Weekly BF

Are EA/DICE really this despicable?

2

Comments

  • Titan_Awaken
    805 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    That's a bunch of conspiracy bollocks. Do you really believe that EA is purposely sabotaging their own products and pissing off both their customers and their investors? As dumb as EA may appear to the consumer, I can guarantee it's within their best interests to not commit financial suicide.

    "A happy customer is a returning customer."

    Just ponder on that little proverb for a second.
  • Autorotor
    221 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I have been thinking for a while about the whole premium deal and BF.

    Imo, EA/DICE are purposely giving us a discounted version of BF, without the premium.

    They are purposely slacking on the live service.

    Because the fans will cry over a lack of content, and then blame the no premium part, instead of blaming EA/DICE.

    Then, when the next BF comes around, they re-introduce premium, and come off as the good guys.

    Any of you agree?

    I have been thinking about that to and it's definitely a possibility. They sure has the financial power to make a **** move like that and considering that they practically told their customers to F off it's not far fetched eather.

    I also believe that this game was built with the firestorm mode as a fundament.

    What makes me tick is that it's obvious that they think that the people who buys their games are stupid. When u start to treat your investors like that you're on really thin ice.

    That's why i'm not going to buy another game made by these people. There's multiple game developers that understand what the players want and are up to date. DICE is still stuck in 2005 and that will be their downfall.
  • disposalist
    8677 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    That's a bunch of conspiracy bollocks. Do you really believe that EA is purposely sabotaging their own products and pissing off both their customers and their investors? As dumb as EA may appear to the consumer, I can guarantee it's within their best interests to not commit financial suicide.

    "A happy customer is a returning customer."

    Just ponder on that little proverb for a second.
    It may not have been their direct plan, but I *do* believe they quite willingly made a lot of decisions that they *knew* would be unpopular because they *thought* they would make more money.

    I would not put it past them at all to go the live service way knowing it would upset players in order to achieve what they consider a more profitable route.

    Whether or not they intentionally accepted a risk the live service players hate so they could then return to premium and look like heroes is a jump, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a consideration.

    Just like when they raised the TTK across the board knowing very well without any other balancing it would be horrendous overall and get rejected, but would look like they had 'responded' to players wishes and that actually the low TTK was best.

    Just like when they have their own deficient RSP and then abandon it completely when it makes little money, even though they know players were happier with a more sophisticated and proven third party solution.

    Maybe BF5 has made me a cynic, but *shrug* I think it's a natural response. .
  • EdwinSpangler
    1787 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Seriously people. There's no hidden agenda behind the switch from premium to live service,

    Maybe no hidden agenda but you know damn well were not being told 90% of stuff when they certainly COULD tell us more....

  • Titan_Awaken
    805 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    That's a bunch of conspiracy bollocks. Do you really believe that EA is purposely sabotaging their own products and pissing off both their customers and their investors? As dumb as EA may appear to the consumer, I can guarantee it's within their best interests to not commit financial suicide.

    "A happy customer is a returning customer."

    Just ponder on that little proverb for a second.
    It may not have been their direct plan, but I *do* believe they quite willingly made a lot of decisions that they *knew* would be unpopular because they *thought* they would make more money.

    I would not put it past them at all to go the live service way knowing it would upset players in order to achieve what they consider a more profitable route.

    Whether or not they intentionally accepted a risk the live service players hate so they could then return to premium and look like heroes is a jump, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a consideration.

    Just like when they raised the TTK across the board knowing very well without any other balancing it would be horrendous overall and get rejected, but would look like they had 'responded' to players wishes and that actually the low TTK was best.

    Just like when they have their own deficient RSP and then abandon it completely when it makes little money, even though they know players were happier with a more sophisticated and proven third party solution.

    Maybe BF5 has made me a cynic, but *shrug* I think it's a natural response. .

    Oh, I totally agree with you on that one. I am practically certain EA knew in advance that going "live service" would upset some players. At this point, I wouldn't at all be surprised if someone was upset at EA just for the sole reason that they exist.

    It's certainly not out of the ordinary for businesses to take risks in the hopes of a greater return - even if it costs them a portion of their consumers. EA isn't any different. Other publishers can have a slice of the live service cake - so EA can too. I can understand that (and perhaps even respect that). You're right when you say that EA would consciously risk 'losing' (if you will) a portion of players just so they can go down the live service route. It's not an exaggeration by any means. I'm sure throughout history there have been way more 'wilder' risks/gambles businesses have taken just to generate a greater profit. Sometimes it works. Other times, not so much.

    The issue arises with OP's opinion, argument, conspiracy - whatever you want to call it. Why in the name of love would EA purposely and consciously want their stocks to continue* to drop like flies in the heat? They most certainly don't have a deathwish.

    That's like theorising Bethesda purposely made Fallout 76 a "dumpster fire", as some would put it, so fans would appreciate them even more when they inevitably releases the next mainstream Fallout title (ie. Fallout 5). Bollocks. Just complete and utter bollocks.

    Bethesda's good name from Skyrim, FO3, NV etc has been irreversibly tarnished because of this one, single failed release.

    Yeah perhaps there is a chance the idea did pop into consideration for a brief moment. However, EA wouldn't that crazy to take it into fruition. Those thoughts often disappear as quickly as they form.

    ---

    * Stocks have been dropping for almost a year now. It has risen quite noticeable in the last month, presumably due to the popularity of Apex Legends.
  • Trokey66
    8561 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    That's a bunch of conspiracy bollocks. Do you really believe that EA is purposely sabotaging their own products and pissing off both their customers and their investors? As dumb as EA may appear to the consumer, I can guarantee it's within their best interests to not commit financial suicide.

    "A happy customer is a returning customer."

    Just ponder on that little proverb for a second.
    It may not have been their direct plan, but I *do* believe they quite willingly made a lot of decisions that they *knew* would be unpopular because they *thought* they would make more money.

    I would not put it past them at all to go the live service way knowing it would upset players in order to achieve what they consider a more profitable route.

    Whether or not they intentionally accepted a risk the live service players hate so they could then return to premium and look like heroes is a jump, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a consideration.

    Just like when they raised the TTK across the board knowing very well without any other balancing it would be horrendous overall and get rejected, but would look like they had 'responded' to players wishes and that actually the low TTK was best.

    Just like when they have their own deficient RSP and then abandon it completely when it makes little money, even though they know players were happier with a more sophisticated and proven third party solution.

    Maybe BF5 has made me a cynic, but *shrug* I think it's a natural response. .

    Oh, I totally agree with you on that one. I am practically certain EA knew in advance that going "live service" would upset some players. At this point, I wouldn't at all be surprised if someone was upset at EA just for the sole reason that they exist.

    It's certainly not out of the ordinary for businesses to take risks in the hopes of a greater return - even if it costs them a portion of their consumers. EA isn't any different. Other publishers can have a slice of the live service cake - so EA can too. I can understand that (and perhaps even respect that). You're right when you say that EA would consciously risk 'losing' (if you will) a portion of players just so they can go down the live service route. It's not an exaggeration by any means. I'm sure throughout history there have been way more 'wilder' risks/gambles businesses have taken just to generate a greater profit. Sometimes it works. Other times, not so much.

    The issue arises with OP's opinion, argument, conspiracy - whatever you want to call it. Why in the name of love would EA purposely and consciously want their stocks to continue* to drop like flies in the heat? They most certainly don't have a deathwish.

    That's like theorising Bethesda purposely made Fallout 76 a "dumpster fire", as some would put it, so fans would appreciate them even more when they inevitably releases the next mainstream Fallout title (ie. Fallout 5). Bollocks. Just complete and utter bollocks.

    Bethesda's good name from Skyrim, FO3, NV etc has been irreversibly tarnished because of this one, single failed release.

    Yeah perhaps there is a chance the idea did pop into consideration for a brief moment. However, EA wouldn't that crazy to take it into fruition. Those thoughts often disappear as quickly as they form.

    ---

    * Stocks have been dropping for almost a year now. It has risen quite noticeable in the last month, presumably due to the popularity of Apex Legends.

    Undoubtedly EA saw a business opportunity that although not universally liked, was supported by a significant portion of their customers to warrant them moving to the 'live Service'.

    That is all, a business decision with a degree of risk (as all have) but no nefarious conspiracy involved.
  • GrinddalDDG
    393 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    That's a bunch of conspiracy bollocks. Do you really believe that EA is purposely sabotaging their own products and pissing off both their customers and their investors? As dumb as EA may appear to the consumer, I can guarantee it's within their best interests to not commit financial suicide.

    "A happy customer is a returning customer."

    Just ponder on that little proverb for a second.
    It may not have been their direct plan, but I *do* believe they quite willingly made a lot of decisions that they *knew* would be unpopular because they *thought* they would make more money.

    I would not put it past them at all to go the live service way knowing it would upset players in order to achieve what they consider a more profitable route.

    Whether or not they intentionally accepted a risk the live service players hate so they could then return to premium and look like heroes is a jump, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a consideration.

    Just like when they raised the TTK across the board knowing very well without any other balancing it would be horrendous overall and get rejected, but would look like they had 'responded' to players wishes and that actually the low TTK was best.

    Just like when they have their own deficient RSP and then abandon it completely when it makes little money, even though they know players were happier with a more sophisticated and proven third party solution.

    Maybe BF5 has made me a cynic, but *shrug* I think it's a natural response. .

    Oh, I totally agree with you on that one. I am practically certain EA knew in advance that going "live service" would upset some players. At this point, I wouldn't at all be surprised if someone was upset at EA just for the sole reason that they exist.

    It's certainly not out of the ordinary for businesses to take risks in the hopes of a greater return - even if it costs them a portion of their consumers. EA isn't any different. Other publishers can have a slice of the live service cake - so EA can too. I can understand that (and perhaps even respect that). You're right when you say that EA would consciously risk 'losing' (if you will) a portion of players just so they can go down the live service route. It's not an exaggeration by any means. I'm sure throughout history there have been way more 'wilder' risks/gambles businesses have taken just to generate a greater profit. Sometimes it works. Other times, not so much.

    The issue arises with OP's opinion, argument, conspiracy - whatever you want to call it. Why in the name of love would EA purposely and consciously want their stocks to continue* to drop like flies in the heat? They most certainly don't have a deathwish.

    That's like theorising Bethesda purposely made Fallout 76 a "dumpster fire", as some would put it, so fans would appreciate them even more when they inevitably releases the next mainstream Fallout title (ie. Fallout 5). Bollocks. Just complete and utter bollocks.

    Bethesda's good name from Skyrim, FO3, NV etc has been irreversibly tarnished because of this one, single failed release.

    Yeah perhaps there is a chance the idea did pop into consideration for a brief moment. However, EA wouldn't that crazy to take it into fruition. Those thoughts often disappear as quickly as they form.

    ---

    * Stocks have been dropping for almost a year now. It has risen quite noticeable in the last month, presumably due to the popularity of Apex Legends.
    That's a bunch of conspiracy bollocks. Do you really believe that EA is purposely sabotaging their own products and pissing off both their customers and their investors? As dumb as EA may appear to the consumer, I can guarantee it's within their best interests to not commit financial suicide.

    "A happy customer is a returning customer."

    Just ponder on that little proverb for a second.
    It may not have been their direct plan, but I *do* believe they quite willingly made a lot of decisions that they *knew* would be unpopular because they *thought* they would make more money.

    I would not put it past them at all to go the live service way knowing it would upset players in order to achieve what they consider a more profitable route.

    Whether or not they intentionally accepted a risk the live service players hate so they could then return to premium and look like heroes is a jump, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a consideration.

    Just like when they raised the TTK across the board knowing very well without any other balancing it would be horrendous overall and get rejected, but would look like they had 'responded' to players wishes and that actually the low TTK was best.

    Just like when they have their own deficient RSP and then abandon it completely when it makes little money, even though they know players were happier with a more sophisticated and proven third party solution.

    Maybe BF5 has made me a cynic, but *shrug* I think it's a natural response. .

    Oh, I totally agree with you on that one. I am practically certain EA knew in advance that going "live service" would upset some players. At this point, I wouldn't at all be surprised if someone was upset at EA just for the sole reason that they exist.

    It's certainly not out of the ordinary for businesses to take risks in the hopes of a greater return - even if it costs them a portion of their consumers. EA isn't any different. Other publishers can have a slice of the live service cake - so EA can too. I can understand that (and perhaps even respect that). You're right when you say that EA would consciously risk 'losing' (if you will) a portion of players just so they can go down the live service route. It's not an exaggeration by any means. I'm sure throughout history there have been way more 'wilder' risks/gambles businesses have taken just to generate a greater profit. Sometimes it works. Other times, not so much.

    The issue arises with OP's opinion, argument, conspiracy - whatever you want to call it. Why in the name of love would EA purposely and consciously want their stocks to continue* to drop like flies in the heat? They most certainly don't have a deathwish.

    That's like theorising Bethesda purposely made Fallout 76 a "dumpster fire", as some would put it, so fans would appreciate them even more when they inevitably releases the next mainstream Fallout title (ie. Fallout 5). Bollocks. Just complete and utter bollocks.

    Bethesda's good name from Skyrim, FO3, NV etc has been irreversibly tarnished because of this one, single failed release.

    Yeah perhaps there is a chance the idea did pop into consideration for a brief moment. However, EA wouldn't that crazy to take it into fruition. Those thoughts often disappear as quickly as they form.

    ---

    * Stocks have been dropping for almost a year now. It has risen quite noticeable in the last month, presumably due to the popularity of Apex Legends.
    That's a bunch of conspiracy bollocks. Do you really believe that EA is purposely sabotaging their own products and pissing off both their customers and their investors? As dumb as EA may appear to the consumer, I can guarantee it's within their best interests to not commit financial suicide.

    "A happy customer is a returning customer."

    Just ponder on that little proverb for a second.
    It may not have been their direct plan, but I *do* believe they quite willingly made a lot of decisions that they *knew* would be unpopular because they *thought* they would make more money.

    I would not put it past them at all to go the live service way knowing it would upset players in order to achieve what they consider a more profitable route.

    Whether or not they intentionally accepted a risk the live service players hate so they could then return to premium and look like heroes is a jump, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a consideration.

    Just like when they raised the TTK across the board knowing very well without any other balancing it would be horrendous overall and get rejected, but would look like they had 'responded' to players wishes and that actually the low TTK was best.

    Just like when they have their own deficient RSP and then abandon it completely when it makes little money, even though they know players were happier with a more sophisticated and proven third party solution.

    Maybe BF5 has made me a cynic, but *shrug* I think it's a natural response. .

    Oh, I totally agree with you on that one. I am practically certain EA knew in advance that going "live service" would upset some players. At this point, I wouldn't at all be surprised if someone was upset at EA just for the sole reason that they exist.

    It's certainly not out of the ordinary for businesses to take risks in the hopes of a greater return - even if it costs them a portion of their consumers. EA isn't any different. Other publishers can have a slice of the live service cake - so EA can too. I can understand that (and perhaps even respect that). You're right when you say that EA would consciously risk 'losing' (if you will) a portion of players just so they can go down the live service route. It's not an exaggeration by any means. I'm sure throughout history there have been way more 'wilder' risks/gambles businesses have taken just to generate a greater profit. Sometimes it works. Other times, not so much.

    The issue arises with OP's opinion, argument, conspiracy - whatever you want to call it. Why in the name of love would EA purposely and consciously want their stocks to continue* to drop like flies in the heat? They most certainly don't have a deathwish.

    That's like theorising Bethesda purposely made Fallout 76 a "dumpster fire", as some would put it, so fans would appreciate them even more when they inevitably releases the next mainstream Fallout title (ie. Fallout 5). Bollocks. Just complete and utter bollocks.

    Bethesda's good name from Skyrim, FO3, NV etc has been irreversibly tarnished because of this one, single failed release.

    Yeah perhaps there is a chance the idea did pop into consideration for a brief moment. However, EA wouldn't that crazy to take it into fruition. Those thoughts often disappear as quickly as they form.

    ---

    * Stocks have been dropping for almost a year now. It has risen quite noticeable in the last month, presumably due to the popularity of Apex Legends.


    It is not really the same tho.

    I work in the financial world, so I am not talking out of my **** here, companies do this all the time. It is called financial foresight, and investors, at least the smart ones are fully onboard with this.

    https://hbr.org/2016/06/lessons-from-companies-that-put-purpose-ahead-of-short-term-profits

    Do you think they stopped selling tobacco, because it was the "right thing to do" **** no, they couldn't give two ****, they just know, that the way the world is trending, selling tobacco could hurt them in the long run, so while stopping the selling of tobacco hurts them short-term, it is good for them long term.


    There are many, many cases of this, and the fact that some of you categorize this as tinfoilhat like conspiracy, is just so naive and actually insulting.
  • GrinddalDDG
    393 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
  • GrinddalDDG
    393 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 19
    edit. no relevant.
  • GrinddalDDG
    393 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 19
    Btw, when EA made this choice, I do not think they thought their stocks would have fallen this far.

    And I do not think they expected such low sales.

    I can't belive people would put this past a company that actually told people to not buy their game, and called a certain segment of fans, "uneducated".
  • disposalist
    8677 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    That's a bunch of conspiracy bollocks. Do you really believe that EA is purposely sabotaging their own products and pissing off both their customers and their investors? As dumb as EA may appear to the consumer, I can guarantee it's within their best interests to not commit financial suicide.

    "A happy customer is a returning customer."

    Just ponder on that little proverb for a second.
    It may not have been their direct plan, but I *do* believe they quite willingly made a lot of decisions that they *knew* would be unpopular because they *thought* they would make more money.

    I would not put it past them at all to go the live service way knowing it would upset players in order to achieve what they consider a more profitable route.

    Whether or not they intentionally accepted a risk the live service players hate so they could then return to premium and look like heroes is a jump, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a consideration.

    Just like when they raised the TTK across the board knowing very well without any other balancing it would be horrendous overall and get rejected, but would look like they had 'responded' to players wishes and that actually the low TTK was best.

    Just like when they have their own deficient RSP and then abandon it completely when it makes little money, even though they know players were happier with a more sophisticated and proven third party solution.

    Maybe BF5 has made me a cynic, but *shrug* I think it's a natural response.
  • Trokey66
    8561 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    EA/DICE saw a business opportunity, supported by customer feedback, to change the Premium/paid DLC to a 'free' Live Service with revenue gathered through Microtransctions.

    Any company that changes their product for whatever reason, does so with an element of risk that some may not like it.

    I don't see how this can be construed as some dark nefarious conspiracy.
  • Autorotor
    221 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 21
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    EA/DICE saw a business opportunity, supported by customer feedback, to change the Premium/paid DLC to a 'free' Live Service with revenue gathered through Microtransctions.

    Any company that changes their product for whatever reason, does so with an element of risk that some may not like it.

    I don't see how this can be construed as some dark nefarious conspiracy.

    If you can't wrap your head around it, call it a conspiracy. Classic!

    A company that tells their customers not to buy their product is obviously capable. Is that so hard see?

    Remember that this is a company that sells empty loot boxes to kids. At least tried to..

    They removed the season pass for Battlefront II, game is a total mess. They removed the season pass for BFV, game is a total mess. Is that how you act if you really want to go down a certain road? Don't think so..

    Whoever is responsible for the psychological aspect of their business plan should look for a different type of job, that's for sure.

  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I have been thinking for a while about the whole premium deal and BF.

    Imo, EA/DICE are purposely giving us a discounted version of BF, without the premium.

    They are purposely slacking on the live service.

    Because the fans will cry over a lack of content, and then blame the no premium part, instead of blaming EA/DICE.

    Then, when the next BF comes around, they re-introduce premium, and come off as the good guys.

    Any of you agree?
    I had no problem with paid DLC or Premium. Paid DLC resulted in bigger and better games with faster repairs, more maps and more content. BF4 was a disaster at launch due to being released in an unfinished and buggy state, but because that game would make money for EA for at least two years they made a huge effort to fix it. At the same time they continued to release expansion packs which over two years tripled the size of that game, it went from ten maps to thirty-three.

    People didn't need to pay for Premium, they could buy the DLC one at a time (fifteen dollars each) or get Premium for fifty bucks which covered all DLC and provided early access and queue priority--I thought Premium was a good deal because of that.

    Compare that to BFV, where new content arrives in a trickle and patches seem few and far between. This game is visibly on a tight budget, with DICE scrimping on things in a way I haven't seen before, e.g. recycled BF1 content. Does anyone seriously think when EA starts selling skins for this game the revenue generated will fund new content on anything like the level we saw with paid DLC? This isn't Fortnite or PUBG with millions of kids on mobile devices who will pay for evil clown costumes, EA is trying to impose a business model on this game which I don't think is going to work.

    There is an aphorism: never ascribe to malice that which is explained by simple incompetence. Anyone who thinks EA has this all figured out needs to explain SWBFII, they shot themselves in the foot in that game and I think they're doing it again with BFV. For that matter they released BF4 so badly broken it took a year to fix, that made me swear never to pre-order an EA game again and I've stuck with that. Just because EA is a big, profitable company doesn't mean their current upper management is a pack of geniuses, look at the fumbled marketing of BFV where they had to back peddle on the characters and customization. Big does not translate to smart.

    If there is a BF6 and it's Live Service I might wait for them to put it on sale for half price shortly after release, that way if the game only lasts a year I'll feel the way I did with PUBG, thirty bucks for a year's entertainment wasn't a bad deal. But without paid DLC and rented servers, the BF franchise I knew is over. This is going to be a smaller, bargain basement game in future, so we might as well wait until it's on sale rather than paying full price for a glorified console game with a short lifespan.


  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    That's a bunch of conspiracy bollocks. Do you really believe that EA is purposely sabotaging their own products and pissing off both their customers and their investors? As dumb as EA may appear to the consumer, I can guarantee it's within their best interests to not commit financial suicide.

    "A happy customer is a returning customer."

    Just ponder on that little proverb for a second.

    Unfortunately for your theory we have ample evidence EA is capable of annoying both their customers and their stockholders at the same time. BF4 was such a mess at launch and players were so unhappy that the mainstream media picked up on it and EA's stock price took a dive, there were even shareholders who sued the company for harming their investment by concealing what a mess BF4 was going to be. SWBFII is another example of how out of touch they are with their customers, as is the fumbled and hastily retracted marketing for BFV--one of their top execs lost his job over that, remember?

    Big companies do stupid things all the time, do you ever read a newspaper? We went through a major recession not long ago brought on by a combination of greed and incompetence in the financial industry, the taxpayer ended up bailing out huge and highly profitable companies which had in effect committed financial suicide--big does not translate to smart.

    Anyone who thinks EA knows what it is doing cannot have been paying close attention.
  • Kayback
    367 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I honestly don't know if BFV has the correct market to be buying cosmetics. I don't think it does, but that's me looking at my contemporaries.

    We've, in part, played together since Project Reality, completely since BFBC2. We don't play Fortnight but have dabbled in a couple of other BR games like PUBG and APEX. We're all middle ageish with decent disposable income. And not one of us are likely to buy cosmetic items for any game.

    Now I obviously don't know the actual demographic breakdown of BFV users but when compared to Fortnite I'm tempted to say it is probably a tad older? A little more wanting the best for their buck. Cosmetics are not that.
  • GrinddalDDG
    393 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    So, after seing the roadmap, is this still such a far fetched idea?

    EA are **** with us, they want us to hate this game it seems..
  • Redstripe101
    2560 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    EA/DICE saw a business opportunity, supported by customer feedback, to change the Premium/paid DLC to a 'free' Live Service with revenue gathered through Microtransctions.

    Any company that changes their product for whatever reason, does so with an element of risk that some may not like it.

    I don't see how this can be construed as some dark nefarious conspiracy.

    what feedback? bf5 and beyond were slotted to go live service. The fiscal report supports this as a multi year title will have steady rotations in EA Access which is their blockbuster subsciption model. Just because there was a small vocal noise during bf4 doesnt mean thats why they changed their model. little seem to understand this, so they blame players. If they listened to the community so much, why is BR coming? why a level cap? why attrition and limited game modes? all of this was determined and then developed long before we knew bf5 was coming without any community feedback. They didnt even send out surveys until player churn and before the first manager got booted for the TTK fiasco. So where did they get the premium idea? forums and reddit? if thats the case this game should have tons of changes based on the same feedback no?

    Premium was cancelled due to design choices, not players. Just easy to blame which is why they made it.
  • GrinddalDDG
    393 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    So I was thinking, since we by the fall of 2019 are only going to be in 1941, how long will this games cycle be? Will we be getting a new battlefield in 2020? I do not think so..
  • Redstripe101
    2560 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    So I was thinking, since we by the fall of 2019 are only going to be in 1941, how long will this games cycle be? Will we be getting a new battlefield in 2020? I do not think so..

    all we have is a vague roadmap. beyond that is speculation which is better than having info that is underwhelming.
Sign In or Register to comment.