I don't believe that a majority of the Battlefield players bought the game for PvE, but this friction between PvP and PvE players is not new. Games like Dune: Awakening, Star Citizen, Escape From Tarkov all had significant significant discussions within the community regarding the desire to be able to disable PvP in some way or another. It's been a growing trend for developers to cater to both types of players.
I don't believe that a developer is necessarily obligated to cater to PvE players, but I do think that if you're going to advertise PvE in your game, that you can't really go half way. Either you make it perfectly clear that it's not a PvE game, or you do your best to ensure that PvE receives enough attention to stand on its own.
I don’t understand why there should be conflicts between PVE and PVP players in a game. I don’t want to play with you—I just want to quietly fight against AI. How does that affect the rights and interests of PVP players? Do you know the game Command & Conquer: Red Alert? Many players fight against the computer, but they can also battle other players. Both are for entertainment, so what’s the difference?
No matter which side of the coin you're on, there's always the question of focus. Developers have to work within a budget and have a limited amount of time. It influences the amount or type of content, as well as specific game design decisions.
So if you end up focusing on PvE, it inevitably means that you in some way have to compromise on PvP. This may translate into less PvP content, or perhaps specific gameplay mechanics that impose limitations on PvP. Obviously it also applies the other way around, where focusing on PvP inevitably means that there's less PvE.
Their focus seems to be on Redsec and Battlepass.
PvE all they have to do is reinstate it to what was advertised, and change it so if bots are weakened the xp gets terminated.
PvP has big issues with cheaters, TTK vs TTD, exploits etc.
The Redsec game has a big map, so hopefully Battlefield will get that soon.
Your doubt is naive and not well-considered. PVE and PVP are not opposing concepts. A player who plays PVE mode won’t stick to PVE forever—they might also play PVP. Similarly, a player who mainly plays PVP mode could also try PVE. These are two distinct gaming experiences, not an "either-or" choice. If PVE and PVP players end up being neglected due to an unbalanced focus, won’t the game lose players who enjoy the other mode entirely under a single-mode setup? If there’s only PVP mode, it will definitely lose players who like PVE. Conversely, if there’s only PVE mode, it may also lose players who favor PVP completely.
It's a bit rude to call my doubt naive and not well-considered, when you made no effort to ask me how I came to my conclusion. PvP and PvE aren't strictly opposing concepts, but at the same time, you shouldn't assume that players will like both equally and that the amount of cross-over would warrant equal distribution.
Even if players on average like PvE and PvP equally, there may still be plenty of individual players that have a stronger preference for one or the other. These players may want the developers to focus on whichever game mode that they prefer. Hence why there's always some friction.
If you look at the polling for pretty much any game regarding PvP/PvE distribution, the preferences are pretty much never perfectly equal. The community tends to gravitate one way or another. So if you end up focusing on one, then yes you do end up losing the players that prefer the other. At the same time there's also the chance to gain players whose preferences you do focus on.
Appealing to a broad audience is a strategy, but so is focusing on a particular target group. Whether the former works out, depends on the ability and resources that the developer has to produce something that can meet the competition.
