Slashdot Mirror


Battlefield 5's Poor Sales Numbers Have Become a Disaster For Electronic Arts (seekingalpha.com)

dryriver writes: Electronic Arts has mismanaged the Battlefield franchise in the past -- BF3 and BF4 were not great from a gameplay perspective -- but with Battlefield 5, Electronic Arts is facing a real disaster that has sent its stock plummeting on the stock exchanges. First came the fierce cultural internet backlash from gamers to the Battlefield 5 reveal trailer -- EA tried to inject so much 21st Century gender diversity and Hollywood action-movie style fighting into what was supposed to be a reasonably historically accurate WWII shooter trailer, that many gamers felt the game would be "a seriously inauthentic portrayal of what WW2 warfare really was like." Then the game sold very poorly after a delayed launch date -- far less than the mildly successful WW1 shooter Battlefield 1 for example -- and is currently discounted by 33% to 50% at all major game retailers to try desperately to push sales numbers up. This was also a disaster for Nvidia, as Battlefield 5 was the tentpole title supposed to entice gamers into buying expensive new realtime ray-tracing Nvidia 2080 RTX GPUs.

Electronic Arts had to revise its earnings estimates for 2019, some hedge funds sold off their EA stock, fearing low sales and stiff competition from popular Battle Royal games like Fortnite and PUBG, and EA stock is currently 45% down from its peak value in July 2018. EA had already become seriously unpopular with gamers because of annoying Battlefield franchise in-game mechanisms such as heaving to buy decent-aiming-accuracy weapons with additional cash, having to constantly pay for additional DLC content and game maps, and the very poor multiplayer gameplay of its two Star Wars: Battlefront titles (essentially Battlefield with laser blasters set in the Star Wars Universe). It seems that with Battlefield 5, EA -- not a company known for listening to its customers -- finally hit a brick wall, in the form of many Battlefield fans simply not buying or playing Battlefield 5.

24 of 715 comments (clear)

  1. Who would have thunk? by Kohlrabi82 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Catering to the perpetually offended instead of your loyal gamer fanbase did not work out for you, EA? How surprising.

    1. Re:Who would have thunk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, you know... it's just not a very good game. Couldn't have anything to do with it, though, no - it's just those SJWs getting their just desserts! Of course!

    2. Re: Who would have thunk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or you know... life is more complicated than that and for a variety reasons such as being a shitty game or bf3/4 being meh or the dumb ass sjw crap the consumer made a decision not to consume.

      But no, it has to be black n white and only for the one reason that matches your world view. Right.

      Be a dear, wipe your face, wash your hands and set the table for dinner.

    3. Re:Who would have thunk? by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It may not be a good game because of catering to the perpetually offended.

      There is one fact I know: If you cater to the people that arent your customers at the expense of your customers, then you will absolutely lose customers, and the people you catered to will move on to fuck with something else.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Who would have thunk? by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, I'm saying that he's so deranged and used to rejecting observable reality, that he literally gave an example that was a lie when several examples where his statement was truth were literally in the same story.

      Which is a major problem with people who hold deeply religious convictions. They are so utterly deranged, they are no longer capable of differentiating between reality and their dogma. As a result, they'll quote a complete and utter lie as if it supports their views, when truth is right there next to the lie they utter. Because they are so used to lying in the name of their ideology, they cannot differentiate between the lie and the truth.

    5. Re: Who would have thunk? by RedK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who are the perpetually offended ones here?

      It's a WWII game. Why the heck would it have women soldiers with cybernetic prosthetics in it ?

      The offended ones are the ones complaining every video game needs a token character of every race and gender (all 10,000 of them) in them. The same ones who made it so we now have unskippable disclaimers that says "This game was developed by a diverse team of different genders, religions and sexualities" as if that matters at all. What happened to just listing the names of the team in the credits ?

      People wouldn't make a fuss about all this crap being added to video games, if there wasn't a bunch of offended people forcing companies to add it in the first place. It's not like firing up a text editor and compiling code is something only men can do. If women or minorities or whatever want to make games, they can. Co-opting established properties instead of making their own is the issue here.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    6. Re:Who would have thunk? by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks for `splainin that. I hope your legs were the maximum distance apart as you typed that.

      From Ford, GM, Chrysler, and AMC pulling a "fuck you plebs, you'll buy what we make" in the 1970's, to New Coke, to movie studios attacking their audience when a movie flops hard today, their point is right.

      Of course, it takes a special kind of sexist to make a comment like that in the first place.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re: Who would have thunk? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right because there's absolutely no difference between things that literally make this a playable videogame and politicized sexist racist tokenism shoved in people's faces followed by attacks that if you don't adore it you're an alt-right russian bot nazi.

      You realise that well over 80% of the population is outright sick or your shit, right? Particularly the very minorities that you, the single most homogenously rich and white group in the US, insist you speak for.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    8. Re: Who would have thunk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you want to include women in a WW2 game then show them where they really fought, in the Soviet army. In the red army women were tankers, snipers, pilots just about everything really. Other WW2 games depicted this and it wasn't an issue. Why? because its accurate.

    9. Re: Who would have thunk? by RedK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and where the objectives have nothing to do with actual historical events

      Why are you lying ?

      Your first 2 elements are game mechanics, while we're discussing design and narrative concepts. Mixing up the 2 is dishonest.

      But this last one, where the heck do you get off literally lying. The story of BF V's single player campaign *IS* a historical event. They way they portray it is ahistorical though, because instead of actually telling you how the Norwegians dealt with the Nazi heavy water plant, they made up a Mother/daughter mary sue scenario.

      That *IS* part of the issue with BF V's entire design : it's ahistorical. If you wanted to play a Fantasy War game, there are a metric ton of those that exist. There's even one about a little girl that tames huge dinosaurs and it's pretty great (Horizon Dawn). The point is BFV is a WWII game. Not a "Fantasy War" game.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    10. Re:Who would have thunk? by asylumx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously! I don't get when people complain about insignificant crap like this because it's "not realistic" while they're playing a game where you can not only survive getting shot in the head, you can even keep fighting. BF5 lets you change your character (and they don't charge for new characters), so if you don't like the one you started with JUST CHANGE IT. The game has enough real problems, like how it crashes every other round. We don't need to be manufacturing social problems.

    11. Re:Who would have thunk? by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, you know... it's just not a very good game. Couldn't have anything to do with it, though, no - it's just those SJWs getting their just desserts! Of course!

      I found that out after Battlefield 3. The gameplay had been removed and replaced with a grind system that ensured as long as you played for long enough you got the upgrades to make you unstoppable. It stopped being a game where skill mattered and all you needed to do was suck long enough to unlock the upgrades.

      But facts won't stop the morons bleating "SJW".

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re: Who would have thunk? by RedK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      imagined victimhood.

      "This game doesn't cater to my particular sexual preferences and state of being even though it has nothing to do with sexual preferences or states of being" = imagined victimhood

      "We changed the game to pander to this group's particular sexual preferences,at the detriment of design elements that drew in our target audience, completely changing the game for the worse" = actual "victimhood" (aka, actual reason to dislike what is happening, not "victimhood", no one is pretending they're EA's victims here).

      Why is it always about being a "victim" with folks on your side ? You can dislike things and events without being a frickin' victim.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    13. Re:Who would have thunk? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It may not be a good game because of catering to the perpetually offended. There is one fact I know: If you cater to the people that aren't your customers at the expense of your customers, then you will absolutely lose customers, and the people you catered to will move on to fuck with something else.

      This has been learned the hard way in more than just EA's case. The destruction of the Star Wars golden goose by Kennedy and Johnson. Especially when they not only refused criticism, they attacked and ridiculed anyone who disagreed with them.

      How'd that work out?

      In the world of entertainment, it is pretty important that you produce entertainment that your customers want.

      And if you produce a game based on a event like WW2, it needs to be accurate, because the customer is pretty well versed.

      And yeah - an alternative universe WW2 game could be made. And as long as it's known as an alternative game, its all good.

      But speaking to that - you get interesting things when you cater to those people. The latest Wonder Woman movie which did indeed have a war setting, which did indeed have social Justice oversight - still outraged some of the easily offended.

      They were outraged that Gal Gadot raised her arm - and horrors!!! To Twitter and scream!! Wonder Woman Gal Gadot had no armpit hair!! https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/...

      What is worse, Wonder woman as a member of an immortal race of only women could not give true consent, therefore she was raped!!! https://slate.com/human-intere...

      The point is good people, if you are dealing with a group who cannot be satisfied, there is no point in dealing with them at all.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. "EA's shitty business policies ... by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... and practices are coming back at them."

    FTFY

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  3. Nvidia's problem... by jools33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nvidia's problem wasn't the tie in with Battlefield, more so the pricing, if you decide to add 30% to the price, expect sales to not be quite so hot.

    1. Re:Nvidia's problem... by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If anything, nvidia got used to the cryptoboom pricing. It almost seems like people up top the company convinced themselves that those prices were the new normal.

      And this has been a harsh wake up call. They price RTX cards as if they're the hottest cryptomining kit that gamers would have to compete with miners for, as happened with many of the GTX series cards.

    2. Re:Nvidia's problem... by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      2060 is not a mid end card. The only people who claim it is are marketing people working for nvidia. It is priced like the sweet spot cryptomining kit that was 1060 6GB mid end card when cryptomining craze was at its peak and those cards commanded 50-75% price premium over MSRP, as 1060 was being sold at x70 high end prices.

      2060 is being sold at approximately x70 card price point in the past, the nvidia's high end model throughout many generations. Ergo, it's a high end card. Mid end is in the 200USD MSRP range, topping out at around 250. It is by far the most sold segment in discreet cards in terms of volume. It is where 1060, 960, 760 etc were at launch.

      Now whether nvidia is doing this because their top brass bought their own cool aid and think they can make cryptoboom prices the new normal, or their well documented catastrophic situation with warehouses full of unsold 1060 chips that board partners had to return because after cryptoboom crashed, no one wanted to buy them is anyone's guess. My guess is that it's a mix of both. But none of it makes 2060 a mid end segment card. It's a high end card, replacing 1070. 1060, the actual mid end card in nvidia's portfolio doesn't have a 20x0 model equivalent (yet?). My guess, one isn't coming until they finally manage to sell as many of the warehoused 1060s left over from the cryptoboom production peak, which is likely to take a while, as no one in the production and retail chain is willing to take a massive hit from selling them at much lower margins than was reported to their shareholders, or perhaps even at loss.

  4. Religion is more important than money by Jarwulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't make sense on the surface. Its not like purple haired womyn's studies majors are a sizable demographic for FPSs. Its bizarre how so many companies like outdoors stores, comics, and gaming that are do not have SJWs anywhere near their target audience are so obsessed with currying their favor that they're willing to lose out on billions and antagonize their actual core audience. Then you realize this is a religious ideology to them. Theres now a sizable number of people in power who hold the philosophy..or religion of 'social justice' as strongly as the most zealous priest or mullah. They don't care about losing money anymore. They are completely unrepentant the usual corporate spin apology is now replaced with the company continuing to double down on blaming the fans. All that matters is spreading and putting the ideology into power. Looks like we've finally found the one thing corporations appear to love more than money and it seems to be bowing down in worship of SJWism.

  5. Re:DICE is the real problem by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    " And having the voice of women screeching and screaming as they kill and die in every online game was a psychological idiocy beyond words."

    No shit!

    Men are hardcoded to want to protect females. SJWs think that's a bad thing because this is triggered more the more feminine a female is. The war against femininity and beauty is very openly fought among those people...

    And then you want to sell a game that is primarily directed at males (because females aren't interested in war... even the suffragettes were fighting for a right to vote for females without being under threat of a draft... women are not dumb enough to want to go to war) and fill it up with deus ex machina female characters who can do all that men can even though they have way less muscle mass that is way less efficient than men's.

    Meanwhile, you get to hear them dying around you, which triggers very different feelings of failure in men than hearing males perish.

    Who could have foreseen that THAT would not sell?!

    The worst and most blatant sign of total incompetence is the way they portrayed females in wars. There have been many examples of tried and true female war heroes. There was no need to embellish (and implying that women need embellishment to have a place in the scenario).

    I don't know about the US, but god damn it, the French Resistance was full of women, wasn't it? What about Russian sharpshooters and nightwitches?

    It is not hard to find examples of capable women in war. They are so easy to find, in fact, that there are memes about them! To not work with that is either an unrealistic amount of stupidity or done on purpose.

  6. Re:This is Patrick Soderlund fault by NettiWelho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a woman with disabilities

    The lady in trailer is not disabled, thats not a prosthethic as WW2 era prosthethics can't do things like reload a bolt-action rifle, machine gun or artillery piece.

    That lady is cybernetically enhanced . Too bad its not a cyberpunk game.

  7. Re:DICE is the real problem by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on, DICE can make awesome games. Take Pinball Fantasies for example. The problem is clearly EA.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  8. Re:"BF3 and BF4 were not great from a gameplay..." by Jarwulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those "perpetually offended" that people are talking about aren't the "real gamers".

    Who went after Rimworld? Who went after Doom Eternal? Who went after Cyberpunk's twitter for a joke tweet they made?

    Real gamers don't get offended by these kinds of cosmetics. We are in it for the fun and the gameplay.

    Its not about just this one incident but the trend of a vocal minority of activists. (Yes the proportion of people who want gender balanced armies for the sake of inclusiveness are still a minority among gaming audiences.) pursuing men into every hobby he takes refuge in and despoiling it with their neurosis. Its not enough for you to rule over us during work. You want to rule over our play too. Since we should all be good humored why not make a movie about MLK where you turn him into a white man or take a beloved historical female figure and make her into a man?

    The "perpetually offended" are the basement dwelling internet trolls that just wants to destroy something for the lulz. They are mad about some game grabbing attention of a part of the player base and not playing their favorite shitty game.

    Kinda like how activists destroyed the previous creative landscape and now 80% of female protagonists and growing in the arts are variations of the asexual androgynous Rey archetype? Or how they launch a media inquisition against every game that has females that are considered 'too sexy' especially if the character does not have enough masculinity to counter this. Female characters must conform to this narrow behavioural pattern or be unremarkable or they'll be targeted ie DOA, Dragon's Crown, etc. Its gotten to the point that games with major women outside these approved archetypes are now very rare outside of Japanese studios. And this is just the craziness related to feminism.

  9. Historical authenticity got me by DrXym · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't believe that people didn't buy the game because people can choose a race / gender in multiplayer. More likely they didn't buy because the game feels stale and the ongoing belief that EA would rape players the way they had in the past.

    It wouldn't hurt if companies like EA, Activision et al suffered a backlash and financial shock for acting like greedy jerks. It might remind them that they're supposed to be producing games, not skinner boxes.