Forum Discussion
228 Replies
- @GovntTookMyBaby How about no... this is supposed to be a game of realism. You wouldn't hear crap like that in real combat
@MurkaZzz wrote:
@CountSeroLet me put it in another perspective.
You have bought and owned a car of a specific model for years and been more than happy about it.
Later on your car gets old and you want a new one.
Why not buy the new model from the same maker that has been advertised.
You go to the car dealer and see the new car. (game trailer)
It looks nice and reminds a lot about the old cars but with updated features.
You decide to buy it.
But then on delivery you get a bicycle because it's popular at the moment.
Should you not have the right to ask why you got something else than what you thought you ordered and paid for?
Or should you just use the bike and hope that they will turn it to the car you wished for in a couples of years?you didn't order a car and you didn't get a bike. You ordered the next BF game. Since you bought other BF games at launch you're quite aware that the launch isn't the end point and that every BF game is a bit different in theme, in features, in scope, in how rough it is, how buggy, etc. Also they let you try the game for free beforehand in the beta. And for $5 you could try it via EA Play. YOu also were not forced to buy it at launch. You could wait to see and hear about the game on Youtube. You could also buy it from EA and request a refund within ~48 hours if you didn't like it.
You can only blame yourself if you are unsatisfied. You got what you ordered. The next BF game.
Looking just at the logical numbers, removing the emotions of "good or bad game", one needs to have played 25 hours for the $100 game version, and 15 hours for the $60 game version, to have the same ROI (Return in Investment) as a $6 online rented movie that lasts 1.5 hours.
Thus if you only played 2 hours, ROI is extremely poor...yet if you played 100 hours or more, you ROI is extremely high.
So the more you play, the more it cost Dice on server side expenses, and the better your ROI...hmmmm
I find it shocking that Dice/EA has not released some purchase items yet to increase their ROI...
@AOD_moose004 wrote:I'm sorry, since when did it become a "brutal expectation" to deliver a functional, properly-specced-out, working game at launch?
I've worked in programming, testing, and software quality assurance for thirty-five years. Right now I'm a QA lead supervising four people working on an application. I know that games are hella complicated, far more so than most business applications, but I'd rather have resigned than sign off on the way that 2042 came out. It is not a "brutal expectation" for long-time Battlefield fans to expect a Battlefield game from something with the name "Battlefield" on it. Other than maybe parts of the Portal mode, this isn't a "love letter to the fans," it's a money grab.
I wish you guys didn't get the raw hatred you're probably getting from some quarters, I get that. That, you don't deserve. But...you DO deserve to hear, loud and clear, just how mad the loyal playerbase that has stuck with the Battlefield series for nigh on twenty years is about Battlefield 2042. You need to hear it, and your bosses at EA need to hear it. If you don't want to deal with "brutal expectations" coming off the holiday break, then either give us a proper and working Battlefield game, release the damned thing after the new year, or get out of the business.
Nonsense.
YOu cant blame EA for releasing buggy games if you keep buying them day one despite being able to play a free beta, do a 10 hr trial for $5, order from EA with its ~48 hr refund policy,...nevermind no one forces you to buy at launch especially in an age where there are hundreds of hours of game footage on youtube in the days after launch as well as tens of thousands of user comments and reviews.
Someone needs to hear something. It's not EA.
- @Flavin913 I don't even think it's the fact that people expected a new game, we expected a battlefield game and what they gave us wasn't. Sometimes I can see the battlefield in there, buried deep in the stuff they copied from call of duty Black ops 4 that nobody wanted.
Battlefield was always something different from the current FPS games we have out on the market. A tactical team based fps where working with your squad mates can secure victory. I don't see this in BF2042, unlike many I still love BFV and feel that if DICE had taken the foundations from that, made it future/modern we would have a far better battlefield game then we do today.
@CantGetRight wrote:...
I went to work everyday during the holiday and I need rest. Stop crying and get to work
I'm pretty sure we are looking at an MVP. Folk need to chill out or walk away if they are finding the journey too stressful.
Definition
A minimum viable product (MVP) is a concept from Lean Startup that stresses the impact of learning in new product development. Eric Ries, defined an MVP as that version of a new product which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort. This validated learning comes in the form of whether your customers will actually purchase your product.
A key premise behind the idea of MVP is that you produce an actual product (which may be no more than a landing page, or a service with an appearance of automation, but which is fully manual behind the scenes) that you can offer to customers and observe their actual behavior with the product or service. Seeing what people actually do with respect to a product is much more reliable than asking people what they would do.
Expected Benefits
The primary benefit of an MVP is you can gain understanding about your customers’ interest in your product without fully developing the product. The sooner you can find out whether your product will appeal to customers, the less effort and expense you spend on a product that will not succeed in the market.
Common Pitfalls
Teams use the term MVP, but don’t fully understand its intended use or meaning. Often this lack of understanding manifests in believing that an MVP is the smallest amount of functionality they can deliver, without the additional criteria of being sufficient to learn about the business viability of the product.
Teams may also confuse an MVP–which has a focus on learning–for a Minimum Marketable Feature (MMF) or Minimum Marketable Product (MMP)–which has a focus on earning. There’s not too much harm in this unless the team becomes too focused on delivering something without considering whether it is the right something that satisfies customer’s needs.
Teams stress the minimum part of MVP to the exclusion of the viable part. The product delivered is not sufficient quality to provide an accurate assessment of whether customers will use the product.
Teams deliver what they consider an MVP, and then do not do any further changes to that product, regardless of feedback they receive about it.
Potential Costs
Proper use of an MVP means that a team may dramatically change a product that they deliver to their customers or abandon the product together based on feedback they receive from their customers. The minimum aspect of MVP encourages teams to do the least amount of work possible to useful feedback (Eric Ries refers to this as validated learning) which helps them avoid working on a product that no one wants.
Every single BF have been a mess on release, I predicted this but still bought it and somewhat enjoyed it, for the most part.
However I need content now and it does not help that they removed stuff like Rush mode for no reason.
They should keep popular modes in the game. Logic 101.
Unless they want players to flee.
Going back to older BF games is not an option for me. Been there, done them. Bored. I keep playing 2042 and other games while waiting for content and Battle Pass.
Featured Places
