Here's $20. We Wont See WW2 Pacific Maps in Battlefield 5.

2»

Comments

  • Trokey66
    8176 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Is this bet still on?
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I'm not holding my breath for the Pacific. I'd be surprised to see Eastern Europe at this point.

    I think the focus on unknown battles was a huge mistake. Omaha beach and the like might be overused, but I'm pretty sure the mass majority of players would have been happy to see stuff like that at launch, especially with the destruction and such you didn't get in MoH or Battlefield 1942.

    We'll probably get Omaha, but I'm really not confident about it. It's clear that the game has underperformed badly, considering how quickly it went on a deep sale and has forced EA to change their projections. Less players means less MTX sales, meaning EA won't want to waste their money on funding maps.

    I wish we had premium back. Could have sorted all of this out.

    The problem with DICE is they're impressed with their own cleverness to the point where they'll ignore common sense. As a history buff these are not unknown battles to me, but there are millions and millions of potential customers out there whose entire knowledge of WWII comes from Hollywood movies. Ignoring that reality was a really dumb move by DICE, right up there with trying a little socio-political engineering in a war game. So maybe they could have had some battles from earlier in the war (prior to the U.S. and USSR and Japan entering the war) but they should have also had some higher-profile battles involving those nations because that's what buyers of a WWII game were looking for!

    The biggest reason this game might not expand in the way it needs to is the lack of paid DLC/Premium to cover the development cost of new factions, maps, vehicles etc. So far BFV is clearly on a tighter budget, and I can't see skin sales bringing in the amount of revenue EA would want to see to let DICE off the leash. Ultimately this goes back to EA, they authorized this approach presumably because BF1 sold so well which seemed to point to gamers being willing to put money into something different. But in getting rid of paid DLC, and rented servers, and starting off the game with battles less appealing to so many customers they have really shot themselves in the foot. I think the jury is still out on whether BFV will be supported enough to keep going for a couple of years. I'm still (mostly) having fun, but there are some maps I usually skip, and the imbalanced teams and suspicious players sometimes make me go watch a spring training baseball game instead. This game could have been a hit, that it isn't is due entirely to the poor business decisions made by EA and that includes letting DICE please itself rather than the paying customer.
  • trip1ex
    4657 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    i'll bet.
  • HawkeyeAM47
    1327 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I may be wrong, but it seems they may have abandoned ship
  • TropicPoison
    2320 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    IF there is it will probably be only ONE map not maps.
  • fragnstein
    431 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I'm not holding my breath for the Pacific. I'd be surprised to see Eastern Europe at this point.

    I think the focus on unknown battles was a huge mistake. Omaha beach and the like might be overused, but I'm pretty sure the mass majority of players would have been happy to see stuff like that at launch, especially with the destruction and such you didn't get in MoH or Battlefield 1942.

    We'll probably get Omaha, but I'm really not confident about it. It's clear that the game has underperformed badly, considering how quickly it went on a deep sale and has forced EA to change their projections. Less players means less MTX sales, meaning EA won't want to waste their money on funding maps.

    I wish we had premium back. Could have sorted all of this out.

    The problem with DICE is they're impressed with their own cleverness to the point where they'll ignore common sense. As a history buff these are not unknown battles to me, but there are millions and millions of potential customers out there whose entire knowledge of WWII comes from Hollywood movies. Ignoring that reality was a really dumb move by DICE, right up there with trying a little socio-political engineering in a war game. So maybe they could have had some battles from earlier in the war (prior to the U.S. and USSR and Japan entering the war) but they should have also had some higher-profile battles involving those nations because that's what buyers of a WWII game were looking for!

    The biggest reason this game might not expand in the way it needs to is the lack of paid DLC/Premium to cover the development cost of new factions, maps, vehicles etc. So far BFV is clearly on a tighter budget, and I can't see skin sales bringing in the amount of revenue EA would want to see to let DICE off the leash. Ultimately this goes back to EA, they authorized this approach presumably because BF1 sold so well which seemed to point to gamers being willing to put money into something different. But in getting rid of paid DLC, and rented servers, and starting off the game with battles less appealing to so many customers they have really shot themselves in the foot. I think the jury is still out on whether BFV will be supported enough to keep going for a couple of years. I'm still (mostly) having fun, but there are some maps I usually skip, and the imbalanced teams and suspicious players sometimes make me go watch a spring training baseball game instead. This game could have been a hit, that it isn't is due entirely to the poor business decisions made by EA and that includes letting DICE please itself rather than the paying customer.

    So let's say they did have dlc, you think they would be releasing this dlc when? And what do you think they would be releasing? Maps? Lol. If they did have dlc, how many people would be in an uproar over how long it would have taken to get said dlc
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    fragnstein wrote: »
    I'm not holding my breath for the Pacific. I'd be surprised to see Eastern Europe at this point.

    I think the focus on unknown battles was a huge mistake. Omaha beach and the like might be overused, but I'm pretty sure the mass majority of players would have been happy to see stuff like that at launch, especially with the destruction and such you didn't get in MoH or Battlefield 1942.

    We'll probably get Omaha, but I'm really not confident about it. It's clear that the game has underperformed badly, considering how quickly it went on a deep sale and has forced EA to change their projections. Less players means less MTX sales, meaning EA won't want to waste their money on funding maps.

    I wish we had premium back. Could have sorted all of this out.

    The problem with DICE is they're impressed with their own cleverness to the point where they'll ignore common sense. As a history buff these are not unknown battles to me, but there are millions and millions of potential customers out there whose entire knowledge of WWII comes from Hollywood movies. Ignoring that reality was a really dumb move by DICE, right up there with trying a little socio-political engineering in a war game. So maybe they could have had some battles from earlier in the war (prior to the U.S. and USSR and Japan entering the war) but they should have also had some higher-profile battles involving those nations because that's what buyers of a WWII game were looking for!

    The biggest reason this game might not expand in the way it needs to is the lack of paid DLC/Premium to cover the development cost of new factions, maps, vehicles etc. So far BFV is clearly on a tighter budget, and I can't see skin sales bringing in the amount of revenue EA would want to see to let DICE off the leash. Ultimately this goes back to EA, they authorized this approach presumably because BF1 sold so well which seemed to point to gamers being willing to put money into something different. But in getting rid of paid DLC, and rented servers, and starting off the game with battles less appealing to so many customers they have really shot themselves in the foot. I think the jury is still out on whether BFV will be supported enough to keep going for a couple of years. I'm still (mostly) having fun, but there are some maps I usually skip, and the imbalanced teams and suspicious players sometimes make me go watch a spring training baseball game instead. This game could have been a hit, that it isn't is due entirely to the poor business decisions made by EA and that includes letting DICE please itself rather than the paying customer.

    So let's say they did have dlc, you think they would be releasing this dlc when? And what do you think they would be releasing? Maps? Lol. If they did have dlc, how many people would be in an uproar over how long it would have taken to get said dlc

    My point of comparison would be BF4 because it was such a train wreck at release, far, far worse than BFV. Yet just as promised they released five expansion packs that were announced as much as six months in advance, the first appeared in only three month IIRC and contained four maps. Within six months or so there were twice as many maps as when released, and be the end of two years there were no less than thirty three maps. The various expansions also included some new vehicles, lots of new weapons and gadgets and even whole new game modes (rather than the same game modes scrambled and released under different names like Bombastic Craptastic or whatever this latest iteration is. And over the first year or so they also repaired that game, it ended up running great, in some ways better than BFV.

    So how did they do all that? Simple, paid DLC and Premium. The initial Premium sales brought in eighty million dollars (1.6 million sold)--that must have paid for a lot of hours of map design and bug fixes. And every time there was DLC, there were players who put the fifteen dollar price on their credit card, who knows how many millions of people did that as many as five times. But even though BF4 and BFV have sold the same number of copies, it's obvious that BF4 brought in way more money and that translated to repairs and additional content far beyond what it looks like BFV will get.

    Oh, wait, I almost forgot--"splitting the community". Yeah, splitting it into those smart enough to buy Premium and those too stubborn to buy it because, I'm not going to pay for the same game twice, even though the Premium version tripled in size over the vanilla game.

    If BFV had been run on the same business model as BF4 we'd already have five more maps than we actually do, with more right around the corner. EA delivered on everything announced in BF4, ironically they've also done that in BFV because they don't have to deliver on things they haven't announced.

    There might be companies that know how to run a Live Service game, but EA isn't one of them. Paid DLC resulted in bigger and better games in the BF series, Live Service has not, it is that simple.
  • fragnstein
    431 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    fragnstein wrote: »
    I'm not holding my breath for the Pacific. I'd be surprised to see Eastern Europe at this point.

    I think the focus on unknown battles was a huge mistake. Omaha beach and the like might be overused, but I'm pretty sure the mass majority of players would have been happy to see stuff like that at launch, especially with the destruction and such you didn't get in MoH or Battlefield 1942.

    We'll probably get Omaha, but I'm really not confident about it. It's clear that the game has underperformed badly, considering how quickly it went on a deep sale and has forced EA to change their projections. Less players means less MTX sales, meaning EA won't want to waste their money on funding maps.

    I wish we had premium back. Could have sorted all of this out.

    The problem with DICE is they're impressed with their own cleverness to the point where they'll ignore common sense. As a history buff these are not unknown battles to me, but there are millions and millions of potential customers out there whose entire knowledge of WWII comes from Hollywood movies. Ignoring that reality was a really dumb move by DICE, right up there with trying a little socio-political engineering in a war game. So maybe they could have had some battles from earlier in the war (prior to the U.S. and USSR and Japan entering the war) but they should have also had some higher-profile battles involving those nations because that's what buyers of a WWII game were looking for!

    The biggest reason this game might not expand in the way it needs to is the lack of paid DLC/Premium to cover the development cost of new factions, maps, vehicles etc. So far BFV is clearly on a tighter budget, and I can't see skin sales bringing in the amount of revenue EA would want to see to let DICE off the leash. Ultimately this goes back to EA, they authorized this approach presumably because BF1 sold so well which seemed to point to gamers being willing to put money into something different. But in getting rid of paid DLC, and rented servers, and starting off the game with battles less appealing to so many customers they have really shot themselves in the foot. I think the jury is still out on whether BFV will be supported enough to keep going for a couple of years. I'm still (mostly) having fun, but there are some maps I usually skip, and the imbalanced teams and suspicious players sometimes make me go watch a spring training baseball game instead. This game could have been a hit, that it isn't is due entirely to the poor business decisions made by EA and that includes letting DICE please itself rather than the paying customer.

    So let's say they did have dlc, you think they would be releasing this dlc when? And what do you think they would be releasing? Maps? Lol. If they did have dlc, how many people would be in an uproar over how long it would have taken to get said dlc



    If BFV had been run on the same business model as BF4 we'd already have five more maps than we actually do, with more right around the corner. EA delivered on everything announced in BF4, ironically they've also done that in BFV because they don't have to deliver on things they haven't announced.
    .

    So lets says bfv is premium right now, we would still be in the same boat we are in now....there simply would not be 5 maps now ready to go
  • Stahlmach
    1156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Battlefield V in a pacific scenario ? You mean Beaches, Palm trees, Japanese Soldiers and vehicles ? Hell maybe even ships ?
    From a Developer that cant even give us male Tank driver and Pilots ? A simple JU-52 ? Or a promised new Map in March ? German and british Uniforms that arent looking like someone had a bad washing day but that are historically accurate ?
    20 $ ? I raise it to 50$ !
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    fragnstein wrote: »
    fragnstein wrote: »
    I'm not holding my breath for the Pacific. I'd be surprised to see Eastern Europe at this point.

    I think the focus on unknown battles was a huge mistake. Omaha beach and the like might be overused, but I'm pretty sure the mass majority of players would have been happy to see stuff like that at launch, especially with the destruction and such you didn't get in MoH or Battlefield 1942.

    We'll probably get Omaha, but I'm really not confident about it. It's clear that the game has underperformed badly, considering how quickly it went on a deep sale and has forced EA to change their projections. Less players means less MTX sales, meaning EA won't want to waste their money on funding maps.

    I wish we had premium back. Could have sorted all of this out.

    The problem with DICE is they're impressed with their own cleverness to the point where they'll ignore common sense. As a history buff these are not unknown battles to me, but there are millions and millions of potential customers out there whose entire knowledge of WWII comes from Hollywood movies. Ignoring that reality was a really dumb move by DICE, right up there with trying a little socio-political engineering in a war game. So maybe they could have had some battles from earlier in the war (prior to the U.S. and USSR and Japan entering the war) but they should have also had some higher-profile battles involving those nations because that's what buyers of a WWII game were looking for!

    The biggest reason this game might not expand in the way it needs to is the lack of paid DLC/Premium to cover the development cost of new factions, maps, vehicles etc. So far BFV is clearly on a tighter budget, and I can't see skin sales bringing in the amount of revenue EA would want to see to let DICE off the leash. Ultimately this goes back to EA, they authorized this approach presumably because BF1 sold so well which seemed to point to gamers being willing to put money into something different. But in getting rid of paid DLC, and rented servers, and starting off the game with battles less appealing to so many customers they have really shot themselves in the foot. I think the jury is still out on whether BFV will be supported enough to keep going for a couple of years. I'm still (mostly) having fun, but there are some maps I usually skip, and the imbalanced teams and suspicious players sometimes make me go watch a spring training baseball game instead. This game could have been a hit, that it isn't is due entirely to the poor business decisions made by EA and that includes letting DICE please itself rather than the paying customer.

    So let's say they did have dlc, you think they would be releasing this dlc when? And what do you think they would be releasing? Maps? Lol. If they did have dlc, how many people would be in an uproar over how long it would have taken to get said dlc



    If BFV had been run on the same business model as BF4 we'd already have five more maps than we actually do, with more right around the corner. EA delivered on everything announced in BF4, ironically they've also done that in BFV because they don't have to deliver on things they haven't announced.
    .

    So lets says bfv is premium right now, we would still be in the same boat we are in now....there simply would not be 5 maps now ready to go

    What? No, if BFV had been released with the paid DLC/Premium model we would have more maps because the money to pay for their development would have been available. If you mean what would happen if EA said tomorrow they were bringing back paid DLC/Premium then of course there would be a delay while DICE geared up to produce content on that scale. At this point I'd probably agree to pay for a four-map DLC rather than buy Premium because the future of this game is so uncertain thanks to the foolish steps EA has taken. But if it had been done the old way from the beginning we'd be seeing a different game.

    Nobody has to like the paid DLC/Premium model, but it would be childish to pretend it didn't result in bigger and better-made games than this ridiculous Live Service fiasco.
  • Astr0damus
    2901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Battlefield V: Vietnam.
    1 word: Swiftboats and Napalm (wait, that's 3 words)
  • 6r67uvv1n25z
    101 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I would love a game sat in the Nam!
  • 6r67uvv1n25z
    101 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    https://www.engadget.com/amp/2019/03/23/battlefield-v-roadmap-teases-pacific-theater/

    This article says HArdcore and pacific theater are coming
  • Cropulus
    258 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I'm not holding my breath for the Pacific. I'd be surprised to see Eastern Europe at this point.

    I think the focus on unknown battles was a huge mistake. Omaha beach and the like might be overused, but I'm pretty sure the mass majority of players would have been happy to see stuff like that at launch, especially with the destruction and such you didn't get in MoH or Battlefield 1942.

    We'll probably get Omaha, but I'm really not confident about it. It's clear that the game has underperformed badly, considering how quickly it went on a deep sale and has forced EA to change their projections. Less players means less MTX sales, meaning EA won't want to waste their money on funding maps.

    I wish we had premium back. Could have sorted all of this out.

    The problem with DICE is they're impressed with their own cleverness to the point where they'll ignore common sense. As a history buff these are not unknown battles to me, but there are millions and millions of potential customers out there whose entire knowledge of WWII comes from Hollywood movies. Ignoring that reality was a really dumb move by DICE, right up there with trying a little socio-political engineering in a war game. So maybe they could have had some battles from earlier in the war (prior to the U.S. and USSR and Japan entering the war) but they should have also had some higher-profile battles involving those nations because that's what buyers of a WWII game were looking for!

    The biggest reason this game might not expand in the way it needs to is the lack of paid DLC/Premium to cover the development cost of new factions, maps, vehicles etc. So far BFV is clearly on a tighter budget, and I can't see skin sales bringing in the amount of revenue EA would want to see to let DICE off the leash. Ultimately this goes back to EA, they authorized this approach presumably because BF1 sold so well which seemed to point to gamers being willing to put money into something different. But in getting rid of paid DLC, and rented servers, and starting off the game with battles less appealing to so many customers they have really shot themselves in the foot. I think the jury is still out on whether BFV will be supported enough to keep going for a couple of years. I'm still (mostly) having fun, but there are some maps I usually skip, and the imbalanced teams and suspicious players sometimes make me go watch a spring training baseball game instead. This game could have been a hit, that it isn't is due entirely to the poor business decisions made by EA and that includes letting DICE please itself rather than the paying customer.

    Agreed. I just do not understand that they did not include Dunkirk. They could have even build a gamemode around it, where German planes should take out ships and allied fighters should try to avoid that. Or an adapter breakthrough version, where in the last instance allied forces should try to get to the ships or fighting off seven German divisions as the French to allow the allied forces to escape. Makes you wonder whether anyone from DICE actually knows anything about the war.
  • SirSpectacle
    756 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    https://www.engadget.com/amp/2019/03/23/battlefield-v-roadmap-teases-pacific-theater/

    This article says HArdcore and pacific theater are coming

    The article is just the same kind of speculation that's been posted many times on this forum.
    "Awakening the giant" suggests the Pacific theater, while "All out invasion" suggests the Eastern front, so we just don't know.
  • LinkZeppeloyd
    774 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    https://www.engadget.com/amp/2019/03/23/battlefield-v-roadmap-teases-pacific-theater/

    This article says HArdcore and pacific theater are coming

    The article is just the same kind of speculation that's been posted many times on this forum.
    "Awakening the giant" suggests the Pacific theater, while "All out invasion" suggests the Eastern front, so we just don't know.

    So 1 map in the pacific with Britain vs Germany and 1 map in Russia with Britain vs Germany.
  • Mangrey
    193 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    You want to take that bet?

    We won't see the pacific theater at all in BF:5. It will come as BF: VI, once EA learns their lesson.....HAHAHAHA! No, really. BF: VI will be the pacific, once EA screws up BF:2143 and Bad Company III.

    well you lost that bet mate
Sign In or Register to comment.