I made it clear why I am disappointed, but will say it again, my journey of WWII is ending before reaching the end of WWII.
Reading that the live service was ending after Tides of War
Chapter 6, that one more content update in Summer with one map and some
weapons would be it, that was a shock to me. If BFV would of been Premium DLC model, we would of known what was
coming, 18 months ago, instead of being left in mystery 95% of the time,
during that time.
I can only imagine how the people that were looking forward to a Eastern Front, then a Western Front, how they feel.
Have seen many posters talk about not being able to imagine an AAA WWII game without more factions, like the Russians. I feel for them.
I never said BF3 was more complete. I made no comparisons at all in my post. I gave examples of completed games with DLCs. I said nothing about content of said completed game(s).
How I determine DLC or not? For me that is simple. If a game can be played solely without the additional content, the additional content is DLC. If a game can not be played without the additional content, it is not DLC, it is now a required part of the game. I guess I would call that updates, instead of DLC.
I never said that my opinions dictated anything, they are just my opinions. Much like how your opinions dictate nothing, but they are your opinions.
To start with this isn't a hysterical reaction to the news of the cancelled Live Service. It's something I've been considering for some time now.
EA does have a history of shutting down beloved franchises whenever they feel it's no longer profitable enough for them. With this in mind consider Battlefield V.
1) Don't like don't buy.
Infamous now and largely considered as verbal buffoonery by an idiot. But is this the language used by a CEO that has long term resource investment and expansion in mind for a series? Or was it a mental slip from a company head that has already decided that Battlefield is past its peak in terms of profit?
2) Deluxe Edition.
This may be debatable as I know some where quite happy with what it provided and didn't find the language used to advertise it misleading. Personally I did. I think it caused enough of a furore that EA/Dice could have looked at throwing in even something as simple as a couple of Boins to make up for the customers dissatisfaction. They didn't. What kind of message does this send when it becomes time to sell the next Deluxe version of Battlefield? Short sided business practice or a company that is undecided if there will be another Battlefield?
3) Launch state.
To be fair this has happened before apparently with BF4 so isn't really new ground. But investment was put into BF4 to try and bring it up to par. Has the same commitment been made to V? Personally I don't believe it has, at least on PS4. The game is still massively bugged and I don't think it's current quality represents a year and half's worth of solid investment in salvaging a valued title in EA's stable.
4) Broken Commitments.
This is almost too big to fully go into with the amount of things 'promised' that have never been delivered, or even taking away content and modes we had at launch. Could this practice correlate with a vision and belief in Battlefield as a flagship of future EA games?
5) General standards.
The seeming lack of Anti-cheat, withdrawal of servers, lack of community investment in private servers, Friday night Battlefield etc. Building and strengthening a community just seems like good business sense for an ongoing series. There really doesn't seem to be much of this in V. Are EA/Dice so certain that they can retain and continue to grow their player base without this investment? Or is it that they no longer see a future in Battlefield.
6) Surrender.
Unlike many here, this weeks news that EA/Dice are calling it day actually did come as a surprise to me. Mainly because out of a slew of recent disastrous titles i.e Battlefront 2, Anthem EA/Dice have seemingly refused to give up on them. Battlefront has seen continued expansion over a 3 year period. Although as a 'rented' franchise perhaps EA/Dice are under some kind of legal obligation? Anthem could also be described as a disaster yet is currently being redeveloped from the ground up according to what little facts we know. Anthem has had a large amount of funding put in over a 6 year period, perhaps this is why EA/Dice continue to invest?
I could go on with all the worrying decisions made in V, but I know this is starting to turn into an essay as it is so I'll finish on this point.
BF1 broke all previous Battlefield records, so it seem's ludicrous that EA/Dice would be willing to consider closing the franchise. However for all it's sales, how much profit did it make when weighed against the amount of resources requiring investment in a successful Battlefield title. You have to give some respect to the Dev's, even with all it's bugs and glitches V is almost mind blowingly complex in comparison with games like CoD.
But EA are in this to make the most amount of money. In an era where games like Fortnite etc rake in vast fortunes through micro transactions is a first person shooter that requires so much work going to equal the profit to be made on popular games like Apex, which only require a single map and have a community seemingly eager to spend money on micro transactions. I was recently reading an article (and for the life of me I can't now remember where, apologies) that stated large scale FPS games in the mold of Battlefield where on the decline as current trends swing to different genres. CoD was used as the exception that proves the rule in the article. I'm not very knowledgeable of other games really, are there other FPS war games that bring in the kind of bank CoD does?
Could EA have decided to follow this trend, especially considering how divided the Battlefield player base seem in what we want from a Battlefield game. Is it worth the work needed to keep all sections happy?
I don't think this is the end of Battlefield, but is this possibly because I love the game?
I just thought this might be an interesting discussion. If you've managed to read this far, respect.
Not one response from Dice about how unhappy the community is. I have stopped playing BF V now, tried for half hour yesterday and immediately lost interest. In fact i am not looking forward to next patch, Dice can run and jump the damage is done.
Do they realise how upset the community is?
Do they realise that BF6 will be a failure due to lack of sales?
Do they realise that they should not waste their time with another game as it will be futile to work on BF6 due to the backlash of the community?
I've been an old fan of yours, I've played every BF fame since 1942, from the seat of my computer to the seat of cyber cafes with freinds, and so have garnered a deep passion for your games. In fact I bought the game upon release, the very same day. However, it is with great disappointment that i hear, through a twitter reply, that the game is coming to an end.
One point I'd like to contest though, and quite vehemently, is that the Swedish dev team needs to, if not admit to the public, be aware of the reality of the situation. It was stated that the reason this iteration failed was due to a focus on single player and battle royale, and I regret to inform you, should you not already know, that this is not accurate at all. Last Tiger and Tirailleur were probably some of the best WW2 single player content I've played in a while, and this from someone who also indulged in Medal of Honour.
the reasons why this iteration failed to meet demands is because: 1. the project lead insulted the entire player base because of his political views 2. pushed the game to appease SJWs instead of remembering who their player base is, which shows a deep disconnect with the community and a flippant attitude towards your customers 3. Focusing on a ''Go Woke or Go Broke'' business model, not realising that all the signs were there even back then that that just leads to Broke, and now unfortunatly BFV is part of that statistic
this was all before the game even released in full, now if I may be so bold, consider the follow:
4. the game released full of bugs, which most could be taken on the chin as long as the promise of improvement was kept 5. the map quality may have been high, but quantity was painfully low, all content could be explored in but a few hours play, never a good sign for a game with Battlefields name 6. upon firing the project lead with....vocal political views to put it politely, the community let out a sigh of relief, unfortunately this good action was done a bit too late, though I applaud the efforts of the team to try to catch up 7. and finally, I shall address the Tiger Ausf B in the room, the funky uniforms and cartoonish cosmetics are not only unwelcome in such a game, but quite frankly inappropriate for a game that tries to keep in mind the brutality of the war but still be fun
These factors, these affronts to us, your patrons, your long time fans and adorators of your works, are the reasons this game failed. DICE may publish whatever they desire as a reason why, as long as in their hearts they remember this is the real reason why. If I may be so bold in my closing statements, who ever enforced these sweeping decisions should be tasked with making a new shooter game, as they clearly dont want to make a Battlefield game.
I hope, my freinds, that this letter has not been too long, and that you shall take these criticism to heart, as your fans dearly wish to support you, but cannot tolerate this any longer. Eternally yours,
12 or even 6 months ago, I would agree that comparing BFV to previous titles, especially in terms of content, would have been disengenuos.
As BFV is now at the effective end of it's life cycle, again in terms of content especially, it is not unreasonable to compare 'finished priducts'.
I played BF4 a couple of days ago for the first time in ages. Whilst there are still obvious flaws, I had a right hoot.
At no point have I had that in BFV.
I (regrettably) bought the BFV deluxe edition for £80 and paid much the same for all previous titles plus Premium.
In my opinion, all previous titles with Premium were better value even taking 'issues' into account. Even had I just bought the base game, I don’t think I would have been satisfied especially given the gameplay desicions taken.
Bare in mind that on numerous occasions at the beginning, I was very clear that the Live Service should be given the benefit of the doubt until such time as the Live Service concluded.
Well luckily for those of us living in this plane of reality, what qualifies as content is not dictated by the subjective whim of completely random people on the internet
Includes your opinion.
Mountains of weapons, skins and elite characters, many of which have to be paid for at extortionate prices do not compare to 3 or 4 map packs each containing 4 or so maps in my opinion.
You can argue as much as you want but live service in this game failed and it is the main reason why EA canceled all future content additions to the game besides small stuff in June. They simply couldn't make money and without money the game is not worth their time and effort. And I also have a feeling the decison was made long ago, probably around January or early February. That's why the 6th chapter is a lackluster compared to previous ones. Dice just had to put in most of remaining things and call it a day. I guess it's Dice's fault for not thinking it through and not providing people with decent cosmetic things to purchase because let's be real the majority of those Epic skins are dull and full of ugly gasmasks, some weapons don't even have Epic skins except the default free golden one. Vehicles lack of good customization items. And the list goes on and on. Dice simply hasn't been ready for live service support model so it failed to support the game and now the game is done for.
I preferred premium, but lets be honest, a lot of people didn't and it probably didn't do well enough with the casual players who get the game at Christmas and dabble for a few weeks. There's no way that it can make a comeback when so little of the community are happy with this game. It will be almost impossible to sell pre-orders of the next game, never mind deluxe editions with all the DLC included.
What DLC content? In my opinion, BFV has none, as BFV was never a completed game. In my opinion, Post Launch content does not always equal DLC. If I purchased a new copy of BFV right now, the game would contain everything that is in it currently, right? That means the content of the game currently, is the game, correct? If I purchased a new copy, no collectors edition/GOTY/etc, but basic copy of, lets say, Skyrim, or Fallout 3, or Fallout 4, or BF1, or BF4, I would have a "completed" game, with a ton of DLC I could purchase to expand on my experiences of the base game, knowing what those DLC contained.
I agree with you, BFV has a lot of content, but I do not consider it DLC, I consider it completing an incomplete game, which in my opinion and many others, is still very incomplete, considering being told about a "journey of WWII". Our "journey" is ending before it even got half-way through, in my opinion.
The reason why I wish BFV would of had actual DLC instead of a live service model is, before the game launched we would of had a content schedule, showing what was going to happen with the game after launch, what we were paying money for. (I do not consider their attempt at a road-map to be a proper schedule) We would of been shown that this DLC is going to be Pacific, this one is Russia, this one is France, for example. We would of known what we were going to get, instead of relying on DICE/EA to give us what they wanted to give us, when they decided to give it to us, then ending it before completing our "journey of WWII", in my opinion. I am disappointed, to say the least, I expected more. An actual DLC model would of prevented my disappointment 18 months into the life of the game.
With all of that said, I really enjoy BFV. My favorite Battlefield to date, out of the ones I played, BC2/BF3/BF4/BF1/BFHeros/BFF2P/BFHardline. I will still play BFV daily(time permitting of course) until the next game comes out, regardless of any future updates the game may or may not receive (I have been saying that before the Pacific was released or any maps added to the game for that matter).
Post launch if you bought a used disc. It would only be stock day 1 launch stuff. You would have patches to download to get to today's version. But yeah digital store it's all one lump sum of a download to current state.
Well luckily for those of us living in this plane of reality, what qualifies as content is not dictated by the subjective whim of completely random people on the internet
Includes your opinion.
Mountains of weapons, skins and elite characters, many of which have to be paid for at extortionate prices do not compare to 3 or 4 map packs each containing 4 or so maps in my opinion.
No, what qualifies as content for a video game is not my opinion. Because "content" in that regard is a defined term. I qualify all content as content, because by definition it's content. I'm not only going to count what I personally found appealing. It is not my opinion that what qualifies as content is not dictated by the subjective whim of random people, that's fact. It's like you can't have a chest with a variety of items inside, and then attempt to dictate what qualifies as "the chest's contents" based solely on what you like or not. Because all of way is inside that chest is its contents.
You'd have a point if what I said was "what qualifies as WORTHWHILE content is not dictated by the subjective whim of random people", but that's not what I said. Whether you like or dislike content, it's still content. Whether or not you think maps are more important, all other types of content are still content. And when objectively comparing the content between two games with different dlc models, insisting what you care about is all that counts is just nonsense.
You either count all content of all types, or the conversation devolves from a legitimate comparison to a subjective whinge about not getting specifically what you wanted or preferred. Contrary to popular belief, maps are not the only type of content and they're not all that matters when it comes to developing post launch content for a game.
If BF5 had gotten less weapons and vehicles than Bf4 or BF1, I'd bet cold, hard cash you and others would be in threads like this using that as a mark against BF5s live service just as you're doing with maps.
You can claim Premium is subjectively more worthwhile because it added more maps in your opinion, you can do so all you like, but that's not what I've posted about.
If your intention behind this thread was to merely proclaim BF5s live service didn't give you what you wanted - more power to you. But not getting what you wanted or blindly expected doesn't negate an objective comparison between the content received in two or more different games. Not does it negate the fact that if DICE actually followed AAA live service trends like other devs and like they did with a past title in a different franchise, BF5 would definitely have ended its content cycle in a worse state.
Like I said, I don't get the point of saying "I told you so" to people who preferred the live service or disliked premium, unless what you're insisting you "told us so" about is that BF5 didn't get as many dlc maps as past games despite content coming at zero cost. And if that's the case - cool story?
Comments
This game is like going to a 25th high school reunion, and running into ex girlfriends from high school.
Or, to quote Princess Leia, "You came in that thing?"
If I truly stated what I felt about the game, I'd probably just cut to the chase and request the mods to perma-ban me lol.
I made it clear why I am disappointed, but will say it again, my journey of WWII is ending before reaching the end of WWII.
If BFV would of been Premium DLC model, we would of known what was coming, 18 months ago, instead of being left in mystery 95% of the time, during that time.
I feel for them.
I never said BF3 was more complete.
I made no comparisons at all in my post.
I gave examples of completed games with DLCs.
I said nothing about content of said completed game(s).
How I determine DLC or not?
For me that is simple.
If a game can be played solely without the additional content, the additional content is DLC.
If a game can not be played without the additional content, it is not DLC, it is now a required part of the game.
I guess I would call that updates, instead of DLC.
I never said that my opinions dictated anything, they are just my opinions.
Much like how your opinions dictate nothing, but they are your opinions.
I'm really mad at them as a WW2 fan.
EA does have a history of shutting down beloved franchises whenever they feel it's no longer profitable enough for them.
With this in mind consider Battlefield V.
1) Don't like don't buy.
Infamous now and largely considered as verbal buffoonery by an idiot.
But is this the language used by a CEO that has long term resource investment and expansion in mind for a series?
Or was it a mental slip from a company head that has already decided that Battlefield is past its peak in terms of profit?
2) Deluxe Edition.
This may be debatable as I know some where quite happy with what it provided and didn't find the language used to advertise it misleading.
Personally I did.
I think it caused enough of a furore that EA/Dice could have looked at throwing in even something as simple as a couple of Boins to make up for the customers dissatisfaction.
They didn't.
What kind of message does this send when it becomes time to sell the next Deluxe version of Battlefield? Short sided business practice or a company that is undecided if there will be another Battlefield?
3) Launch state.
To be fair this has happened before apparently with BF4 so isn't really new ground.
But investment was put into BF4 to try and bring it up to par. Has the same commitment been made to V?
Personally I don't believe it has, at least on PS4. The game is still massively bugged and I don't think it's current quality represents a year and half's worth of solid investment in salvaging a valued title in EA's stable.
4) Broken Commitments.
This is almost too big to fully go into with the amount of things 'promised' that have never been delivered, or even taking away content and modes we had at launch.
Could this practice correlate with a vision and belief in Battlefield as a flagship of future EA games?
5) General standards.
The seeming lack of Anti-cheat, withdrawal of servers, lack of community investment in private servers, Friday night Battlefield etc.
Building and strengthening a community just seems like good business sense for an ongoing series. There really doesn't seem to be much of this in V. Are EA/Dice so certain that they can retain and continue to grow their player base without this investment? Or is it that they no longer see a future in Battlefield.
6) Surrender.
Unlike many here, this weeks news that EA/Dice are calling it day actually did come as a surprise to me. Mainly because out of a slew of recent disastrous titles i.e Battlefront 2, Anthem EA/Dice have seemingly refused to give up on them.
Battlefront has seen continued expansion over a 3 year period. Although as a 'rented' franchise perhaps EA/Dice are under some kind of legal obligation?
Anthem could also be described as a disaster yet is currently being redeveloped from the ground up according to what little facts we know. Anthem has had a large amount of funding put in over a 6 year period, perhaps this is why EA/Dice continue to invest?
I could go on with all the worrying decisions made in V, but I know this is starting to turn into an essay as it is so I'll finish on this point.
BF1 broke all previous Battlefield records, so it seem's ludicrous that EA/Dice would be willing to consider closing the franchise.
However for all it's sales, how much profit did it make when weighed against the amount of resources requiring investment in a successful Battlefield title. You have to give some respect to the Dev's, even with all it's bugs and glitches V is almost mind blowingly complex in comparison with games like CoD.
But EA are in this to make the most amount of money. In an era where games like Fortnite etc rake in vast fortunes through micro transactions is a first person shooter that requires so much work going to equal the profit to be made on popular games like Apex, which only require a single map and have a community seemingly eager to spend money on micro transactions.
I was recently reading an article (and for the life of me I can't now remember where, apologies) that stated large scale FPS games in the mold of Battlefield where on the decline as current trends swing to different genres. CoD was used as the exception that proves the rule in the article. I'm not very knowledgeable of other games really, are there other FPS war games that bring in the kind of bank CoD does?
Could EA have decided to follow this trend, especially considering how divided the Battlefield player base seem in what we want from a Battlefield game. Is it worth the work needed to keep all sections happy?
I don't think this is the end of Battlefield, but is this possibly because I love the game?
I just thought this might be an interesting discussion. If you've managed to read this far, respect.
Do they realise how upset the community is?
Do they realise that BF6 will be a failure due to lack of sales?
Do they realise that they should not waste their time with another game as it will be futile to work on BF6 due to the backlash of the community?
Do they realise they cannot be trusted any more?
Everybody knows they realise, answer is simple they don't care.
I've been an old fan of yours, I've played every BF fame since 1942, from the seat of my computer to the seat of cyber cafes with freinds, and so have garnered a deep passion for your games. In fact I bought the game upon release, the very same day.
However, it is with great disappointment that i hear, through a twitter reply, that the game is coming to an end.
One point I'd like to contest though, and quite vehemently, is that the Swedish dev team needs to, if not admit to the public, be aware of the reality of the situation.
It was stated that the reason this iteration failed was due to a focus on single player and battle royale, and I regret to inform you, should you not already know, that this is not accurate at all. Last Tiger and Tirailleur were probably some of the best WW2 single player content I've played in a while, and this from someone who also indulged in Medal of Honour.
the reasons why this iteration failed to meet demands is because:
1. the project lead insulted the entire player base because of his political views
2. pushed the game to appease SJWs instead of remembering who their player base is, which shows a deep disconnect with the community and a flippant attitude towards your customers
3. Focusing on a ''Go Woke or Go Broke'' business model, not realising that all the signs were there even back then that that just leads to Broke, and now unfortunatly BFV is part of that statistic
this was all before the game even released in full, now if I may be so bold, consider the follow:
4. the game released full of bugs, which most could be taken on the chin as long as the promise of improvement was kept
5. the map quality may have been high, but quantity was painfully low, all content could be explored in but a few hours play, never a good sign for a game with Battlefields name
6. upon firing the project lead with....vocal political views to put it politely, the community let out a sigh of relief, unfortunately this good action was done a bit too late, though I applaud the efforts of the team to try to catch up
7. and finally, I shall address the Tiger Ausf B in the room, the funky uniforms and cartoonish cosmetics are not only unwelcome in such a game, but quite frankly inappropriate for a game that tries to keep in mind the brutality of the war but still be fun
These factors, these affronts to us, your patrons, your long time fans and adorators of your works, are the reasons this game failed. DICE may publish whatever they desire as a reason why, as long as in their hearts they remember this is the real reason why.
If I may be so bold in my closing statements, who ever enforced these sweeping decisions should be tasked with making a new shooter game, as they clearly dont want to make a Battlefield game.
I hope, my freinds, that this letter has not been too long, and that you shall take these criticism to heart, as your fans dearly wish to support you, but cannot tolerate this any longer.
Eternally yours,
Elephante33
*sips cognac*
As BFV is now at the effective end of it's life cycle, again in terms of content especially, it is not unreasonable to compare 'finished priducts'.
I played BF4 a couple of days ago for the first time in ages. Whilst there are still obvious flaws, I had a right hoot.
At no point have I had that in BFV.
I (regrettably) bought the BFV deluxe edition for £80 and paid much the same for all previous titles plus Premium.
In my opinion, all previous titles with Premium were better value even taking 'issues' into account. Even had I just bought the base game, I don’t think I would have been satisfied especially given the gameplay desicions taken.
Bare in mind that on numerous occasions at the beginning, I was very clear that the Live Service should be given the benefit of the doubt until such time as the Live Service concluded.
Now that we are here, I find it lacking.
@Loqtrall it should be noted that this:
Well luckily for those of us living in this plane of reality, what qualifies as content is not dictated by the subjective whim of completely random people on the internet
Includes your opinion.
Mountains of weapons, skins and elite characters, many of which have to be paid for at extortionate prices do not compare to 3 or 4 map packs each containing 4 or so maps in my opinion.
And I also have a feeling the decison was made long ago, probably around January or early February. That's why the 6th chapter is a lackluster compared to previous ones. Dice just had to put in most of remaining things and call it a day.
I guess it's Dice's fault for not thinking it through and not providing people with decent cosmetic things to purchase because let's be real the majority of those Epic skins are dull and full of ugly gasmasks, some weapons don't even have Epic skins except the default free golden one. Vehicles lack of good customization items. And the list goes on and on. Dice simply hasn't been ready for live service support model so it failed to support the game and now the game is done for.
Post launch if you bought a used disc. It would only be stock day 1 launch stuff. You would have patches to download to get to today's version. But yeah digital store it's all one lump sum of a download to current state.
No, what qualifies as content for a video game is not my opinion. Because "content" in that regard is a defined term. I qualify all content as content, because by definition it's content. I'm not only going to count what I personally found appealing. It is not my opinion that what qualifies as content is not dictated by the subjective whim of random people, that's fact. It's like you can't have a chest with a variety of items inside, and then attempt to dictate what qualifies as "the chest's contents" based solely on what you like or not. Because all of way is inside that chest is its contents.
You'd have a point if what I said was "what qualifies as WORTHWHILE content is not dictated by the subjective whim of random people", but that's not what I said. Whether you like or dislike content, it's still content. Whether or not you think maps are more important, all other types of content are still content. And when objectively comparing the content between two games with different dlc models, insisting what you care about is all that counts is just nonsense.
You either count all content of all types, or the conversation devolves from a legitimate comparison to a subjective whinge about not getting specifically what you wanted or preferred. Contrary to popular belief, maps are not the only type of content and they're not all that matters when it comes to developing post launch content for a game.
If BF5 had gotten less weapons and vehicles than Bf4 or BF1, I'd bet cold, hard cash you and others would be in threads like this using that as a mark against BF5s live service just as you're doing with maps.
You can claim Premium is subjectively more worthwhile because it added more maps in your opinion, you can do so all you like, but that's not what I've posted about.
If your intention behind this thread was to merely proclaim BF5s live service didn't give you what you wanted - more power to you. But not getting what you wanted or blindly expected doesn't negate an objective comparison between the content received in two or more different games. Not does it negate the fact that if DICE actually followed AAA live service trends like other devs and like they did with a past title in a different franchise, BF5 would definitely have ended its content cycle in a worse state.
Like I said, I don't get the point of saying "I told you so" to people who preferred the live service or disliked premium, unless what you're insisting you "told us so" about is that BF5 didn't get as many dlc maps as past games despite content coming at zero cost. And if that's the case - cool story?