"long-term" live expansion game died after ~18 months

It's probably non-existing. BF4 was at least fixed after 6 months, but it has been 18 months and BFV still has problems and network issues.
I also love how the CEO of dice tacked on feminism and then jumped the ship when when the boat started taking in water.

Remember, don't buy a single game from embark studios, that's the new game company patrick söderlund started.

this.
All it took from DICE to redeem players from a a previous fuck-up was to reveal a misleading trailer about the pacific. How quickly players forgot that all of what they see in a teaser video was no where near the representation of the outlandish shit you'll see in-game.

This just shows not to be hostile to your consumer base (A lesson that developers never fucking learn)

I actually think DICE has spent their last goodwill, nobody liked BFV

if you're referring to what the guy said about "if you don't like it, don't buy," he was in the right...why would you buy something you don't like. People like to criticize what he said (tweeted?) but it was a valid statement.

But it didn't work did it? If it actually worked they would release more content.

Not referring to that specifically, just the general attitude in the marketing when people criticized the in-authenticity of the reveal shit. It's on the same level as "Don't you guys have phones?". Just straight up contempt for the audience.

The obscene amounts of "OMG DICE is great, THANK you DICE!" after only seeing a TRAILER was outrageous. Players are sucked too easily into the hype, DICE is good at making trailers to amp up people's excitement, but that's about it now.

Yeah, but you don't say that if you are literally trying to sell a product. I guess even the marketing team is full of diversity hires.

>As fun as it is to join in on the echo-chamber of displeasure against DICEs wacky misinterpretation of WW2, most BF players (who are still playing, anyway) aren't playing it for the authenticity of it's content; people seem to forget that.
Yeah, the main issue of the game is that is just simply was a fucking bad BF game after BF4 and BF1. 4 became good after the initial roughness, and I’d argue that BF1 was even somewhat underrated (loved the infantry combat dynamics in it), but BFV was just mess with lackluster maps, balance all over the place, patches actually messing up things, menus that actively detracted from the game experience, unlock system that feels pointlessly contrived, it was just a fucking mess. The only good thing is that I just tried it out with Origin Access, and didn’t end up buying it.

As much as people like to focus on the supposed ”political agenda” here, personally I don’t really even care anymore: if VI sucks as hard as V does as a game, I don’t care even if they go for 100% historical authenticity, it’s still not worth playing.

If you or anyone went into a battlefield game thinking that wasn't going to be strewn with inauthentic gear/attachments/settings/ cosmetics for the sake of having unlocks and 'content', I'd consider you out of touch. Does that make their decision to do so as correct? That's up to the player to decide, and to decide whether or not those surface-level things will change how they feel about how the game plays, which by and large, plays like a Battlefield game is expected to.

I tried BFV during the free origin access trial and it seemed so bland. They actually went a step backwards from BF1 by removing the behemoths that changed up the gameplay just to appease the COD NOSCOPE competitive kids. Realistically though all the modern battlefields are shit if there is no server software so people can host their own servers and no mods.

The pacific trailer got a 250k views and 8k likes that's fucking abysmal for a franchise like battlefield. The truth is that people have moved on, they rather play hell let loose or post scriptum

>play hell let loose
Yes.

Attached: Hell Let Loose.png (2301x644, 2.35M)

Uhm.. why are they all white and male?

>some bugs never got fixed
This is a new issue somehow? It's a fucking common thing in every Frostbite iteration since BC1.
>"long-term" live expansion game died after ~18 months
Have you even played the previous main BF games? It's not like they had a longer live service than V.

Is that historical accuracy I smell?

Attached: cannot.jpg (434x434, 123.45K)

Part of the problem for them is BF1 was BFww2. Just with a WW1 skin (Barely). So if you got the WW2 experience with BF1 there was no reason to get BF5.

at least it lasted longer than DOA6

>>Awful DLC and battle royale mode
the game is great. but it's not what gamers want, apparently.

Possibly the worst part about this trainwreck was that the developers decided chase trends and spent time and resources on making a battle royale mode that was abandoned by both them and the playerbase mere days (not weeks or months) after it was released.

BF4 content was excellent. If you timed it right and bought the complete edition at a good price you got a great deal with lots of full servers.

>died before D-Day map
>died before Eastern front maps
LMAO

Attached: EA talking to v.jpg (960x531, 51.03K)

And it wasn't even free kek

>no intro narrations for battles
>no reinforcements for weaker teams*
>no XP multipliers for winning teams*
>* which means people drop at the slightest chance of losing
>which means teams are fucking lopsided like 12 to 30
>no auto balance
>no ribbons or at least leveling classes and weapons above 10
What a complete. Shit show.

>not post scriptum