DICE What are you doing to Battlefield

---

The skin is just a representation of a complete change of tone and direction that people don't like.

---

Should have seen this coming in BFV when the release featured skins of players looking more like thugs than soldiers.  Not only disrespecting WWII, but the franchise as well.

---

@FatherDed wrote: I'm not being that guy. I was just trying to be humorous (failing) to illustrate a point. Maybe there have been some posts in the thread that are a bit brat-ish but I think in general people are just expressing a valid point of view in a reasonable way. There are people who have been fans of the franchise for 19 years now. They're disappointed at seeing it in this state and seeming to lose it's identity trying to be something else and just ending up being a poor shadow of what it was. I don't think it's fair to blanket label everyone in the thread as a spoiled child for just rightfully expressing their opinion and annoyance for what they've been given for their hard earned money.

The skin is just a representation of a complete change of tone and direction that people don't like. You pointed out the skins from previous games - it looks like they were just the thin end of the wedge. You can say, well get over it, EA is a business, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to maximise profit etc. But that's just shrugging at the corporate world taking yet another good thing that people enjoyed and turning it into a bland empty commodity. I think people have every right to be angry about it.

---

I appreciate that the game is, shall we say not without its issues. You'll note that I haven't objected to the vast majority of complaints except the "muh mershun!" comments, which are, politely put, misplaced given the tone of the game since 2016 (cf. the flametroopers on a horse gif and the aforementioned pink bombers, gold tanks, Phantom of the Opera and stereotyped Japanese characters). 

What I have objected to is the tone that people adopt to make their complaints, some of which are perfectly valid and which I'd also like to see addressed. We have on the one hand players complaining that DICE don't listen to them (how can they be so out of touch!? O! The humanity!), while at the same time behaving like deliberately forgetful and petulant children. The similarity of rhetorical "flourishes"* suggests that it is, indeed, adopted, i.e. crass "talking points" picked up thoughtlessly from Youtube and Reddit and deployed like a jobbie sword for glorious forum rep grinding. It's uninformed, ill-considered and frankly counterproductive.

The way that this "feedback" is being presented is guaranteed to make those in the positions to make the changes less likely to listen. Whatever commercial implications his comments had for BFV, I have to say I respected Soderlund for telling the rabble not to buy the game if they don't like it.

I think it safe to say we disagree on what constitutes feedback and what counts as being a rude, thoughtless and overdramatic baby on the internet. Frankly, I think the meltdown-in-Sainsbury's about the skins distracts from the collection of principled, focussed feedback. If the game worked smoothly and didn't cause frustration in the those who have paid for it and play it (I paid for it too, btw, and also have issues with multiple aspects of the game), I think a lot of the hyperbolic complaints would just simply never happen. In this respect, it's clearly a case of control. Players - customers - cannot control the creation of the game. They are, however, responsible for how they behave and how they react to it.

I see a lot of "we" in the complaints. If anyone is going to speak in my name, I'd rather they used the grown-up voice.

* including but not limited to:

• they don't play their own game
• they're out of touch
• they don't listen to us - why didn't they just remake BF3/4?
• I'm leaving the game
• look at the stock price
• look at their staff turnover
• look at GlassDoor