devtrackers.gg
Battlefield: hairline
Time to join the fight against male pattern baldness, with new map: middle aged man's slightly larger than normal forehead
LOL
Battlefield: hairline
Time to join the fight against male pattern baldness, with new map: middle aged man's slightly larger than normal forehead
LOL
It feels like a guarantee you get what you paid for and aren't sold a falsehood. The website for the game afterall paints a pretty rosy picture compared to what we actually got.
That is true, but if all you want is content and are willing to pay up front for exclusivity and separation of players, premium is good. Problem is it was failing post bf4. Wasn't sustainable really (bf1). Perhaps another model with a cheaper pricetag is the ticket. I'm partial to some variant of the season pass instead. I think full xpack (4 maps) are too big of a packet to be nimble enough for a modern live service.
Was DICE that poorly managed?
Premium (or similar setup) isn't s guarantee for a good live service is what I'm saying.
I think you need one more very.
+very
Given the first time and how badly it went, I just can't understand how the other camp managed to push through the 2nd ttk change. I also, still, don't understand what the goal of the change was. Why were there people so adamant that it needed changing? What did they believe the changes would achieve?
I'm with you here. Makes very, very little sense
I don't know what you mean by "get a better launch" and I don't understand how you can spin delaying a game just a month from launch as something positive.
I don't think you understand my point - extending development with a full team for a month is a very costly ordeal from a salary perspective alone. Add in things like marketing etc and you see my point (or so I hope). The argument the game was abandoned immediately doesn't hold water there for that reason alone. If anything, doubling down.
/u/tiggr thanks for all the insight you've provided, it really does mean a lot to the community. I guess my one question, if you can even answer it at all; is the reason the plug has been pulled after what seemed like the beginnings of a turn around (pacific war launch) as simple as the number crunchers determining that it wouldn't be profitable to continue support? What would be some of the factors going into this baffling decision?
I couldn't tell you, not in the know now. But numbers with pacific initially looked pretty decent, I'd argue squandered with debacles like ttk etc however. Who knows what would be the road ahead of that hadn't happened (again)
I get that you wanna be proud of your work but that launch was a disaster. The wave of negative PR from now EX employees with the infamous "don't like it, don't buy it. Riddled with bugs, a lack of polish that screamed "this game was rushed to market", the drop in EA stocks, going on sale like a month later for a fraction of the price. The terrible deluxe edition., Etc. Etc etc. If anyone there actually believed in bfv as a successful product worthy of being prolonged, they're delusional. I'm ashamed to have purchased boins because I believed that some miracle may happen but the decision makers there made choices that made you and other developers look foolish. You once thanked the live service model for it's freedom and instead we got this mess. The attitude you should have is sorrow; you broke your fans' hearts
I agree, but none of the PR blunders are connected to a delay, that's all I'm saying
The retreat from the initial release date didn't exactly exude confidence in the product.
How about slashing the price by 50% only days after launch? How about the holier than thou attitude of certain Dice employees? This is the first battlefield game I didn't buy since BF1942, call me crazy, but the signs that this game was going to be an utter failure were well established before arrival.
Retreat in release timing was a way to get a better launch, why would you prolong anything if you didn't believe in it? That's faulty logic there. Those attitudes are something I am wholeheartedly against.
What happens when the economic analysts tell executives that the game will cost more revenue to maintain than it will bring in? EA doesn't exactly have the greatest track record of doing things out of good will - especially keeping an unpopular IP afloat with cash infusions.
Their entire business model is to milk the cow dry and then grind it into hamburger patties. Of course it would be stupid not to try to be a success post launch, it would be equally as stupid to continue investing in a game that was DOA.
Not sure what you're basing DOA on - but nope.
Thanks for the reply. This does sound like what most of us expected: moving from one theater to another in chronological order. We were this close to having USSR in 1941.
Maybe you can answer this: was there a part of developers or a camp that pushed for an authentic representation of WW2? Meaning factions, genders, uniforms, elites etc rather than the mish mash bogaloo we got in the end or was it always an unanimous decision to strive for this version of WW2? (in which case I think it was doomed from the start)
If course, any healthy development studio has factions striving for a multitude of things. When it comes to the tone and focus on specific things deemed like it would go less well in groups that crave authentic representation I'd argue the wrong goals were focused on priority wise. I think this shines in the diametrically different core gameplay (launch) and tone of things like vanity items for instance. Personally I don't care for authentic representation - but I understand others do, and I think it was a misstep to not acknowledge that more, or prioritize that higher than it was. But everything happens due to something else, and rationales were all in good intent initially too.
Well, a game of this magnitude takes several years, it's not around launch problems magically occur ya know. All I'm saying is: some projects have rawer starting deals than others, and circumstances are out of your control for these.
But, that said - when it is out, it would be stupid not to try to be a success post launch. It very much was the plan and idea all along here to be there.
The immediate sales after launch screamed desperation. I can't imagine that the wheels toward abandonment weren't already turning once they realized this was going to be a financial sinkhole.
Drag its life out with a content release here and there to save face, cut ties as soon as possible.
Well, a game of this magnitude takes several years, it's not around launch problems magically occur ya know. All I'm saying is: some projects have rawer starting deals than others, and circumstances are out of your control for these.
"I can't get into details there really"
Can't? Or won't? The community is OWED answers.
I agree, not by me though. I think things need to be transparent, yes.
[deleted]
Nah, that's not it IMO. You need the right circumstances to be even able to succeed. It's unfair to many and very talented people still at Dice to say anything else really.
If you’re willing and able to answer, do you have insight on the reasoning behind the TTK changes? From an outsider prospective, it really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Let's just say there are two camps internally on this matter.
The community deserves an answer, it might not be pretty but we deserve one, I myself got the deluxe edition, bought boins a couple times and tried and tried to convince my friends that it's gonna turn around, but this is unexcusable We need the honest truth because PR speak isn't gonna help make this go away
I'll leave that to the people in charge there really. I don't disagree
No.
(there was no evil master plan to drip feed stuff)
Live service isn't to blame for this. If premium was still around for this game, then the community would be in an even larger uproar for why they had to wait even longer than BF1's first expansion to come out, and with less content and in an even more buggier state.
This is not incorrect IMO. Wouldn't have changed much in general terms.
[deleted]
No.