EA/DICE respond to backlash
... https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield2042/comments/rx0w9y/eadice_finally_responds_to_the_backlash/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Forum Discussion
@CountSero I also work and live in EU, that doesnt stop me from getting the job done when our paying customers wants something for the money.
Nostalgia ? no, expecting DICE to make a true Battlefield - yes.
"Also, since the Beta I knew in which direction the game was going and the trailer for me don't shows things that are not in the game" .. did we watch the same trailers ?
"So again, then bring fact about the number which are not assumption or glorified content creator numbers which also only assumption."
Basically youre saying STEAM stats is lying because those are the numbers most people here use.
"That only a few people here not have the same opinion as you are not a fact that players who like the game in a minority.
Maybe players who like the game are playing it and don’t want arguing with “people” like you.
It is most of the time that people who like the game are silence than people who don’t like the game."
Wow, talk about assuming, you just did.
I respect you like the game and play it, but you dont need to defend anything if you dont think its a problem, again, as you yourself stated people who likes the game is mostly silent and dont want to argue with "people" like me...... what ever that is ...
@0ld_yell0w wrote:Basically youre saying STEAM stats is lying because those are the numbers most people here use.
The numbers are accurate; it's the assumptions people make about those numbers that are often flawed.
The trend absolutely does not look good. However, there's a thread on this very forum (it might even be on the front page) claiming that 90% of all players have stopped playing, based on (you guessed it!) Steam Charts. It's just not a justified interpretation. There's another post somewhere with the claim that less than 10,000 people now play Battlefield 2042, based on (you guessed it!) Steam Charts. Again, this is not justified.
The sample size is large enough to draw inferences from, and yes, the raw numbers do tell a story, although it's often not what people say it is. However there are important caveats because of the assumptions we have to make, such as the ratio of Steam sales vs. Origin sales (Steam doesn't track games not launched through its service) and Xbox and Playstation numbers (the platforms for which the game was primarily developed), which are again not publicly tracked. Moreover, there is also the question of whether console players play the game in the same way that PC players do, i.e. PC players tend not to sit on the sofa gaming. If concrete figures were available for all platforms, we could start doing some stats. There's plenty of qualitative evidence here and on Reddit, etc. to flesh out the numbers, although I'd also expect EA to at least collect focussed reports from some players.
I'd point out that the game runs like absolute crap on 4-core CPUs, and that there's probably not much that can be done about it; it's the cost of 128 players. A little over 50% of all CPUs on the steam hardware survey are 4-core or fewer parts. The question is, then, how many of those players bought 2042 and can't play because it's a stuttery mess?
Using Steam Charts is enough to give a general indication that something is amiss with the game population, but unless you have access to richer data, there's not much more that you or I could justifiably say apart from "the game's not very popular on Steam."
Featured Places
