Battlefield V Did Not Meet Sales Expectations Despite Selling 7.3 Million Copies

Dr. Caroll · Feb 5, 2019

I wonder how much of the negative sentiment around EA would be dissipated if their CEOs and CFOs and such took smaller paychecks. Like, EA are not bad guys. EA don't want to cut jobs. EA want to make games, make profit, keep their people employed and happy. They cancel projects reluctantly. We have stories about how long they let some troubled projects drag on. They close down studios reluctantly and often try to keep people employed by moving them into other departments. But when people hear about the CEO getting tens of millions of dollars, it creates this atmosphere of fear and doubt, where people question whether EA could/should have saved that project using money that went to the people at the top.

It's the ugly side of capitalism. It clouds the purity of motives. It creates a mental image of a fat man with his belt buckle bursting cramming his face with cakes and wheezing, "Oh, dear we have to close down the factory due to a cake shortage and <numbers, numbers, numbers, profit forecasts>." People can't help raising their eyebrows. And they're not really wrong to do it.

icecold1983 · Feb 5, 2019

chrisypoo said:
What about people like me who don't ever touch the multiplayer?

Single player has been awful in the last 3 battlefields. Have you honestly enjoyed them and would feel like youre now missing out?

ItWasMeantToBe19 · Feb 5, 2019

Siggy-P said:
Here's a very simplified explanation for you:

Profit forecasts matter because like every business in existance, from your local breadshop to giant international super-chains, they use profit forecasts to greenlight future spending.

They don't wait until all the money from one game comes in before deciding to make another game. They look at the forecasts and say "Oh, well we will be making this much at this date, so I guess we can afford to start buying you those extra departments and computers you need now Sutherland because we'll have the money when the time comes."

This allows them to remain competitive because they can spend more than they actually have at the moment. It's like you taking out a loan you can't afford now knowing that you will have the money when you actually need to start paying installments in the future.

This allows them to greenlight games and projects that otherwise simply wouldn't get greenlight. When that doesn't happen they have to start dipping into cash assets (reserves of money) or if it gets particularly bad liquid assets (liquid assets being stuff and people they can get rid of to cut costs).

................ What do you think you're arguing here

Do you think Battlefield 5's budget required the game to sell 15m to break even or they just wanted to sell 15m since Battlefield 1 sold 15m (it's the second one).

Dodgerfan74 · Feb 5, 2019

Wasting even a minute on developing the SP for BFV was an obvious and hilarious waste of resources.

BFV's core is absolutely terrific and a ton of fun, but the game released unfinished as hell with tons of utterly bewildering design choices. The GaaS component, Tides of War, is kind of butt so I'm unsure as to how they intend to give the game legs. They should focus entirely on adding maps to try and keep the players they have left at this point.

Siggy-P · Feb 5, 2019

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
................ What do you think you're arguing here

Do you think Battlefield 5's budget required the game to sell 15m to break even or they just wanted to sell 15m since Battlefield 1 sold 15m (it's the second one).

I tried to explain the concept that you dismissed. I never mentioned breaking even. If you're gonna be rude then I'm not gonna try to help you understand the most basic levels of accounting that they teach in most public high schools.

No one sat there and said "I want more money just because." When you invest hundreds of millions into a product, you expect a certain amount back. They could have spent that money anywhere else. They could have spent it on games that did make 15m sales.

saenima · Feb 5, 2019

Rocketz said:
Can we finally be done with single player content in BF then? It's useless filler.

I don't even play multi and i agree with this. I have no idea why EA/DICE keep having a campaign in Battlefield games when they're just so goddamn awful all the time and also not why most people play the series for. I mean, at least CoD campaigns are occasionally good.

Arrakis · Feb 5, 2019

I bought at $30 , it's alright doesn't drag me away from other games though

Orangecoke · Feb 5, 2019

Even though nominally 7M doesn't sound poor, it is. It's terrible for a Battlefield game at holiday.

The way it works is each fiscal year they commit to X billion in revenue. They determine that number based on growth expectations, and they figure out how to hit it with the portfolio they have coming out (plus MTX revenue etc).

Battlefield and FIFA are tent-pole franchises for EA. They would expect a Battlefield to make up a large percentage of FY revenue. So basically, if Battlefield tanks, and other games don't fill that revenue gap, they have to say "Battlefield didn't meet expectations so we are reducing the amount of revenue we expect to make this year".

Then the investors/market say WTF? and the stock goes down, which is the opposite result of EA Execs jobs (grow the business and grow shareholder value). It doesn't matter if that unit number achieves a certain profit over costs, that's not good enough.

PS and the problem is exacerbated if a lot of those units were discounted deeply.

Deleted member 198 · Feb 5, 2019

EvilChameleon said:
Jim Sterling was right. Nothing ever meets the expectations of these companies. More more more.

That's capitalism for ya

ItWasMeantToBe19 · Feb 5, 2019

Siggy-P said:
I tried to explain the concept that you dismissed. I never mentioned breaking even. If you're gonna be rude then I'm not gonna try to help you understand the most basic levels of accounting that they teach in most public high schools.

No one sat there and said "I want more money just because." When you invest hundreds of millions into a product, you expect a certain amount back. They could have spent that money anywhere else. They could have spent it on games that did make 15m sales.

I mean, theoretically yes, but in this one specific instant, probably not.

Do you think the game faced an accounting/gross loss (and not an economic cost).

Shogeki · Feb 5, 2019

I think a lot of us just don't like history games. I'd much rather have a modern or futuristic setting.

Siggy-P · Feb 5, 2019

icecold1983 said:
Single player has been awful in the last 3 battlefields. Have you honestly enjoyed them and would feel like youre now missing out?

saenima said:
I don't even play multi and i agree with this. I have no idea why EA/DICE keep having a campaign in Battlefield games when they're just so goddamn awful all the time and also not why most people play the series for. I mean, at least CoD campaigns are occasionally good.

I just wanna repeat on this page that going by the quote in the OP, it doesn't seem as if they blame having the single player, rather they blame prioritising it over the battle royale.

So I would assume of that quote that they had a choice between having the single player read at launch, or the battle royale, and the loser gets released at a later date. And evidently they chose single player which they see as a mistake.

saenima · Feb 5, 2019

Siggy-P said:
I just wanna repeat on this page that going by the quote in the OP, it doesn't seem as if they blame having the single player, rather they blame prioritising it over the battle royale.

So I would assume of that quote that they had a choice between having the single player read at launch, or the battle royale, and the loser gets released at a later date. And evidently they chose single player which they see as a mistake.

I was just commenting on the quality of the DICE campaigns, nothing more.

Siggy-P · Feb 5, 2019

saenima said:
I was just commenting on the quality of the DICE campaigns, nothing more.

Oh I know, I'm not targeting you, you two posters were just the ones on this page mentioning single player. Nothing against yous I was just saying that he doesn't blame single player for the game failing but rather the prioritisation of it as a lot of people across this thread seem to be misinterpreting it.

And for the record I agree, this is the one franchise I actually wouldn't mind too much is single player was dropped altogether.

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I mean, theoretically yes, but in this one specific instant, probably not.

Do you think the game faced an accounting/gross loss (and not an economic cost).

We won't know without actual cash numbers, not just copies sold. But basically if you run a games business, and your flagship game doesn't make as much as you expected, while yes you did make some profit, it's gonna affect any future spending you had planned.

Because if they were expecting 15 million then they were expecting probably at least twice the amount of money they got.

Tokyo_Funk · Feb 5, 2019

Shogeki said:
I think a lot of us just don't like history games. I'd much rather have a modern or futuristic setting.

Just because you think people don't want it, doesn't mean they don't. There was a survey that went out asking where the BF series should go and WW2 won out. There are plenty of futuristic and modern shooters out there to the point of over saturation. I'm yet to see any games that covered the particular battles BFV covered rather than the same French villages Normandy landings, Russia and Battle of the Bulge and America fuck yeah attitude.

Dr. Caroll · Feb 5, 2019

icecold1983 said:
Single player has been awful in the last 3 battlefields. Have you honestly enjoyed them and would feel like youre now missing out?

Hardline was not "awful". It was outright good. Mechanically solid, great world building and visual design, and colourful writing. A good translation of Cop Show aesthetics into videogame form.

And Battlefield 4 before it was a flawed but compelling Jesse Stern-penned rollercoaster. Also it had an INCREDIBLE soundtrack.

I always found it interesting how Brazilian fans in particular think Battlefield 4's campaign is the best thing ever. Particularly the ending. Jesse Stern's writing really connected with people. (He also wrote Modern Warfare and Titanfall 2.)

I myself love Battlefield 4 for much the same reason as I love Behind Enemy Lines. It's glorious heroism schlock. Human courage and sacrifice under impossible circumstances stuff. BF4 also has some very interesting anti-war themes underpinning it. Battlefield 4's campaign in particular has a very passionate fanbase. There's just something about the game. It really, really resonated with a lot of people.

Really, the problem with the War Stories format in Battlefield 1 and Battlefield V is that they failed to elicit this kind of emotional response. Audiences engaging with characters on a 6-7 hour long journey and feeling genuine emotions of loss as the credits rolled. Battlefield 4 cops a lot of shit, but the game accomplished that for a lot of people. People keep buying Battlefield games for the campaigns hoping they'll evoke those emotions again. The MP-oriented Battlefield fanbase doesn't appreciate this kinda stuff. But EA are not wrong to try and chase multiple audiences. Diversification is good. Some people want mindless violence. Others want... something more. Something that moves them emotionally, even spiritually. EA have done this before.

However, the toxicity and single-mindedness of the Battlefield fanbase means that perhaps they should think about creating some singleplayer-only or SP + co-op FPS games as prestige projects. Position them as the counterpoint to the violence. (But don't make the mistake of removing guns like Mirror's Edge did.) Present them to shareholders as MEANINGFUL games about MEANINGFUL topics. As long as the games are in any way associated with the Battlefield brand, they struggle to rise above it because non-BF fans tend to ignore them and BF fans tend to resent them. Rock and a hard place. The fact so many people are scornful of the Bad Company games even though those were extremely well regarded singleplayer games a decade ago shows you how badly the Battlefield fanbase has shifted demographically. I don't think it can be salvaged. I think trying to make "good" singleplayer FPS games and sell them to the Battlefield fanbase is a waste of time. EA need a new brand. A new image for these games.

Prototype Viktor · Feb 5, 2019

Gero said:
7.3 is a damn good number.

1 copy per version of the game you can buy

saenima · Feb 5, 2019

Siggy-P said:
Oh I know, I'm not targeting you, you two posters were just the ones on this page mentioning single player. Nothing against yous I was just saying that he doesn't blame single player for the game failing but rather the prioritisation of it as a lot of people across this thread seem to be misinterpreting it.

No worries. Fully agree with your spoiler as well. I finally gave up on DICE with BF1. It was a beautiful whole lot of... nothing.

Deleted member 198 · Feb 5, 2019

Shogeki said:
I think a lot of us just don't like history games. I'd much rather have a modern or futuristic setting.

The sales of BF1 and CoD WW2 disagree

saenima · Feb 5, 2019

Dr. Caroll said:
Hardline was not "awful".

Hardline's campaign was not developed by DICE. And it was still pretty bad anyway. The writing was a 12 year old's idea of a cop procedural.

Dr. Caroll · Feb 5, 2019

saenima said:
Hardline's campaign was not developed by DICE. And it was still pretty bad anyway.

I know it wasn't developed by DICE. It was one of the best games Visceral ever made. Wasted on an audience that only wanted to shoot things.

zma1013 · Feb 5, 2019

I wouldn't blame sales on singleplayer but I would say I'd rather they drop singleplayer and co-op stuff in the next game. Put those resources on making more multiplayer maps and making a more stable game. The games need more maps. Hell it might even be a bit cheaper to make if you aren't funding writers and actors and cutscenes and stuff.

Khanimus · Feb 5, 2019

shimon said:

Single player is done for games like this. Not that it was the right takeaway, but it's EA's takeaway.

ThatPersonGuy · Feb 5, 2019

Choosing my words carefully here because I mean no ill will towards the franchise, but there's a lot of damage control in this thread for an announcement from the company itself that the game was underperforming. If people are comparing the sales, it's an irrational hatebase. If it's the company reporting underperformance, it's "greedy corporate asshats who don't get real art" (implying, first off, that in a post-capitalist society we would even be funding excessive, multimillion dollar glossy AAA franchises). It's everyone and anyone's fault except for, perhaps, the possibility that the game released, whether because of the (wrongfully earned) bad press or whatever problems the game itself had (again, can't judge myself).

I think people are welcome to like or love Battlefield V, or even be frustrated that it isn't performing as well as its predecessors (or even that it was always going to be compared to its predecessors), but being so opposed to taking any sort of negative news on a game just straight up isn't a healthy mindset for any gaming community.

saenima · Feb 5, 2019

Dr. Caroll said:
I know it wasn't developed by DICE. It was one of the best games Visceral ever made. Wasted on an audience that only wanted to shoot things.

Not to be mean to the good folk that worked at Visceral, but apart from the Dead Space series, their history was composed of a whole lot of licensed crap, with a few rough gems lost in the middle. I still found Hardline very mediocre overall. It had two great ideas, mainly the procedural show structure and the possibility to arrest suspects. They bungled both imo. But heh opinions.

Allforce · Feb 5, 2019

I liked the Battlefield SP stuff in Bad Company, BF4, Hardline, so sue me.

The problem is the last two games have A. been set in shitty WW1 and WW2 eras with guns that aren't any fun to shoot and B. These disconnected "war stories" things feel tacked on and horrible.

Just make more modern warfare games Dice.

Cynn · Feb 5, 2019

Rocketz said:
Can we finally be done with single player content in BF then? It's useless filler.

I like it personally.

icecold1983 · Feb 5, 2019

Dr. Caroll said:
Hardline was not "awful". It was outright good. Mechanically solid, great world building and visual design, and colourful writing. A good translation of Cop Show aesthetics into videogame form.

And Battlefield 4 before it was a flawed but compelling Jesse Stern-penned rollercoaster. Also it had an INCREDIBLE soundtrack.

I always found it interesting how Brazilian fans in particular think Battlefield 4's campaign is the best thing ever. Particularly the ending. Jesse Stern's writing really connected with people. (He also wrote Modern Warfare and Titanfall 2.)

I myself love Battlefield 4 for much the same reason as I love Behind Enemy Lines. It's glorious heroism schlock. Human courage and sacrifice under impossible circumstances stuff. BF4 also has some very interesting anti-war themes underpinning it. Battlefield 4's campaign in particular has a very passionate fanbase. There's just something about the game. It really, really resonated with a lot of people.

Really, the problem with the War Stories format in Battlefield 1 and Battlefield V is that they failed to elicit this kind of emotional response. Audiences engaging with characters on a 6-7 hour long journey and feeling genuine emotions of loss as the credits rolled. Battlefield 4 cops a lot of shit, but the game accomplished that for a lot of people. People keep buying Battlefield games for the campaigns hoping they'll evoke those emotions again. The MP-oriented Battlefield fanbase doesn't appreciate this kinda stuff. But EA are not wrong to try and chase multiple audiences. Diversification is good. Some people want mindless violence. Others want... something more. Something that moves them emotionally, even spiritually. EA have done this before.

However, the toxicity and single-mindedness of the Battlefield fanbase means that perhaps they should think about creating some singleplayer-only or SP + co-op FPS games as prestige projects. Position them as the counterpoint to the violence. (But don't make the mistake of removing guns like Mirror's Edge did.) Present them to shareholders as MEANINGFUL games about MEANINGFUL topics. As long as the games are in any way associated with the Battlefield brand, they struggle to rise above it because non-BF fans tend to ignore them and BF fans tend to resent them. Rock and a hard place. The fact so many people are scornful of the Bad Company games even though those were extremely well regarded singleplayer games a decade ago shows you how badly the Battlefield fanbase has shifted demographically. I don't think it can be salvaged. I think trying to make "good" singleplayer FPS games and sell them to the Battlefield fanbase is a waste of time. EA need a new brand. A new image for these games.

I didnt play hardline campaign. I was referring to battlefield 4, 1 and V. Half the campaign in 4 was running around in an aircraft carrier, not fun at all. The last campaign i enjoyed was 3.

Razgriz-Specter · Feb 5, 2019

Dr. Caroll said:
As much as I love Brian Bloom (and I regard Infinite Warfare highly as a game), Infinite Warfare opens with you playing an Australian named Dan Lyall. Dan brutally dies about 10 minutes into the game .

Eh, I just viewed that as the typical forced perspective character moment for Call of Duty.
Assassinated president in COD4
No Russian MW2
Astronaut death from Nuke EMP in MW2
Reznov ww2 flashback in BO1 showing the death of the Russian WaW protagonist
British bomb and SAS segment in MW3
Astronaut segment of Ghosts
Karma segment in BO2
Menendez segment in BO2

Might be missing some.

Diarrhea Day-Lewis · Feb 5, 2019

1. Its always crazy to me to see 2-5-7 million sales as not up to expectations.
2. Well, i mean BF4 and BF1 still have active user bases so it makes sense.

FuturaBold · Feb 5, 2019

If the next BF will be in a modern setting similar to BF4, and on next gen systems DICE will make up for that million sales they missed.
We all know it will look insane. With that said Im really enjoying BFV.

Dr. Caroll · Feb 5, 2019

saenima said:
The writing was a 12 year old's idea of a cop procedural.

I've watched a fair few cop shows, and Hardline was a pretty spot-on adaptation, IMHO. Great cast, backed up by some clever writing. I felt the drive through the desert to the survivalist compound was absolutely brilliantly executed. It was also a very educational about skyscraper architecture. It was basically the kind of game Call of Juarez: The Cartel had wished it was. It was the complete opposite of stuff like BF4. The complete opposite of the current Call of Duty games. It was hybrid of Far Cry, RE5, SWAT, and a few other games. There was nothing like it on the market, and there's been nothing like it since. I would love a sequel. A game that explores this mixture of sandbox design, non-lethal focus, and cop show mentality. We have very few games that try to be like cop shows. It's a borderline dead genre.

saenima said:
Not to be mean to the good folk that worked at Visceral, but apart from the Dead Space series, their history was composed of a whole lot of licensed crap, with a few rough gems lost in the middle.

Firstly, as you say this stuff is opinion, but I have to object to the idea Visceral weren't a quality developer. Starting in 2003, they released.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing
James Bond 007: From Russia with Love
The Simpsons Game

Their Tiger Woods games got 90+ on Metacritic. Universal acclaim stuff.

Visceral were responsible for one of the most enduringly popular James Bond games, Everything or Nothing. Some of the most popular Lord of the Rings games. I wouldn't characterize their pre-Dead Space work as "licensed crap". A huge bulk of it was really good. Outstanding, even.

denx · Feb 5, 2019

I'm just burnout on Battlefield by this point. The only things that would get me interested in BF again are Bad Company 3 or BF 2143.

ChippyTurtle · Feb 5, 2019

ThatPersonGuy said:
Choosing my words carefully here because I mean no ill will towards the franchise, but there's a lot of damage control in this thread for an announcement from the company itself that the game was underperforming. If people are comparing the sales, it's an irrational hatebase. If it's the company reporting underperformance, it's "greedy corporate asshats who don't get real art" (implying, first off, that in a post-capitalist society we would even be funding excessive, multimillion dollar glossy AAA franchises). It's everyone and anyone's fault except for, perhaps, the possibility that the game released, whether because of the (wrongfully earned) bad press or whatever problems the game itself had (again, can't judge myself).

I think people are welcome to like or love Battlefield V, or even be frustrated that it isn't performing as well as its predecessors (or even that it was always going to be compared to its predecessors), but being so opposed to taking any sort of negative news on a game just straight up isn't a healthy mindset for any gaming community.

I feel like a lot of it comes down to not understanding that EA cannot really lie to investors about the performance of their products. Everyone is decrying their projections as unrealistic and etc, but it is absolutely in EA's long term interest to have accurate and conservative estimates of their product sales. That these estimates failed their projections absolutely reinforces the reality that EA fucked up somewhere for this game.

IDreamOfHime · Feb 5, 2019

TheRulingRing said:
There aren't enough of you.

DICE prioritised the SP campaign over BR for this game, and this is the result.

But the SP campaign is junk and unfulfilling.

Gunslinger · Feb 5, 2019

I don't know what caused this game to fail. The controversy and Dice telling people if you don't like it don't play it bad way to treat customers cause without their business you are nothing. Or just bad gameplay.

Deleted member 198 · Feb 5, 2019

denx said:
I'm just burnout on Battlefield by this point. The only things that would get me interested in BF again are Bad Company 3 or BF 2143.

Annual releases seem to only hurt Battlefield.
When even Assassin's Creed is taking a break, you've got problems.
No idea why they didn't decide to stick with alternating between Battlefield and Titanfall yearly.

aerie · Feb 5, 2019

Cynn said:
I like it personally.

Yeah, i'm kind of a sucker for the single player in these games too. I wouldn't be too put out if they axed it though.

Daytak said:
Annual releases seem to only hurt Battlefield.
When even Assassin's Creed is taking a break, you've got problems.
No idea why they didn't decide to stick with alternating between Battlefield and Titanfall yearly.

Battlefield One released in 2016. I skipped One and Hardline and am loving V so taking a break was certainly good for me, but I rarely pick up every entry of a franchise like this. There certainly are some nitpicks to still iron out but it's so far on its way to being one of my fav entries.

Razgriz-Specter · Feb 5, 2019

Dr. Caroll said:
Hardline was not "awful". It was outright good. Mechanically solid, great world building and visual design, and colourful writing. A good translation of Cop Show aesthetics into videogame form.

And Battlefield 4 before it was a flawed but compelling Jesse Stern-penned rollercoaster. Also it had an INCREDIBLE soundtrack.

I always found it interesting how Brazilian fans in particular think Battlefield 4's campaign is the best thing ever. Particularly the ending. Jesse Stern's writing really connected with people. (He also wrote Modern Warfare and Titanfall 2.)

I myself love Battlefield 4 for much the same reason as I love Behind Enemy Lines. It's glorious heroism schlock. Human courage and sacrifice under impossible circumstances stuff. BF4 also has some very interesting anti-war themes underpinning it. Battlefield 4's campaign in particular has a very passionate fanbase. There's just something about the game. It really, really resonated with a lot of people.

Really, the problem with the War Stories format in Battlefield 1 and Battlefield V is that they failed to elicit this kind of emotional response. Audiences engaging with characters on a 6-7 hour long journey and feeling genuine emotions of loss as the credits rolled. Battlefield 4 cops a lot of shit, but the game accomplished that for a lot of people. People keep buying Battlefield games for the campaigns hoping they'll evoke those emotions again. The MP-oriented Battlefield fanbase doesn't appreciate this kinda stuff. But EA are not wrong to try and chase multiple audiences. Diversification is good. Some people want mindless violence. Others want... something more. Something that moves them emotionally, even spiritually. EA have done this before.

However, the toxicity and single-mindedness of the Battlefield fanbase means that perhaps they should think about creating some singleplayer-only or SP + co-op FPS games as prestige projects. Position them as the counterpoint to the violence. (But don't make the mistake of removing guns like Mirror's Edge did.) Present them to shareholders as MEANINGFUL games about MEANINGFUL topics. As long as the games are in any way associated with the Battlefield brand, they struggle to rise above it because non-BF fans tend to ignore them and BF fans tend to resent them. Rock and a hard place. The fact so many people are scornful of the Bad Company games even though those were extremely well regarded singleplayer games a decade ago shows you how badly the Battlefield fanbase has shifted demographically. I don't think it can be salvaged. I think trying to make "good" singleplayer FPS games and sell them to the Battlefield fanbase is a waste of time. EA need a new brand. A new image for these games.

That guy wrote COD4 and MW2 and was a writer on TF2?
DICE what happened ?

Dr. Caroll · Feb 5, 2019

IDreamOfHime said:
But the SP campaign is junk and unfulfilling.

The War Stories format simply isn't working. The Last Tiger is very highly regarded, but it's 40 minutes long. Imagine if Battlefield V had bitten the bullet and featured an entire 8+ hour long campaign from the German perspective. Harrowing. Thought provoking. A statement on WWII and the Nazi regime that people would be talking about for years. The people at DICE clearly have the talent to create compelling singleplayer experiences with incredible storytelling. But they're being choked by the format and unexplained factors. EA need to take a step back. I suspect they're rushing the campaign teams unreasonably. Battlefield 1 and Battlefield V both felt rushed. They need to give the teams as much time as they need. Trying to align MP and SP productions to have the same release date is a nightmare. You can reduce the number of maps in an MP game. You can delay modes. But with a singleplayer game, you can't chop out half the story. Singleplayer story-driven games fall apart if you rush them.

The problem is much deeper than Battlefield. EA Motive, Jade Raymond's old studio, developed the campaign for Battlefront II. A completely different studio. And it had many of the same problems as BF1 and BFV do. If you've got two different projects at different studios and they've both got the same problems, the issue is clearly something on EA's end. The fact people mistake Battlefront II for DICE's work is alarming and illuminating.

DICE are just as talented as passionate as Respawn. Yet Titanfall 2 turned out fantastically campaign-wise while Battlefield 1 felt weak. There's something wrong with the Battlefield/Battlefront production process. They need to address this.

Josecitox · Feb 5, 2019

What. BF4's campaign was a meme, i couldn't stop laughing while playing it. The fact that the same guy wrote TF 2 campaign confirms everything we already knew about DICE and single player campaigns, they simply don't know how to do them. His talents were way, way better used by Respawn.

Anybody remember this? RECKER

SuperBanana · Feb 5, 2019

Gero said:
7.3 is a damn good number.

Not when the previous game did 15m.

gordofredito · Feb 5, 2019

I don't get why some people are making fun of that number? KH3 should beat that number by the end of this year while Battlefield 5 is a main entry in the massive IP that Battlefield is, EA's expectations were in check with the fame surrounding Battlefield.
That is a terrible number!

Razgriz-Specter · Feb 5, 2019

Is Battlefield 4 still active on PS4 ?

Tarot Deck · Feb 5, 2019

WonderLuigi said:
Capitalism is bad for entertainment and art

Probably the worst take I've ever seen in this site

Dr. Caroll · Feb 5, 2019

Josecitox said:
The fact that the same guy wrote TF 2 campaign confirms everything we already knew about DICE and single player campaigns, they simply don't know how to do them. His talents were way, way better used by Respawn.

Battlefield 4's writing is overall, IMO a lot better than Titanfall 2's mind you. Basically the only character who "works" is BT. Everyone else is paper thin. Worse than paper thin. Characters are introduced and then killed off, rinse and repeat. The game's writing lacks any real sense of emotional resonance outside the BT relationship, or actual message. Battlefield 4 has a message about how the only path to peace is to lay down your weapons first, or to be willing to lay down your life for people whom some might consider "enemies". Battlefield 4 explored some interesting themes through Irish's relationship with the Chinese characters. By coincidence the characters attracted a lot of somewhat racist hate, particularly towards Hannah and Irish. It was almost an early preview of the crap BF V faced for its female characters.

Josecitox said:
RECKER

It's a combination of making the player character the leader of the group while having them be a silent protagonist. Suppose you have a squad. Sometimes a squadmate will get the door. Sometimes the protagonist is supposed to get it. With a silent protagonist, you can't have the protagonist say, "I'll get the door." Instead you are forced to have characters say, "<Protagonist>, get the door." And you have to do this over and over and over throughout the game. A lot of games solve this by having the player character follow behind other characters who give all the others. But those games end up with the problem where the player has to wait because NPCs perform literally every action in the game, and that's bad.

It's a good example of how trying to tell a meaningful story with a silent protagonist is often a very bad idea. However, the very good interactions between the other characters in BF4 do help prop it up.

Harp · Feb 5, 2019

chrisypoo said:
This will be the third time in this thread I say this. The games are pretty, and I find DICE's graphical improvements impressive in each game, but I can't exactly sit and marvel at this stuff in multiplayer.

Fair enough, but there are a legion of pretty games out there that are just so much better. I fucking LOVED Bad Company 1 and 2's campaigns, and still go back to BC2 every now and again, but BF3, BF4, and BF1 were all atrocious in their campaigns. I haven't played BFV's yet because I've been burnt three times.

M. Wallace · Feb 5, 2019

Great game, great numbers.

Zombine · Feb 5, 2019

It should have sold 15.06 billion copies. 2 for every human on earth. I would be disappointed with 7.3 million as well. That's under what was projected just for Alabama!

GarthLordOfTheSith · Feb 5, 2019

Dr. Caroll said:
I know it wasn't developed by DICE. It was one of the best games Visceral ever made. Wasted on an audience that only wanted to shoot things.

Did we play the same game? Hardlinea campaign was largely forgettable.

Battlefield V Did Not Meet Sales Expectations Despite Selling 7.3 Million Copies

Prophet of Truth

wonky