BF2042 is now going to get clobbered by the COD Vanguard release

---

@CyberDyme wrote:

Both as an investor in EA and also as a vivid BF fan, I am not amused by the poor excuses we now get from EA for the go-live delay on BF2042!

And we are several in our venture group that are concerned about EA BF2042 now loosing the first-mover advantage, as COD: Vanguard is scheduled to release on November 5, 2021.  Similarly available on PC, PS4, PS5, Xbox One, Xbox Series S/X.

Die hard BF fans can keep claiming that they don't care about COD and that its not the same.  But matter of fact is, that a large volume of potential BF2042 customers are now instead starting out with buying a competing product and may never return.  And those that do, will at best come weeks or many months later.  The mass volume that should have been the bread and butter for the BF2042 revival from day1 of release is now smoldering away.

Honestly, it is a disaster in many dimensions and we are not amused.

---

Both of em have their advantages

Depending on what everyone likes

&/and no Im not forcing anyone too/2 by/buy both

Slowly find myself either Im losing interest in

COD or COD has been totally turning into a joke hahahaha 

This thread pops up with pretty much every Battlefield or Call of Duty release. People who want to buy CoD will buy CoD. People who want to but Battlefield will buy Battlefield. Many of those people will buy both. The number of people who will only buy one of them because of a couple of weeks difference is likely marginal.

On a personal note, I don't get CoD Vanguard. The trailers make it look even more nonsensical than Battlefield 5's reveal trailer.

@CyberDymebefore you sell out of your commons, ask yourself this. Do you think BF would out sell COD? As much as I dislike Activision, that cash cow we call COD, is king of the first person shooter.

I think BF will do well if they start communicating ASAP with the community on a weekly basis. And If they release a polished game.

Will it make more money than COD? No, but they can start to right the ship in their favor and over time eventually become the new king.

as a company EA is fine imo. If we go on lockdown again they will thrive just like Activision and majority of the big publishing houses will. Kind of crazy to think EA and ATVI is now the new utilities and REITS to weather the storm.

@CyberDyme also consider that Insurgency Sandstorm launches at the end of this month (after a huge delay), meaning that some who do not like the more arcade style of COD may jump that way instead (although I will get BF and Insurgency myself).

---

@carsono311 wrote:

I would take solace in the fact that EA DICE are trying to make the best game they can and let the chips fall where they may.

---

Pretty much my view.

If it's not ready it's not ready. Releasing games knowing they are not ready impresses no-one, regardless of what other publishers may or may not be doing.

Games are allowed to ship with X amount of bugs and as anyone who has been around knows EA is very generous with its tolerances. And EA probably really wanted that October release to give them a head start on COD so for them to pump the brakes and push it back it must have been in a really premature state.

And now rumors that Hazard zone is getting pushed back into 2022. 

I know a lot of people give EA crap about saying they were ahead of schedule but people forget the full context: They were ahead of schedule based upon the presumption that everyone would be back in the office by now. Then Delta happened. Should they have foreseen this? Definitely. I mean they aren't the only company who got sideswiped by Delta but it's not like there weren't plenty of warnings about possible variants going all the way back to shortly after the pandemic struck.

Alas, such is the disruption that a global pandemic can bring. 

NGL after seeing that reddit post of David Sirland's tweet right before BFV saying pretty much the exact same thing about taking the time to polish the game only for it to be released in a disgraceful state, I am pretty weary.

But game development is hard work during the best of times and these are certainly not them so I wish DICE the best of luck and I hope they stay healthy and as stress minimal as one can be on the eve of a big release like this! 

I played the CoD: Vanguard beta (which has been extended two extra days). After years of playing every CoD release, I feel that Vanguard is terrible.

At first, it seemed to play pretty well, but after a day or two of updates it feels like it's more about being the person who can play hide and seek the best. It's one of those CQB games where you're running through mazes and hoping you don't turn the corner at the wrong time and get blasted from your blindspot. It's the map designs; I don't care for them. To heck with marksmanship, I guess.

The gun accuracy is bad--almost "spray and pray"--with several of the weapons.

TTK was very strange, because I could put 6 shots into someone and they would turn a corner and get away--only to turn back on me, hit me with two or three shots and take me out. It almost felt at times that I was getting lag-killed, even though I was at a low ping, with a 400Mbps connection on an Xbox Series X (SSD). Must be that famous game-manipulating CoD algorithm that I despise so much.

The gameplay is more arcade-like than ever.

The people cursing, insulting and acting like juvenile delinquents was almost enough, by itself, to pass on the game. I had cross-play turned off, so all I was getting was fellow Xbox players, and there were loads of whining and cursing crybabies and butt-hurt sore losers. It was embarrassing. (It's just a game, people!)

The visuals are well-drawn, but don't look as realistic as in past CoD titles. The game story is also historically inaccurate, once again.

Thankfully, I didn't seen any ridiculous quick-scoping snipers, but maybe it's just because they haven't gotten to a point where they can unlock the best stuff, yet. There were snipers; they just weren't running around doing quick-scope kills (a good thing!).

The audio effects are very good--especially the crisp, cracking fire of SMG rounds--but I don't play games for the sound effects. SEs can greatly enhance a game, and I greatly appreciate them when they're well done, but they can't carry a game by themselves.

They introduced a mini Battle Royale, last man standing kind of game mode--for solo, duo and trio play--but it doesn't give enough XP for the amount of time you have to put into a match.

Playing this beta, I found myself irritated and baffled most of the time, so it wasn't very enjoyable, and I stopped playing it on the third day. It is extremely disappointing, because Sledgehammer Games did such a good job with WWII, so I was expecting something amazing. Sadly, that's not what I got.

Bottom Line: I won't be buying this new CoD game--and it kills me to say that--but I'm just not going to put down my money for a sub-par effort, anymore. There will be lots of people who will buy every CoD game, just because it's CoD, but they aren't getting my money, this time. I heard a lot of other people in chat saying the same things, so this year, EA &DICE may see a bit of an increase in market share if they can truly deliver the goods, this time.

I do agree with @CyberDyme when he points out the advantage Activision has in being FTM (first to market) with their game. There are many people who will buy it, because they are jonesing for something new, and CoD will be available first. I used to be that guy (and some of my friends, as well), too, so it is a true market advantage.

On the other hand, I think a fair number of former CoD customers are going to pass on this one, if the chat is a true indication, but both companies are having issues with their games, so it will be a toss-up as to how it all plays out in the end.

Now, I need a BF beta--and it had better be good. I want to give EA my money, and enjoy another BF title, but they will have to earn it.