Battlefield V's Lack of Battle Royale Blamed for Poor EA Financial Results

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Scapegoat excuse. Everyone knows what really happened. When you tell people, "If you don't like it, then don't buy it" you're basically shooting yourself in the foot. The idea of a business is to sell to as many customers as you can, not to push political agendas.
 
Ok EA what a cop out! Stop bending over fans and adding cash grab BS to your games IE small content update for $20 every 4-6 weeks that's just greed! And Single player games (and im not alone im sure) are where IMMERSION in the universe you have created is strongest and blaming the team for to much time on it is just pathetic and further cements the reason I have not and will not purchase any more games from you!
 
Here's a suggestion, EA. Give your game developers the time needed to properly work on, and market their games. Seems everything these days are rushed to be released, resulting in poor performance. When a game is released half baked, word of mouth spreads like a wild fire. And what does that do? It turns away potential buyers of that particular game, resulting in poor sales. Why not take the time to get it right to begin with? Doing so would benefit you greatly, EA.

As a long time BF fan, since the very first BF game, I hate seeing this franchise go into the crapper.
 
Not to mention all the hype surrounding Ray Tracing, finding out it was going to be a $600 feature (until the rtx 2060 was announced), and then the delays. To say nothing of the general pushback against EA after the Battlefront debacle.
 


This goes to show that a very large number of people actually watch game unveilings and can be turned off from buying a game by one executives comments. Furthermore, I firmly believe that it was mostly fans watching because, characters and skins aside, the game is very similar to past battlefields. The average gamer isn't going to buy a battlefield game that is similar to past battlefields. Battlefield fans buy battlefield games, and battlefield fans aren't going to abandon battlefield because of the battle royale fad.
 
Game who's formula left unchanged for 17 years blames lack of formula that everyone else is already doing for poor sales.

Gee, how about this, SPEND MONEY ON SOMETHING NEW AND DIFFERENT.
 
I watched a few minutes of a guy streaming it the other day. It didn't look bad and he seemed to be having a lot of fun. Until an endscreen showed 3 characters, 2 of which were female. He spent the next 5 minutes whining about how female characters "broke immersion" for him, despite not having noticed anything while actually playing. Because immersion and realism were what set the Battlefield franchise apart, in his opinion. Then the next match started and in the same breath he smoothly transitioned into complaints about his plane now having a cooldown period between dropping bombs.

The same single seat plane with infinite fuel he can repair midflight and reload by flying over ammo depots without landing.

Ultimately though, he was still playing the game and EA still got his money.
 
The executives attributed this to the game’s lack of a battle royale mode at launch and blamed developers for focusing on the single-player mode too much.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll admit: Battle Royale is fun in Fortnite (& I guess in PUBG, although I just don't find it as fun as Fortnite). But come on; do we really have to have the mode in every single *#(&(*& FPS game out there?!? Sometimes I want to play Battle Royale...but sometimes I want to play CTF (or even Team Deathmatch), & occasionally even Humans vs. Zombies. So not having Battle Royale isn't a deal-killer for me.

Conversely, I applaud the developers for "focusing on the single-player mode", & no, they did not focus "too much" on it. I'm willing to put up with multiplayer-only on a free game (like Fortnite), but if I'm going to shell out money for an FPS I want a decently-crafted, immersive single-player campaign to go along with the multiplayer mode, or it had better be much, much less than the "typical AAA game" MSRP of $60 USD.

 
It didn't sell that well because it wasn't that great of game. Blaming the lackluster sales on lack of battle royale and too much single player content is a load of bs by corporate lackeys that know little, if anything about video games. BF fans don't care about battle royale because they aren't all 11 years old. The single player portion was ok but not that great. A great single player mode would have helped it sell much better. Great single player only games still sell big these days. All in all it was a rushed, unfinished game and its sales show it.
 
God of War 4, Spiderman, Uncharted 4, Horizon Zero Dawn. All great single player games that you can get immersed in. EA, spend more time on single player and actually make it good and worthwhile. Give it depth and not the quick 6 hour campaign treatment. Give it good storylines and characters. The multiplayer needs to be great but should be a bonus to a great standalone single player experience.
 
The lack of Battle Royale didn't put me off from buying Battlefield V. The way the game disrespects my time did. There are too many things to unlock, and it takes too long to unlock them all to get the full game experience. I don't pay for multiplayer games that lock stuff away from me. I just want to sit down and enjoy myself with friends by using the things I feel like using at that given point in time. Battlefield puts up too many roadblocks to having fun.
 
Not to mention their deliberate segmentation of when the game actually launched for the players depending on what platform they had with the ridiculous "Ways to Play". Nobody wants to deal with staggered releases or "Deluxe 'early access' Editions"; and they'r'e going to do the same thing with Anthem. It's disgusting business practices keeping players away and rightfully so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom