EA & DICE to Dial Back Battlefield V's Wacky Cosmetics After Community Backlash - General

I'm confused, partly because this reply doesn't really seem to be in reply to anything I actually typed, partly because I don't really disagree with anything said here, but mostly because of how needlessly belligerent it is. My point wasn't that no one should criticize DICE or that DICE shouldn't have gone back on their cosmetics, but criticizing them for seemingly doing the thing you wanted to do in the first place seems unfair.

They're doing the thing that people wanted them to do because they're being told to, and had no plans to until the company in charge of their livelihoods reasserted that they are the company in charge of their livelihoods. They had no intention of walking anything back, and several of them in positions of authority said directly so until a very well dressed 800 pound gorilla that pays their paychecks and validates their milestones told them directly they were going to do exactly that.

So in simpler terms, they haven't actually learnt anything from this as far as we know. How is it that some game devs just feel oh so persecuted all the time? I'm bringing your entertainment into my home only for it to vaguely condescend, moralize and grandstand to me about subjects of societal dysfunction that aren't even all that relevant to the society I live in in the first place. Then they act surprised when no one opts to buy their "vision" over the quality product of some other dev who don't lazily shoehorn( and unintelligently generalize social issues at the cost of erasing history.), but instead either opt to not adress social issues or opts to set a stage, contextualize, take the player along and openly investigate (or at least hold to a scenario based in reality or transferrable to a relevant context) social issues of a location and/or era of human history and what that says about the human experience. I don't even know how they're surprised here. BFV's inclusion aspect was lazy and corporate at best.

If you played the beta you''ll know the game is shaping up to be akin to an early access title, except they want you to shell out £55-70 for it. Insane. People need to show EA that they can't have their cake and eat it by not buying it until it's a complete product, if it ever is.

Putting the video aside, YongYea used my BFV customization fan-art for his thumbnail and didn't credit me in the description or the video at all. Once again, a youtuber using my artwork and din't credit me at all. https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/8nw7hf/fanart_my_vision_of_what_battlefield_v/

Hasn’t lacking citations been a YongYea issue for a while now?

yep

This combined with the ultra cringe interview/show where they did nothing but make terrible jokes while confirming the most generic elements of a battlefield game (you'll be able to drive a tank! Wow!) really disappointed almost everyone. It's like the guy in the video above said, this game fucked up not only its first impression, but its second and third as well. Combine that with DICE/EA people telling everyone who didn't like it to basically "get fucked lol", and it's no surprise that this game is shaping up to the be the biggest triple A failure since the last Star Wars game. If this game doesn't magically unfuck itself, there's no way heads aren't going to roll at DICE and/or EA.

And this is how they should've presented BF1 too. There's so much anachronistic shit in both these games that they could keep it all exactly the same and say "yeah it's an alternate 1920 where WW1 is still going on" I played a bit of the campaign and while it's generally tasteful in its depiction it's undermined by the prevalence of sub-machineguns, semi-auto rifles and technology that simply wasn't in widespread use militarily or otherwise and for good reason. Sure, for the multiplayer it can be anything goes, but for the sake of the only WW1 single-player experience I can think of, you'd have thought they could ground it in reality and match the assets to the period of the war the particular campaign is set in.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm focusing rather on a huge shift in focus from developers that used to create a certain experience that have been replaced by business practices. Look at Battlefield, for example. Some of the coolest things they've done have been things such as taking off from aircraft carriers, or even having giant floating bases (in 2142). Now we've kind of seen a move from new and exiting content to pickups and powerups with microtransactions. Look at Bungie with the Halo franchise - arguably some of the best music, art, story, and content ever - and Destiny. Destiny is such a change of focus to a "service" that the entry level content of their games feel like a watered down experience in which you have to pay a huge premium to get fully into. We have really quick development cycles now, with many AAA series having a new title every year or two years, which also kind of contradicts the idea of gaming as a service that they want to push. You'll have a full-priced AAA entry at 60$ crammed with loot boxes and cosmetic microstransactions, only for a sequel to be right around the corner with the same shenanigans. This is even in singleplayer games in certain cases - like Assassin's Creed. You also have to remember the fact that most multiplayer games now are forced into using the developer's own servers, completely crippling any mod support or community. I can't think of any games from AAA studios that have really lasted beyond their developer's intended life cycle, while you have games that were never designed to last into this decade yet are however thriving. You're right about comparing older games that I can't remember to newer games - as there are plenty of bad experiences from the past that nobody remembers, and I certainly idolize the good ones that I DO remember. But the issue here is that the publishers don't CARE if they push out a bad game or a content-starved product, as long as their quota is met. Bad old games were bad because of the content they had - poor story, poor acting, poor graphics, bad gameplay. Nowadays, developers know how to create good experiences, but it's soured by business practices and anti-consumerism. DICE and EA know full well that we want certain gameplay elements in games like Battlefront, but consciously decide to avoid them either to shorten the lifespan of a game, or to save time and money for maximum bank. It's all a game of giving developers/publishers an inch and them taking a mile with what they can get away with.

I really do feel like with the sudden emphasis on buying straight upgrades with in-game currency and the heavy focus on character customization, that BFV was going to be lootboxes to the fucking brim like SWBF2 was, but the controversy made them back out at the last minute and now the extra controversy over the game itself with shit pre-order sales has them panicking and scrambling.

I mean does it really seem like the guy is trying to do thorough work? I watched some videos of his back when they were posted here every other week, and it was basically just him reading a forum post or whatever. Maybe he's changed, but I'm not really surprised.