BFV is pretty good. Not great, but pretty good.
7.3 million sales is great, not just "pretty good."
EA, you whack.
7.3 million sales is great, not just "pretty good."
EA, you whack.
Battlefield V Did Not Meet Sales Expectations Despite Selling 7.3 Million Copies
- Thread starter Deleted member 18944
- Start date
7.3m is pretty fucking bad compared to Black Ops 4 and Battlefield 1.
Of course it's disappointing, come on.
Of course it's disappointing, come on.
Your expectations are way too high if 7.3 million is considered bad. Sorry Bioware, sounds like if Anthem doesn't sell at least 15 million you are being taken out back.
What is any of this.
I'm baffled by every single thing in this post.
Battlefield 5 obviously made a lot of money.
It just made a lot less than Battlefield 1.
What is this game budget argument.
why would you buy a battlefield game for the single player
every single sp mode in the series in the last 4 games has been horrendous and might as well not been there to begin with. Just kill it already.
OP
OP
This is like saying 30 million switch sales is pretty fucking bad compared to the wii.
7.3M is a lot but you have to consider sales and what not. If a decent amount were sold at the $30 mark, that wouldn’t be good revenue wise.
It seems like they were expecting better upfront numbers.
It seems like they were expecting better upfront numbers.
Well actually Switch is selling more than PS4 and in line with Wii (and more than 3DS), so not a great comparison.
Battlefield V clearly underperformed against its direct competitors and its predecessor
No it's not, what.
It's been a decade since the Wii and a fuckton has changed.
It's been two years since Battlefield 1 and not that much has changed...
When are you people going to understand that expectations are made for a reason? If they didn't reach, it means the title didn't reach what they expected months prior the release. Doesn't mean that the title didn't made a profit or didn't sell well.
THIS IS NOTHING LIKE THE TOMB RAIDER EXPECTATIONS THING.
Battlefield 5 sold way less than Battlefield 1.
That's pretty disappointing for any company!
Tomb Raider 2013 sold 2-3x the prior games in the series.
Battlefield 5 sold way less than Battlefield 1.
That's pretty disappointing for any company!
Tomb Raider 2013 sold 2-3x the prior games in the series.
Yep. It was the halfassed 3 hour campaign that was the big factor in hurting sales. Not the fact that the game was rushed with Dice churning out too many games and dlc content. Or all the bullshit that surrounded the game since reveal. Selling half of bf1s numbers at a 30 dollar price point is what EA deserve for their terrible way of developing titles. I cant stand these large 3rd party publishers anymore.
People need to stop with the "lower your expectations" stuff. Battlefield 1 sold 15 million in the same time frame. That's a very sharp decline and I doubt one EA expected.
As soon as they remove SP from one of these, people will freak out. Like how they freaked out bout Titanfall 1 having no SP, or Battlefront 1
Yes, I know. I just find it funny that we critique capitalism in one of the most capitalistic of industries--video games. All three plaform holders are publicly traded.
Anyways, we are off topic.
And the game was heavily discounted pretty fast on top of that.
I uh....I like them? Different strokes for different folks; I don't care for the multiplayer, but clearly you do, and I don't want them to axe that if you care about it. It's not hard to figure this out. Also, I won't lie, I mainly play Battlefield games for the visual spectacle and to appreciate what graphical improvements Dice has made with their engine, and it's difficult to do that with multiplayer.
Not if a large portion was at 50% price, which it started dropping to within a week.
Other games thats still amazing numbers, a main Battlefield its a disaster.
The cost of making a Battlefield game is going up and up and up and up. How do you justifying spending absolute shitloads of money to your investors when you spend MORE money and make less profit? That's a trend that, if it continues, will sink you.
Battlefield: Hardline had a fantastic campaign and is easily one of the best games Visceral ever made. It's a pity it was wasted on the Battlefield audience. The Battlefield brand is really toxic. Hardline would have been way better appreciated if it had been sold without the BF branding.
Like, I'm pretty sure Dead Space would have been shat on, too, if it had been branded Battlefield: Dead Space. The Battlefield fanbase in general only cares about mindless multiplayer mayhem. Games that are different, or games that are outright anti-violence in their mechanical design, are not going to be well received by such an audience.
Still, it's difficult to justify spending huge amounts of money on singleplayer FPS games, so piggbacking them on successful MP games is one of the only ways they still get made.
Well, you were insinuating that Battlefield had a quality single player despite it being kind of an afterthought ever since its inception.
Would be interested in knowing how much of this was due to the game being released in a somewhat unfinished state and how much of it should be blamed on the piss poor marketing where some executive said, "just dump all the footage on YouTube."
7.3M seems low. This is a Battlefield game, arguably EAs biggest franchise. On top of that it had deep price cuts just weeks after launch.
Usually these expectations are ridiculous, but that number is genuinely disappointing for a series that has pretty easily broken ten million in the past. Obviously with those numbers the franchise can still be very profitable, but there’s no denying it’s in decline.
I'm sure people will, but BF1 had single player so shallow that it was basically tutorials like BLOPS4 was this year. BFV was supposed to be the make good, but it's sold half
The single player is gone next time, Black Ops 4 hasn't suffered and it doesn't seem to have helped sales here.
Actually, this is sound and makes sense to me, and I apologize for the presumptions of my previous post.
... EA still whack, tho. Just for entirely other reasons.
NPD is for US only not to mention it doesn't take in account digital PC game sales from Origin (BF has still big following on PC).Uplay and Steam sales are tracked so AC Odyssey had PC sales tracked. This doesn't tell us anything about global AC Odyssey sales.
it's not in decline... yet. it's one entry
remember when CoD was a joke because of Infinite Warfare
Lowering expectations hurts early but if the game outperforms those expectations, stocks go higher. It's basically more of a long term outlook instead of short term.
I mean, on paper I would have loved to have jumped in on BFV at launch, but its the first mainline BF game I have not bought at launch and I'm still waiting for them to add in more meaningful content to make me want to buy the game.
For me, the setting of WWII is not the problem at all. Its the fact that they basically are only showing off a tiny sliver of the battles/theaters of the war at launch, especially compared to something like BF1942. I know BF1 even had a somewhat truncated scope of battles at launch but they pretty clearly outlined what they were doing with Premium down the road. Since they killed off Premium, I have no clue what BFV's roadmap for adding in the bigger battles and maps is going to be and subsequently I'm fine waiting.
But blaming the game's sales on single player? Eh... usually I'm a proponent of single player campaigns but honestly mainline BF games have never needed them and they'd be better served getting rid of them cause they're usually pretty poor. MP has always been the foundation of mainline BF games. I'd have probably bought the game at launch if they just axed the single player and allocated those resources to having a more fully fleshed out set of maps that encompassed the whole of WWII, like with Normandy, Berlin, Stalingrad, Midway, Iwo Jima and so on.
For me, the setting of WWII is not the problem at all. Its the fact that they basically are only showing off a tiny sliver of the battles/theaters of the war at launch, especially compared to something like BF1942. I know BF1 even had a somewhat truncated scope of battles at launch but they pretty clearly outlined what they were doing with Premium down the road. Since they killed off Premium, I have no clue what BFV's roadmap for adding in the bigger battles and maps is going to be and subsequently I'm fine waiting.
But blaming the game's sales on single player? Eh... usually I'm a proponent of single player campaigns but honestly mainline BF games have never needed them and they'd be better served getting rid of them cause they're usually pretty poor. MP has always been the foundation of mainline BF games. I'd have probably bought the game at launch if they just axed the single player and allocated those resources to having a more fully fleshed out set of maps that encompassed the whole of WWII, like with Normandy, Berlin, Stalingrad, Midway, Iwo Jima and so on.
I saw some discounts not too far off launch. It's a shame to see since I really like DICE, but as a pretty big BF fan I didn't jump on with this one. It looked good, but didn't look particularly exciting. Hopefully they get given the time to make sure the next entry doesn't disappoint since DICE are still talented, talented dudes.
EA actually used the lack of battle royale as a sales excuse at a conference call. Whelp I can see where the next 12 to 24 months are now heading for big publishers. Investors are going to want battle royale included now for titles.
Curiously did EA talk about Apex Legends at all? I figure one reason the game came out yesterday was so EA could puff their chest about new sales opportunity today at their conference call.
It will also be interesting to watch and see if Apex Legends hurts BF5 BR mode.
Curiously did EA talk about Apex Legends at all? I figure one reason the game came out yesterday was so EA could puff their chest about new sales opportunity today at their conference call.
It will also be interesting to watch and see if Apex Legends hurts BF5 BR mode.
I was under the impression they specifically didn't want Battlefield V to be yet another game about Americans and Russians in the most cliched and overdone battles of WWII, though.
I love the gunplay in the game, but the WW2 setting feels so tired to me already. Dice, if you ever want to touch the +10 million plus sales, you're going to have to go back to a modern setting (no one asked you to make a WW1 or 2 BF), bring back more weapon variety (like Battlefield 3, 4), and all those things you already mastered in past Battlefields.
Oh... and EA NEEDS to give you more time to make a game.
I think the Battlefront series needs to be put to rest, and Dice should focus entirely on this franchise or else... sooner or later, EA is going to shut them down.
Oh... and EA NEEDS to give you more time to make a game.
I think the Battlefront series needs to be put to rest, and Dice should focus entirely on this franchise or else... sooner or later, EA is going to shut them down.