Battlefield V pre orders are weak

Comments

  • disposalist
    8994 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Does anyone have some industry research figures on how pre-orders translate to actually orders?

    Can anyone here tell the future?

    No?

    Thought not.

    Pre-orders can be cancelled at beta, can't they? So, why wouldn't anyone/everyone pre-order?
  • ninja_y2k
    65 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Does anyone have some industry research figures on how pre-orders translate to actually orders?

    Can anyone here tell the future?

    No?

    Thought not.

    Pre-orders can be cancelled at beta, can't they? So, why wouldn't anyone/everyone pre-order?

    Because betas are never really an indication of how a game will perform. I remember BF4 and BF1 betas both ran excellent, then the full games launched and they had problems for months. If you pre order a battlefield game, you do so with the knowledge the game will not run as intended for months to come. I for one would rather buy a game that will run well day 1. After all patrick soderland said, i will be passing anyway.

    Also it is fair to say with games like RDR2 and black ops 4 launching in october, battlefield was bound to have less pre orders. It does not take a psychic to see that.
  • Zviko0
    1718 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ninja_y2k wrote: »
    Does anyone have some industry research figures on how pre-orders translate to actually orders?

    Can anyone here tell the future?

    No?

    Thought not.

    Pre-orders can be cancelled at beta, can't they? So, why wouldn't anyone/everyone pre-order?

    Because betas are never really an indication of how a game will perform. I remember BF4 and BF1 betas both ran excellent, then the full games launched and they had problems for months. If you pre order a battlefield game, you do so with the knowledge the game will not run as intended for months to come. I for one would rather buy a game that will run well day 1. After all patrick soderland said, i will be passing anyway.

    Also it is fair to say with games like RDR2 and black ops 4 launching in october, battlefield was bound to have less pre orders. It does not take a psychic to see that.

    Battlefield 1 was just fine at launch. Also, COD was never a problem for Battlefield sales so you can forget that. :D

    Bad reveal trailer and what Soderlund said is the main reason for low pre-orders.
  • ninja_y2k
    65 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Zviko0 wrote: »
    ninja_y2k wrote: »
    Does anyone have some industry research figures on how pre-orders translate to actually orders?

    Can anyone here tell the future?

    No?

    Thought not.

    Pre-orders can be cancelled at beta, can't they? So, why wouldn't anyone/everyone pre-order?

    Because betas are never really an indication of how a game will perform. I remember BF4 and BF1 betas both ran excellent, then the full games launched and they had problems for months. If you pre order a battlefield game, you do so with the knowledge the game will not run as intended for months to come. I for one would rather buy a game that will run well day 1. After all patrick soderland said, i will be passing anyway.

    Also it is fair to say with games like RDR2 and black ops 4 launching in october, battlefield was bound to have less pre orders. It does not take a psychic to see that.

    Battlefield 1 was just fine at launch. Also, COD was never a problem for Battlefield sales so you can forget that. :D

    Bad reveal trailer and what Soderlund said is the main reason for low pre-orders.

    BF1 might have been "just fine" for you. But it was far from fine for me and many others. What with server issues, bad net code, CTD's, rubber banding and the crazy drops in fps. The game didn't run fine for me until many patches later. Hell even now people are still having problems with BF1.
  • Zviko0
    1718 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ninja_y2k wrote: »
    Zviko0 wrote: »
    ninja_y2k wrote: »
    Does anyone have some industry research figures on how pre-orders translate to actually orders?

    Can anyone here tell the future?

    No?

    Thought not.

    Pre-orders can be cancelled at beta, can't they? So, why wouldn't anyone/everyone pre-order?

    Because betas are never really an indication of how a game will perform. I remember BF4 and BF1 betas both ran excellent, then the full games launched and they had problems for months. If you pre order a battlefield game, you do so with the knowledge the game will not run as intended for months to come. I for one would rather buy a game that will run well day 1. After all patrick soderland said, i will be passing anyway.

    Also it is fair to say with games like RDR2 and black ops 4 launching in october, battlefield was bound to have less pre orders. It does not take a psychic to see that.

    Battlefield 1 was just fine at launch. Also, COD was never a problem for Battlefield sales so you can forget that. :D

    Bad reveal trailer and what Soderlund said is the main reason for low pre-orders.

    BF1 might have been "just fine" for you. But it was far from fine for me and many others. What with server issues, bad net code, CTD's, rubber banding and the crazy drops in fps. The game didn't run fine for me until many patches later. Hell even now people are still having problems with BF1.

    On which platform? I had none of that on PS4.
  • disposalist
    8994 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    edited August 2018
    ninja_y2k wrote: »
    Zviko0 wrote: »
    ninja_y2k wrote: »
    Does anyone have some industry research figures on how pre-orders translate to actually orders?

    Can anyone here tell the future?

    No?

    Thought not.

    Pre-orders can be cancelled at beta, can't they? So, why wouldn't anyone/everyone pre-order?

    Because betas are never really an indication of how a game will perform. I remember BF4 and BF1 betas both ran excellent, then the full games launched and they had problems for months. If you pre order a battlefield game, you do so with the knowledge the game will not run as intended for months to come. I for one would rather buy a game that will run well day 1. After all patrick soderland said, i will be passing anyway.

    Also it is fair to say with games like RDR2 and black ops 4 launching in october, battlefield was bound to have less pre orders. It does not take a psychic to see that.
    Battlefield 1 was just fine at launch. Also, COD was never a problem for Battlefield sales so you can forget that. :D

    Bad reveal trailer and what Soderlund said is the main reason for low pre-orders.
    BF1 might have been "just fine" for you. But it was far from fine for me and many others. What with server issues, bad net code, CTD's, rubber banding and the crazy drops in fps. The game didn't run fine for me until many patches later. Hell even now people are still having problems with BF1.
    No one I know had problems in BF1 in beta *or* at release. In fact, it was possibly better than now. I also seem to remember seeing video of good netcode in BF1 alpha. Better than I've experienced in the BF5 alpha, anyway...

    Also, I don't remember BF4 being fine in beta... The beta was bad, from what I remember, just that people were saying "Ah, it's just because it's the beta" but it clearly wasn't. Just searched for vids and posts and found some terrible netcode examples.
  • ninja_y2k
    65 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    ninja_y2k wrote: »
    Zviko0 wrote: »
    ninja_y2k wrote: »
    Does anyone have some industry research figures on how pre-orders translate to actually orders?

    Can anyone here tell the future?

    No?

    Thought not.

    Pre-orders can be cancelled at beta, can't they? So, why wouldn't anyone/everyone pre-order?

    Because betas are never really an indication of how a game will perform. I remember BF4 and BF1 betas both ran excellent, then the full games launched and they had problems for months. If you pre order a battlefield game, you do so with the knowledge the game will not run as intended for months to come. I for one would rather buy a game that will run well day 1. After all patrick soderland said, i will be passing anyway.

    Also it is fair to say with games like RDR2 and black ops 4 launching in october, battlefield was bound to have less pre orders. It does not take a psychic to see that.
    Battlefield 1 was just fine at launch. Also, COD was never a problem for Battlefield sales so you can forget that. :D

    Bad reveal trailer and what Soderlund said is the main reason for low pre-orders.
    BF1 might have been "just fine" for you. But it was far from fine for me and many others. What with server issues, bad net code, CTD's, rubber banding and the crazy drops in fps. The game didn't run fine for me until many patches later. Hell even now people are still having problems with BF1.
    No one I know had problems in BF1 in beta *or* at release. In fact, it was possibly better than now. I also seem to remember seeing video of good netcode in BF1 alpha. Better than I've experienced in the BF5 alpha, anyway...

    Also, I don't remember BF4 being fine in beta... The beta was bad, from what I remember, just that people were saying "Ah, it's just because it's the beta" but it clearly wasn't. Just searched for vids and posts and found some terrible netcode examples.

    Yeah you are right BF4 beta still had netcode issues. But i still believe overall it ran better than the release version for quite a while. BF1 beta was almost perfect, i had no netcode issues and high fps. Game releases and i get the total opposite. I just don't trust battlefield games to be great at release. The last 2 were not for me. I should also point out netcode aside,it could have been hardware related, as i had an i5 when BF1 was released and that game seems to hate quad cores.
  • disposalist
    8994 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    ninja_y2k wrote: »
    ninja_y2k wrote: »
    Zviko0 wrote: »
    ninja_y2k wrote: »
    Does anyone have some industry research figures on how pre-orders translate to actually orders?

    Can anyone here tell the future?

    No?

    Thought not.

    Pre-orders can be cancelled at beta, can't they? So, why wouldn't anyone/everyone pre-order?

    Because betas are never really an indication of how a game will perform. I remember BF4 and BF1 betas both ran excellent, then the full games launched and they had problems for months. If you pre order a battlefield game, you do so with the knowledge the game will not run as intended for months to come. I for one would rather buy a game that will run well day 1. After all patrick soderland said, i will be passing anyway.

    Also it is fair to say with games like RDR2 and black ops 4 launching in october, battlefield was bound to have less pre orders. It does not take a psychic to see that.
    Battlefield 1 was just fine at launch. Also, COD was never a problem for Battlefield sales so you can forget that. :D

    Bad reveal trailer and what Soderlund said is the main reason for low pre-orders.
    BF1 might have been "just fine" for you. But it was far from fine for me and many others. What with server issues, bad net code, CTD's, rubber banding and the crazy drops in fps. The game didn't run fine for me until many patches later. Hell even now people are still having problems with BF1.
    No one I know had problems in BF1 in beta *or* at release. In fact, it was possibly better than now. I also seem to remember seeing video of good netcode in BF1 alpha. Better than I've experienced in the BF5 alpha, anyway...

    Also, I don't remember BF4 being fine in beta... The beta was bad, from what I remember, just that people were saying "Ah, it's just because it's the beta" but it clearly wasn't. Just searched for vids and posts and found some terrible netcode examples.
    Yeah you are right BF4 beta still had netcode issues. But i still believe overall it ran better than the release version for quite a while. BF1 beta was almost perfect, i had no netcode issues and high fps. Game releases and i get the total opposite. I just don't trust battlefield games to be great at release. The last 2 were not for me. I should also point out netcode aside,it could have been hardware related, as i had an i5 when BF1 was released and that game seems to hate quad cores.
    Ah ok, probably was that. i5s do seem to struggle, though they are still in the recommended spec, no?

    Anyway, as for trust, well, I'm not exactly big on that either in a post BF1-TTK2 world, and where RBD is reintroduced to BF5 when their website still says "NO RBD!" which is why whether or not my pre-order is getting cancelled is hanging on the beta performance/mechanics *AND* indications (or lack of) from the devs that TTK and/or RBD might still receive large changes at/post release.

    You're right that these things should be pretty damned solid in a public beta.

    I think I said it in another thread, but basically, TTK and RBD and other gunplay fundamentals can *totally* change the feel of a game. Is BF5 going to be a twitch-fest or something more tactical or something in between? They need to tell us *now* because if they make core changes *after* I can't get a refund I'm going to feel pretty abused.
  • -Bl1tzTurk-
    399 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    You got suprised by that? Between BF3 and BF1/BF5 is a huge difference. DICE decided to follow a COD style of casual gaming. They lost many fans with that. Especially on the PC side.

    BF3 for me was a game with competences. Trying to get better every day so you could feel you really accomplished something.
    BF1 for me is a game where you just roll in and start killing people without even trying hard. This turned out in to a boring mess very fast.
    BF5 just looks exactly the same as BF1. They did a little bit more make up, putted WW2 in to their title and here you go a ''new'' game. Nah,
    thats not true. Its not a ''new'' game. It is only a continuation of the previous game without any form of innovation.


    This is also normal since a new game is being marketed after just two years while there is an age of 6 years between BF2 and BF3.

  • Zviko0
    1718 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I got no issues with BF1 on PS4.
  • ThoriumPower
    332 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    https://digitaltrends.com/gaming/battlefield-v-pre-order-numbers-disappointing/

    GOOD! good to see Battlefield players cautious, if Battlefield 4 thought us anything about technical problems and if Battlefront 2 made us learn anything about in game economy in a game without a season pass is that YOU-DO-NOT-PRE-ORDER!

    that is an order! can I get a yes sir?!

    finally fellas seem realize, doesn't matter how good it looks from the trailer, or even from the Alpha or the upcoming beta- don't pre order! wait, let us see what the game really is going to be after it's launch!



    Its weak pre order sales are not so much to do with this^ tech issues, its more of a ramming female characters down players throats. Load up battlefield 1 and you're greeted with a bald headed women, batllefield 5 has a women on its cover art. Why? when 99% of the player base are men/boys. They ruined movies with this feminism garbage now they doing same to games. The only battlefield game i wont be pre ordering.
  • -Bl1tzTurk-
    399 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    crabman169 wrote: »
    You got suprised by that? Between BF3 and BF1/BF5 is a huge difference. DICE decided to follow a COD style of casual gaming. They lost many fans with that. Especially on the PC side.

    BF3 for me was a game with competences. Trying to get better every day so you could feel you really accomplished something.
    BF1 for me is a game where you just roll in and start killing people without even trying hard. This turned out in to a boring mess very fast.
    BF5 just looks exactly the same as BF1. They did a little bit more make up, putted WW2 in to their title and here you go a ''new'' game. Nah,
    thats not true. Its not a ''new'' game. It is only a continuation of the previous game without any form of innovation.


    This is also normal since a new game is being marketed after just two years while there is an age of 6 years between BF2 and BF3.

    Wait I thought bf1 was too hard for you with all the medics and supports and patches?

    Hmmm

    Ummm bf2142, Bad Company, Bad Company 2

    Bf4-bf1(3 years) has been the longest time between battlefield tiles whilst technically 2 years with hardline though it wasn't made by Dice so I have to let it slide.

    How is your little fairyland you live in? Sounds blissfully ignorant to everything; wait are you Faith from Far Cry 5 and bathe in bliss everyday?

    There is no reason to troll. I just place my opinion here about how i see it.

    BF4 is technically like BF3. And so BF5 is like BF1 with little adjustments.

    BFBC2 basically has nothing to do with BF2. Two totally different games. You have to take the line between the main battlefield series. BF3 brought a complete innovation over BF2. Of course the technology and possibilities increasing, but we are not seeing these innovation changes in BF1 or BF5. I also do not understand what position you are trying to defend since it is very clear that BF1 is not a success at all. I just want the players to protest. DICE just does not listen to the community.
  • NLBartmaN
    4484 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    crabman169 wrote: »

    So you are going to buy the game?

    Hmmmmmmmmm

    I will give the Beta a try .. AND If I like it, I will wait until first sales numbers are published so I have some indication if we will get enough DLC AND if I like the numbers THEN I will wait until the game has at least 25% off the price.

    This all would change if they would add a customizations kill switch/filter before that.
    Then I will try the Beta AND if I like it, I will buy the game full price at launch.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3419 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    crabman169 wrote: »
    You got suprised by that? Between BF3 and BF1/BF5 is a huge difference. DICE decided to follow a COD style of casual gaming. They lost many fans with that. Especially on the PC side.

    BF3 for me was a game with competences. Trying to get better every day so you could feel you really accomplished something.
    BF1 for me is a game where you just roll in and start killing people without even trying hard. This turned out in to a boring mess very fast.
    BF5 just looks exactly the same as BF1. They did a little bit more make up, putted WW2 in to their title and here you go a ''new'' game. Nah,
    thats not true. Its not a ''new'' game. It is only a continuation of the previous game without any form of innovation.

    This is also normal since a new game is being marketed after just two years while there is an age of 6 years between BF2 and BF3.
    Wait I thought bf1 was too hard for you with all the medics and supports and patches?

    Hmmm

    Ummm bf2142, Bad Company, Bad Company 2

    Bf4-bf1(3 years) has been the longest time between battlefield tiles whilst technically 2 years with hardline though it wasn't made by Dice so I have to let it slide.

    How is your little fairyland you live in? Sounds blissfully ignorant to everything; wait are you Faith from Far Cry 5 and bathe in bliss everyday?
    There is no reason to troll. I just place my opinion here about how i see it.

    BF4 is technically like BF3. And so BF5 is like BF1 with little adjustments.

    BFBC2 basically has nothing to do with BF2. Two totally different games. You have to take the line between the main battlefield series. BF3 brought a complete innovation over BF2. Of course the technology and possibilities increasing, but we are not seeing these innovation changes in BF1 or BF5. I also do not understand what position you are trying to defend since it is very clear that BF1 is not a success at all. I just want the players to protest. DICE just does not listen to the community.
    "BF1 is not a success at all". *giggle*.

    "I just want the players to protest". We would, but we're all busy having fun playing BF1, which is better than BF4, which was better than BF3, which I barely remember except to remember I preferred BF4 and any further back than that I just don't really remember except that I enjoyed every BF, but enjoyed moving on to the next.

    Maybe you should just let go and enjoy moving on.

    I agree with everything you said, except for the BF4 being better than BF3 part ... I always thought that BF4 was a highly inferior version of BF3, even if I did enjoy BF4 quite a bit.

    There's recently been a new development with the work-in-progress Venice Unleashed mod tools for BF3, and there is even a Project Reality style mod coming for BF3 ... if these mods reach a playable state, I swear, I will uninstall BF4 for good and never say a good thing about that highly controversial game ever again.
  • Hawxxeye
    7960 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Why would that be a surprise to anyone, the reveal mess and the insult by the Mr Chief design officer lead to this
  • disposalist
    8994 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    crabman169 wrote: »
    You got suprised by that? Between BF3 and BF1/BF5 is a huge difference. DICE decided to follow a COD style of casual gaming. They lost many fans with that. Especially on the PC side.

    BF3 for me was a game with competences. Trying to get better every day so you could feel you really accomplished something.
    BF1 for me is a game where you just roll in and start killing people without even trying hard. This turned out in to a boring mess very fast.
    BF5 just looks exactly the same as BF1. They did a little bit more make up, putted WW2 in to their title and here you go a ''new'' game. Nah,
    thats not true. Its not a ''new'' game. It is only a continuation of the previous game without any form of innovation.

    This is also normal since a new game is being marketed after just two years while there is an age of 6 years between BF2 and BF3.
    Wait I thought bf1 was too hard for you with all the medics and supports and patches?

    Hmmm

    Ummm bf2142, Bad Company, Bad Company 2

    Bf4-bf1(3 years) has been the longest time between battlefield tiles whilst technically 2 years with hardline though it wasn't made by Dice so I have to let it slide.

    How is your little fairyland you live in? Sounds blissfully ignorant to everything; wait are you Faith from Far Cry 5 and bathe in bliss everyday?
    There is no reason to troll. I just place my opinion here about how i see it.

    BF4 is technically like BF3. And so BF5 is like BF1 with little adjustments.

    BFBC2 basically has nothing to do with BF2. Two totally different games. You have to take the line between the main battlefield series. BF3 brought a complete innovation over BF2. Of course the technology and possibilities increasing, but we are not seeing these innovation changes in BF1 or BF5. I also do not understand what position you are trying to defend since it is very clear that BF1 is not a success at all. I just want the players to protest. DICE just does not listen to the community.
    "BF1 is not a success at all". *giggle*.

    "I just want the players to protest". We would, but we're all busy having fun playing BF1, which is better than BF4, which was better than BF3, which I barely remember except to remember I preferred BF4 and any further back than that I just don't really remember except that I enjoyed every BF, but enjoyed moving on to the next.

    Maybe you should just let go and enjoy moving on.
    I agree with everything you said, except for the BF4 being better than BF3 part ... I always thought that BF4 was a highly inferior version of BF3, even if I did enjoy BF4 quite a bit.

    There's recently been a new development with the work-in-progress Venice Unleashed mod tools for BF3, and there is even a Project Reality style mod coming for BF3 ... if these mods reach a playable state, I swear, I will uninstall BF4 for good and never say a good thing about that highly controversial game ever again.
    I *do* remember thinking there wasn't exactly much of a change between them, but there was enough that was new and interesting to get me to move on.

    *shrug* Maybe I'm too quixotic, but I don't think so. I play games for much longer than most gamers.
  • -Bl1tzTurk-
    399 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    crabman169 wrote: »
    You got suprised by that? Between BF3 and BF1/BF5 is a huge difference. DICE decided to follow a COD style of casual gaming. They lost many fans with that. Especially on the PC side.

    BF3 for me was a game with competences. Trying to get better every day so you could feel you really accomplished something.
    BF1 for me is a game where you just roll in and start killing people without even trying hard. This turned out in to a boring mess very fast.
    BF5 just looks exactly the same as BF1. They did a little bit more make up, putted WW2 in to their title and here you go a ''new'' game. Nah,
    thats not true. Its not a ''new'' game. It is only a continuation of the previous game without any form of innovation.

    This is also normal since a new game is being marketed after just two years while there is an age of 6 years between BF2 and BF3.
    Wait I thought bf1 was too hard for you with all the medics and supports and patches?

    Hmmm

    Ummm bf2142, Bad Company, Bad Company 2

    Bf4-bf1(3 years) has been the longest time between battlefield tiles whilst technically 2 years with hardline though it wasn't made by Dice so I have to let it slide.

    How is your little fairyland you live in? Sounds blissfully ignorant to everything; wait are you Faith from Far Cry 5 and bathe in bliss everyday?
    There is no reason to troll. I just place my opinion here about how i see it.

    BF4 is technically like BF3. And so BF5 is like BF1 with little adjustments.

    BFBC2 basically has nothing to do with BF2. Two totally different games. You have to take the line between the main battlefield series. BF3 brought a complete innovation over BF2. Of course the technology and possibilities increasing, but we are not seeing these innovation changes in BF1 or BF5. I also do not understand what position you are trying to defend since it is very clear that BF1 is not a success at all. I just want the players to protest. DICE just does not listen to the community.
    "BF1 is not a success at all". *giggle*.

    "I just want the players to protest". We would, but we're all busy having fun playing BF1, which is better than BF4, which was better than BF3, which I barely remember except to remember I preferred BF4 and any further back than that I just don't really remember except that I enjoyed every BF, but enjoyed moving on to the next.

    Maybe you should just let go and enjoy moving on.

    It is not a success in my eyes. I also know that a lot of people agree with this because the reason for the low pre-orders actually have nothing to do with the bad trailer that DICE introduced first. It has to do with the fact that most gamers know that BF5 will simply be the same game but with a different cover. Most people know that DICE will screw up the TTK after every update like they did in BF1. Most people know that the games will be just like BF1 very unbalanced. In the past, we have often been fooled by developers. Developers doesnt really care about the community because they know that thousands of new gamers come every year.

    I have no fun at all in BF1. Recently there were discussions about how people leave the game after two or three rounds because it quickly gets boring. Its also logical if you mix competitive gamers with casual gamers.

    DICE made the biggest mistake by moving BF towards COD.
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3419 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member

    DICE made the biggest mistake by moving BF towards COD.

    Their biggest mistake was making Bad Company 1? I actually couldn't agree more ... though, them releasing BF4 in a shoddy state is a real contender for their worst mistake.
Sign In or Register to comment.