Last edited:
Battlefield V Did Not Meet Sales Expectations Despite Selling 7.3 Million Copies
- Thread starter Deleted member 18944
- Start date
Tells me their expectations were too high.
Didn’t the TR reboot sell gangbusters but still come in below squares ridiculous expectations a while ago?
Didn’t the TR reboot sell gangbusters but still come in below squares ridiculous expectations a while ago?
What about people like me who don't ever touch the multiplayer?
I blame it on the removal of the prosthetic hands. They were super cool.
The fact it felt a bit like it was being rushed out put me off a bit as well.
The fact it felt a bit like it was being rushed out put me off a bit as well.
Failing to meet expectations isn’t the same as not being profitable.
The last game likely sold quite a bit more and they were expecting similar results
The last game likely sold quite a bit more and they were expecting similar results
Down with WW2, I'll always hate WW1/2 games.
I never want to see another WW2 shooter in my life.
Hopefully they learnt their lesson and will go back to modern.
I never want to see another WW2 shooter in my life.
Hopefully they learnt their lesson and will go back to modern.
For context, that's about half of what Battlefield 1 sold in a simalar timeframe (15m, JPM estimate).
https://venturebeat.com/2017/01/23/morgan-stanley-raises-battlefield-1-sales-estimate-to-15-million/
https://venturebeat.com/2017/01/23/morgan-stanley-raises-battlefield-1-sales-estimate-to-15-million/
RIP SP shooters.
And before capitalism we had the patron system, which limited fine works to the wealthy.
Much of modern entertainment would not be possible without capitalism. It is not cheap to make, where are you getting the money?
And before capitalism we had the patron system, which limited fine works to the wealthy.
There aren't enough of you.
DICE prioritised the SP campaign over BR for this game, and this is the result.
Or how about they try to make great campaigns again like they used to?
There's are few games that deal or portray the setting of world war 1.
There is a 50% drop between the two entries :
Did you play the BF5 singleplayer? Felt like multiplayer map designers just designed a couple of maps and placed some objective markers there. Then they added some cutscenes and called it the single player campaign. To be clear I am not blaming the devs for that. They probably had very little time and money for the single player portion.
Who had the brilliant idea to launch the game exclusive for origin subscriber for over a week? That alone killed a lot of hype on twitch and online forums.
The Battlefield series was always more renowned for their multiplayer portion ever since Battlefield 1942 (2002).
The game was around $30 for most of that period, so thats probably part of why it missed expectations.
OP
OP
I just think what's interesting is that people expected this game to really undersell and maybe it's just me but 7.3 million is a fuck load of people.
They tried to sell me on the game using features/modes that still aren't even in the game. Don't blame me for not having bought it early.
The problem is also that its about half (apparently) of what BF1 sold in a similar period.
Being disappointed that you sold around half of the previous installment isn’t exactly wanting more more more or whatever.
Not really wise words from Jim
We had the same thing with Star Wars Battlefront 2. It sold around 7/8m too but underperformed significantly compared to the previous entries and EA's expectations.
I would not say usually but it certainly has done more than that since BF3 I think. BF4 being a mixed bag due to the staggered release date.
Sales expectations are not "ridiculous". The mentality that they are "ridiculous" stems from the gaming community in general refusing to accept that games cost more and more and more and more to make and to market in a vicious cycle. This armchair "publishers are stupid and incompetent" mentality proffered by people who've never handled that kind of stress and responsibility in their lives. Publishers spend 100+ million on a game. And the game doesn't give the return on investment they were hoping for. That's a problem. Game development is constant gambling. Spending huge amounts of money in the hope you'll make a healthy return. There's also the need to cover for games that flop terribly. For example, Sleeping Dogs badly, badly underperformed, and while TR2013 and Hitman: Absolution sold way better, they weren't enough to fill in the gap.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider cost between 75-100 million dollars to develop. It had a 35 million dollar marketing budget. That's what it costs to create cinematic third person shooters with AAA production values, scope, etc.
Remember that Crystal Dynamics ran into strife with the LAU Trilogy. Underworld sold around 2.5 million, IIRC. And that resulted in a huge chunk of the Underworld team being fired. Imagine how much game budgets have climbed between 2008 and 2019. Remember that Epic sold Gears because Gears 1 cost them 12 million, but Gears 4 was going to cost 100+ million.
Also, the same people who complain about advertising budgets and claim that publishers are stupid and wasting money, also complain about publishers supposedly "sabotaging" games by "not spending anything on advertising".
Lowering expectations is a sign of decline, which would certainly have a bad impact on stock price which is probably what EA cares the most. No matter how you want to put it the game performed worse than Battlefield 1, there is not much they can do with it now, other than promising a better 2019 with more games.