EA blames Marketing and development delays for Low Batthelfield V sales

Say it ain't so EA. Spotted this little bueaty over at [H]

"You should expect that we will be more innovative and more creative around both marketing campaigns and how we bring games to market and more diligent in our operation against execution of the project plans around development of video games going forward," he said. "I mean, it’s something we are taking very seriously across the full landscape of development." Wilson later went on to note that "Titanfall 2" also struggled with a marketing problem.​
My reply was

I think this game would have sold better if they did something new, fresh and never tried before

- Let the community create their own maps. this could be record setting, where the community could turn out new maps on a weekly basis
- Let the community run their own servers so they can police, set rules and run their own community the way they want too
- Add a third party to control anti cheat
- A mode that bridges arcade with real world. Something that would allow one shot one kills. Call it something like Hard Core or real world
- Release the game with a good amount of content. Say 10 + maps, ample weapons and vehicles
- Release official "map packs" every 6-8 months and charge the customer $10-$15 for this new content
- Don't change the weapon mechanics every patch
- Have a nice remote connection tool to manage your remote server. Call is something like RCON for short.
- Let the developer create a game their customers would want to play
- If it's history based have some kind of history following theme.
- Listen to your customers​
 

Comments

#2
you can dissect that paragraph 52 ways through sundown, but it doesn't mean diddly squat to PC players, because you gotta strain their intent and meaning for their primary market, the consoles.

Check out Axelrod's comments in this thread, starting here on page 60 of a current 61 page thread. Axelrod is the head guy at his clan, that persisted in hosting a BF1 server and questioning EA statements and posting his replies and finds.


https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/comment/1455756/#Comment_1455756


https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/comment/1463500/#Comment_1463500


this last link has 2 links to financial reports on BF V - 7.3 million units sold by end of year, a million shy of EA target.
https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/comment/1463889/#Comment_1463889

the Bloomberg link that is relevant is this one - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...sinks-as-pendulum-seen-swinging-the-wrong-way


Until EA leaves the developer company to run that game, the EA publishing giant will continue to muck things up.
 
#3
Going just from the headline, them blaming the marketing. How about the fact that Battlefield One was a bit crap! BF played left the game early and found other things to play. Including the older versions of Battlefield.
 
#4
BF1 had the problems that BFV has save one - they worked it well, it is still the smoothest running BF for me since BF series from 2010. And it had rentable servers, tho no admin control ... I would still be playing BF1 [if BFV hadn't come out] because I knew the maps, the chokepoints and our group of 5 - a full squad, BFV! - had a lotta fun, and there were premium maps, and yah - we all had our favorite maps - lesser number than disliked - but then again, our average age is 60.

BF1 has more to offer than BFV, and I'll never understand why people leave one version of a BF title only to gripe and moan about the next version that has even less - WAY LESS - features than the last BF title. AAA pc titles that are FPS with large number of players is down to one.

COD hasn't counted as such in 10 years. SQUAD, Insurgency and other similar Steam games just don't have the number of players. And don't get me started on Arma 3 - the few guys in our small group that tried it HATED IT. Simulator type games are not for these statesiders.

And btw, BF 1 still has high 4 digits amount of players on PC alone - http://bf1stats.com/

before BFV came out, BF1 was still experiencing 20,000 at peak. So while leaving the bit crap BF1 may be true for your group, it's not so true for those who played it till the end or are still playing it.

Again, good luck with that Quake style shooter.
 
#5
Reporting back on Apex, it's a really polished game that has clearly been made to appeal to kids. As such me and my lot are not going to be playing it. My personal favourite at the moment is Insurgency Sandstorm, that or Rainbow6 Siege. It's hard right now to recommend anything. Rainbow6 has some nice gameplay but no servers or any of the old school stuff we like. Insurgency Sandstorm is still waiting for rentable servers. However, once that is done we should have a modern game that most closely resembles the old model of clan run servers that were once the backbone of gaming back when we all started. Maybe just counting player numbers isn't the be all and end all. Just so long as there are enough players to guarantee a game when you choose to play.

As for Battlefield I really like BF4 once they got it fixed with the CTE. Sorted the tick rate and solved most of the bugs. I just couldn't connect with BFOne. Might have been the setting, might have been quite how quickly I died every time I spawned. It's hard to get your head around the idea of being sniped by weapons that were just not that accurate (Martini–Henry 4-moa).
The disconnect between the real world and the way it was portrayed to make it a game.
BFV is better on both counts, I'm very familiar with the setting. The weapons are still far too accurate. There is little to no chance that you can pull off a headshot on a running target over 100 yards let alone doing it while moving. In the game, of course, it happens at least once a round. However, it's a common feature in fps games and at this point, you get used to it.

I have never had any issues running any of the Battlefield games, maybe luck on my part as I know many people have run into issues with previous titles.

Not having dediservers is going to hurt BFV in the long run but given the new "Live" model I'm not sure that we will ever get them. Maybe once the live aspect of the game is over and all of the new content has been released. It is a tightly controlled game at the moment and EA/DICE are not going to open it up any time soon.
 
#6
I see Insurgency has current 3000 players ... that's promising. You're not wrong on BF 1 spawn-die-spawn-die. But it's a whole lot more playable than BF V, but there's only 6 full conquest servers running at peak night times.

Yep, you're right on all counts. I'm not ready to find another hobby, though. Painful as playing BF V is these days.

Speaking of which, today's update - over 4 gb and a doozy of a list of changes


http://eaassets-a.akamaihd.net/dice..._Lightning_Strikes_Update_13022019_ FINAL.pdf
 
#7
Probably didn't help they released BFV without all of its features and decided to add them later. As an example people who want BFV for firestorm would be nuts to buy at full price when it's not coming out until March 2019.

It also didn't help they released another game in the same era so soon. I was really hoping for another bad company or even a bf2142 sequel but we got another WW2 era just as they did with BF3/4.

The best time I had in recent bf games was the BF3 alpha test. Hit registration was awesome, weapons seemed good etc. That feeling degraded after the final release. Weapon changes with every patch turns me off from a game series.

I also don't like the fact that dice controls the server map rotations, score limits, round times etc. Sometimes I just want a longer game on fewer maps. It helps prevent a game from becoming repetitive.

I've seen it posted elsewhere that big publishers are making games for investors not gamers and I think it shows.
 
#8
and Co-op was supposed to come out on release. Now that it's here, my band of 4 are making merry on the co-op maps, such a relief to get away from the mp game. If we notice a clan or a player with an absurd k/d score, we leave to another server. EA and Dice may be serving their investors - what with the EA stock price all over the map the last half year plus - but we're finally seeing an abandonment of the PC format that is just about total - vanilla servers - same rotation - same "experience" for all players regardless of format.
 
#10
Ps4 version now $19 at Costco. Quite the price drop so soon after release.

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/costco-battlefield-v-19-97-2265895/
I held off buying the game for a bit. One of my clan mates bought the game at full price and got me 10 hours of game time. I only play around 2 hours a week and once my 10 hours were up the price had dropped to £32.99 a much more appropriate price for the game. I have also stupped up for Origin Acess Basic at twenty quid a year. So there are a whole load of games I can not play in my games library.
 
#11
I held off buying the game for a bit. One of my clan mates bought the game at full price and got me 10 hours of game time. I only play around 2 hours a week and once my 10 hours were up the price had dropped to £32.99 a much more appropriate price for the game. I have also stupped up for Origin Acess Basic at twenty quid a year. So there are a whole load of games I can not play in my games library.
Say, Pen - I cannot find out with Access Basic if that 10 hours of game time restarts the next month, or is it one and done? I've got a clan mate who is considering paying the full year at $30, and figures that will get him to the next BF title.
 
#12
As far as I know, the 10 hours can only be done the once. I'm not sure if I got a good price on the game because I had Access basic or it was just a limited time offer. I have no idea how much the game costs now on Origin. The basic Origin Access I think is good value, there are a heap of good games to play. I really like Star Wars and the single player of Battlefront 2 is official canon to the Star Wars stories as such I wanted to play it. Well, Battlefront 2 comes with Access basic so that was enough for me to pay my twenty quid for the year. Also, I have been told that Battlefield Hardline has a good single player so I'll be giving that a look too. There is a good selection of games to play, surprisingly good value given it's from EA, a bit of a no brainer if you ask me.
 
#13
Marketing and developing the product huh?

Must have been the first time they (DICE) ever made a game before? You just cant fix stupid.
I bet EA share holders appreciates the honesty.
Is EA stock still down?
 
Top Bottom