Battlefield identity crisis

I need a link to where EA earned money from BF2042. I would say It failed by how support has been pulled!

Sadly, I think you are right.

EA need to pick a lane. They can't be all things to all players.

---

@sk1lld wrote:

I need a link to where EA earned money from BF2042. I would say It failed by how support has been pulled!

---

They didn't earn money because BF2042 wasn't good enough for neither crowd.

---

@JOGAGATYA wrote:

I think battlefield has an identity crisis going on. Times are changing and they are trying to make money. People have different demands these days.
As I see it, they need to choose between two scenarios: either stay true to the battlefield roots and most likely earn less income or go with the hero shooter skin selling crowd demands who loves small maps hallway shooters and most likely make more money.

I really really hope the next battlefield succeeds I wish them the best hopefully they can come up with a game that is staying true to the battlefield roots but also can make money. I think because of the changing times they cannot make a game just like BF3 or BF4 was. It would please the veteran crowd but most likely will not make much money because it won't please the youngsters anymore.

They are in a situation where they need to reinvent the wheel and change Battlefield again to adapt to modern days. Dice, I wish you the best. A difficult task for sure. 

---

Wasn't fast paced brain-dead designed Black Ops 6 a failure? I believe that youngsters' favourite game Fortnite is slowerish-mid paced game, isn't it? So I feel that if Battlefield would go to its roots, it could succeed with long term plans for future. These things could bring them money and guarantee us content to enjoy 👇🏻

• Server rental 
• Premium DLCs
• Item tier-skip unlock packs

If next game would combine teamwork, general gameplay and sandbox elements of Battlefield 2 with level of destruction of Bad Company 2 — oh my Goodness that would most awesome game ever. No more identity crisis, no more Duty Field. We don't need Battlefield 3 and 4 re-imagined, we need Battlefield 2 re-imagined 😬

I think Dice should not listen to anyone and stick to who they are (If they still can) which is: a company that developed large scale vehicle+infantry combined arms FPS games. 
The question is: do gamers still want that? If yes, then why so many players did not like the original Hourglass? Or why is Renewal, Exposure, Break Away etc not good for people? 
I think those maps are everything that Battlefield stands for. What was the problem? The specialists? They got back almost all legacy features except the server browser. Would gamers like the original Hourglass if there would be a server browser in the game and proper factions? Honestly the original Hourglass was soooooo Battlefield for me.

Reclaimed, Haven, Stadium, even Redacted is sooooo COD. What gives? What do people want? Dice does not know anymore. As someone above said: they need to pick a lane. 

Why is Fortnite successful? Goofy skins? Third person gameplay? Caters to ADHD? Can someone who likes Fortnite explain what is good in that game? I'm genuinely curious.  

@JOGAGATYA 

As a firm soldier class enthusiast, I've explained here as detailed as possible what I want from next game. Also personal weapon wishlist can be found there in general section. Comments regarding returning back to more Classic era of Battlefield where teamwork mattered (meaning synergy, community features, communication, chain of command, handicapless game mechanics etc.). Instead of getting play as you want approach with huge customisation potential and perk support systems and automated features.

https://answers.ea.com/t5/Battlefield-General-Discussion/Battlefield-6-and-soldier-classes/m-p/14252398

These are my two cents. I'm out but probably not heard because they'll do another Battlefield 4 clone at best which I am not going to buy. It will once again has boring, uninspiring and highly customisable 4 class system like Call of Duty DNA infecting and injected to roots of Battlefield. Just predicting worst outcome 🙈

---

@JOGAGATYA wrote:

Why is Fortnite successful? Goofy skins? Third person gameplay? Caters to ADHD? Can someone who likes Fortnite explain what is good in that game? I'm genuinely curious.  

---

I don't play Fortnite but one thing coming from platformer game fan like me is that it has feeling of playing a videogame by artistic measures rather than simulation and it has sandbox elements seen last time in pre-Forstbite Battlefield games (mod support and diverse gameplay tools). 

It's quite mid-paced game like Battle Royales are, so it's not fast-paced AFAIK. Battlefield is these days way more fast paced than Fortnite, I believe.

@Estynytapa_Haiku  Agreed. Battlefield now is literally just RUN and SPRAY along with the silly Bunny Hopping.

I do not enjoy this game in any sense now, and find myself playing in games that I have made up in Portal because of all the rubbish that's going on with this game now, and the server issues with Lag and Tic Rate etc where they have chucked us on to 20Hz servers and the like with dreadful hit registration because they use the cheap crappy servers.

Then there is the complete lack of general PTFO and Team Work, everyone is just lone wolf now unless you are lucky when you do go multi-player and find people that actually do revives etc.

When I do go MP now and then, I go as Falck, so I can revive, fire off Syrette's, and drop ammo constantly. And yet when you do get killed, the others just run by you, even if you have revived and re-supplied them on multiple occasions. It just makes you wonder why you even bother.

All I'm doing now is just waiting for the next game and hope it's better than this one and that they go back to what Battlefield stood for, not what impatient gamers want with no real strategy, thinking, and just in it for the KD rate.

And as for the skins, I recall the like of BFBC2 where you had skins that made a difference, such as the fantastic sniper ghillie camouflage ones, and also the all white skins for when playing in the snow maps, now those made sense, but these stupid multicoloured bizarre ones just make me laugh, but not in a good way.

In fact, it just makes me feel as though people are not bothered about a good game any longer, and how great Battlefield once was, which genuinely makes me worry about the future of this game.

And I would love to know who the people are that are looking after this game now, because they seem to be pandering to some people and yet ignoring others that have legitimate concerns and even requests that would change the game play in a positive way. And yet they keep nerfing weapons and vehicles which when looked into seem somewhat incomprehensible with no clear rationale for the constant alterations.

As I have said before, with this being the sixth game in the series, and going for this long, you would have hoped that they know what they are doing. But I do wonder sometimes.

I also genuinely applaud the players that have some 2,000 hours playing this game. I honestly have absolutely no idea how you have stuck it that long.

There is an uptick in milsims lately like Arma Reforger. I started to appreciate the slower paced gameplay with combined armed elements. I would personally be happy if BF would make a SMALL step towards milsims instead of going closer to COD/Fortnite gameplay. For me that means: large scale maps, vehicles, proximity chat, rewards for playing the objective, heavy use of combined arms gameplay and.....forget the COD stuff like monkey skins, bunny jumping, plates in the chest, generally forget the hyper gameplay. Maybe BFV level of slowness would be ok, with all the vehicle animations and first person takedowns/revives. 
I feel they need to make a move in either direction to be successful. If they go the COD route i am out. If they repeat BF2042, then same input-same outcome. There is no middle road anymore if they want to be financially successful. Maybe they could invent something that other games don't have, make it unique.