Top
960°

EA on the backlash against women in Battlefield V: ‘Accept it or don’t buy the game’

“We stand up for the cause, because I think those people who don’t understand it, well, you have two choices: either accept it or don’t buy the game,” Patrick Söderlund says. “I’m fine with either or.” According to Söderlund, the dev team itself also pushed for women in Battlefield V.

Read Full Story >>
theverge.com
The story is too old to be commented.
chrisx104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

pretty much my sentiments aswell. don't like it don't buy it's easy. and I'm no fan of ea.

hulk_bash1987104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

I never understood this mentality, it's a freaking game. It's not like Battlefield was ever "realistic" anyways. I mean in what world can you parachute out of a plane, blow up another plane with a rocket launcer and get back into your plane? Just get over yourselves already.

JaguarEvolved104d ago

I'm buying this game day one.

Akarogg 104d ago

Historical revisionism is concerning

hulk_bash1987104d ago

@akarogg
What? Its a game, if you're getting your history lessons from a game you have big problems.

Skull521104d ago

Cool, don't want to listen to the fans? I'll take option 2, not buying it.

This is exactly why Solo flopped, I hope your game follows suit.

comebackkid9891104d ago

Would a survival horror game about the holocaust where you play as a survivor get your seal of approval if the interned figures were black?

360ICE104d ago

"historical revisionism"
Women fought in WW2 and BF is not a credible source of history anyway.

Enturax104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

@hulk_bash1987
I like how you've summarized it all with: " Its a game, if you're getting your history lessons from a game you have big problems." and you got likes for such an ignorant statement from fellow gamers who would be 1st to defend gaming if someone would say that games are worthless, unimportant.

Truly, such a fucking human stupidity at its finest where you can clearly see people defending something to death just because they like it.

Edito104d ago

You said it all and I fully agree with you...

This is the gaming world runned by gamers who really don't know what they want and forget that gaming is supposed to be fun and give us history in the vision of the makers and that vision sometimes is twisted in a good way... and no matter what EA does they will trash anyway... I'm not a fan of EA but i have no problems with this games at least it's still Battlefield if gamers want to be mad at a game Cod deserves it all...

Cobra951104d ago

"Women fought in WW2 and BF is not a credible source of history anyway."

Women were not combatants in WW2. They acted in auxiliary roles like production, transportation and nursing. I'm not sure what the big deal is here, because I don't much care for this type of game, and I haven't looked into it. So I can't really comment any further than that.

yeahright2104d ago

@enturax
I'm confused. Are you saying you should be able to use games to get history lessons from or that games can only be worth something and important if they're historically accurate?
I mean, what does being historically accurate have to do with being important? Something can be both, but something doesn't have to be historically accurate to be important or have value.
Heck, the first telephone was important. What was historically accurate about it?

SixFragz104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

You are talking about realism in terms of gameplay. BF has never been fully realistic in terms of gameplay, obviously.

What has people annoyed is that they have compromised the realism of the source material, of history, of World War II.

You people still don't understand the essence of peoples distaste with this game, and I don't know how much more it can be hammered into peoples' heads.

PGRfox104d ago

I don't get the mentality of having to put women in games? It's like having to put a black person in a game just to meet a quota or something. If there's a reason besides appeasing all of the liberals, fine, however, most companies throw minorities, and now women in games just to say "see? We're not racist or sexist!" Please, we're not buying it.

darthv72104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

Sounds kind of like MS and their... we have a console for those who don't want to be always online, it's called the 360. Or when Sony said hat people will just have to get a 2nd job to afford the PS3.

Arrogance is not a good look for PR statements, no matter how true they may be.

hulk_bash1987104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

@Enturax
A person who's main/only source of history is a videogame is indeed an ignorant person. There are history books and non-fiction literature for that. A videogame is meant to be a piece of entertainment. Sure there are games who's main goal is to be educational but that not the case with all games. Get off your high horse, I never said games shouldn't be taken seriously as a media form in general. I'm simply saying that fear of "historical revisionism" is a ridiculous arguement when there are other sources to get more historically accurate information.

fathertime4464104d ago

I love how people out saying woman were none combatants. Woman were combatants in ww2 in french resistance and in the Russian military. What they dont get credit because they weren't British or American?!
First and foremost those that say it's a game are absolutely correct, if it's so horrible to change how things happened in ww2 than how come games like wolfenstein exist and no one criticizes it?
Also to those that are using history shouldn't be changed, I have a news flash for you. The carp you learned in school is only half truths and one sided recollections.
Grow up people and enjoy gaming for what it is, a form of entertainment

104d ago
ImGumbyDammit104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

@360ICE Not in the English or American forces. Not in English ground forces until 2016 actually. Yeah, countries like Russia had a few (most notably a sniper). But, is disingenuous to say because there was some somewhere that you can say now all forces had them in combat roles. I guess we could have stories about blacks fighting alongside Germany in Africa or Jew Nazis as they both existed as well and in a lot greater numbers than women fighting in combat for the Allied forces. So lets move those blacks up to the Western front where they did not exist (but did in Africa - that is your logic because it existed is some form means you can change it everywhere else) Maybe even have a story about the all-black German Panzer tank division fighting off those nasty Allied forces raping and pillaging the fatherland.

Listen I don't give a crap about what the gamer developers. Have steampunk, glittered eyed makeup infused women run around with their advance prosthetics shooting up the place. It just isn't a WWII game at that point. I will vote with my dollars. The problem I have it is Battlefield, and COD was the one we Battlefield players use to make fun off because they did crap like Battlefield is doing now. Who am I going to make fun of now?

3-4-5104d ago

Exactly. Day 1 purchase for me. As long as they aren't forcing me to be a women then I'm cool with it.

I have no problem playing as a female character if it's her own franchise and it's known she is the lead like Tomb Raider and Laura Croft....great character or that girl from The Last of Us ( I haven't played it yet...go easy on me..lol)

It's when you force it in a way that is basically stealing somebody else's hard work to push your agenda.

That being said....Why are people mad there are women in Battlefield 5.

I feel like the people who are made, don't really have any women friends or don't have a girlfriend.....

You neckbeards are the SJW's of Men. You are literally the same as the people you complain about.

Realms104d ago

Right because EA didn't build these franchises on historical events? They spawned the entire genre with exactly that premise with Medal of Honor. I could care a rat's ass if they want to include women in combat roles but what rubs me the wrong way is how they are using the guise of inclusion to sell cosmetics and change the tone of the game at least from what I have seen in the trailers.

UnholyLight104d ago

Yeah Battlefield has never been completely realistic but...I dont want to go get a gaming pc just to play a REALISTIC AUTHENTIC WWII shooter. Finally we go back to WWII and now there are things in the game that don't actually properly represent the era, because of "inclusiveness"

I want fallschirmjager to look like the correct guys, the 101st Airborne to look the part, the British to look like British soldiers etc. The only people that fielded female soldiers were the Russians who have in many history books noted how the female snipers actually racked up the kills, and the French resistance was obviously anybody who wanted to join etc, or the British having special troops that may have included women dropped behind frontlines...that is fine.

I think the real issue is that a WWII shooter should be PROPERLY represented and yeah while the goofy fun battlefield antics have always existed...I just think it will ruin the feeling seeing NEON BLUE FACEPAINT and women Nazi soldiers both of which never ever happened that is just going to make me eyeroll while I play.

BF 1 had a reason to include Russian women snipers and black men on the German/Austro Hungarian soldiers...they actually were represented because they actually fought in those particular armies.

PUBG103d ago (Edited 103d ago )

It's not just a game. The video game medium is being used to indoctrinate people subconsciously with liberal left politics and political correctness.

It's no different from what Hollywood does with their movies, in order to sell their political opinions to the masses. After you play enough of these games, watch the liberal dominated mainstream news, and watch all of the big budget movies put out by Hollywood, you begin to accept and believe in those ideas and points of view, it's just a fact. When people are told the same things over and over, people tend to believe it, and most of the time they will not research what they're being told to see if its true or not.

The only way you know if you're being brainwashed, and many people today are brainwashed by a combination of different types of media, is if you understand the agendas afoot, and you know what to look for.

The fact that you are seeing so many games coming out soon, that all have women protagonists is no accident, as all of the big publishers and developers are trying to out-virtue signal eachother right now.

Dice knows full well that fans of WW2 games don't want unreal nonsense like this in a game like this. If they really want to have a female character like the one that they've shown in the trailer, then why make a WW2 game at all? The goal has always been to create the best recreation of WW2 possible, not to create some fantasy steam punk game. Of course now all of a sudden Dice says that they've never aimed for realism, which is total bull.

If they wanted to go with the female steampunk type of game, then why not just create a fresh games series? Simple, it's because they are pushing the left wing liberal inclusively agenda. Kind of like how The Last of Us 2 is pushing the LGBTQ agenda with Ellie being a lesbian. Developers now place huge importance on making sure that everyone knows what their game characters sexuality is, when it shouldn't matter at all.

Nobody I know has ever been against having women in video games, nor have they been against them playing video games withthe guys. In fact, most men love seeing women in games, and they like playing with women.

The diversity\inclusivity doctrine that we're seeing en mass by the entertainment industry as a whole, is designed to cause division. It basically says that women, people of colour, and LGBTQ people are all victims, and that the liberal left wing is there to protect them and push their rights, when in fact, they aren't victims. This helps the left to create a voter base, and plays with peoples emotions to get them fired up.

I'm just scratching the surface of this issue, but if you have never heard an explanation like this, or if you think it's just pure conspiracy, then this is a good time for you to research the current culture war that is unfolding, and is splitting the USA into two right now. The universities are ground zero as a breeding ground for this insanity at the moment.

Gaming101103d ago

To be clear, what people are pissed about is the shoehorning of women into roles they have no business being in ie. combatants on the battle field, especially when you're trying to show a historical war. If you want a fictional war, make a fictional war. That's what the Wolfenstein devs did. They created an alternate history where the Nazis won WW2.
Also, the shoehorning of LGBT characters into everything, ie. Star Wars. These people make up 2-3% of the population yet are being shoehorned into movies, games, tv shows and books as if they're some enormous population that should be represented as such. No, they are in fact not an enormous population, and don't need to be shoehorned into everything.

hulk_bash1987103d ago

@Gaming101
If you cant get past playing as a woman soldier then as the developer said, move along. This game clearly isn't for you, play another game that suites your tastes.

+ Show (21) more repliesLast reply 103d ago
GTgamer104d ago

Same for last of us don't like it don't buy it plenty of others games to play we don't need yall 😂😂😂

VenomUK104d ago

Let's break this down:
* When Battlefield 1 was going to be released EA promoted it as being an accurate portrayal of WW1.
* Then when EA reveal the sequel some criticise them for it not being historically accurate because it includes women.
* EA explain it is as creative license
* Internet complainers people kick up a fuss

Ultimately Battlefield V is not a documentary, it's an 'inspired by history' game and as more females play games it makes sense to include them. Maybe EA could have emphasise at the reveal that it was inspired by the era but likewise why are there people whining so much about including women? Ridiculous. EA have the right attitude with saying 'if you don't like it don't buy our game.' But I think the people complaining is a minority, AND IT IS A MINORITY.

NEARLY ALL gamers are happy for women to be included. So it makes me wonder why EA is being so vocal... the trailers for Battlefield V look pretty standard, the game looks generic. Black Ops III which also has a female lead, seems to have captured the lion's share of coverage by the media and gamer hype. It makes me wonder if EA are using this conversation as a marketing tactic to say they are 'pro-women' to encourage sales? If they are I don't think it is a good technique as the talk of Black Ops IIII is about the game and the talk about Battlefield V is about their argument with a minority of internet trolls. If I was handling this at EA I wouldn't even engage in the debate anymore, I would just continue making the game and let people make their own choice. Right now Battlefield V has an air of negativity whilst Black Ops IIII has a whole load of excitement. I think I know which game most FPS fans will choose.

GottaBjimmyb104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

Most people complaining aren't complaining about it including women, (though some are, just a VERY small minority) just hat battlefield games have generally leaned into realism more than fiction (COD usually going the opposite) so it is a bit out of character for the game to include women in the battlefield when they weren't there historically. That said, I personally could care less, I am actually more turned off by the hook hand and COD-like action gameplay in all honesty.

I think it is pretty awesome though if they follow through with their promise of no loot crates and free DLC, if it turns out to be true (feels unlikely) then I will buy just on that premise alone vs COD.

As for TLOU, the game is fictional and Ellie being gay is part of her character and the vision of the creators/writers, so I am all for it. I am not a fan of shoe-horning in races, gender, sexuality just for political correctness, but TLOU2 is not doing that, it is part of the vision and personality of the character that they wanted.

Averyashimself104d ago

@Venom some would say that the Star Wars fans who were boycotting Solo were a minority. Look what happened.

thorstein104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

@ all of the above.

Just because Britain, the USA, and Canada didn't allow women to fight in WWI and WWII means that women didn't fight in those wars?

Wow, this place... Women didn't serve in combat roles in WWII nor WWI? Yeah. Okay.

With all the talk of "respecting troops" but here we have the same group that lamented allowing black people into BF1 (1 in 20 US soldiers were black) denying that women fought in those wars. Then call it revisionism to include the very people that fought and died in those wars. Astounding intelligence in this "debate."

Next they'll be claiming women didn't fly fighter planes for the Soviets. Where does the ignorance end?

GottaBjimmyb104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

@thornstein, it is just factual that women did not engage in combat in WW2 from US and EU countries. In fact, of all allied nations only russia had women in combat, and even then a small proportion of combatants (less than 3% including non-combatant women in Russia) and were used as "propaganda tools." Women were certainly in the military and were very important members deserving of honor and respect, but a game showing them on the battlefield in combat in high numbers is just untrue. And for some off-putting, if you expect realism from a company with a history of realistic content.

People like you who push revisionist, amd untrue history as fact, are the reason many dislike "creative" representation of historical events, because you then pretend like it is actually a factual representation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The only belligerent to deploy female combat troops in substantial numbers was the Russian Provisional Government in 1917.[27] Its few "Women's Battalions" fought well, but failed to provide the propaganda value expected of them and were disbanded before the end of the year. In the later Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks would also employ women infantry"

"The Soviet Union mobilized women at an early stage of the war, integrating them into the main army units, and not using the "auxiliary" status. More than 800,000 women served in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war, which is roughly 3 percent of total military personnel, mostly as medics.[15][16] About 300,000 served in anti-aircraft units and performed all functions in the batteries—including firing the guns.[17][18] A small number were combat flyers in the Air Force,[19] forming three bomber wings and joining into other wings. Women also saw combat in infantry and armored units, and female snipers became famous after commander Lyudmila Pavlichenko made a record killing 309 Germans (mostly officers and enemy snipers)."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...
"The United States, by comparison, elected not to use women in combat because public opinion would not tolerate it.[1] Instead, like in other nations, approximately 350,000 women served as uniformed auxiliaries in non-combat roles in the U.S. armed forces. These roles included: administration, nurses, truck drivers, mechanics, electricians, and auxiliary pilots. [2]

Women also took part outside of formal military structure in the resistances of France, Italy, and Poland, as well as in the British SOE and American OSS which aided these."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...
"Women in World War I were mobilized in unprecedented numbers on all sides. The vast majority of these women were drafted into the civilian work force to replace conscripted men or work in greatly expanded munitions factories. Thousands served in the military in support roles, e.g. as nurses, but in Russia some saw combat as well."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alternatively. Black men were well represented and proportional, over-represented in WW2 and anyone who was upset about black people in BF1 is an idiot, but considering it is on of the most liked trailers of all time and the best selling battlefield, I highly doubt your claims of equal outrage are true.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 104d ago
CaptainObvious878104d ago

You can put all the women in the game you want, just stop your pathetic virtual signalling.

If you keep virtual signalling I won't be buying the game.

Cobra951104d ago

"Virtue signaling." But I understood you, and I agree it's a pathetic thing.

fiveby9104d ago

EA's sales of BF5 will take a hit and more so because of their faux elitist response than the inclusion of a woman. It's a very lecturing response from them which turns many people off.

InMyOpinion104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

With BF1 it was the black soldiers, now it's the women. BF5 won't take a hit because of a handful of insecure incels, religious fanatics and alt-right nutjobs who hate women and are too narrow minded to understand the concept of fiction.

Go read some books. Educate yourself. And stop being so damn scared of everything that is different.

FITSniper104d ago

@InMyOpinion

Well if you go read some books and educate yourself, then you'll know that women were not combat soldiers in WW2. And blacks actually were in limited capacities.

But hey, it's easier to say people hate women than actually care what they think. Apparently because I don't like the idea of killing women in a war zone, I hate women. Apparently because I don't like the idea of blowing up women with grenades, bazookas, etc, I hate women. Yes it's just a game. But apparently because I don't like those things, I hate women.

UnholyLight104d ago

Business 101, virtue signalling is very, very bad. Usually a pretty good indicator of bad CSR if you ask me.

rainslacker104d ago

They stand up for the cause though. By their own admission. Apparently, their reason for doing it is agenda based, because otherwise, there would be no cause. They're making it into this big thing, which is the very definition of forced.

people voiced their criticism, and now they're up on their high horse acting like they're all in the right. While they are free to do what they want with their game, no cause is served by ignoring those who take issue with what is being done. What people have a problem with is the fact that they're making it into a cause.

Thus, using their product to serve an agenda. In a game, where people don't want politics injected into their games.

Fight the good cause there dev. People will buy the game, no one will care about your agenda in the end though. They can pat themselves on the back for being progressive in the worst way possible.

Soc5103d ago

The next Battlefield will have the Elderly!! Why should they be excluded? and it will have soldiers in wheel chairs and blind soldiers (where your screen is just black) and of course children, because if you don't include children you are being exclusionary, and of course pets. Pets have been woefully underrepresented in war games!

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 103d ago
Sayai jin104d ago

It's hilarious to see someone say that revisionist history is concerning. History has been whitewashed, especially American history.

As far as women in the game, I'm a retired veteran and of course have a network of Veterans as friends. I don't know one that has a problem with this game. If you're looking for realism this game isn't it.

To the poster mentioning putting minorities in games... Keep in mind that the demographics are changing. The current majority in America will be the minority in 20 or so years. Liberals? Save me the propganda and talking points.

If tou don't like the game, then don't support it. If you do like it buy it. It's that simple...don't understand all the moaning.

Oschino1907104d ago

Did you have any actual rebuttal to any one who is not happy with BFV or is it only anecdotes, hyperbole, deflection and a general sense of smugness that you couldn't care less yet feel the need to tell others why they shouldn't care?

Here is my comment from another article...

"I think it's very simple.... If you choose to make a game set in a very serious and well known point of history, you must respect the history to some extent, and by that I mean don't try to rewrite it to fit some narrative today. If they did an alternate universe that's fine, but they seem to want the historical context but non of the accuracy which coming from a battlefield game seems very weird. The main games were either in a fictional universe or based on real life wars and they were heads and shoulders more accurate compared to say COD. Battlefield needs to stick to being Battlefield, that's why people love it.

Something like this could have easily been a Bad Company game and I guarantee their wouldn't be this kind of a fuss, but they want to milk WW2 for its setting while taking to this point unheard of creative liberty in how they portray it.

The sad part is it seems just as pathetic as even the harshest critics claim and they literally are doing this to push a personal agenda whether that be inclusion and going after a segment they was never really into Battlefield or just to gain attention over something they knew ahead of time would gain lots of attention good or bad just for the sake of being known about to a much wider audience.

COD already went a little overboard with ww2 setting and cosmetics but still had a story that attempted to pay respect to the war. BF just seems like once again it's trying to out COD at being COD and by doing so both losing its identity as a BF game and respect from many long time fans who want it to stick to that formula that won them over years ago because it was the more realistic game compared to the others out there.

They seem like they totally lost their identity and trying to remake the game while still claiming "hey it's the battlefield you always loved but new and improved". Meanwhile many fans like myself are sitting here wondering wtf happened, it's a main series game but with totally misunderstood naming and a setting that totally separates itself from much of what the series is known for.

To be honest though, personally I lost all interest when they announced a mode focusing on vehicle warfare since BF has always had very arcade and unrealistic vehicle attributes. I refuse to unlearn my instincts from well over 1000hrs of War Thunder to bother with any other game that wants to promote vehicular warfare and take great creative liberties like past BF games. Almost as bad as the World of (tanks, panes, warships), why even bother if they barely perform anything like their real life counterparts.

But go ahead and after this game fails to meet expectations refer to people like me as purely sexist and misogynistic if it helps you cope with others not agreeing to your particular world view."

rainslacker104d ago

The criticism is that BF was a more realistic approach to combat in WWII, and this game doesn't provide it. So, saying, "If you're looking for realism, this game isn't it", you are both acknowledging the criticism, and ignoring that that is the problem.

PUBG103d ago

@ Sayai

You do realize that WW2 was in a different time period than today right? My grandfather was a WW2 veteran in the Canadian Military, and I bet he would have had a far different opinion from you, because at that time, having women on the front lines just wasn't reality.

It would be like Hollywood saying that they're going to make a movie like 'Saving Private Ryan', and then you get to the theater, and you end up seeing women landing on the beaches of Normandy. It would get absolutely crushed by critics.

If this were a game based in modern times, then of course things would be different, and that's the whole point that people are trying to make.

Sayai jin103d ago

Oschino, it's a comment board so therfore I left a comment. There is no hyperbole nor smugness in my comment. I stated facts. I'm smug because I am a retired combat veteran?
I understand the need for historic accuracy, place, setting, etc. Do you feel the same about movies and the sort.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 103d ago
47104d ago

It’s funny, the same dorks saying “don’t like it don’t buy it” are the same losers who complained about the lack of POC characters in games like the Witcher and Kingdom Come. All of a sudden they’re all for individual choice. That sure as hell wasnt the case as they tried to force CDPR and Warhorse to alter their games before release. EA is making the same mistakes Lucasfilm has In assuming the core fan will stick with them regardless and that’s not the case. The last time a CoD had a like/dislike ratio the way this game does it went on to sell almost less than half of its predecessor. You can be guaranteed the same will happen here. They’ll blame “sexist” gamers but in reality it’s their own fault for be so completely out of touch with their core audience.

StrawberryDiesel420104d ago

Agree. I'm running around in Modern Warfare Remastered as a black woman and i think it's hilarious. I do understand Battlefield is more realistic. However, just enjoy the gameplay and be glad we have the Battlefield franchise.

babadivad104d ago

His response sounds eerily close to what Star Wars execs have been saying about criticism of their movies .

Enturax103d ago

@yeahright2

I'm saying there are games that can teach you stuff, that includes history. hulk_bash1987 says no game can do that and we have our brains damaged or we are uneducated for thinking so.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 103d ago
manabyte77104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

Regardless of your feelings about the subject, it’s still not the smartest thing to say to your customers. EA acting like some moral pariah after being consistently voted worst company every year. The irony 😂. It reminds me of Adam Orth: Deal with it!

104d ago Replies(5)
IamTylerDurden1104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

You can't use the EA hate hype as an excuse for everything. EA is actually right, if you don't like that women are in a game then don't buy it.

EA is greedy and they made mistakes, but EA Originals is terrific and they are right about this. The hate over a woman protagonist in Battlefield is absurd.

Btw, Sea of Solitude looks amazing.

Darrius Cole104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

EA doesn't really mean that. They just think that it doesn't matter and that people will buy the game anyway. They are thinking "there are not enough people who feel like this to affect the sales of the game in any real way." If they knew that a really significant percentage of their fans would not buy the game over this the response would be entirely different.

It is a poor response. The best thing would have been to say nothing. There is no point in adding disrespect to the conversation if you are not going to do anything anyway.

morganfell104d ago

DICE = EA. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of EA and have been since 2006. EA dictates their overall policies.

LgbtWarrior104d ago

Just because you’re a customer does not mean you’re immune to criticism and feedback. It’s actually very smart. Weeding out the toxic to embrace the positive gamers of all backgrounds.

Gh05t104d ago

"God you sound fucking stupid. My GOD. Are your parents siblings? And if you are doing this just to troll, do you have nothing better to do in your basement?"

Yes you bastions of posativity.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 104d ago
gamerzero104d ago

I don't even like EA but I am 100% on board with this sentiment.

Movefasta1993104d ago (Edited 104d ago )

i've been saying this about cod for years but people still buy it lmao and then I see comments like ' i'll never buy a cod game again' and you see the dilikes on their youtube channel and they end up still as the best selling game of that year.

madforaday104d ago

The amount of casuals that play videos games is a ridiculous number! Gamers who go to N4G, IGN, Reddit and etc, are so far in the minority but a lot of people assume it is the other way around.

rainslacker104d ago

Discontent can lead to lowered sales. The people over at activision never really alienate their audience. They let the critics complain, and maybe make some PR statement, but don't actually insult their fans.

With SW:BF, EA decided to act like the customer was wrong. The games didn't sell as well as it could have.

Now, DICE is putting down those with criticisms, treating them like their opinion doesn't matter. They aren't just taking their hits, and standing by their product in a positive way, but changing it into a political agenda. They even said they have a cause. A cause. They're injecting politics into a game. That's cool right?

While the game will still sell quite well, don't think that a developer or publisher ignoring a fan base, or mocking them, or putting them down, in any way ingratiates themselves with potential buyers.

MrSwankSinatra104d ago

FACTS, don't buy shit you don't want. speaking with the wallet is how you send a message.

Stevonidas104d ago

Hmmm, I think I WONT BUY THE @#$%*!^ GAME.

porkChop104d ago

Good for you. Pretty pathetic if having playable females stops you from buying a game.

Stevonidas104d ago

Playable females with robotic hands are hardly historically accurate. Might as well throw unicorns in there while you're at it.

Hey, I think I just gave EA a great idea for their microtransactions...

ziggurcat104d ago

@stevonidas

it's not robotic...

it's this: https://c.slashgear.com/wp-... which is historically accurate to the period.

MetalGearsofWar104d ago

Why is it pathetic to not spend money on something you dont want?

Tetsujin104d ago

"Playable females with robotic hands are hardly historically accurate. Might as well throw unicorns in there while you're at it."

Who the hell cares? History is written by the winner, and anyways there's this magical place called gaming.

Araragifeels 104d ago

@ziggurcat Yeah are correct but I never heard a soldier going back to fight in the war with a Prostate arm rather soldier will be in the hospital, discharged and send back home. If we are talking about today, I can see it be more accurate but in WW2, is not historical accurate.

ziggurcat104d ago

I was talking about the arm itself being accurate to the period. He said it was robotic. It's not.