Im torn between both side of this. While I admit that as a boomer I miss the core style of gameplay that the older titles brought and it does cause me to only play a few different game modes, but on the other hand as a share holder for EA I am pleased with the direction as it appeals to a new generation of players who will be a steady source of income for EA and Dice and thus make their stock go up. The writing has been on the wall since BF3 with the unlock packs that the future is with micro-transactions. Now we have battle pass, a store, and the pro program. REDSEC which I personally do not play battle royale as I just suck at it and cant hit a shot to save my life even with the perfect meta build. COD, Fortnite, etc. They all do the same thing and Battlefield has joined them. We need quick matches with that instant hit of dopamine otherwise our biggest demographic will just move on to something else. At least for the moment there are players to keep the franchise alive and give us a shot at Battlefield 7 which will 100% be the same thing just in a different setting. The only way it will ever return to its roots is if an indie company decides to take a risk and create a spiritual successor to BF1942, BFV, BC1-2, Etc. Otherwise this is what we have to deal with. At least we have the choice to play or not.
Except bf skins are not going to generate the sort of income cod/fortnite skins do.
As for appealing to a new generation of player? Not convinced. From the numbers we have access to (Steam) the player numbers have already nose dived as cod players go back to cod, some bf players realise this is just codlight and the people with net code issues give up (I am very close to this - game is so often unplayable. Gutted)
BF has always had a solid player base. Why they continue to chase cod is baffling.
The O'Jays describe EA's mindset..."Money, Money, Money"
