Is the Battlefield Veteran the real Battlefield Userbase?

Us, considering ourselves the main Battlefield fans, mostly being self defined so, because we learned to like the franchise since before BF1, are constantly arguing about the game moving away from its roots, while the Studios keep on replying publicly as if they are answering with their games and efforts to us. But are they really?

"Are there any criteria about who joined labs and what were those criteria?"

EA as a business, has more short-mid term profit by making a game good enough to appeal to our desperation and raise a hype around its name before release, in order to sell to everyone (cod players dissappointed from latest releases included). This means that a game focusing on the average casual gamer or maybe slightly leading towards the trends, is a wiser product strategy than to focus on just the needs of the always smaller battlefield veteran fanbase.

And who even is the veteran fanbase?

Do we really want another battlefield 4, or have we always wanted innovation through immersion + nice flow and movement?

Do we really want another battlefield 3/4 or have we moved to a more hardcore-milsim playstyle?

In my opinion, the so called Battlefield veteran community, both noobs and pros, actually moved towards something in between old BF and SQUAD.

But numbers wise, to focus on us, is always a too risky move for their business. The hardcore market, although it has a constant userbase, it never has the intensity in the numbers.

But the mid BF-Hardcore Milsim genre is imo intact. If there's any room left for innovation in the genre it seems to be right there, and hopefully Portal will let us discover it.

Question still is though.. Does the franchise have the numbers to achieve enough visibility on innovation, through portal? I guess not. So those marketing teams should really focus on highlighting those new ways to play.

The base game on beta seems too arcade to me.

1. Too Long TTK. No good ambush will lead to anything more than something around 2-3 kills max and then death.

2.Design based on constant chaos

• Flag layout that wont let even the best squads survive the imposed run-around.
• Very fast respawn.
• 64 players end up meaning almost certain death no matter how well prepared you are. Bf4 had 64 players and large scale maps, yet a good squad could always survive ambushing and being pushed from multiple sides. Now it feels impossible to not get killed out of nowhere at some point, unless you camp with a sniper next to your main.

The community itself feels unaware of what they really want as well.

Usually they say that opinions like mine are blinded by nostalgia. That I praise older bfs for letting you be tactical when they were clearly chaotic. Yet they only tend to say that all they want is a new gen bf3 and 4, when clearly they won't stand to play something so arcade for more than 2-3 months max, unless a very good obsession trick is used through some well designed ranking or competitive system.

Yes, bf3 and 4 were chaotic. BF always was chaotic, but it was always an innovation in immersion, when a good tactical game would be anything slighlty slower than COD's deathmatch.

Now, that's clearly not enough. SQUAD maintains 20+ qeues in servers every friday, 10 years after its release. A game with 0 depth in progression. Of course EA can't focus on a playerbase like that, but who really has the battlefield veteran become?

The "Battlefield Veteran" should start rethinking of who he actually developed into. Yes, old BF felt great, but:

• Can we really play another Battlefield 4 for anything more than a quarter?
• Are we really the ones EA should be replying to?
• Is EA and their studios really replying to us, or making a statement saying that they reply to the battlefield veteran has become a marketing trick to praise the reputation of their older games?

That's not a question to call EA out for not defining their strategy. That's clearly a question to the self defined bf veteran:

• do you really think that you are a fanbase worth listening to?
• Who in DICE is the same as then?
• Why do you feel like they owe to make games for a fanbase as small as you?
• Should we just stop being emotional about the franchise and let ourselves go?

Only if we define ourselves as what we became, and not what we were when we liked the old BFs, will the markets spot the need for a game like what we really want. Now, we are either victims of the stats, or just confusing decision makers with false needs driven by nostalgia. Are there any criteria about who joined Battlefield Labs and what were those criteria?