EA Revises Projected 2019 Earnings Following Poor Battlefield 5 Sales - Sensationalist Headlines

https://www.vgr.com/ea-2019-earnings-battlefield-5-sales/ Although Battlefield 5 has hardly performed on a comparable level to Titanfall 2, which some analysts were predicting ahead of its launch, Battlefield 5 sales have certainly been below EA’s expectations. The company has now given the first indication of just how far below expectations they were; a revision to their financial year 2019 revenue projections. All told, the revision factors in a drop of around $350 million.

Who would've thunk that a piss poor reveal trailer followed by one of your execs calling critics of it uneducated on top of telling them to not buy your game would result in poorer than expected sales

Not a surprise at all after how they've over the past year or so and just in regards to BFV in general - from the Battlefront 2 P2W controversy along with the absurd "pride and accomplishment" excuse, the initial BFV reveal trailer having a strange and silly tone overall, the wacky customization options originally planned and shown, how they decided that rather than addressing valid concerns over historical authenticity reasonably it would be better to just outright ignore and dismiss anyone concerned by using strawman arguments, misconstruing the situation and insulting their owner playerbase including basically telling people "Don't buy it", "We're on the right side of history" and "I don't want to have to explain aspects of WW2 to my daughter", to it being a live-service game that launched incomplete along with just a general lack of content in the first place and the other elements like the actual historical revisionism seen in the single-player campaign....they just completely ruined what should have been a relatively safe and profitable decision to return the Battlefield series to the setting where the series started, something fans had been wanting for a long time.

two words: cyborg arms

I just wanted a WW2 game with all of the iconic weaponry and imagery on frostbite. Instead, we got a very weird game that didn't know what it wanted to be. It seemed like it was supposed to be early WW2, then added a bunch of late-era WW2 weapons and vehicles in random places to balance out the game. With all of these AAA failures, be prepared for Fortnite clones and live service F2P garbage. I've been reading some investor/shareholder reports and they want big companies to pivot in that direction.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/674020/World_War_3/ Might make this my new battlefield fix. EA clearly doesn't care.

Thus making game's description more fitting too like a Alternative WW2 setting with few Steampunk elements into mix.

What Steampunk elements are you talking about?

They aren't even in the game.

You remember their poorly reveal trailer with one of Woman's soldier's arm? It look like coming something right off from Steampunk medium despite Prosthetic technology aren't exist in WW2.

If it's any consolation, the iconic WW2 shit will probably come a whole year for now. At this point, the safest option when it comes to BF games is to buy them a whole year after the initial release whether its due to bugginess (BF4), lack of content (BF1) or even both (BFV). The game still has excellent core foundation, but their weird decision to go with early war and general unfamiliar locations in a familiar time setting as a AAA title has really cost them a chunk of their supposed hype.

BFV reeks of game that had nearly half of its content cut out at the last moment following the massive backlash from the first trailer + overall rushed release. The game was supposed to have a neat live service program in the Tides of War system, where equipment, factions, vehicles, and fronts would be introduced roughly around the time they would 'show up' in the actual war. However at some point they refactored the game heavily and it shows from their promotional material, even today. Tons of promotional material shows cosmetics that are simply missing from the game, vehicle skins shown prominently in trailers and art are also completely missing, crazy fun stuff that was advertised heavily to come in like body dragging, weird player classes like one that gave recon silenced SMGs and a garrote to interrogate people, and a more in-depth progression system was all seemingly gutted. It makes me wonder where all this shit went? Was the backlash so horrific to them that they, in a panicked rush, cut out half of the game's content and have been left with a shallow progression system, lackluster player expression, and an overall feeling of simply being unfinished?

I didn't realize there was quite that much missing, that makes it all seem even worse than I thought. Is there a more specific list/examples of what was shown but isn't in the game?

Honestly I think the game DID sell, just not as many copies as the shareholders were hoping for. Oops!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugnTq98LzKQ& The current game has only 20-30% of the cosmetics shown here on top of the more wacky customizations like the pilot helmets and weird facemasks being completely missing from the initial cosmetics pool as shown in the video. It's pretty obvious that they're drip-feeding the already complete cosmetics on top of introducing completely new ones to artificially pad out their tides of war system.

https://i.imgur.com/kaTertB_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium This is just one indication of the kind of weirdness im talking about, they advertised these features prominently then promptly flipped the script and said 'oh shit wait its coming later!' https://preview.redd.it/ctsvbwy3p4011.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=0f8bf8b6dc64821dcd896354d1caa9a45069d034 A look at what was supposed to be a far deeper archetype system, instead of the gutted system we got now. Also note the soldier wearing a cosmetic not available in the game. https://media.contentapi.ea.com/content/dam/bf/images/2018/09/ea-featured-tile-bfv-support-16x9.jpg.adapt.crop191x100.628p.jpg Here is an image prominently shown in the main menu, as part of the tides of war system. The chest piece worn by this soldier is clearly modelled, yet it is nowhere to be seen in the game.

GREASE ME UP LADDY

Makes me wonder what is going to happen when Anthem inevitably bombs. It's kind of a shame. When everything works, BFV is a great shooter. Compared to BF1 they made a lot of good choices. But the amount of bugs and poor gameplay design decisions makes it downright frustrating to play. I can rarely string together more than three rounds without running into some major glitch and the performance is still dogshit ala BF1. Star Citizen runs better for me than BFV does.

What gets me is entire map, weapon, animation and other assets lifted straight from Battlefield 1 with minor tweaks. BF1 had to construe a metric ton of original assets (which weren't infallible in that regard either) just because the distant setting from anything prior demanded it, but then BFV reeks of being rushed and chopped up so much that "early WWII" felt like an excuse to reuse as much as they could get away with from the previous game while having logical grounds to stand on doing so. The overall product has enough to differentiate itself, but to be quite frank, as everyone says the game feels like it came out too early and this is one of the consequences of it. And also as implied previously, when your WWII game is just the British vs. Germans in the early theaters of the war, as an excuse to start out with only a handful of signature weapons and vehicles before moving up to the actual stuff people want to see out of a WWII game, your priorities are probably not in the best place. Nevermind the fact that with some of the cut cosmetics they basically wanted a gory, gritty version of Battlefield Heroes rather than WWII.

One aspect nobody in the thread has yet mentioned is that Battlefield V is the posterchild game for RTX, and it suffered greatly for it. A lot of people not quite in the PC enthusiast loop didn't hear "Battlefield V's implementation of RTX reflections makes the game run extremely poorly," they heard "buttlefield v runs like shit lmao" The game runs way better with RTX now than it did when introduced, but it'll never escape the reputation of running at 45 FPS at 1080p on a 2080 Ti.

Is the reputation really that bad on the technical side? I never really see people grinding on RTX specifically, just the game itself and Frostbite's incredible ability to absolutely rape any CPU that's not a Ryzen or i7. I also would imagine that more tech-minded people would actually bother knowing about the various optimizations being made and how it's relatively okayish now.

I mean that's not exactly wrong either. I had to upgrade my computer, a computer that ran pretty much every other game I threw at it without issue, in order to play the game at a stable framerate.

Yeah I've seen a lot of people who cite the 45 FPS @ 1080p statistic without realizing that that's RTX's fault. I think that BFV has taken the fall for Nvidia's shiny new experimental technology. This is justified IMO, it's been way overdue for cutting-edge AAA games to start considering six cores as the bare minimum.

I'm glad the game had poorer sales than expected. I love the game honestly, but I'm glad that EA both isn't printing money and they're feeling the consequences of being shitheels to your consumers and rushing the absolute hell out of what could've been a much better game. I just kinda hope this isn't some kinda Westwood bs where a beloved series goes to shit thanks to awful decisions by EA and then the developer is shut down.

Maybe next time make a proper game instead of reskinning the old one. A proper WW2 Battlefield game on Frostbyte would have killed, but you took too many ideas from too many sources and tried to cram them all together with minimum effort

Except its as far from a reskin as it can get unless you somehow think that European architecture went through a total revolution in the 20 years between WW1 and WW2 to warrant major asset recreation. Game has a whole heap of issues both in gameplay and publicity, but calling it a reskin has as much substance as calling every Frostbite game a Battlefront reskin which is to say, not a whole lot. It's also really amusing to see this specific issue when BF4 was a much worse offender in being a reskin of BF3 than BFV is with BF1 and it being heralded as a sort of holy grail in the series.

It's how DICE makes games and I have to explain this every year. They release a title, then they iterate upon it, then they release another title. Bad Company > Bad Company 2 the most visible example, Battlefield 3 > Battlefield 4 + Hardline, Battlefield 1 > Battlefield V. If anything Battlefield V differs more from it's predecessor than most of the other iterations have.

2019 is gonna have a lot of restructuring as EA doesn't learn a goddamn thing again

They'll shutter DICE long before they learn any lessons.

The seemingly abandonment of early-WW2 by most publishers is a real disappointment, and sadly it's fueled a lot by the desire to make American-centric WW2 games. Which, when the Pacific theater is not considered, means a lot late war stuff. There are a considerable number of weapons which would be suitable for what these companies are looking for even if you're looking at early war.