Battlefield Playerbase is a dinosaur...

---

@afzSnickelfritz wrote:

The Battlefield core Playerbase is a poison pill inextricably built into the franchise. The developer cannot produce new more universally appealing games (larger profits) for this franchise without the possibility of the existing core playerbase essentially killing it off for "not being Battlefield". This has happened to both BFV and BF2042, and I seriously doubt that there is formula for a Battlefield release that simultaneously ticks the boxes for both core playerbase acceptance, and long term profitability. Unless of course, they charge $200 for the game along with a monthly subscription fee. But I don't see that happening in the current F2P market paradigm.

I expect the franchise to be sold to Microsoft in the next six months, after which it will either be gutted and killed off, leaving CoD/Warzone as the primary AAA title in this genre, or possibly Portal being utilized as a platform for remastering and hosting existing traditional BF content from previous titles with monthly subscription fees and a comprehensive RSP. This might actually be the best thing that could happen to the franchise, especially if Microsoft engineers can fix the problems in the new engine implementation of DX12.

---

yea, pretty sure none of that in the second paragraph is going to happen in that time frame.  i won't say ever but not in the next 6 months.  going to set an alarm to check this thread in july and see where we are.

@afzSnickelfritzYep, player base is toxic. Players actually wished for something, promises were given, marketing trailers came out, looked great. Short film came, looked nice and serious, beta came but broken as expected but promises were given for better and most bugs fixed in released version and fast after release portal xp got disabled and no voip in a squad game. Well I don't know, toxic player base. 😔

Edit: Obviously game was not finished.

@afzSnickelfritz The problem they have is that 2042 has alienated veteran players and not attracted many new players, meaning it cannot be profitable long term if at all.

The very fact that people don't want to play it, means it is not universally appealing and is unlikely to ever be.

Simply copying bits and pieces from other franchises deemed to be profitable, does not mean you will be (especially when it is done poorly). BF games had their own identity, which appealed to certain people, who returned time after time because of that. When you ignore your own player base to chase those of another franchise, you lose your own and have to compete against established leaders for theirs (They will almost always win). Net result is a loss of players and a loss of profitability not a gain.

The only time BF has struggled to be profitable is when they alienate the players you refer to as dinosaurs.

@afzSnickelfritzIt's called overreaching the audience. They wanted more casuals on expense of game integrity. They wanted more , but got less. It's a nieche game genre and trying to reach average casual gamers makes it a weak popular game and weak in the franchise. Thats why i don't compare cod and bf, cuz COD is a good game for casuals. Bf is also arcade ish but with several layers of tactics, which doesnt appeal for the average casual player, but great in it's own genre. Both good in their own genres, but not similar IMO.

Overreaching, thats it.

It get it, of course they want to expanse their franchise. But reaching the average player might not be the way. Maybe reach either for milsim or squad players ? 

@afzSnickelfritzIf they want to produce more universally appealing they can do it outside of an established niche franchise.
This is why most new movies and series do badly and are disliked. They try to appeal to everyone and they end up appealing on nobody.

Just like altering a cheese cake so that is less sweet but instead it also has salt, chili peppers and vinegar. One just cannot make something appeal to everyone by weakening the base of the identity of that something while adding unrelated things to make it more diverse.

PS: It is good to be a dinosaur. Most dinosaurs lasted for 160 million years and would had still kept on if not for a giant meteorite. Now the remaining dinosaurs have feathers and beaks and are called birds.

you know or DICE could just not release broken games back to back to back and continously blaming everyone else for the game beign precieved bad.

please name one FPS game that changed their core gunplay not once, not twice but three times against the vast majority of ppl saying they are "fixing" the wrong issues.

what a time to be alive

PS: is that why a lot of people went back to play BFV instaead of whatever this game wants to be?

@X-Sunslayer-XImagine CS with classes, what would be community reaction? 🤔

I think the player base is the victim here.

DICE tried to expand their player base by 50% marketing BFV to women, but it didn't work out because DICE failed to realize most women don't enjoy playing competitive online shooter games and prefer different genres. Like it or not, males dominant the online shooter genre. It's hard coded into their DNA. This isn't the main reason the BFV failed. I'm simply pointing out DICE's state of mind and inability to understand their primary audience.

Next we have BF2042. A competitive online shooter that launched without a scoreboard, global chat, stats, or VOIP because these things were deemed 'toxic' by DICE leadership. Competition is what drives many people to log online and play competive games against human opponents. DICE leadership again failed to grasp this concept and labeled competition 'toxic' and decided everyone wanted a participation trophy experience instead. Again this isn't the primary reason BF2042 is bleeding players, but once again shows how disconnected DICE are with their primary player base.

Now I'll move past DICE leadership's inability to understand their player base and onto the main reasons both BFV and BF2042 haven't been commercial successes. That being most people find the gameplay frustrating and boring due to poor design choices. Such as poorly designed maps around Hazard Zone Battle Royale with horrible infantry gameplay flow. Or BFV's TTK/TTD problems where 5 bullets get bundled into a single network packet and hit you all at once, insta-killing in a single frame leading to frustration. Or players blending into to terrain making them hard to spot leading to defensive campy gameplay where everyone's afraid to move, leading to more frustration and boredom.

With all that said, I also think there's been a deep seeded hostility inside DICE towards the 'bro culture' player base ever since BFV's 'don't like it, don't buy it' reveal trailer that's persisted all the way through BF2042's development which hasn't helped the situation at all.

EA doesn't care about any of this. All EA cares about is making money and their stock prices going higher. We now see EA stepping in and replacing everyone in upper management at DICE and rebuilding the studio from the top down due to failing to meet financial expectations from the publisher. Which again, mostly comes down to the new managers who took over since BFV having no idea how to design a Battlefield game that's fun to play and not overly frustrating to the point where players quit.