According to EA boss Andrew Wilson, the next Battlefield game will be a "reimagination as a truly connected ecosystem."
Electronic Arts (EA) CEO Andrew Wilson comments on how a former competitor is now building a Battlefield "for the future."
They keep breaking promises, Dice is not the devs they used to be. I remember during BFBC2 release DICE telling hiphopgamer, anyone remember him, they would never charge for dlc maps like other companies started to do. They didn't want to seperate the community, they said. Then they released paid dlc later for BFBC2, Vietnam maps.
Jesus man this guy
Everything he’s said about the next Battlefield just screams how tone dead he actually is about the franchise
He seems to be repeating the same mistakes
I am hoping that Zampella brings his magic and delivers an awesome experience.
Imagine if Respawn got Medal of Honor? And then they make a proper COD competitor with it? Daaaamn.
If making BadCompany 3 is not possible anymore ... Just make a new Battlefield 2 in 2024, ffs !
It doesn't matter what they call it, the current EA/DICE are not capable of making a decent battlefield game. Slapping "Bad Company" on it isn't going to change that
Battlefield has struggled immensely in recent years, and the franchise could use an extended break to rethink strategies to reverse its ill fortunes.
Don't keep head down.
Announce Bad Company 3, spent proper development time on it and don't end up like 2042.
Sony thinks it can’t compete without Call of Duty. That’s the long and short of an enormous 20-page document it’s submitted to the UK government, as it seeks a block on Microsoft’s proposed buyout of Activision Blizzard. One argument that’s been suggested is that PlayStation can just make its own first-person shooter instead, but the Japanese giant reckons the series is irreplaceable.
It’s probably a good moment to point out that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 took less than a week to make a billion dollars, so we don’t think Killzone will be posting those kind of numbers any time soon. In fact, PlayStation used the example of Battlefield to illustrate its point to regulators – and it was pretty brutal with its comments on the EA published brand.
That and the fact that Sony took a serious subliminal shot at Nintendo by saying that "MS wants to make PlayStation like Nintendo".
Not cool
Well they're not wrong. Nintendo doesn't even compare in 3rd party sales, but is super strong in its own 1st party lineup. That's not necessarily an insult for Nintendo. That's a commendable thing to have super strong 1st party lineup without having to buy a preexisting, well established 3rd party juggernaut and call their titles their own.
I only buy third party games for my Switch OLED though. Alot of them Asian imports and Limited Run type games.
@Yui
Your personal experience doesn't negate anything what OP said. Also, you can just say Switch, adding the OLED is redundant.
@Yui_Suzumiya I do too, I have TONS of 3rd party titles on my Switch, especially JRPGs... that doesn't change what I said. These 3rd party games do not sell crazy good like some bigger games do on the other consoles.
thank you
someone else knows and sees that 3rd party games just dont do as well as their 1st party ones.
Switch is almost exclusively first party for me. I love the novelty of some third party games like Star Ocean And Mega man but in general I would rather play most third party games with better graphics and performance on PS5. Switch is mainly for Nintendo games I can't get anywhere else.
Only because, traditionally at this point, their consoles are behind in literal technical terms.
With the thing there being, no matter how much MS emphasizes hardware while failing to utilize it, if they can get streaming to work console specs will become meaningless and MS wins by default of having streaming infrastructure in place.
Switch is the true home for VNs at this point (on console), but unfortunately they are still quite niche outside of Japan.
To add context, they meant in terms of competition. They pointed out that internal MS documents barely mention Nintendo in competitive terms, where PlayStation is everywhere.
It's funny, I remember when Phil said Sony aren't their primary competitors in gaming, yet these official docs point out he's lying. Again. That's not cool.
Hey bud, replied to you in my comment, btw. Y’know how N4G is with allowing people to comment on replies… so thought I’d hit you up here.
Also, Phil’s full of sh*t saying they’re not in completion. It’s the same when I see Nintendo fanboys make the ludicrous claim that Nintendo isn’t in competition.
Anyways, I noticed you were really fired up. So, let’s get a discussion rolling back on my comment.
^ Hey there. Lol not fired up, just calling out the folk making up crap. You weren't alone on that.
To be honest, I've seen you comment before and we usually agree. When we don't, it's no big deal, but it gets a bit silly when people paraphrase to the point of changing the meaning. I made my point, though, so we're all good.
how come I don’t see you making this “not cool” comment about the many “not cool” MS statements?
There are lots of recent article about MS where you can do that, come on, show us you’re the paragon of objectivity.
When you're blind you can't be objective. I was an avid supporter of Microsoft early Xbox one years....i know what it means to be blind. Trust me it's not easy to deal with all the Microsoft failed promises and lies.
Why don't I see you leaving the same type of comments for Sony?
I don't think I need to show anything since the majority hive mind on this site do the MS bashing for me.
@crows90
It's vidya games bro, failed promises or broken horizons on a rainy day, I'm still playing vidya games and that's all.
@gangdsta
When we talk about failed promises we talk about games first. Sony delivers...Microsoft does not...unless they pay the big bucks.
And yes...they're video games. Just like food is good or better depending on who makes it
@Crows90
"When we talk about failed promises we talk about games first"
Starfield is still coming, so Redfall..
What have they failed? They're still delivering top games for their system and especially GP. Where have they failed or is this another broad statement that's doesn't really mean anything?
"i know what it means to be blind"
It sounds like you still are, except you probably traded in one set of blinders for another.
@gangastared
Lol ok buddy. I think MS is the one “not cool” here
They are making the industry a smaller place. They aren't giving Xbox fans more, they are giving them the same things they would have had without this acquisition, but trying to block others from enjoying them as well.
I think MS is a shit company for pulling this crap.
So Sony making timed exclusives, timed DLC, paying to keep games off of Xbox and paying to keep games off of GP is cool right?
Meanwhile, MS continues to support way more platforms with every game they release, more than Sony ever has.
They are definitely doing a lot more to expand the industry than Sony.
"They aren't giving Xbox fans more..."
Yeah, I keep seeing this low tier logic as which doesn't make sense. Yes they are giving fans more, more games that are being developed for the Xbox system. Giving smaller developers a bigger budget to make triple A games where before they couldn't. Guaranteeing a platform for these devs to take bigger risks on instead of having to follow some publisher marketing standard.
"I think MS is a shit company for pulling this crap"
Of course you do, lord forbid MS try and get developers to make games for their system and compete in the gaming market.
@gangsta_red
Your deceptive wording doesn't matter in the real world.
Nope. Both Microsoft and Sony do timed exclusives and timed DLC. So quit inferring that buying Activision is some sort of "Sony had it coming" BS. If you are insulting one party for something like you have a point but ignore that both parties do it then you're being deceptive. Next you'll tell me you aren't "inferring" or "never said that" but we're not fools here. We know the conveniently left out double standards are common tactics on here.
MS isn't supporting "way more" platforms. They are struggling as a console to sell software. I'm glad they have games on PC as well but people are really going to act like this is a huge deal in the gaming world? Again we take away from the most important thing which is quality and consistent release schedules of games and focus on delusions that MS is a good guy because they are pushing an expensive service onto many platforms and release games on PC, not because they're struggling, but because they are pursuing market growth. They're only pursuing growth of their own service. End of.
They are doing almost nothing to grow the industry. Just listing a couple points doesn't mean jack. Oh, they release on PC and stream to phones so that must mean they have grown the industry, meanwhile their push for services has directly impacted video game sales and lead to a shrink in first party quality. They have done far more damage then good in the industry and sales reflect that their push towards service games, unfinished releases, and poor quality are not good for gamers.
No. Realistically they are not giving fans any more. They are giving them the same things they would have gotten. I'm not mad about small devs that have a history together and would like a bigger budget. But the major devs/publishers games have no benefit to XBox fans now that MS owns them.
"try and get developers to make games for their system". Again. You insult someone saying "low tier logic" and if you really intentionally play stupid about what good points have been made then you're just being toxic. Again, the major point is AAA devs that would have no risk of closure and their major AAA games that don't struggle on the market are not being added to XBox. They are only being removed from the competition. XBox doesn't gain anything from this. Consumer choice is hurt.
I love how people ignore solid points to try and force a different argument as if they are going to convince gullible shareholders on a gaming site.
^THIS.
PS’s biggest sin seems to be that they pay publishers for timed exclusives — that will still come to Xbox at a later time.
MS BUYS ENTIRE PUBLISHERS to keep ALL their developers’ games off PS — FOREVER.
Objectively, one of these approaches is merely an inconvenience, whilst the other is a shit sandwich.
Note that this does not excuse the publishers/developers, who I see as the main culprit in both these cases.
@gangstared
You must be daft, how can you sit here and try to deflect so hard bro?
If MS mediocrity is what you are after, then by all means continue to advertise for them. They have lost by all means related to gaming, and buying their way into dominance in a way that will spell out disaster for gaming and gamers. Especially console gamers. But carry on. Smh
It's funny to read these comments excusing Sony's same type of behavior and practices with a "lesser of two evils" type of logic.
It's okay to buy individual developers but it's not okay to buy publishers. Exactly where in the consumer market is that a rule?
Let's be real honest, it's not okay with any of you because Sony isn't the one doing it. But if sony does you'll use the same excuses to give them a pass, choose one of the following...
1. It's okay because they worked closely with Sony
2. It's okay because MS does it too
3. It's okay because Sony is making single player games
4. It's okay because, all of the above
I keep hearing MS isn't growing the industry, how? Not one of you listed anything to support that, again just an echo chamber to hate on MS. I put that up there with buzz words like "cultivate".
Everything that MS has done, from GP sub services to supporting PC with more of their own games was not only hated on when they first introduced it but now being incorporated by Sony to the cheers of all of you.
I read MS has an inconsistent release schedule which is funny considering almost every major triple A game these last few years has had delays, GT7, GoW, Breath of the Wild 3, etc, etc, but again it seems to be a problem with MS only and not triple A development in general.
I read MS games aren't quality except the last few releases they have put out have all been in the mid to high 80's. Halo, Gears, Forza, Grounded, etc, all have had critical acclaim.
So all your comments have no merit in actual reality and as I said before only proves your double standards as you hold MS to some type of stricter set of unreasonable rules than you do Sony.
Solid criticisms of MS are always welcomed, unfortunately many on this site including the comments above always go for overblown exaggerations, hypocritical comparisons or a sky is falling MS is dooming the industry narratives.
@gangastared
I’ll be real upfront with you, Your comments are REALLY not worth reading.
What MS is doing is not good for gaming, period. Now color it whatlever way you like. Its not.
Nintendo hasn't been serious competition to anyone in decades. Nintendo has always been viewed as "doing their own thing" in their own little corner somewhere.
So, why are they considered one of the big three?
I’m sorry, are they not in the gaming market? I’m really confused what “their thing” is that’s so radically different? When they sell a console and sell games, even the same games on PlayStation and Xbox…
@CrimsonWing69
They are part of the "big three" because there are only 3 platform holders and they are one of the three. Thats it.
Nintendo "does their own thing" because out of the 3 platform holders, Nintendo differs vastly than the other 2 due to being completely uninterested in keeping up with the latest technology and innovations, they are still stuck in the 1080p world as their top resolution. They also have very little interest in releasing mature games with piles of violence as they prefer to be family friendly, with perhaps the only outsider to that trend being Bayonetta that does dabble in some nudity.
Not to mention they have zero access to mainstream 3rd party, they have no CoD and no GTA. Switch sells based on 1st party and small indies.
They are very much doing their own thing.
Hey @Vengeance1138, I hope this doesn't come off harsh or offend you in any way, but what you said about Nintendo not being in competition has to be the biggest load of dog sh*t I've ever read in a while.
The whole them being one of the only 3 platform holders as being "it"... kind of makes them a competitor in the gaming market... right? I mean in a way you're right that THAT very thing being "It" makes them a competitor. They are competing for consumers in the gaming market. They're not just some accessory or a freaking widget, they are a third option as a console platform.
I'm still confused on how Nintendo "differs vastly"... the damn company makes games and a console. Just because their tech is a generation behind doesn't automatically disqualify them from being a competitor in the gaming market. Like, what!? They literally have access to RE8 on their device... that's a game that came out last year and was a VGA nominee for Game of the Year, that I bought on my PS5.
You then say, "They also have very little interest in releasing mature games with piles of violence as they prefer to be family friendly, with perhaps the only outsider to that trend being Bayonetta that does dabble in some nudity."
Where, did you come up with this? The console has Witcher freaking 3 on it, a game that has full-on nudity and sex in it as well as gore. I just... I'm struggling here with ya'. Did you do any research before you replied? Nintendo is heavily known for not censoring the exact same "weebie" games that Sony censors on its platform. There are a plethora of mature games on the platform. You can play freaking Doom, arguably one of the goriest and most bad-ass games on the market today.
I mean, isn't No More Heroes 3 a Nintendo game that's pretty solid on the M rating that actually literally came out for the PS5 this very year!?
I don't know how not having GTA or COD equates to having zero access to "mainstream" 3rd party games. Again, freaking Resident Evil 8 is on the thing, which according to Capcom's 2022 fiscal year report, is the fastest selling Resident Evil game to date. That's not small potatoes. I mean, you want mainstream third-party access, what about Fortnite?
So, no, Nintendo is not "very much doing their own thing", I think what you meant to say is Nintendo has found "their thing" to give them a foot-hold in the market as a competitor. I mean this very site always posts articles on how the Switch sales are crushing Playstation and Xbox sales... it just blows my mind.
And yet isn’t the Switch one of the best selling console with Mario freaking 8 still in the top NPDs as well as most 1st party games after launch?
They seem to be doing fine without COD, lol.
It’s quite disappointing that Sony views COD as the only reason they’re able to be successful. It’s also sad to see the hypocrisy from them.
Link to quote of Sony saying COD is the only reason they're able to be successful, or nah..?
Any chance of that link? I'd hate to think you're just another person making crap up.
I've followed this and don't recall them saying that..
@SullysCigar
https://assets.publishing.s...
Sony’s CMA article number 26:
“26.
In addition, without Call of Duty users, the potential audience for Play Station games would be irreparably reduced, and the potential returns for developers of PlayStation games would be greatly diminished. This, in turn, would reduce the incentives for these third-party developers to develop new titles for PlayStation, further reducing its quality vis-à-vis Xbox, thereby inducing further switching away from Play Station by users, and thereby making the platform even less attractive to developers.“
Now, Sully you’re a smart guy… but think. I know you have to have been seeing all the articles on here about this and the industry tweets from game media about this very thing (Just google Destin Legarie). Hell, just google this and look up the articles.
How do you interpret “the audience will be irreparably reduced,” and “ returns for developers of PlayStation games would be greatly diminished” or “ This, in turn, would reduce the incentives for these third-party developers to develop new titles for PlayStation”?
Hmmmmmm? Now I know you mentioned you “followed” this and don’t recall them saying it… not sure how you missed it especially with all the articles popping up about all the hypocrisy of Sony and real shady practices to block games from the Xbox platforms, but hope this helps.
Do you want to discuss this some more? I have a gaming bolt article to show as well.
Let me know.
Sorry I didn’t respond earlier, Y’know, Thanksgiving n’ all. Speaking of which, Happy Thanksgiving.
Very cool actually. Nintendo is known not to have much 3rd party support.
That's what the statement means. So it's actually very cool.
Not really it's a perfectly valid point right Nintendo don't compete with the others and don't even try to because if they did they'd probably be bankrupt. As a result alot of 3rd party devs don't even release their games on their platform partly becauss of hardware limitations. Thing is there is room for a company like Nintendo doing its own thing but there likely isn't room for two. If MS force Sony into the space Nintendo currently occupies and they compete with them directly well I wouldn't want to be Nintendo.
Again, this is doesn’t make them not a competitor. Some third party devs don’t release their games on the console due to the cost of developing for the console because port jobs aren’t easy. There’s a large memory restriction and the sales wouldn’t be worth the investment. You’re seeing streaming games on the console to make up for this. Take Guardians of the Galaxy as an example for chrissakes.
It has absolutely f*ck all to do with Nintendo not being in completion and more to do with the hardware limitation and yet publishers are finding a way to get their damn games on the console.
How the hell do you explain all the other ports!? Seriously, explain the very same games I’m seeing on the PS4 on the Nintendo console. Didn’t NieR Automata release on it? Gimme a break.
No offense, but no excuse you can come up with disqualifies them from being in the same competitive market.
Does Sony realize if this acquisition doesn’t go through, Microsoft still isn't going to stop purchasing other studios like Square Enix, EA, or CDPR 😂 Maybe they should let this acquisition go through as long as Playstation can keep COD
Ridiculous push square. But you're always ridiculous. Way to click bait. It's stating the obvious as Battlefield is a direct competitor to COD. What other military shooter is there? You could say Rainbow or Ghost Recon. But they aren't competing at that level either. Even if Sony mentioned Ubisoft instead, the point is still the same. And, if EA isn't matching with how much money they have pumped into their game and with advertising, what makes some think Sony would compete any time soon?
Sony would have to back off investing in other franchise sequels and new IPs to make a shooter at that level. But would it be worth it when there's no guarantee it would be successful? And with Sony already getting COD on their platform, why would they?
"...what makes some think Sony would compete any time soon?"
But didn't you just say MS should put in the work to compete?
Shouldn't that same logic apply to Sony to compete against CoD? They have the market share and they have the talent.
I mean, that's all we ever hear from you and others on how no one can compete with Sony exclusives, now all of a sudden they can't compete with a 3rd party online shooter that's been around for decades.
"Sony would have to back off investing in other franchise sequels and new IPs to make a shooter at that level."
No they wouldn't! They already have multiple devs working on online, live service, multiplayer games. They just bought a studio from that Jade girl who is working specifically on an online game. They are already in the process of creating multiple games as well as VR games (hopefully). Exactly why would creating a CoD like game all of sudden take away from everywhere else?
"And with Sony already getting COD on their platform, why would they?"
Because it's that exact complacent attitude they had thinking it was never going to go anywhere that got them scrambling now to try and get this blocked.
As for putting work in...
That has always been in regards to building new IPs and building successful studios. Don't play stupid. Microsoft hasnt created a successful AAA game in a long long time and they haven't bukt any studios that have done anything special either.
Just because Sony can't defeat one particular franchise, doesn't mean they aren't putting any work in.
Yes. But CoD is hard to compete with...Microsoft is deciding not to put any work to make any good shooters, RPGs or anything else...which is why they've just bought dozens of studios with large 3rd party support.
Sony's put the work to make too 1dt party content and focusing their efforts on what players want and can't seem to get anywhere else. Putting efforts on making a shooter to compete with CoD is a hail Mary at best.
Making a COD competitor like making a Fortnite competitor is near impossible. It's way more than just being good (which they are). Gaining the following they have, whether it be by luck or skill, was done with a series of fortunate events that many have tried to replicate. I think Sony could possibly create as good a game as COD but to bring it to the same level of popularity to make it thrive? Very unlikely
@Crows90
"Microsoft is deciding not to put any work to make any good shooters, RPGs or anything else"
Pretty sure they are putting in work, Avowed, State of Decay 3, Perfect Dark, Fable, Contraband...on top of the developers they're currently trying to buy.
I don't understand this mindset from people here of "MS isn't putting in work" to make games as if to say that MS, the actual company has to make their games for Xbox and not the developers they bought or formed.
"Putting efforts on making a shooter to compete with CoD is a hail Mary at best."
But it's not impossible, Fortnite while not a direct competitor makes about or the same as CoD. Sony doesn't have to beat CoD, that shouldn't be the goal, they just need to match player count and profit. But it seems no one has the confidence in Sony to do this and then these same people wonder why would MS has to buy Activision.
@Rippermcrip
Sea of Thieves says HI :)
(i could also mention State of Decay and Grounded)
That's exactly my problem with ppl defending Playstation all the time.
It's the need for Microsoft to create new IP (cause Forza, Gears, and Halo don't count) yet dismiss any successful new one cause it didn't score a 10 on the release date or it's not a narrative-driven single-player experience.
Sea of Thieves is one of the most-played games on Steam (meaning ppl paid for the game) and a printing machine for MS.
https://store.steampowered....
But on the other hand, it's perfectly normal for Sony to redo exactly the same 3rd person cinematic single-player action adventure in a semi or open-world formula over and over again?
cue Ps4 games: Uncharted4, Tlou part2, Tlou part1, Spiderman, Spiderman Miles Morales, Horizon ZD, Horizon FW, Days Gone, Ghost of Tsushima, God of War, God of War Ragnarok.(see a pattern)
The point is MS took time to create SOT from scratch (even the engine) and made it successful on multiple platforms despite competition and all knowns struggles,
But on the other hand, we should be ok with Sony not even wanting to try to replace COD because it's successful and would require resources.
@Pete
"it's perfectly normal for Sony to redo exactly the same 3rd person cinematic single-player action adventure in a semi or open-world formula over and over again?"
Lol, look at all the descriptors you had to add to make your argument fit. Do you have any idea how much variety there is in just 'action adventure' alone? '3rd person' is one of only two of the most popular viewpoints in all of gaming. You're here listing Days Gone and Spiderman and trying to convince people they are the same game.
@generic
"Lol, look at all the descriptors you had to add to make your argument fit."
Actually, that's the point of narrowing it down to a single type of game but I must confess that Sony has no action/adventure but 1 tab for each.
So let me remake my statement since we can agree that none are multiplayer games and all of them are 3rd person
Just for you Generic
"on the other hand, it's perfectly normal for Sony to redo exactly the same 3rd person cinematic single-player action or adventure games in a semi or complete open world meaning according to Sony PS store tabs
Not one of the rest of the possible tabs: casual, simulation, fighting game, FPS, arcade, shooter, RPG, Puzzle, Strategy, Sports, Driving, party, Quiz, Educational, Brain training, Music, Fitness, Board games, Unique and Adult.
But hey if you feel the need to say it's not narrow enough (after naming all the tabs) how about checking all the Playstation games available on Steam and having a look at the search tags for each game?
@pete
"So let me remake my statement since we can agree that none are multiplayer games"
U4 MP, Ghost of Tsushima 4 player Co-op say hi. GT7 and Dreams also fly in the face of your narrative.
"on the other hand, it's perfectly normal for Sony to redo exactly the same 3rd person cinematic single-player action or adventure games in a semi or complete open world..."
Action or adventure, two genres with massive variation. 3rd person, like I already said, one of two of the most popular view points possible in gaming, massive variation. Cinematic, vague descriptor, often used to describe high production values. Semi open world or complete open world, again, huge variation in both of those.
Where is survival horror/stealth for TLOU? Where is Puzzles for GOW? Where is Platformer for Uncharted?
Do you perhaps exclude these genres because they wouldn't fit your false narrative otherwise? Do we say semi open and open world so that we can pretend Spiderman and Days Gone are the same game?
They simply mentioned Battlefield to illustrate their point that big budgets taking on COD don't guarantee success. Push square is just stirring the pot for hits with that title.
Sony could have made the same point about Medal of Honour, which COD effectively killed off.
Replies(1)Just trying to understand what your rant is all about regarding PushSquare cause they just relayed the information that Sony wrote in a document to explain their point.
“Electronic Arts – one of the largest third-party developers after Activision – has tried for many years to produce a rival to Call of Duty with its Battlefield series,” the manufacturer wrote. “Despite the similarities between Call of Duty and Battlefield – and despite EA’s track record in developing other successful AAA franchises (such as FIFA, Mass Effect, Need for Speed, and Star Wars: Battlefront) – the Battlefield franchise cannot keep up. As of August 2021, more than 400 million Call of Duty games had been sold, while Battlefield had sold just 88.7 million copies.”
As for the rest of your rant, the answer is quite simple for why Sony should try making a COD instead of letting COD be COD,
Because they would end up exactly like MS or Valve who sacrificed doing 1st party games in favor of well established 3rd party games
cue MS has no games despite 3000+ games being playable on the Serie X.
Or Why Sony should do any open-world map games like Horizon, Days Gone, Ghost, etc.?
GTA 5 is miles ahead in sales so why bother?
Well maybe that's what Sony should do. Buy the Battlefield franchise while it's on the decline, do what they need to do to steer the ship in the right direction again.
Bam, you have a legitimate direct competitor for Call of Duty.
I'm sure Microsoft won't make demands to keep it on their consoles either.
Problem solved.
EA is rebooting/re-establishing the IP. Respawn oversees it. Quietly optimistic for the next installment with Vince at the helm
Not that I agree with buying Battlefield or EA... but I always thought that if Battlefield did something like the Musou games and did a KillZone or Resistance Battlefield game it would be insane.
Try buying battlefield when Xbox owns EA and has all the battlefield games on game pass, also I’m sorry, but the PlayStation fanboys saying that battlefield could outperform call of duty if Sony owned the franchise is hilarious, titanfall 3 would do better
Name one single person that actually said that "battlefield could outperform call of duty if Sony owned the franchise".
By the way….. I know a lot of us have different opinions on gaming. But in the United States it’s Thanksgiving day. So I wanted to wish all of you the best.
Happy Thanksgiving fellow countrymen/women! It's great to come together and Celebrate!
“The launch of Battlefield 2042 did not meet expectations,” EA CEO Andrew Wilson said during the earnings call.
The next Battlefield Game Will Be a “Reimagination as Truly Connected Ecosystem,”
+"Wilson’s statements are right in line with what Wilson shared back in May, where the CEO mentioned how they are not just building a new Battlefield game but a platform to drive live services to come."
Triple AAA live service games are dogshit.
Jesus Christ they just don't learn do they
So...more live servicey and microtransactions filled? Welp, back to Battle Bit.
Who TF asked for BF to be an "Ecosystem"? good lord talk about out of touch. I hope it bombs even harder till they get the damn message.
This again 🤦♂️