing BF on two systems, since the day of dawn, and way back since they started HC, we were lucky to see one or two servers at the most. B C 2, BF 3 and 4, all of them. 

    And on BF1, inevitably zero servers.

    Why? TTK is fast enough, and HC an unplayable mode given the circumstances. That's likely, and rightfully so, why they did not add it to BF V, because folks just would not play it, at least in the numbers warranting the mode.

    Now again, you're on PC, a different world, and a quarter of the play base. I cannot speak for what happens there (though i am going to PC skipping next gen in a few years). But i do feel, and i think i've said here or on another thread, the PC Game should be made, and created a total different way than consoles, as they used too back in the day, being one size just does not fit all.
  • alucardgr
    403 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    here is a poll(form) which shows that bf3 and bf4 are by far the most popular
    https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeipdeMOKe0piIJePU5iyNSFg6mDzKc6C61BNoNbRYf-nqPyg/viewform?usp=sf_link
  • DingoKillr
    4348 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    alucardgr wrote: »
    here is a poll(form) which shows that bf3 and bf4 are by far the most popular
    https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeipdeMOKe0piIJePU5iyNSFg6mDzKc6C61BNoNbRYf-nqPyg/viewform?usp=sf_link

    Online polls are almost meaningless. Due to the limited of place it is seen.
  • DingoKillr
    4348 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    I follow a large number of BF streamers and none I saw demanded a boycott; they did however report on the issue which many of us were rightly angry about both times the TTK issue was forced upon the playerbase.  I keep seeing the BF1\4 player numbers going back and forth - and that's saying something considering BF4 came out in 2013.  I'm also still seeing people playing BF4 on last gen consoles such as PS3.

    Since BF4 TTK changes have been forced on the playerbase that did not justify the over the top whinging by the streamers.
    So you never heard a streamer say that might have to reevaluate the time they spent streaming BFV?
  • ragnarok013
    3877 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    (Quote)
    I follow a large number of BF streamers and none I saw demanded a boycott; they did however report on the issue which many of us were rightly angry about both times the TTK issue was forced upon the playerbase.  I keep seeing the BF1\4 player numbers going back and forth - and that's saying something considering BF4 came out in 2013.  I'm also still seeing people playing BF4 on last gen consoles such as PS3.

    Since BF4 TTK changes have been forced on the playerbase that did not justify the over the top whinging by the streamers.
    So you never heard a streamer say that might have to reevaluate the time they spent streaming BFV?

    I assume you mean the BF5 TTK changes.  Not until TTK change number 2 where the BF5 player base tanked. At that point I heard a couple of the newer guys mentioned how hard it was to make money being solely a Battlefield streamer and even some of the long time guys like Jack began to diversify.
  • DingoKillr
    4348 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 16
    (Quote)
    I follow a large number of BF streamers and none I saw demanded a boycott; they did however report on the issue which many of us were rightly angry about both times the TTK issue was forced upon the playerbase.  I keep seeing the BF1\4 player numbers going back and forth - and that's saying something considering BF4 came out in 2013.  I'm also still seeing people playing BF4 on last gen consoles such as PS3.

    Since BF4 TTK changes have been forced on the playerbase that did not justify the over the top whinging by the streamers.
    So you never heard a streamer say that might have to reevaluate the time they spent streaming BFV?

    I assume you mean the BF5 TTK changes.  Not until TTK change number 2 where the BF5 player base tanked. At that point I heard a couple of the newer guys mentioned how hard it was to make money being solely a Battlefield streamer and even some of the long time guys like Jack began to diversify.
    Oh no I meant BF4, BF4 and BF1 had TTK changes that parts of the community did not like as it favored some weapons.

    However the streamers where happy with those.

    Then in BFV streamers sad so those changes must be bad. This is how I saw what happen did the changes bring back players no way because 1st change was so short news barely got out before DICE reverted back, yet the player base still went down due to the same TTK/gunplay the community was complaining about.

    Then the miracle 2nd change what happens as soon as released told these changes will not stay and was changed a few more times to the point where almost back to the same point for some weapons. So the only players that are left are the same ones that liked the original TTK for certain weapons. With the end of support announced around the same time. Which meant no hope for the community that wanted better TTK/gunplay setup. So of course they left.

    What is funny how the anti-RBD crowd of BF1 survive playing BF4, yet it was a factor increasing TTK in both. No RBD in BFV so what is left to adjust TTK just recoil, ROF and BTK.
  • bigiain
    383 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It feels like DICE did provide the streamers exactly what they wanted in terms of less spotting and a fast TTK in order to make those sick flanks and high kill streaks easier and inadvertently ended up with a game that was horrible to watch.. That might not be what actually happened though, because I'm not  sure that there was any sort of over arching design in action. 

    This is a WW2 game that had a Battle Royale mode and cosmetics shoe horned in because they were a good way of making money. Premium is probably rightly seen as a an idea that has had its time, which means there's no map packs on tap, so they go for modes as cheap content instead, despite that never really working before in the series. Modes split the userbase, so they do away with Hardcore, which also splits the userbase, but isn't that popular on console. Got to keep those hardcore players though, so make the guns very easy to use. Throw in the poor visibility, the cheap servers and attrition and you've got a bad game.

    Who knows exactly what happened, but this game is a mess and I'm convinced that it's a collection of ideas in conflict with each other. Going back to BF3/BF4 but a bit shinier and with more animations is probably the best we can hope for, but I'd be fairly surprised if it worked. All those people who go and hide here or quit as soon as the opposition team get the upper hand are not going to suddenly be taking on ace attack helicopter pilots or guys rampaging around in a tank.
  • MarauderFox
    113 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Cosmetics & sales driven by Battle royal were the only ways of making money aside from initial game sales.
    Premium lets DICE sell additional content for the same price as the base game if not more; with the success of BF3 & 4s premium, many customers will purchase premium on release years before all the content is delivered.
    They then provided BFV through a subscription model, a single customer has to pay their subscription over weeks to months for DICE to earn the same cash if that customer had traditionally purchased the game instead. Anyone savvy knows that subscriptions are only maintained if the value/content provided is diverse & updated.

    DICE/EA killed 1 sales stream; gimped the base game sales & offloaded the risk to consumers onto themselves through the sub model, they honestly though micro-transactions & driving new base game sales would compensate; that is incompetence and mis-management.
Sign In or Register to comment.