WSJ: Pre-order sales of "Battlefield V" have been weak.
- Thread starter Kalentan
- Start date
So you don't think it matters. That's fair. I don't even necessarily disagree. Preorder numbers are suspect, especially if you are offering a service which lets people skip outright purchases of your game.
I'm very comfortable putting someone with editorial oversight that's sourcing information from an actual research firm over an "I know a guy" from a twitter personality.
It's WW2 so I ain't buying it. I might subscribe to Origin Access for a month and give it a shot. No way would I pay full price.
Market has changed but EA seems to follow the same marketing strategy the had for BF3 a game released almost 8 years ago.
Today when you have F2P, fortnite, esports consoles as close as possible to pc traits and streamers i don't know how you can capture the attention of those groups with some trailers and a beta few days before release...
Today when you have F2P, fortnite, esports consoles as close as possible to pc traits and streamers i don't know how you can capture the attention of those groups with some trailers and a beta few days before release...
Battlefield in the 80's, set in 80's America, Eastern Europe, and South-east Asia? Fuck yea, I'd buy that. The cosmetics would even make sense in this scenario, think ala Red Dawn Wolverines. I'd love to wear a bedazzled denim jacket over my prosthetic arm as we ride civilian vehicles in middle America charging Russian and Cuban forces all wearing irregular uniforms and bits of American cosmetics they've picked up. This. This player customization that make sense in the context!
Not sarcastic... seriously would love this game.
It's probably a good thing more people don't have access to the alpha. I don't think it's a good representation of the game, for the most part. The build is pretty far behind and the devs have said a lot of the issues will be fixed for the beta. Sentiment can definitely turn around on this game. I hope it does.
I don't like preordering tbh.
From what they have shown I'd say the gameplay looks solid.
Will buy once it releases.
From what they have shown I'd say the gameplay looks solid.
Will buy once it releases.
I don't mind the colour palette - I think BF1943 worked really well with a bright palette - but the weird tone of the game is very offputting. The presentation comes off as really cartoonish, which certainly offers them lots of opportunities for microtransactions (via visual customisation), but it's a really jarring departure for the series. Even the supposedly goofy Bad Company entries had a way more serious tone in MP than BFV does, from what we've seen.
While there have always been ridiculous gameplay opportunities, and very gamelike (simplified) systems, DICE have always strived for authenticity (not realism) by their own admission in the mainline entries, with things like soldiers, uniforms, weapons, vehicles, and maps. As judged by the standards of the day, anyway.
They should've either done a proper WW2 game, or gone all out with a Battlefield Heroes 2. Instead it feels like they've tried to do both at the same time, and for me it just doesn't work. Maybe if I ever get a chance to go hands-on with it my opinion will change, but I just find it very hard to get past the schizophrenic tone.
Would love to see an alternate history Cold War battlefield, with the Soviet Union invading Europe and the US
IMO CoD WWII sold well because it checked all the boxes and even stole scenes from popular WWII movies AND they didn't release game set in that timeframe since World at War.
DICE kinda got both things wrong.
It might sound dumb, but I would love a CoD/BF game that stretches from the 1970s into the 2000s and touches on multiple real life conflicts (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Ruanda....).
Moreover, it would be kinda fun to use weaponry from different eras in MP.
I play every BF game i i dont even pre order this soon. Its pointless also imo.
Usually what i do i get EA Access close to release so i can play earlier and use EA Access with the discount you get on the full game. No point to pre order it now. Especially when digital.
Usually what i do i get EA Access close to release so i can play earlier and use EA Access with the discount you get on the full game. No point to pre order it now. Especially when digital.
Strong likelihood the BR mode will involve just that. They could really turn things around with a strong showing for that mode. Of all the shooters, it's the easiest fit.
This game looks amazing, and they're doing something interesting with its lore. But I think we can chalk it up to stiff competition. Every other publisher has basically acknowledged that it's a tough year to release a game in the fall. You get an AC, BF, and CoD every year, but it's not every year that you get a Fallout 76 and a Red Dead Redemption 2. Plus Fortnite is still taking up people's time. I don't think there's much EA could do, but I think the marketing machine will still give this game a solid reception.
I'm not preordering this game, but I have decently high hopes for the campaign. It looks like a bit of a fresh take on WWII that steers clear of the tired cliches that CoD: WWII knocked into on every single mission except the one with a female lead.
If you liked BF1 I'm sure it appeals but it doesn't look like it's doing anything interesting to expand its audience so it doesn't really surprise me. It's also competing against two games (Fortnite and PUBG) that didn't exist when BF1 came out and on top of that a new Red Dead.
All of this sounds awesome. We should start a petition.
I'll add that this isn't Battlefield 1944 so long time fans aren't happy.
Big, open, straight forward fighting in the famous and well known battles of World War II... not freaking Rotterdam.
Big, open, straight forward fighting in the famous and well known battles of World War II... not freaking Rotterdam.
What about the Norwegian village?
Does it fulfill all of your WW2 dreams of fighting in Kursk, Stalingrad, Iwo-Jima, Midway, Ardennes, Alps, Greece, Normandy, Berlin or other WW2 events which people are actually interested in...
What is the point of making the Grand Operation if it is going to take place in some generic location nobody cares about...
i get the impression most people would have rather it be modern setting again. i never bothered with BF1 and i won't be bothering with BFV becasue despite having the general "identity" of BF, it lost something by being WW1/2 compared to BF3 and 4.
i do think once an open beta arrives it will boost numbers a fair amount. but maybe a lot of the casual MP people who might have played previous games are playing stuff like fortnite now? and if that is the case there isn't much room for other games.
i do think once an open beta arrives it will boost numbers a fair amount. but maybe a lot of the casual MP people who might have played previous games are playing stuff like fortnite now? and if that is the case there isn't much room for other games.
I hesitate after barely playing BF1. Usually a huge Battlefield fan (playing heavily since BF2) but I don't really touch multiplayer anymore and their campaigns are just ok at best.
Didn't really get into the series until BF1. I'm looking forward to V, but haven't preordered yet. I don't think I will since i'll probably be playing other stuff when it comes out.
So the reception of the game has been tepid? I thought people were really digging the beta, but I guess I was wrong.
So the reception of the game has been tepid? I thought people were really digging the beta, but I guess I was wrong.
From what I have seen it play very similar from other BFs. I'm not particularly fan of the series, but I always buy it to play with the one friend that plays some MP games. And for the jaw-dropping visuals.
I don't see BFV as too much cartoony, not in a significant way at least. Moving, shooting, all the animations, all as expected from BF.
I don't see BFV as too much cartoony, not in a significant way at least. Moving, shooting, all the animations, all as expected from BF.
Bad trailers and initial reveal.
Bad marketing. Like whom is this aimed at?
The era. Coming off the backs of BF 1 and CoD WW2.
GaaS. Only launching with two factions and more content to be added at a later date.
You add this all up and there is no wonder why there is no hype. DICE shot themselves in the foot with this one.
Bad marketing. Like whom is this aimed at?
The era. Coming off the backs of BF 1 and CoD WW2.
GaaS. Only launching with two factions and more content to be added at a later date.
You add this all up and there is no wonder why there is no hype. DICE shot themselves in the foot with this one.
I will appreciate and praise that IF they deliver the Season-Pass content for free.
Until then, it is an empty promise.
Personally think it's weak because every big holiday title is going to include Battle Royale. I'm not ordering until I know which game implements it the best. BFV would be a great investment since all future maps and content is free, unlike its competitors.
And they never will. Free content means the time of 4 maps and 4 weapons for 4 or 5 packs is gone.
The lack of premium isn't going to matter if the game shows up with a lot less content than what fans are expecting or what is considered normal.
True, It needs at least 8 maps at launch.
They spoke about taking us players on a journey through WW2. They better show us a detailed DLCplan by then.
Why the heck are they numbered this way? I mean battle field goes back to 1 for ww1 from 4 now goes back to 5. I am not sure I know what battlefield 5 is is it future, modernday, still ww1? I haven't been following enough to know and that is the point. They might as well call it battlefield: whatever
They will be selling cosmetics as an important part of getting back that premium pass money. They honestly should have gone all the way and done a Bad Company 3 game but that would come with even more expectations.
Exactly. It's launching with just two factions, which already is a massive step backwards from Bf1.
To give them the benefit of the doubt they are transitioning to a chronological game as a service approach to WW2. So they launch with early battles and add later ones in over time. I don't think that is a bad approach, but we'll see how they do it. Needs a decent number of maps at launch.
I just won't pre-order. I love battlefield games, but I'll admit, I'm pretty tired of historical and futuristic entries. I was never tired of the modern era. I still feel like there's a lot more to explore there. That goes for any FPS on the market.
I'm not writing it off entirely, but it needs to be a vast improvement on BF1 for me to commit. Too many good games out there.
I'm not writing it off entirely, but it needs to be a vast improvement on BF1 for me to commit. Too many good games out there.
This is the best news in a long time. EA needs to take a hit in response to their awful design choices and then blaming the backlash squarely on alt-right people.
Last edited:
It's a great idea, and I wished they would have done it with BF1, since they could actually follow the war in real time (100 years removed) to it's end on 1918.
But there's little reason to think DICE would be able to deliver that on this business model.