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.

Comments

Who would have thunk?

[Kohlrabi82]

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

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Rockoon]

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.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Luckyo]

That moment when you're so deranged by social justice ideology, you link to an article that debunks your point, while pretending that it reinforces it.

Quote from the article:

>Only a limited minority took part in the armed battles. Although women were typical partisan resistance fighters in Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia and the occupied USSR, feared and as numerous as men, they were a small minority in the maquis in France.

Social Justice Warrior in action. You could have quoted Italy, Greece, Yugoslav and Soviet women, who actually were fighting in large numbers. Instead, being properly deranged by social justice ideology and made utterly ignorant of reality by it, you literally quoted the one resistance force that had but a token amount of women combatants.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

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!

No, they went out and catered to the SJW's then told people that "if they didn't like the agenda. To not buy it." So it looks like people didn't buy it. Then the guy who pushed it "left" the company. No no, it wasn't telling people to fuck off that cratered sales. It was just a bad game...or a combination of it was a bad game and telling their market to fuck off.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

Can you tell me how many black females with amputations and prosthesis were fighting in WWII on the front lines? Cause that's the message EA was trying to push with BFV. Give you an example of proper marketing. If I'm playing The Witcher 3, the story may be about Ciri but it's driven by Geralt. If I'm playing Metro, Anna may play a key part but it's driven by Artyom. BFV is not driven by the tiny minority of people that had lost limbs. If so, a better representation would have been geriatrics post-cataract surgery sitting on the English shoreline and watching for Morse-UV flashes from operatives in France.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[serviscope_minor]

Social Justice Warrior in action. You could have quoted Italy, Greece, Yugoslav and Soviet women, who actually were fighting in large numbers. Instead, being properly deranged by social justice ideology and made utterly ignorant of reality by it, you literally quoted the one resistance force that had but a token amount of women combatants.

So what you're saying is the GP's point is absolutely 100% correct it's just that he got the country wrong. Apparently that maked him some sort of deranged SJW?

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear, aren't you the special snowflake. Making a third of the game's main storyline about a woman, when as you pointed out at best only 15% were women is not statistically representative. I guess in your women's studies course they taught you reasoning and math through your feelings instead of facts. See how easy it is to interject a ton of hyperbole to get your point across? Perhaps instead of slinging mud like an NPC, you could tone it down some.

People have come to expect the games from this franchise to be reasonably accurate in portrayal. Going with statistically significant over representation doesn't come close to that. It's a game of course, so some leeway needs to be given in gameplay mechanics, however, this doesn't mean leeway needs to be given everywhere else. Believe it or not, the core of their fanbase has always enjoyed the other details that the BF series did get correct.

The slippery slope is real and people love to ignore it in the name of "progress". Games have not become better as a result of ensuring that "everyone is represented". They might appeal to some wider audience, and for some that's a good thing, but the tipping point has been hit and you're seeing huge companies like EA and Blizzard taking nose dives in stock prices. There are indie games out there now, who don't have great graphics, making small teams incredibly rich due to their ability to focus on gameplay and not worry about catering to your type of person. They honestly don't give a shit if you'd never buy their game. The sales figures always speaks for themselves.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Boronx]

Also tanks in these games form out of thin air. Does that upset you?

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

If those are the people buying your game, then yes you do if you want to keep making sales.

But then, I'm not particularly interested in this genre of gaming (Multi-player FPS shooter, for me the genre peaked with Quake 3) so I watch on the sidelines mildly amused.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Luckyo]

>I only have historical truths

You have them, but you reject them, as I demonstrated above. As you are so zealous in your convictions, that you're unable to see past it even when faced with the moment when you lied in a situation where truth was literally right there for you to use instead of a lie, you're beyond help.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Luckyo]

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.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Ashthon]

So instead they should cater to the misogynist, historically challenged incel gamers out there?

I think you need to get a clue. Let me explain what actually happened.

EA claimed they were "telling the untold stories of WW2," but what they instead did was to rewrite history to push feminist propaganda. The game tells the story of Operation Gunnerside in which a team of Norwegian commandos destroy a Nazi heavy water production facility. However, in the game EA/DICE have written the Norwegian commandos out of history. Instead, the team who destroy the Nazi facility is a strong, empowered, educated mother and daughter team, who are not only scientists but unstoppable soldiers who can physically overpower any man. Clearly, this isn't "telling the untold stories of WW2," but rewriting history to push an agenda. There's a video here which shows the game scenario and then explains what actually happened during WW2. It's quite long, but you only need to watch the first five minutes and you'll get the point.

The whole game was a work of propaganda, designed not to appeal to gamers, but to force feminist propaganda on players. Then, despite completely rewriting history, they told gamers they were "uneducated" and said, "if you don't like it, don't buy it," which is why so few people bought the game.

But hey, don't let reality get in your way. Just keep claiming it's all the fault of "historically challenged incel gamers." Moron.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

You replied to the wrong post.

You should have replied to your own post.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[NettiWelho]

prosthesis

Not a prosthetic, they are incapable of things like reloading a bolt-action rifle, machine gun or artillery piece.

The thing depicted in-game is a _cybernetic_ enhancement, not WW2 era prosthetic.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[teg]

So instead they should cater to the misogynist, historically challenged incel gamers out there?

I think you need to get a clue. Let me explain what actually happened.

EA claimed they were "telling the untold stories of WW2," but what they instead did was to rewrite history to push feminist propaganda. The game tells the story of Operation Gunnerside in which a team of Norwegian commandos destroy a Nazi heavy water production facility. However, in the game EA/DICE have written the Norwegian commandos out of history. Instead, the team who destroy the Nazi facility is a strong, empowered, educated mother and daughter team, who are not only scientists but unstoppable soldiers who can physically overpower any man. Clearly, this isn't "telling the untold stories of WW2," but rewriting history to push an agenda. There's a video here which shows the game scenario and then explains what actually happened during WW2. It's quite long, but you only need to watch the first five minutes and you'll get the point.

The whole game was a work of propaganda, designed not to appeal to gamers, but to force feminist propaganda on players. Then, despite completely rewriting history, they told gamers they were "uneducated" and said, "if you don't like it, don't buy it," which is why so few people bought the game.

But hey, don't let reality get in your way. Just keep claiming it's all the fault of "historically challenged incel gamers." Moron.

Not having played the game, a historical representation of "Operation Gunnerside" would have been a poor match for Battlefield. No shots fired, no Germans killed. Just patience, a bit of stealth and coming in and leaving over the mountains in wintertime. Women being part of it is the least of the problems in a BF V representation... so why so much hate on that point?

Re:Who would have thunk?

[NettiWelho]

People are getting triggered over a single women showing up in the game trailer, when 10 - 15% of French Resistance fighters in WWII were women. Who again are the perpetually offended here?

Maybe you should check your sources, I cannot find any references to cyborgs being french resistance members - Thats not a WW2 era prosthetic on her, she couldn't reload a bolt-action rifle, a machine gun or an artillery piece with that thing - So it has to be cybernetic.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[stealth_finger]

Can you tell me how many black females with amputations and prosthesis were fighting in WWII on the front lines?

Can you tell me how many made it into the final game? Oh yeah, zero. That shit was cut fast but you wouldn't be able to tell from all the people seemingly still frothing at the mouth over it.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[JaredOfEuropa]

To be fair, I found that trailer and poster rather off-putting, not just for having a woman in there but because of the overall feel. BF titles have always been about casual realism, but after seeing the announcements for BF5 I thought they might be going for some cartoonish manga parody of WW2. I can imagine that other people have been put off by the trailers as well.

Bought the game anyway and wasn’t left disappointed by the gameplay itself. The games and maps are nice; as someone who lived for 20 years in that part of Rotterdam I really appreciated the BF map of the area - though today it looks a little different after the bombing. What annoys me is the lootboxy feel of the game, and the assignments - while a nice idea - make the gameplay feel rather grindy. They are best ignored. The menus are insanely convoluted, changing the simplest thing requires navigating a multitude of screens, kind of like the interface was designed for mobile. I can’t comment on the single player aspect of the game, I haven’t touched it (same as any other BF title I owned). But all in all, this is a decent game at its core.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[stealth_finger]

Well, a heck of a lot more than the number of Battlefield games that have been historically accurate previously.

No battlefield game has claimed to realistic, historically or otherwise. Unless you don't see the issues in the V1 being a troop called precision weapon and the allies having one. Or you think an injection, or even a good pat down is cure for multiple gunshot wounds, or literally any soldier can operate any piece of equipment or vehicle and all the other things that make it a game and not a documentary. Can you point me to one claim battlefield has made about being 'realistic'? Literally the only thing different about this one is female player models, which just joins the list of gameplay>realism decisions made while making a game.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Women on the battlefield is a dumb joke. It is leftist politics, hateful toward history, and disrespectful towards the players. A false narrative of grrl power, a mockery.

The crap you are complaining about is a gameplay mechanic.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Pinky's Brain]

I suspect you are right and I suspect many opponents of social justice warring in games actually agree with you ... but you can't expect such good ammunition to be let go to waste. So of course they'll shout it's because of SJW, if the game had been a success it would have been touted as proving the complete irrelevance of toxic male gamers.

Truth is irrelevant to the matter.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

but that was cut hard and fast.

As in that was the in-store cutout they were using at Walmart and EB Games?

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

huehuehue orange man bad

Re:Who would have thunk?

[stealth_finger]

but that was cut hard and fast.

As in that was the in-store cutout they were using at Walmart and EB Games?

Don't know about that but it ain't in the game.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Ashthon]

Not having played the game, a historical representation of "Operation Gunnerside" would have been a poor match for Battlefield. No shots fired, no Germans killed. Just patience, a bit of stealth and coming in and leaving over the mountains in wintertime.

What they should have done is to chose a different incident around which to base the campaign. Instead they chose to rewrite history and make it so a mother and daughter team completed the mission. Rewriting history in this way is not only extremely disrespectful to the Norwegian commands who risked their lives, but also highly sinister. It tends to be the most evil people who rewrite history to push an agenda, and they do it because they believe their cause is right and just. Such people tend to be very dangerous because they believe anything is acceptable if done for the right reasons. This isn't something to be taken lightly and must be called out before they start taking more radical steps. Historical revisionism is already pretty radical and it's important to call it out whenever anyone tries to use it as a tool to push their agenda.

Women being part of it is the least of the problems in a BF V representation... so why so much hate on that point?

There are a great many things wrong here:

1) When you're selling a product you determine who your customer is and tailor the product to meet the needs of that customer. What EA/DICE did was to tailor their product to meed the needs of people who aren't their customers and who aren't going to buy the game. It's like the author of a female romance novel inserting some action scenes to try to appeal more to men. Men still aren't going to buy their romance novel, and all it will achieve is to ruin the book for the women who will buy it.

2) When I play a game I want to have fun, not feel like I'm watching some heavy-handed propaganda. Yet in Battlefield V the propaganda was clearly the focus and the game took a back seat. The heavy-handed propaganda distracts massively from the game and prevents players from enjoying it.

3) Patrick Soderlund called gamers "uneducated" for objecting to their of rewriting of history. Insulting your customers tends to go down poorly, particularly when the customers were actually right.

4) At the launch event they continued to ridicule their customers, showing quotes complaining about how they were rewriting history. It's a provable fact that they rewrote the history of Operation Gunnerside, yet EA/DICE keep pointing the finger customers and telling them they're stupid. This isn't the way to sell a product and is obviously going to generate hostility.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[NettiWelho]

The first trailer yeah, but that was cut hard and fast. Is that not what you wanted?

They didn't bother announcing that then, also, I never went to see what they actually have in the game after reading about the whole "saying 'white man'" being censored in-game. Is saying "white man" still being censored in in-game chat?

I don't want to pay a single cent to people putting that kind of censorship on their platform.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

Don't know about that but it ain't in the game.

And that's still the first impression, what it was marketed as, and so on. And when people said "wtf" they attacked the people that they wanted to buy the product. Hell why do you think Overwatch has had such a massive drop-off in people buying into the whole esports bit?

Re:Who would have thunk?

[NettiWelho]

Can you tell me how many made it into the final game? Oh yeah, zero. That shit was cut fast but you wouldn't be able to tell from all the people seemingly still frothing at the mouth over it.

Why should any of us buy a game made by literal racists to verify their racism? Just look at this image originally published by DICE developer: "WHITE MEN! WHITE MEN! WHITE MEN! (top left corner of screen)" The image is unaltered.

That along with this is a dealbreaker.

The responsibility is on the developer and publisher to communicate clearly. They dropped the ball big time on this.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[stealth_finger]

I never went to see what they actually have in the game after reading about the whole "saying 'white man'" being censored in-game. Is saying "white man" still being censored in in-game chat?

Never heard of that.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[NettiWelho]

I never went to see what they actually have in the game after reading about the whole "saying 'white man'" being censored in-game. Is saying "white man" still being censored in in-game chat?

Never heard of that.

So you're saying you got no clues about what you're talking about?

Never heard of this?

Just look at what the developers published on twitter: look at top left corner: the image is unaltered. WHITE MEN! WHITE MEN! WHITE MEN!

Re:Who would have thunk?

[stealth_finger]

Saying white men is racist now? And oh no, Angry Joe is angry about something? Colour me shocked (or is that racist too?). The game has problem to be sure but racism doesn't strike me as one of them. Why is the chatbox even still a thing? I couldn't tell you if there's still any kind of censorship or whatever it but I honestly couldn't give a shit, those things have been toxic and best ignored since day zero way back when.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[stealth_finger]

I never went to see what they actually have in the game after reading about the whole "saying 'white man'" being censored in-game. Is saying "white man" still being censored in in-game chat?

Never heard of that.

So you're saying you got no clues about what you're talking about? Never heard of this? Just look at what the developers published on twitter: look at top left corner: the image is unaltered. WHITE MEN! WHITE MEN! WHITE MEN!

Not being funny but you're the one who's decided they don't need to know anymore after learning of an issue with the chatbox of all things. I know about what is in the game now (apart from the chat box apparently). I'm not fully up on every single pre release thing that happened.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Rockoon]

If they had that exact same mission but you played as some guy would it have the same problem? Yeah but would people go on about it? I doubt it, i

The reason people go on about it is because a bunch of fucks are lying about the reason the game didn't sell well.

These fucks keep claiming the game isnt selling well because men are pigs, that anyone who didnt buy the game, is a sexist evil fuck.

Keep calling people sexist evil fucks when all they did was not buy a shitty game....and yes, they defend themselves, because thje SJWs wont fucking shut the fuck up.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[NettiWelho]

an issue with the chatbox of all things.

You're being deliberatelly dense, thats not an "issue with chatbox"; it is outright censorship, every word and phrase on the blacklist is entered manually and reveals the bias.

EA is not getting their moneys worth with your shilling.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[NettiWelho]

Saying white men is racist now?

In this context, it absolutely is, they are clearly acting as males, especially white ones, are worth less and the their sacrifices are a joke.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[stealth_finger]

Not being funny but that's the reason most give, they just try to sugarcoat it a bit with 'historical accuracy'. How can you say it didn't sell well because it's a shitty game when people would need to have bought it and played it to know it was shitty? That's a non sequitur. There wasn't a big campaign to cancel pre orders of the back of the beta or anything was there? And that was fairly representative of the final game. It was all from that trailer and then people responding to very poor pr from dice. Not really to do with the game itself. No, It's not the best field but its better than 1.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[stealth_finger]

Plenty of games censor chatboxs. Try swearing and using racist terms in them and see where you get. So your issue is they apparently added white men to the list?

Re:Who would have thunk?

[stealth_finger]

You're clutching at straws there.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Nidi62]

Women served as tankers, artillery crew, fighter pilots, and even frontline infantry for the Red Army in WWII. Quite a few became highly decorated. And of course women also played significant roles as partisans on the Eastern Front and the various resistances in Western Europe.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Luckyo]

No, I'm the idiot who revealed you as the anti-science denier on slashdot, resulting in you being so exceptionally butt hurt, that you've been stalking me on slashdot for months.

And no, I'm still not calling you back for fucking you in that thread. It was a strictly one night stand.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep calling people sexist evil fucks when all they did was not buy a shitty game....and yes, they defend themselves, because thje SJWs wont fucking shut the fuck up.

That's pretty much the crux of it. There's a laundry list of problems with the game that I see in just about every thread I read, but everything else is ignored and the issues are all reduced to, "You just hate women in games, f-ing misogynist". Reading through this thread tells the same story. People list off issues with the game and one side makes it all about hating women, ignoring all other points. Anytime something else is discussed it gets dragged back to, "You just hate women"

EA tried to latch on to that to promote the game through controversy, and it failed.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet doing exactly this managed to sink the game and cause financial harm to EA. So your so called principles may not work IRL.

But maybe they keep you warm hugging your monitor knowing you are still being a sexist dolt.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

Kinda funny that people who haven't studied history are complaining about the historical accuracy of a Battlefield game.

Yeah that is kinda funny. Reminds me of all those progressives complaining about Kingdom Come: Deliverance and screeching about "there really was black people in 13th century Bohemia."

Reminds me of when they complained about black Romans in Doctor Who, only to have it pointed out that A) there were black Romans in that part of the world and B) it's a cheezy sci-fi show where Churchill employs Daleks.

Strange, I thought it was because you've got people inside your universities trying to push pseudoscience as fact, and that was just a long string in absolutely stupid things in order to try and "make things diverse" while pissing all over actual history, with no actual proof to back up their views. Not even pottery shards at that.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is nowhere same as regular army.

My Grandma walked through Second World War with Soviet Army, as medical personnel.
She told me many stories about THE war, yet not one was about female soldier.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Soviets were low on manpower, not because they were happy with that

Re: Who would have thunk?

[RedK]

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.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[argStyopa]

Simply because you don't want it to be because of their social-liberal agenda writ inappropriately into a ww2 shooter,, doesn't mean it isn't. Sarcasm isn't much of an actual argument.

Rather, as the summary implied, it's more likely a combination of factors: goofy social agenda PLUS shitty game PLUS pushing loot boxes to the nth degree.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Voice of satan]

You are on a website open to comments. That is probably a magnifying glass where the nutty people, whatever their "side" is, are overrepresented.

Besides, badass female characters in video games aren't new. We had them before Lara Croft or even Carla from Monkey Island. Polemics surrounding SWJs are. I wonder what will happen when In The Valley Of Gods will be released. Especially with the kind of reputation Sean Vanaman gave to Campo Santo.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

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.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

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.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Calydor]

I don't mind women getting equal pay and equal opportunities.

I have a problem with women getting BETTER opportunities because OTHER women in the past were given a hard time.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[OwP_Fabricated]

Please try to learn to separate the actual game mechanics from the situation it's supposed to present.

The idea is that it is at least supposed to look/feel similar to the actual thing, with the game-parts ironing over the realism bits that wouldn't be that fun (i.e. marching for hours through a field and then getting shot once and dying of sepsis, actual battlefields being miles and miles and miles of nothing, etc). The guns, uniforms, soldiers present, the equipment, the general settings are supposed to be at least mildly authentic.

There were women and people of color who fought in both world wars but for some reason they don't get a map/proper campaign setting of their own where they would have historically been present. Instead we got some lily-white blonde with a hook-hand who fought in a place where no women were recorded to have fought. The representation isn't the problem- the utter lack of effort in it is what makes it kinda pathetic to me.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP is incorrect to assert that the presence of women on the battlefield is a joke, but we should also not misrepresent it as anything other than rare, which the media tends to do. The French resistance, for example, saw abnormally high participation by women ... at about 15%, compared to media representations of this fraction as about 50%.

A helpful analogy: slaves in the US were mostly black, and their masters mostly white - but there were some white slaves, and some black masters. If a work of historical entertainment were to exaggerate the fraction of white slaves, or of black masters, this might be ... politically fraught, let us say.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[angel'o'sphere]

So you want to tell us, there is an american conspiracy amoung the computer games industry "pushing feminist propaganda"?

Oki, I got it.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[angel'o'sphere]

Which part of: it is a game.
Did you not get?

Which part of: that heavy water making facility did no even exist in the first place, do you not get?

In Germany at that time an atomic bomb was just a mind game, there is no single facillity, there never was any researcher/engineer actually ever working on it.

And you are pissed about a GAME where a female heroine plays a role?

WTF, I hope you never play WoW or EvE.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

FYI Egalitarianism is a MRA(mens rights activist) construct according to feminists in Canada and the US. You just sit back and enjoy the crazy, cause at this point it's gonna come to either doom or doom.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you know Battlefield has been on the downward slope for years and is now fighting against f2p games like Fortnite.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[OwP_Fabricated]

I don't get why doing what you said seems to be so difficult for people who want diversity to be shown in-game.

The Night Witches are cool and badass as fuck. They flew wooden fucking bi-planes in WWII for god's sake.

It's a fucking layup. Just make the goddamn map/campaign and you've got tons of opportunities to put women and POC in and maybe teach some idiots some real history.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[RedK]

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.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[SharpFang]

You mean there was a heck'a lot of black females with amputations and prosthesis fighting in WWII on the front lines?

Any historical reference?

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Pyramid]

Yeah, it's only the "right wing" that oversimplifies things.

Careful, your bias might be showing.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[SharpFang]

Plenty of games censor **offensive words** in the chatboxes.

So now the phrase 'white man' is offensive?

Re:Who would have thunk?

[N1AK]

Of course it doesn't annoy them; the issue isn't realism, it's that a game manufacturer dared to do something inclusive for other demographics and this is highly upsetting for a fortunately small subset of gamers.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[asylumx]

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.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[asylumx]

It's a provable fact that they rewrote the history of Operation Gunnerside

You mean it wasn't really a battle to see how long each side could keep their flag on the pole?

Re:Who would have thunk?

[mjwx]

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".

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, horseshit.

The number of BF gamers who actually care about whether it is a realistic WWII environment is small.
The number willing to pile on and complain about SJW stuff is large.
The number willing to pile on and complain just for the luls is large.

Why isn't BF5 selling well? EA has sucked for a long time. The game is fairly generic. There are LOTS of games to choose from and dropping $60+ on everything isn't possible for a lot of people.

I bought it. Maybe played 4 hours so far because it isn't that great.
Wasn't at all traumatized by characters that are female...because I'm not a child.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[mjwx]

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.

Nope.

The Battlefield series haven't been very good games for a while now. BF2 was the last decent one and since then we've had at least 4 progressively worse games. If gameplay had of been good, it wouldn't have mattered (Cluebyfour: No-one buys a multiplayer game like BF for the story... the original one didn't even have a single player campaign), EA has been killing the BF series for years, its just now finally reflected in the sales figures.

But that wont stop the likes of you that bleat about WSJ's or whatever insult, not insult you've invented today.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Ol Olsoc]

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

This! There is a saying - Get Woke, Go Broke. It's real, at least for the 21st century version of woke, which for all of it's presumed "inclusiveness" is really just racism and sexism directed at a different target.

And unfortunately the target the social justice people are demanding these companies to go after is the very market that buys and plays games. When surrendering to their demand for whatever they are offended by today, you only get the privilege of getting targeted by what offends them tomorrow.

And the social justice crowd that you suddenly have to have approve your every move is only going to control your every move - they certainly aren't going to buy and play the games that you have designed.

And the great irony is the new rulers over EA would be all too happy if EA went out of business. Because the perpetually offended crowd's real target is your present customers.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[mjwx]

Can you tell me how many black females with amputations and prosthesis were fighting in WWII on the front lines? Cause that's the message EA was trying to push with BFV.

Can you show me how many soldiers in WWII respawned? because that's the message EA was trying to push with BF V...

Battlefield was never about reality, reality makes for really crap gameplay (most historical battles are so lopsided that any recreation will always end in the same result, forcing one team to always lose does not make for a fun game).

The problem with BF 5 is that it's a shit game, gameplay wise. the Battlefield series has been since BF 3 (the BF game that made me abandon the series). The problem all the whiners shouting "SJW" have is an inferiority complex, the notion that somewhere someone you consider inferior is being treated as your equal. That is completely different and almost totally unrelated to the problem EA is encountering with BF 5. Battlefield is about multiplayer gameplay, had they got that right no-one would care. No-one buys a Battlefield game for it's story, the original Battlefield 1942 didn't even have a single player campaign (I believe that was added in BF 3). Ultimately the game is floundering because the gameplay is crap and everyone is finally realising it.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Ol Olsoc]

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!

Well you are right - it isn't a very good game. That has everything to do with it. You can't have people who aren't going to buy and play the game having control over the gameplay.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

This is a game where you don't have any kind of health meter or injury system. Stuff materialises out of thin air for you. The whole thing is highly unrealistic and when given the choice will always sacrifice realism for gameplay.

In fact the major legitimate criticism of it is that it's too "Hollywood" and lacks realism.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I can rock an MG42 with infinite ammo as a black female allied soldier, and the part that offends people is I picked a female. Just a game, you big babies.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

No one called you a "alt-right russian bot nazi".

They probably should have added 'incel' in there, because that's just the go-to responses from progressives that aren't gamers. It's also a favorite of sites like Polygon and Kotaku to label anyone who's outside of their clique, and sites like Mic, Vox, and The Root. Along with the various game journo's and progressive writers that belong to the same circle of drain circling "journalism" and I use that in the loosest possible sense.

I called you a snowflake because you get upset over trivial stuff and imagined victimhood.

Well if someone is pissing around in their hobby, aren't involved, and are ruining it. That's not imagined victimhood.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're demonstrably wrong, but that never stopped you before.

https://boundingintocomics.com/2018/06/14/after-tons-of-negative-feedback-battlefield-5-creator-insults-consumers-and-tells-them-not-to-buy-game/

Re: Who would have thunk?

[RedK]

I was talking any the multiplayer. Where the tanks materialize out of thin air.

Game mechanic. It's a video game, some elements are purely there for the sake of the gaming actually being playable.

Women with Cybernetics attachments that couldn't possibly have existed in the WWII era are not gameplay mechanics. They're design elements.

You want Women with Cyborg arms fighting in wars ? Make Women with Cyborg Arms Warfare V. Don't pollute Battlefield, a WWII era franchise with that crap.

How is this so complicated ?

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

Oh boo fucking hoo.

We're looking for intelligence, and it's all downhill.

Gamers rise up amirite? Because cishet white males are the most oppressed demographic in the world right?

It's like, progressive buzzword salad! Not only did you assume my race, but my gender too! How unprogressive, sexist and racist!

You pathetic incels do love to cry victim at every turn, you're clearly the perpetually offended ones, you create a narrative of victimhood to protect your hegemonic masculinity because otherwise *gasp* you might have to actually share your toys with women and minorities, oh the horror!

Oh boy, you hit nearly every buzzword. So, when are the female front line forestry workers starting, cause I'll tell ya it's a shit job for low pay, in super hazardous conditions. Not as bad as ~20 years ago, but being crushed to death, losing limbs, and head injuries(among the top) are pretty hot on the "you're gonna get fucked up" right behind working as a fisherman on a Great Lakes fishery vessel. You're gonna love it(please note that fucked up fish with eaten holes from sea lampray's is common at times - try not to vomit on the fish).

You know what? Fuck you, just, fuck you. I can't wait for you reactionary pissboys to get put in your place.

Are you upset that egalitarianism is being applied? Isn't that what you wanted? Or is it that you wanted all of the benefits and none of the consequences. I'm sure you're just a-linin' up to protest the court over a 30 year old teacher raping a dozen 10 year old boys. Is that a no?

Re: Who would have thunk?

[RedK]

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.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[RedK]

Game mechanics vs design.

Spawning tanks materializing out of thin air = Game mechanic.
Women with Cyborg arms that single handedly took down a Nazi heavy water plant = Design element that contradicts the historical setting.

One is required for gameplay, the other is pandering. Not a hard concept, except for ideologues trying to pretend this shit is normal and acceptable. It has nothing to do with "wahmen in games". Some of the best games feature women protagonists. It has to do with shipping a WWII era historical shooter literred with non-game mechanics anachronisms.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Z80a]

The problem is not catering for em, its hiring em.
Because as soon they're in, they will get offended by everyone with talent in the studio and try their best to get em fired and replaced by more people of the same religion.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[stealth_finger]

Yes, and its a shame they aren't included in the game. Instead we get a one armed woman in some kind of commando group featuring someone with a cricket bat and another with a katana.

Those weren't in the game in the game either. They were in one trailer that was quickly rolled back on after backlash. They don't even have lootboxes in this one.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[stealth_finger]

me watching a stream of bfV

There's your problem

Re: Who would have thunk?

[sound vision]

EA has a "loyal gamer fanbase"? You will have to explain that. Battlefield hasn't even had a loyal fan base in over a decade. EA has been universally hated from the beginning.

I quit even paying attention to big games around the time they all started to get watered down for dumbasses, planted with financial booby traps, and pay-to-win... And just generally stale.

But, I am guessing most of the people who would care about there being a girl in the trailer, are probably too young to even remember that there was a time when games *werent* so shitty.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[stealth_finger]

Care to present yours?

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

youâ(TM)re obviously not a flight sim fan. Bombing missions can be pretty exciting. try to climb high enough, find the right way over the front, hope those far off fighters donâ(TM)t turn towards you, bite your nails while the flack goes off around you as you ingress to the target, work the bomb sight, fly the pipper onto the target, pickle your eggs, turn hard back to the front and look behind you to see shit blow the fuck up, then try to make it home witb whatever damage/leaks you accrued on the way over. Other than the long climbout i find bombing one of the great things you can do in a game.
Of course night witches werefying biplanes low in the middle of the night so that has its own excitement. il2 in fact just released the plane so it is a thing in gaming. really the night witches are some of the better known subjects, kind of like swordfish torpedo bombers of p61 night fighters.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Nidi62]

Which is nowhere same as regular army.

My Grandma walked through Second World War with Soviet Army, as medical personnel. She told me many stories about THE war, yet not one was about female soldier.

I've read monographs and firsthand accounts from Wehrmacht soldiers(if you are interested in the subject Eastern Inferno by Hans Roth is incredible about the Eastern Front that specifically mention female combatants multiple times. One particular one that stood out is about a tank with a husband/wife crew where the wife, after the husband was killed, continued to fight on with her tank. Another was Red Army medics defending a bunker with hand grenades and female soldiers found dead next to anti-air emplacements. Then there are the mobilized workers at places like Stalingrad, a female foreman leading her workers into battle was explicitly mentioned. Sounds like your Grandmother was a nurse and most likely served behind the front lines and later in the war when Germany was on the retreat. I am sure she went through a lot and had some incredible stories, but women fighting on the frontlines is an established fact.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

The Romans liked to use troops from the other end of the empire. People tend to object to murdering their own people.

The presence of black soldiers in Scotland is well documented, both in Roman annals and by the embedded historians they took along.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Nidi62]

Yes, and its a shame they aren't included in the game. Instead we get a one armed woman in some kind of commando group featuring someone with a cricket bat and another with a katana.

Those weren't in the game in the game either. They were in one trailer that was quickly rolled back on after backlash. They don't even have lootboxes in this one.

Sad thing is, if games like that were historically accurate a lot less people would play them and quite a few wouldn't even get through ratings boards. I remember playing CoD:WaW and playing as the Red Army fighting their way through Berlin. If it had been historically accurate you would have been shooting 14 year old boys and 60 year old men using substandard weapons and at best a week of training. No way that would get a rating. BF1 just annoyed me because there were way too many people using shotguns and automatic weapons when probably 90% of infantry used bolt-action rifles in WWI.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Nidi62]

The GP is incorrect to assert that the presence of women on the battlefield is a joke, but we should also not misrepresent it as anything other than rare, which the media tends to do. The French resistance, for example, saw abnormally high participation by women ... at about 15%, compared to media representations of this fraction as about 50%.

Overall it was definitely rare, and people are correct to point out that even with the Red Army is was more a simple question of numbers: they needed everyone they could get. But history has shown that women, when properly trained and/or motivated (Red Army and VC female cadres would probably fall more into the latter) just have just as much combat effectiveness as men, especially when used on the defensive.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Type44Q]

Who are the perpetually offended ones here?

Look in the mirror, shitstain; it's your sort of ilk they're talking about.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Nidi62]

Also tanks in these games form out of thin air. Does that upset you?

Just pretend they are this

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

There were no bionic wymen in any war, EVER.

Yes, it's a video game, so things like respawning are a given. No one would pay triple A title prices for a game you can only die once in.

If you want to make a profeminist video game, then make one from scratch, don't butt into another franchise and take it over. Unless your real goal is to fail horribly so you can scream misogyny at everyone. If so, bravo, mission accomplished.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Ksevio]

I'm willing to bet that 90% of the players don't care in the slightest about the "realism" of who was at what battle, they're just interested in playing the game. So what if EA wants to throw in a couple interesting character skins? There being a woman present on the battlefield is not going to be the thing in these games that ruins the realism - if it is, maybe you should stick to watching documentaries

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Evtim]

Yes indeed.
All of sudden the population of the West turned overnight into incel-nazi-russian-bot (90%) and 10% progressive snowflakes. Cause you see Oceans 8 tanked. As well as Ghostbusters 2016, the new doctor Who....and of course they managed the unimaginable, screwing Star Wars which is the just about the easiest franchise to manage with millenia old archetypal story and very easy to please fans. And they fucked that up...and promptly blamed the alt-right (all the 41 of them) and the Russian bots.
Just watch how they all go down in flames..
I've not being in a cinema since that vomit the Force Awakens and the most modern game on my PC is Oblivion.
That ain't gonna change anytime soon...

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

Says the guy who is clearly very angry.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Sir Holo]

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/...

Some men remove the hair from their faces on a daily basis. The horror!

Re:Who would have thunk?

[NettiWelho]

Care to present yours?

https://i.imgur.com/Yu2ms5k.jp...

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Sir Holo]

Universities? WTF?!?

This thread is about video games.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

^ has never been laid

Re:Who would have thunk?

[PopeRatzo]

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

I think you missed the point. It was the "loyal gamer fanbase" that was perpetually offended in this case. They got upset when they found out that some of their toy soldiers didn't have penises.

EA Games probably deserves to have these problems. Despite the hysterical tone of the gamergaters, I doubt it has anything to do with the fact that the game portrayed women in combat in WWII.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Who would have thunk?

[bigman2003]

This thread is really about society in 2014-2018, when being 'inclusive' or 'diverse' was more important than being 'good'.

Personally, I did not buy Battlefield V exactly because of this reason. I really don't need another bit of media trying to push their agenda down my throat. As people say, "If you don't like it, don't buy it." Or if you do buy it, and 10 years from now all games are like this, we'd be thinking, "Wow, we shouldn't have supported that."

Have 20 black characters. Put in 15 women. Have no white guys. You know what? I probably wouldn't even notice, and I probably wouldn't even care. As a white guy, I don't have a requirement that the characters look like me.

But you come out and say, "If you don't like this, then you are probably a racist/sexist jerk."

Ummm...no. That's not cool. What I am is a gamer, looking for fun games. I don't need politics, especially identity politics shoved in my face once again, as I am just trying to relax and escape that crap for a while.

Diversity or inclusiveness is great. Do it. But if that is a selling point? Then I'm guessing you don't have much else to sell.

If it is important to do you...do it. But again, don't shove it in my face.

** Source- gamer who plays almost exclusively as female characters (when available) because of my own deep seeded issues that make me want to dress like a woman or do freaky stuff with men. But, when someone tells me I should feel bad about not wanting forced diversity...then they can suck it. I have no interest in people telling me to feel bad because of who I am.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[ceoyoyo]

I have to shave, shower, use actual soap, brush my teeth and otherwise groom myself. Damn you patriarchy!

Re:Who would have thunk?

[SCVonSteroids]

If a headshot doesn't kill, it's a shitty FPS game.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[HornWumpus]

The same people that insist on female avatars get all butthurt when they see some of the female avatars that I play.

Why? Because the ones I play are stark raving naked and stacked. I'll grant the boobie bounce model needs work.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[CronoCloud]

Putting female avatars to play in a game is an "agenda"?

It's an unrealistic game! It's never been historically accurate. Does having women in the game bother you that much? If you don't want to play a woman, don't. But wouldn't it be nice to have female avatars for those who DO?

Re:Who would have thunk?

[urbanriot]

I feel the biggest mistakes the media companies make is they don't realize that the small groups they're catering to are the most toxic people around, a group who condescend on their arrogant high horse towards (former) fans that outnumber them yet they reduce that larger group to a small handful because they perceive this noisy bunch as the actual fan base.

"I'm sorry but this doesn't seem realistic..."
- "STFU you're playing a video game you racist homophobe, of course it's not realistic. Clearly this game isn't for you!"
"... yea, I guess you're right". I've literally seen this play out on various forums.

Moving forward this toxicity is attributed to the brand and people will reject it for something else. Half the 'hate' directed at Ghostbusters had to do with the production team, the actors, and the minority of SJWs who directed vitriol at the actual fans of Ghostbusters. I loved the original Ghostbusters back in the 80's when I saw them both in theatres (even that second stinker), but the latest one I wouldn't even bother with on Netflix because of all that negativity. For better or for worse, the brand is soiled.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[HornWumpus]

BF1 was a non standard 3d shooter. One bullet killed you. It was as much a 3d sneaker as a 3d shooter.

After EA bought it, it got worse with every version.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[CronoCloud]

If gender diversity was even remotely an issue then no one would've bought AC:O either, yet they did, in droves.

You're forgetting one thing. AC O is basically an open world RPG. That market has been used to having gender options in games for LONG time.

BF5 is the " yearly-released brown manly shooter of the dudebro gamers" I'd wager that BF buyers skew younger and more how we might say "edgelordish" They might not be as used to the option.

To an RPG guy being able to play as Kassandra or the female Lone Wanderer is no big deal. To some goateed youtuber edgelord who only plays Madden and the yearl Brown-shooter-Duty-Calls-of-the Honor-of-the-Battfield-of-War Shooty Sergeant XTREEM"...well seeing female options where there weren't any might trigger is overgrown-testosteroney-adolescent-snowflakeness.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[CronoCloud]

Can you tell me how many black females with amputations and prosthesis were fighting in WWII on the front lines? Cause that's the message EA was trying to push with BFV.

Can you tell me how many soldiers respawned when killed? Because that's the message EA HAS been pushing with Battlefied since the beginning.

Did you ever think that the message they're sending is a simple "oh hey, if you want to play a woman, you can, it's a game and not 100 percent realistic and that's okay."

No big anti-male conspiracy theories needed.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[HornWumpus]

The 'Walker Brigade' right out of Monty Python. Armed with the killing joke.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Solandri]

From Ford, GM, Chrysler, and AMC pulling a "fuck you plebs, you'll buy what we make" in the 1970's

The Arab Oil Embargo happened rather suddenly. Ford, GM, Chrysler, AMC were making big cars because that's what people wanted. The Japanese were making small cars because that market niche was mostly ignored by the other automakers, making it easier for them to be competitive there. When the oil embargo doubled gas prices, suddenly those small fuel-efficient cars became a much bigger share of the market, and Ford, GM, Chrysler, AMC were caught flat-footed by the market shift.

But it should also be noted that the vast majority of buyers wanted, and still want bigger cars. Truck sales are approaching 2x car sales. And the shift away from cars and towards trucks began in the 1970s when the CAFE fuel efficiency standards were introduced, forcing automakers to make smaller more fuel-efficient cars.

It's a myth that automakers had to be forced by regulators to produce the type of cars that people wanted. If anything, regulations are preventing them from producing the vehicles people want, with the looser light truck CAFE standards being a loophole that people are using to buy a bigger less fuel-efficient vehicle. Regulating the supply side like CAFE does isn't very effective because people just find a different way to get what they want. If you want to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, you have to manipulate the demand side - crank up fuel taxes so they want to get a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[BaronAaron]

You're just mad because you can't play the game as a straw man.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[dstyle5]

It seems to me you have not played this game. The "Cyborg" arm woman is only in the story mode (I'm guessing as I haven't played any of the single player story mode).

There is definitely none of that in multiplayer which I have played a lot of, which to me and most others is the primary reason for playing a BF game. Also, the arm is clearly a very rudimentary implementation, so I don't think it qualifies as making her a Cyborg. lol

Re: Who would have thunk?

[datavirtue]

Fun 2 play?

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Luckyo]

To a fanatic, a centrist does indeed sound like the anathema of their religion.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[serviscope_minor]

No, I'm saying that he's so deranged and used to rejecting observable reality,

You're delided. He claimed 10-15% of french resistance fighters were women. That is literally true (other estimates are 15-20% which overlaps with his range). It is observed reality which you are denying.

that he literally gave an example that was a lie

You're a fucking moron. A fact you dislike is not a lie.

Which is a major problem with people who hold deeply religious convictions.

Right quoting verifiable facts about French resistance fighters is "religion" because some nutjob is offended by the feeemales. You're off your rocker.

They are so utterly deranged,

Because they quote verifiable facts. Only the deranged do so. Sane people like you just make shit up.

As a result, they'll quote a complete and utter lie as if it supports their views

It's a perverted worldview indeed where you claim a verifiable fact is a lie because you just don't like it.

Here's the wikipedia page: educate yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Who would have thunk?

[serviscope_minor]

You are a liar defending another liar.

Up so you're complaining because there were more women in the French resistance than the GP claimed (15-20% according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ).

Honestly shrill screechings about "LIES" are a bit over the top when there's a 5% difference in the claims and the ranges overlap.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Luckyo]

From derangement to straight up insanity in one post. Well done.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Hylandr]

I expect reality is they couldn't afford to buy competing products and close them down this time around.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[NettiWelho]

that looks like a compilation of criticisms they've received, I'm not sure what point your're trying to make with this

Literally demonizing concerned fans.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[HornWumpus]

Movies show comic book history.

They also don't show the Ruskys and the Germans as _allies_ invading and splitting four nations at the start of the war.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[EvilSS]

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

There were female soldiers on both the Russian side and the in french resistance. As for the "cybernetic prosthetic" it's a real prosthetic from the time period. No "cybernetics" involved.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[TechyImmigrant]

$60 is $10 past the "Seriously? It has to be excellent in every way before I buy it for $50" threshold.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

I'm sure those directors are pretty upset about the bookings billions of dollars their movies took in. The failure of Solo was surely because fans had no money left, not because it was shit.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Ksevio]

The issue is we'd probably see the same complaints if they put the female character in BF2142. People just like to be outraged

Re: Who would have thunk?

[HornWumpus]

I appreciate what your trying to do. But you neglected the number or rotors, blades per rotor and number of turbines axis. Please educate yourself.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[lgw]

That's a good point, though I think both affected sales. Had BF5 been a better "realistic WW2 game" it would have given it at least something less bland. However, injecting SJW nonsense was pretty far down it's list of anti-consumer behaviors.

Had the gameplay been new or interesting, they might have gotten away with the rest. It really didn't help that a variety of anti-consume injections were also immersion breaking. Wasn't this the game where loot boxes would parachute down to you mid-fight? Geez. Way worse than cyber-arm, though cyber-arm wasn't helping.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

but balancing weapons by making them entirely unrealistic is making a playable game

Of course it's not, that would be an idiotic idea.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[serviscope_minor]

Astonishing! When presented with actual facts you dismiss them as insanity! Out of interest do you identify as Republican? Asking for a friend.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[jeff4747]

One is required for gameplay

Yes, there were no aircraft capable of dropping an armored vehicle in WWII. Also, there was no way to have an NPC drive a tank to you or pick up the tank at a depot. The only possible mechanism is to make it appear out of thin air. :eyeroll:

(Btw, her prosthetic is modeled on an actual prosthetic from the era. So you should probably stop bitching about "cyborg" in your authenticity bullshit)

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. My favorite character to play is a black woman with a hitlerstache. Best played on the side with the hindu good luck symbol!

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Ol Olsoc]

There are many reasons to shave legs and armpit hair, for both males and females, the most obvious being health an smell. Long body hair is a haven for many illness inducing microbes, especially in warm climates.

Also, some women and men are mostly hairless.

Sure. The whole body hair issue is just a strange one. Some of the same ladies that won't shave their pits because patriarchy will shave half the hair on their head off because patriarchy. It is.......complex, I guess.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Can'tNot]

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

Obviously: because it's cool.

This isn't about promoting diversity, not really, this is about marketing: an attempt to sell more games by appealing to a broader audience. If you know anything about the games industry, you know that EA is all about money. That is their sole motivator. They sometimes claim to have other motivations, you would be a foolish person to believe them.

So, with that in mind, you could have complained about a transparent marketing tactic for being a transparent marketing tactic, in which case you would have been the person being offended by a marketing tactic, but instead you took this opportunity to complain about diversity, in which case you're still the person being offended by a marketing tactic. Only this way you get to additionally be offended by the fact that there are people in this world who don't see it as you see it, and you would never want to miss an opportunity to complain about them.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

I want you to scroll up for a second and remind yourself what article you're commenting on because apparently you forgot.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

Considering the original "nazi" you SJWs rioted over, literally waging a multi-month armed street war with law enforcement, was an ORTHODOX JEW...

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

SJWs always lie, SJWs always project, SJWs always double down. Right on schedule.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm sure those directors are pretty upset about the bookings billions of dollars their movies took in. The failure of Solo was surely because fans had no money left, not because it was shit.

You might want to do some research. Aside from painting critics of The last Jedi as racist, sexist, and toxic nerds, the Rsponse of Kathleen Kennedy the honcho of today's Star wars movie is "I have a responsibility to the company that I work with. I don’t feel that I have a responsibility to cater in some way. I would never just seize on saying, 'Well, this is a franchise that’s appealed primarily to men for many, many years, and therefore I owe men something.'"

So here is the questyion to you framed in a differnt way. Let's say you are the CEO of the Hallmark channel. An overwhelming majority of the patrons on the Hallmark channel are women. The movies are the standard woman meets man/conflict/girl loses man/resolution romance model. They are making a lot of money with this.

So now someone new comes in and tells you that you have to start making movies to cater to a standard male preference. That you need to change your movies to have chase scenes, some violence, and sexy women in bikinis. And add some war into the mix. Then they tell you "I have a responsibility to the company that I work with. I don’t feel that I have a responsibility to cater in some way. I would never just seize on saying, 'Well, this is a franchise that’s appealed primarily to Women for many, many years, and therefore I owe Women something.'"

Do you - Animojo - who is heading the Hallmark Channel, change your movies to men's preferences and incorporate war and violence and hotties in bikinis in movies because it it right and just to not cater to women? Are you prepared to lose money via an attempt to abandon one audience to curry favor to another?

Then if women complain that the romance movies they enjoyed so much are now awful, do you ridicule them and call them names?

Yes - Star Wars had a lot of male fans. It had a lot of female fans too, but yes the majority are male. Just as the majority of the Hallmark Channel fans are women. And both support the things they like with their wallets.

And while there have been many excuses as to why Solo failed - your idea that the fans were indigent is pretty funny. Another is that everyone was suffering from fatigue, that Solo was released too soon. Marvel movies might have something to say about that. The rumblings started a few years back.

After The Force Awakens, a number of the fans were grumbling a bit. With The Last Jedi, the complaints grew louder. But instead of taking a complaint as a gift, Disney's folks ridiculed the fans, calling them racist, sexist, and being unable to handle "strong women". Which is pretty strange, every SW fan I know is seriously enthusiastic about Sigourney Weaver in the Alien trilogy, and Linda Hamilton's Sarah O'Conner part in Terminator, in which she grows from a Timid housefife into a reall badass take no prisoners person. Those are just a sample.

But the Force Awakens and Last Jedi toys languished on toy store shelves. The archetype Star Wars fan is going to go to the movies several times, and buy a lot of the promotional merchandise.

And after the treatment they got, the word went out to show Disney that if you want to make movies, you cater to the people who go to them. So for lack of a better term, they boycotted them.

You see, the people demanding the "inclusivity" and what passes for a "strong woman" these days don't usually go to Sci-fi movies. And they definitely do not spend money on promotional merchandise. Most people who go to sci-fi movies don't want to be preached at, and they consider a strong woman character to be someone like Weaver and Hamilton, not just women with bad attitudes. No one told us that Ripley and O'Conner were strong women - it was obvious.

But you are right about one th

Re:Who would have thunk?

[microbox]

I think it's more than just having female avatars. Anyways, the misandrist cult is on a march through the institutions, and video games are targeted because they just *know* that that's were men get all their badness from. I've a phd related to this drivel. It's anti-intellectual. People are right to belittle SJWville.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sit my legs crossed at the thigh level all the time, you insensitive clod!

Re: Who would have thunk?

[OlegLemeshenko]

I want realistic BF5. if it is not, I do not buy. period.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[c6gunner]

I, for one, would love to play as "Kailyn" Jenner. Storming the trenches in high heels and a ballgown. For added wokeness they could add a level where "Chelsea" Manning heroically leaks Allied invasion plans while trying to expose the bombing of civilians in Berlin. Would be a best seller for sure.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[OlegLemeshenko]

there is a problem. They focused on gender diversity instead of doing good game.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[stealth_finger]

Yeah that's at least the third time you've posted that image. So how exactly is that saying that white men and their sacrifices are a joke? 3/4 of the current single player is white people, if they add more safe money says they focus on white people too. Multiplayer makes no bias on colour apart from letting the player choose from one of a few models, which are mostly white and male I might add.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

What on earth are you talking about? What multi-month warmed street war was this, and how was I involved?

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

Give us one example of Polygon labelling someone an incel or nazi who wasn't.

Why not go take a look skim through the writers of Polygon or even Kotaku and let me know. Especially when they're not only using their social media as a promotional tool, but openly using it as a voice of the publication that they work fore.

It's also quite worrying that you think Battlefield 5, the 5th installment of a long running and rather tired franchise, being crap is somehow "ruining" your hobby.

I'm more worried that you can even read things in context.

Aside from anything else, most of the reason why it's crap is because it's the same as the last one just with more microtransactions, and these days people expect more. I.e. standards have improved.

Aside that you missed my point, so I shouldn't be surprised? Do you need me to explain this more so you can understand what I said, or do we need to simply jump back a couple of years while the various game journos were screeching progressive slogans, complaining about 'white male gamers' and the great bogeyman of gamergate? And then swaths of the detractors found to to be actual rapists, terrorists, and assaulting women.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

"who" says they aren't gamers? Are you sure?

Well, why don't we just go through the social media of some of the most vocal critics and see. I'm sure you'll just be astounded at the number of anti-gaming, hate gamer posts you'll see.

"who's" hobby? Video gaming belongs to a certain demographic? Who says? Are you sure about that? Because it doesn't belong to your demographic, it belongs to everyone.

That's the part where you missed the market, why don't you explain why progressives and socjus nuts were attacking rimworld.

For the usual gamergater/neckbeard/incel/MRA/libertarian/alt-right men complaining about the choice of female avatars...is just plain dumb. Some guy above was complaining about "cyborg women" when in BF games there have been men with cybernetics BEFORE there were any female avatars.

Boy oh boy, are you gonna be in for a shock at your first lan convention, and then shit your drawers at winner-takes-all fighting tourney. But don't let all those anti-gamergate detractors that have been found to be rapists, terrorists, and abusing women cloud your judgement.

And yes, you are imagining your victimhood.

So, progressives and socjus nuts didn't dox a community manager from CD Projekt or GoG in the last 6mo? And they didn't throw a hissyfit over Doom Eternal over the "mortally challenged" joke? And they absolutely didn't attack not only the developer of Rimworld, but the community itself as racist, sexist, and transphobic?

Gee it's like you've got no clue on the subject.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

Why not go take a look skim through the writers of Polygon or even Kotaku and let me know.

Because you are the one making this outlandish claim and I'm not going to waste my time on it if you can't even provide a single example.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

Putting female avatars to play in a game is an "agenda"?

No, swapping out groups of people, stating that "it's for diversity" then telling the audience that if they don't like it, is an "agenda."

It's an unrealistic game! It's never been historically accurate. Does having women in the game bother you that much? If you don't want to play a woman, don't. But wouldn't it be nice to have female avatars for those who DO?

Maybe you missed the part where they decided to take cyberpunk-esque people and slapped them into a game that it doesn't fit in, then attacking the audience? I'll give you a hint though, do you really think that female avatars are an issue when they're the most common type in MMO's. Or do you think that there's something else at play?

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

Mashiki is an alt-right/MRA/anti-SJW/anti-collectivist type who goes on and on about liberal conspiracies at univiersities and constantly quotes Canadian right wing professors also complaining about same.

Oh boy, it's like you're really upset when reality intrudes on your view of the world. Why don't you actually come to Ontario, and we'll see how well your fiction holds up. Avoid Thornhill.

He sees himself and others like him to be under "attack" by collectivists/SJW's and other boogeymen.

Strange because collectivists ran the government in Ontario for 15 years, and there's one running the government of Canada right now too. Give you bonus points if you can name the person from both places who implemented the same views and policies.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

Universities? WTF?!?

Apparently you didn't read the comment I replied to. If you did, then you'd understand. Would you like to try again? Or have you missed that the media and news in the UK would be happier to race wash particular groups of people out and replace them with token PoC's and there is absolutely no shortage of nuts in their university system that are doing the same. Because the government has been pushing "diversity" quotas and demands for the better part of 20 years.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

Can you tell me how many soldiers respawned when killed? Because that's the message EA HAS been pushing with Battlefied since the beginning.

Did you ever think that the message they're sending is a simple "oh hey, if you want to play a woman, you can, it's a game and not 100 percent realistic and that's okay."

No big anti-male conspiracy theories needed.

Can you tell the difference between marketing, the presentation of marketing, and the mechanics of a game as it's being sold? Or can't you? Going by your post and the previous ones the answer is no.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Mashiki]

Can you show me how many soldiers in WWII respawned? because that's the message EA was trying to push with BF V...

Then you obviously missed the difference between what was being marketed and being sold.

Battlefield was never about reality, reality makes for really crap gameplay (most historical battles are so lopsided that any recreation will always end in the same result, forcing one team to always lose does not make for a fun game).

Boy that sure explains why games like Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 for example had absolute no gamer involvement, and people absolutely didn't want to play lopsided encounters and try to beat them.

the original Battlefield 1942 didn't even have a single player campaign

You should stop while you've got the chance, it had a single player campaign. The biggest complaint was that the AI was terrible, while lauded by gamers for excellent map designs. So much so that people started ripping them and using them on their own servers.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[n0nsensical]

I can tell you've never been a Madden fan, or not for long, anyway. Every year since about 2002, which I'll note was long before your social justice revolution in a game that was never about politics until a half-black guy got all uppity, all EA has done is phone it in, update the rosters, introduce bugs, put it out for sale in August and the gaming public eats it up. I don't remember any bugs in Madden 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, or 2000. You couldn't play 20 minutes without finding one in Madden 2018. Those, I think, are the proverbial pigeons that have come to roost, that's become EA's M.O. in every genre once they found how well it worked in sports.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[aliquis]

We're constantly right.
It's simple.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Luckyo]

"Those who call me out on it when I spout utter insanity are those I have been taught to fanatically hate on political spectrum".

I'd note that not only do I not identify as a republican, but I have voted social democrat my entire life. But that's not going to do anything to a fanatic stuck in religious fervour.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[serviscope_minor]

What nonsense are you taking about? Either home reading a different thread or you're off your meds.

The OP was mildly incorrect about the proportion of female fighters in the French resistance and you seem to be joining in with the guy shitting himself about SJW and such.

At least you're admitting to fanatical hatred, though the scare quotes seem unnecessary.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[KixWooder]

You want a realistic war game? Okay, you get shit and the game is over. No respawning.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[ravenshrike]

It's almost like a bunch of lootboxable cosmetic content was stripped out at the last minute or something

Re: Who would have thunk?

[ravenshrike]

Yup, it was because it was a woman. Not because she was a cripple running and gunning with a tommy gun and a sniper rifle with no loss to effectiveness or the douchenozzle carrying around a katana in the European theater or the myriad of woad facepaint that were all VERY clear indicators of where they were planning on going with their microtransaction bullshit. It was the woman.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[danbert8]

My complaint about BF2142 is that hover tanks exploded in water...

Re:Who would have thunk?

[danbert8]

What is it about armpit hair? Where I lost it was in The Greatest Showman the bearded lady had shaved armpits. Really? You shave your armpits to fit in with social norms (well modern ones, not necessarily historically) but you don't shave your face? Who thought up that one?

Re:Who would have thunk?

[thegarbz]

It's an unrealistic game!

But is it supposed to be? For an unrealistic game they certainly put a lot of effort into realism.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[tnok85]

I don't really care about any agenda, I don't play Battlefield for realism (there are plenty of games for that - ArmA, Insurgency, Squad, Project Reality, Post Scriptum in particular for realistic WW2 combat).

The game is just... not great. It's just not very fun. The maps don't feel balanced, honestly the maps just aren't that fun, and the guns don't feel satisfying. The gameplay loop just isn't there.

Sure, outrage over some of the game design decisions (women, minorities, omg) probably steered some people away, but coming from a group of people who play games together and really don't care about any of that - we've all practically stopped playing just because we aren't having fun.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[thegarbz]

Can you show me how many soldiers in WWII respawned? because that's the message EA was trying to push with BF V...

Sorry but strawman. A core mechanic required to make a game playable is quite different from an aesthetic choice about realism.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[thegarbz]

while they're playing a game where you can not only survive getting shot in the head, you can even keep fighting.

People will tend to love realism provided it is fun. Aesthetically there's a lot of realism in the game. There's also a lot of fun, such as the fact that you come back to life and get to play this game more than once.

Equating a purely aesthetic design decision with one of a core gameplay mechanic required to make something fun is absolutely asinine. You'll find most players are perfectly happy with more than 1 life, but would also like their guns to somehow behave and look like they would in real life. Likewise a tank spawning out of thin air is quite agreeable, whereas one would expect they don't drive like a Ferrari and can still be destroyed with a decently placed mine.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[thegarbz]

so why so much hate on that point?

Don't worry there's enough hate to go around.

1. Poor choice of operation.
2. Crap game decision.
3. Stupid casting decision.
4. Main character portrayed as a Mary Sue.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[CronoCloud]

Oh boy, it's like you're really upset when reality intrudes on your view of the world.

Reality? There is no such thing as "Cultural Marxism" there is no conspiracy. All there is, is a bunch of cranks and crackpots full of butthurt whining because they're expected to be nice to minorities.

Give you bonus points if you can name the person from both places who implemented the same views and policies.

I don't comment on Canadian politics, perhaps YOU should stay out of US political discussions.

Besides, unless they talk about government owning the means of production and councils of workers running factoris, they aren't real "collectivists", not by Marx's standards. I'm fairly sure Trudeau isn't a collectivists....except maybe to selfish neckbeard asshats going on about how taxation is theft or something.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[CronoCloud]

Mountain....molehill. It's marketing. Is having a playable female character that big of a deal to you?

Lets try a little excercise, shall we.

Suppose we live in an alternate universe and it's say the 80's. YOu go buy yourself Legend of Zelda, but the hero is Zelda, and she has to rescue Link from Ganon.

Or you're playing Super Peach Sisters and you have to rescue a plumber from Bowser.

Or you're playing Double DRagon and you have to rescue your captured boyfriend from the Black Warrior gang.

Or you're playing a JRPG and the main character is a sword wielding badass woman, while the love interest is a white robe wearing pacifist healer with a staff who gets killed by the villain.

or you're playing a shooter where the main character is a woman whose husband is killed in the first 10 minutes so she goes on a roaring rampage of revenge.

or you're playing a fighting game, where all the women are covered up, but the men are all wearing speedos and there's minigames where you can pose them, take pictures of them and make them play beach volleyball.

Now wouldn't you be complaining about the lack of male heroes?

Re:Who would have thunk?

[CronoCloud]

Anyways, the misandrist cult is on a march through the institutions

What misandrist cult? Persecution complex much?

and video games are targeted because they just *know* that that's were men get all their badness from.

Really? Persecution complex much?

I've a phd related to this drivel.

I doubt that.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[CronoCloud]

No, swapping out groups of people

What, you can't play a scruffy facial haired white guy in BF5? No? Quit yer bitchin.

Maybe you missed the part where they decided to take cyberpunk-esque people and slapped them into a game that it doesn't fit in

Maybe you missed the part that the "cyberpunk" woman isn't actually in the game.

do you really think that female avatars are an issue when they're the most common type in MMO's.

Yes. But...

Or do you think that there's something else at play?

the people who tend to play the "brown manly shooter of the week" like BF games, tend to be the goatteededgelord types (viking beards and shaved heads if they're older) You know the types that will self-identify as "atheist rationalist contrarians" or "edgelords", They're insecure in the masculinity in a modern changing society so they take it out on women, GLBT folks, SJW's, you know the drill.

They're exactly the sort of people who think that "gaming" belongs to them and say things like "SJW's and women don't game", so they get butthurt at female characters showing up in their "manly brown shooter"

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Luckyo]

I do accept that this is what you think I was talking about. That's your severe religious fervour blocking any comprehension of what I was actually talking about, that was obvious to everyone but a handful of the faithful such as yourself.

I don't think continuing this discussion is productive. If you are to have any hope of ever breaking out of the religious insanity you're currently stuck in, it would be best if I didn't constantly trigger the defensive rejection mechanisms I'm clearly triggering in you with every post.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[CronoCloud]

So, progressives and socjus nuts didn't dox a community manager from CD Projekt or GoG in the last 6mo? And they didn't throw a hissyfit over Doom Eternal over the "mortally challenged" joke? And they absolutely didn't attack not only the developer of Rimworld, but the community itself as racist, sexist, and transphobic?

Citations needed, and not from some right-wing gamergater asshat making shit up.

And need I remind you that Doxing is a favorite tactic of the alt-right/gamergater/chan/MRA types.

As for Rimworld, the developer got called out for how the slapdash (and quite frankly problematic) relationship system worked and got butthurt. Perhaps he should have waited to release it until it was finished?

And they didn't throw a hissyfit over Doom Eternal over the "mortally challenged" joke?

I find it interesting that you call complaints about a joke that sounded like some right-wing talking points "hissy fits". the term hissy fits is often used in misogynistic ways, isn't it? As in: "Women and their fag friends are just whiners, they're always throwing hissy fits about something. Hurr durr."

And then he doubled down on his numbers, which reflected his own anachronistic biases and not how Real-life works. It's what happens when aspies think they understand social stuff and get called out on their ignorance.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[squiggleslash]

Not having played the game, a historical representation of "Operation Gunnerside" would have been a poor match for Battlefield. No shots fired, no Germans killed. Just patience, a bit of stealth and coming in and leaving over the mountains in wintertime. Women being part of it is the least of the problems in a BF V representation... so why so much hate on that point?

I'd make a guess he hates women, so that's the only thing he cares about?

Ensuring there is noticeable female representation in games is something most games companies have been doing for a while now, as it pretty much doubles the number of people who'd be interested in buying those games. But there's a certain "type" that's attracted to, for example, political movements whose entire founding point is that a feeeeeeeeeeeeemale video game maker had one night of sex with a journalist who wasn't covering her games at the time when she was already "claimed" by some jerk who was annoyed that a woman he wasn't sleeping with but was exchanging lovely IMs with on Facebook had slept with someone else... where was I? Oh yeah, there's a certain type attracted to such movements who gets all bent out of shape if someone dares to include women in some place they deem inappropriate.

Usually they're under 14 years old, or they're over 60, or they're just socially inept but blame women for this somehow. And if they're not blaming women, they're blaming "SJWs", a set of demons that hides behind every door secretly helping out women and black people and other minorities supposedly at their expense... a group of people who do not, based upon the definitions I've seen, actually exist.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Ksevio]

It's about poor sales for BF5. The point is the poor sales are because EA is releasing unoriginal games that are missing features, not because people are offended that women didn't exist 80 years ago

Re:Who would have thunk?

[squiggleslash]

The vast majority of people loved TLJ. It's consistently polled high, it had extremely high ratings when viewers were polled on opening day, and Blu-ray sales are through the roof.

There's a long standing myth it did badly, largely because a small but loud group of "fans" kept posting the same ten page essays on "Why I didn't like TLJ" because they were upset by.... I'm still unsure what by, I mean, they claim it's not the purple haired woman, but then they call her "Admiral SJW" so there's that. Interestingly there's at least some evidence the IRA (the Russian troll outfit, not the Catholic Terror organization) had a hand in early trolling on the subject.

Bottom line: TLJ did well and was well received. Solo did badly because... to be honest, it wasn't a movie I heard anyone say they were looking forward to, and I also watched it and thought it was awful and told my friends the same thing, but there are some people out there who liked it, which is fine, good for you I guess. But TLJ? Stop beating that dead horse. If BD sales had been terrible I'd have assumed people were right about it generating some kind of backlash despite huge audiences, but BD sales are great. Audience polling is great. It did well. Not surprised, it was a great movie.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[serviscope_minor]

Nothing you are saying had any relation to the topic of conversion.

You've also failed to explain how quoting a fact (slightly incorrectly) snot the French resistance is religious SJW bullshit.

Thing is we both know it isn't and we both know the reason you keep trying to obscure and keep abounding the original point is because you're incapable of every admitting fault. A conversation with you will never, ever be productive, but it is mightily entertaining!

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

Is this the part of the conversation where you pretend you don't know anything about anything or anyone anywhere ever, while normal people know perfectly well I'm talking about the Berkeley riots?

Re: Who would have thunk?

[serviscope_minor]

What on earth are you talking about? What multi-month warmed street war was this, and how was I involved?

Is it me or have the people ranting about SJWs got distinctly odder in this thread? They seem to me ranting strongly about events no one else can see.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

I don't live in America, it wasn't news here. I heard something about it ages ago. According to Wikipedia most of the people there were peaceful, it was just a handful of idiots.

A handful of idiots I have no affiliation or association with. I've never been to the US, it's been a long time since I was on a university campus, I don't attend those kinds of events, and if I did I wouldn't use violence. So again, what does it have to do with me?

Re: Who would have thunk?

[quicks0rt]

Yet, you make SJW front and center. Sure all these things contributed to BF5's demise, but if the game is bad, no amount of politically incorrect themes or historical accuracy will save the game.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[quicks0rt]

This.

Sure, some SJW element may have contributed, but game play is simply bad compared to the previous. Not only is it bad, but was released half-finished with full $60 dollar retail price that was halved not 2 weeks into it. The loyal fans of BF got shafted monetarily AND EA shat on them for bogus reasons of sexism, misogyny, etc, instead of admitting outputting a horribly unfinished game.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

That's like a member of the ANP claiming all that kerfuffle going in in Europe has nothing to do with them, they've never been to europe, so why should you hold them responsible for the things done by the people they support in the name of the ideology they rabidly support.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Ol Olsoc]

Are car chases and bikinis the only way to appeal to men?

You would have to call up the Hallmark channel and ask why they don't include them in their movies.

Do women not like car chases?

And you step into the trap with both feet.

The reason that HallMark doesn't have car chases or politics in their movies is because of two things. Because the genre of movies that is attractive to a large set of women is romance, and they cater to that genre - as opposed to action movies. The second reason is that they don't want car chases and politics in their romance genre movies. That sort of thing really dilutes the whole concept of genre.

Women who enjoy watching movies with car chases or women in bikinis will enjoy watching action genre movies. And that's cool. You can have a love interest in an action movie, but you don't explore that to the depth that a romance movie does.

It is really quite simple. Stick to the genre. pay some attention to canon if you are making series. Do not kill the golden goose.

Allow me to simplfy this for you. Changing movies deliberately to antagonize your customers is a very risky thing to do. Kennedy's statements indicate she felt no obligation to her fans. And the ridicule, belittlement, and even claims that these fans simply do not exist. Some claim they are Russian bots.

It is up to the new audience of the new socially woke Star Wars to step in and take the place of those fans that they feel no need for. Hopefully the new fans will increase profits and show those horrible sexistracisthomophobicRussian bots theey are not only not needed, but Disney has increased profits by telling them to get the hell out of their theaters, there's a new boss in town, and she's kicking ass and taking names.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[Ol Olsoc]

What is it about armpit hair? Where I lost it was in The Greatest Showman the bearded lady had shaved armpits. Really? You shave your armpits to fit in with social norms (well modern ones, not necessarily historically) but you don't shave your face? Who thought up that one?

To be serious, Fashion and armpit hair don't go hand in hand. It is a visual distraction when wearing sleeveless clothing. A sleeveless top with a big clump of black hair sticking out just takes away from the smoothness of the skin, and instead of looking at the person and her clothing, you keep going back to the clump of hair. The same with bathing suits and pubic/belly hair.. Some ladies are quite hirsute.

In addition, some guys find female body hair very sexually stimulating - which is why the feminist demand that women not shave might be a little self defeating. I think that the claims that shaving hair is a too of the patriarchy to suppress women has led them to believe that all men want women to be hairless other than their heads. That is incorrect. There is a lot of "hairy" porn out there.

Re:Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

Does Hallmark appeal to all women, or just a subset of women who like that kind of thing?

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

Well what do you want me to do about it? I can't fly to America, get in a time machine and go back to fix it. I don't agree with what they did or support it. What more can I do?

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Kartu]

There were female soldiers on both the Russian side and the in french resistance.

Resistance is not relevant to this context.
USSR employed women in large (although quite small, compared to number of men) numbers, but mostly as medics, a bit as snipers, pilots, sappers.

Western Allies did not, let alone didn't let women get close to the front lines.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

You do agree with what they did and you do support it. You do both of those CONSTANTLY here on slashdot on virtually everything you post on. You don't get to cheerlead for the same ideology, demand the same things, support the same things, and vehemently defend the same movement and same people and pretend you aren't part of the problem.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

Guilt by imaginary association, huh?

Actually, I'l humour you. Let's put your claim to the test. Show me a post where I defend that violence. Should be easy since you claim I do it on "virtually everything you post on."

Re: Who would have thunk?

[IamTheRealMike]

Well, here's my view. I've played BF1 but that's my only Battlefield game. I'm not a big gamer anymore and never play outside of winter, got other things to do.

I am not an expert in World War 1. But I bought BF1 because I liked the trailer. It seemed pretty darn realistic, certainly about as realistic as it's possible for a video game to get. It starts with you playing soldiers who get killed again and again, relentlessly. The starting sequence of BF1 really impacted me, it makes you realise the scale of the slaughter and hopelessness of the fighting. in ways a po-faced documentary cannot. No matter what you do, you die within seconds ... and then the camera moves to another soldier. You play that soldier, you die within seconds regardless of what tactics you try. There is no way to survive. They made their point very well.

The rest of the story mode was equally well done, the multiplayer was fun. The graphics were great! The locations of real battles were used, the weapons looked convincing, the soldiers looked convincing ... oh, wait. Except for the black men in Germany's army?? Since when did World War 1 Germany have an army filled with black dudes? Since never? This is the country that just 20 years after World War 1 was fighting a war of white supremacy. Also one day the game updated and suddenly the startup picture was of a female soldier.

I admit, it did bother me. I put it to one side and continued to enjoy the game, but it bothered me for all the great reasons explained elsewhere on this thread - because I know the game developers tried hard to be realistic in other areas and deviated in these specific areas because they believe shitting on men like me is virtuous. It's not some holy commitment to realism that caused me to be bothered. It's because I know the aggressive and unpleasant tactics that would have been used to create this unrealism, because I know why DICE did it.

I resent it because I know that they were trying to subtly rewrite history as they genuinely believe that if I see a woman holding a gun when I start my game at night, tomorrow I'll go give a job or a pay rise to the women in my team ... not those awful 'privileged' white men. I resent how delusional this belief is, and how they think they can influence me by lying to me about what WW1 was like. I dislike where this is going because all totalitarian societies in history have been characterised by ideologies of racial hatred, rewriting of history and massive lying in attempts to manipulate the population.

And ultimately, when I saw the adverts for BF5, I thought about whether to buy it or not. Again, I'm not a serious gamer. If I had bought it I'd probably have played it for maybe 10-15 hours tops in the next 12 months. If I'd been in love with BF1 I might have made an impulse buy, Xbox Live certainly makes it easy, but I quickly Googled BF5 and saw people complaining about the even more amped up SJWism and all that it implies. So I decided to pass .... the slight temptation to play a game with nice graphics and music was outweighed by the apathy I felt at financially supporting people who hate me for no reason. I bought Red Dead Redemption instead although so far I don't think I've made it through the tutorial, I'm still stuck on some snowy mountain.

People like me are sort of like the dark matter of the video gaming universe. We don't make or comment on Youtube videos, we don't play intensely, we suck at multiplayer and on the few times we try it we always come last in the league tables with 15 deaths and 1 kill if we're very lucky. But we pay the same for our copy as everyone else. It doesn't take much to sway us from one title to another. Maybe that's part of why BF5 didn't sell well.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

Literally your entire post history is filled with you cheerleading for and passionately defending feminism and the social justice movement. You defend them, you cheerlead for them, you say the same things they do, believe the same things they do.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

Wait, you are saying that the entire feminism movement/philosophy is responsible for this? And what was I supposed to do about it?

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

Where do you think all of this comes from? Antifa is nothing but the brownshirts of the social justice movement. They're the people finally acting out decades of "killallmen" and anti-"zionism" rhetoric.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

Antifa existed since the 30s at least, with roots going back further. It's hardly a new thing. And anti-zionism? That's the Nazis. Wrong end of the political spectrum entirely.

And again, what does any of this have to do with me? The Nazis were Christians and based a lot of their bullshit off that, does that mean Christians are responsible for Nazis, or defend Nazis when they promote their faith?

Re:Who would have thunk?

[pslytely psycho]

Did you even watch the trailer? Uniformed, disabled (Terminator style forearm and hand prosthesis, woman on the front lines in WWII?
MAYBE if they were civilian resistance fighters, but culturally at that time still pretty rare.
Damn, I'm left of center but that was ridiculous for a game that claims to be aiming at historical accuracy.
Now if it were from a Soviet perspective, Snipers, pilots, a very few (who were highly decorated) tank drivers and machine gunners were deployed at the front lines due to the heavy losses Russia suffered. Ya use what ya got.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

Sarsour, Corbyn, Wallstrom, Sarkeesian, you need to look around at the company you're keeping... at the movement you unquestioningly defend and cheerlead at every opportunity.

To use your metaphor without godwinning: Someone who proudly calls themselves a Nazi, who proudly wears a swastika, who defends Hitler and other Nazis and Nazi ideology every chance they get, is by definition responsible for what Nazis do.

You're an out and proud SJW, you proudly and passionately defend the social justice movement at every opportunity, and you defend the movement from every criticism and rebuttal to the point of comical absurdity with a blind fanaticism rivalling that of a religious fundamentalist. That by definition hitches you to their wagon.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

But SJW is just someone you disagree with so violently that you were triggered by their argument. There is no organisation or philosophy that is called SJW, and no one can agree what it is.

Look at how diverse your list is. Those people have little in common other than your dislike of them.

It's effectively a concession, name calling rather than identification of flaws in the argument or matching it to a specific existing ideology.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

Diverse? All four of those people are deep believers in exactly the same ideology. All four of them believe the same things, are part of the same movement, identify the same, and have the same demands. The only people who pretend SJWism isn't a coherent and consistent ideology are SJWs.

You're following one of the 3 laws of SJW behavior perfectly right now: SJWs always project. You're projecting your own behavior and beliefs onto me right now. SJWs are the ones who dehumanize everyone that disagrees with them so utterly that they don't see the inherent problem with smearing even gay jews as "nazis".

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

Jeremy Corbyn and Anita Sarkeesian believe in /exactly/ the same ideology?

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

They're both following the exact same playbook, using the exact same tactics, and believe in the exact same ideology yes. They each have a different focus given that one is a con artist running a protection scheme and the other is an antisemitic major party leader who wants to be head of government for a major world power, but they're as much following the exact same ideology as a catholic priest in bumfuck nowhere and a catholic bishop with his eye on the papacy.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

Describe these tactics they have in common.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

SJWs always lie, SJWs always project, SJWs always double down. And like you they always rely on dishonest and emotionally manipulative rhetoric, false statistics, doublethink, tricks like the Motte and Bailey, and identity based attacks. They hide behind the rhetoric of social justice as a cover for attacking and smearing everyone who dissents from their ideology and disagrees with them about anything. Every critic, every heretic, is smeared as hating women, hating minorities, believing in white supremacy, being a fascist, etc.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

This is just a generic list of complaints about people you disagree with. You disingenuously assume that criticism is equivalent to smearing and then assume ridiculous, dishonest motivations behind every action.

And ironically you are the one smearing them. Not criticising their arguments or policies, just smearing them as dishonest SJWs.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[Shadow of Eternity]

Relying on smear tactics to the point you try to call orthodox and gay JEWS "nazis" is not "criticism", especially when the reason you do that is so you can disingenuously whitewash your unprovoked and deeply antisemitic violence against peaceful people as "punching nazis".

That's what you're defending right now, that's how disconnected from reality you are.

Re: Who would have thunk?

[AmiMoJo]

Did Corbyn or Sarkeesian actually do that? I don't even know who the other two are.

"EA's shitty business policies ...

[Qbertino]

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

FTFY

Re:"EA's shitty business policies ...

[reanjr]

After 20 years and billions of dollars of profit.

Re:"EA's shitty business policies ...

[zlives]

sorry I misread it as FB's...
eventually it catches up?

Still cashing in

[execthts]

EA is not going down any soon, right? They have too many cashcows to fail

Nvidia's problem...

[jools33]

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.

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[Luckyo]

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.

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Everyone seems to have forgotten about deep learning too. Deep learning is big and getting bigger. The bloody miners nabbed all the best cards and it's been hard to get anything decent. Recently, Dell RAN OUT of 2080 Ti's and literally conldn't supply a machine with one.

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[Luckyo]

Unlikely. Apple's strategy is to ignore about 90% of market and go for top 10%.

In case of nvidia, that would be conceding almost all of their market share on gaming hardware market, while gaining next to nothing. They already have almost 100% of top end cornered due to AMD's lack of ability to compete in that segment at the moment. But their lion's share of sales is in the mid end market, which they are currently in an excellent position to concede to AMD with their current pricing model.

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[Mashiki]

The bloody miners nabbed all the best cards and it's been hard to get anything decent. Recently, Dell RAN OUT of 2080 Ti's and literally conldn't supply a machine with one.

You mean it has nothing to do with the fact that nvidia was all-in on the crypto mining market, misread it, are sitting on assloads of devalued GPU's and OEM-PCB's, that were optimized for mining. And they were so all in that they cut GPU's to non-reference makers like evga, msi, and asus. And with multiple shareholder lawsuits, and prior to the holidays their stock had dropped 49% that they're trying to recoup lost valuation prior to the end of the 2018 fiscal year and show shareholders that "they really haven't fucked up" by raising their current gen card prices or anything like that?

Just remember, that in the pre-manufactured market cards are bought in allotted amounts at x price. Dell could have bought more cards through a 1st tier distributor like Ingram Micro or Supercom, but that would have likely driven the end-price up by 30%

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[Lonewolf666]

Getting a bit off topic, but a lot of their market IS the gaming hardware market. On the "low end" where all you need is the capability to run Office and play some videos, most people just use the integrated graphics of Intel/AMD, with Intel being in the majority.

In what you call the mid end market they have just released the RTX 2060 which looks good vs. a Vega 56 so far. Below that, both Nvidia and AMD are still on the last generation. For now I think Nvidia is in a good position and will come out with the "smaller" Geforce cards in the 20 series before AMD's Navi.

I prefer AMD myself, not least because of Nvidia's business practices. But right now, Nvidia seem to be technologically ahead.

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[Luckyo]

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.

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[Lonewolf666]

It's matter of definitions I guess, to me high end is defined as "the fastest cards in the market, perhaps including one or two steps below". That means RTX 2080 Ti, RTX 2080 and RTX 2070. RTX 2060 is an overpriced midrange card that only looks like high end because it lacks competition from other vendors.

AMD is effectively one generation back. Their midrange stuff is the RX series that is currently on a refresh cycle, with only small improvements over their first generation. It was reasonably competitive with the GTX 1060.
Vega was disappointing in the beginning. In recent months it has achieved performance parity with GTX 1070/1080, but that is the high end of yesterday.

When AMD finally comes out with Navi, rumors say mid-2019, Nvidia may have to drop prices from "crazy margins" to "merely good margins".

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[oic0]

Nvidias problem is I've had my 970 since 2014 and I can only get a moderate upgrade if buy another card in the same price bracket. By now I should be looking at at least double performance for the same price.

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[Billly Gates]

One of the problems with publically traded companies is THEY HAVE TO INCREASE SHARE PRICE at all costs. They simple multiple the existing shares into more when they become expensive and Wall Street must always get a 15% indefinitely.

Since their margins can't continue they will simple raise prices to make up. Intel is doing the same to make shareholders happy even if they sell more units. Both have rapid fanboys on youtube watching LinuS Tech Tips, Gamers Nexus, Jayz2cents and so on and are willing to sacrafice and credit card to have the best cards like Apple people (not all but the ones who buy this shit).

It leaves a bad taste in an average smart (not dollar dumb) gamers mouths. It may leave an opportunity for AMD which they laugh at and shun, but Nvidia has been quite scummy these past 2 years and resentment and anger is growing over the PC master race crowd with pricing and being douches.

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[Billly Gates]

According to Tech of Tommorow the 2070 and 2060 are great cheap value entry level cards and the price has only went up due to inflation ... lol

The nvidia fanboys took it hook and sinker and how they are geat entry level cards because they are as fast as a 1070ti for less money.

IT is hard to break to them.

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[thegarbz]

The pricing wasn't NVIDIA's issue. The performance was. You could see that from the onset with their dishonest benchmark comparisons. When your first benchmark released shows obvious dishonesty you know the turd is about to be announced and don't really care about the price.

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[thegarbz]

And yet the RTX line includes a feature set that is a premium currently only capable of being used in 1 game and doesn't have a competition. You are hung up on model numbers completely ignoring that the RTX 2060 is NOT the replacement for the GTX 1060. There's a lot of evidence to show that a GTX1160 is coming out.

How many additional models do they need to release for your arbitrary "one or two models below" to be considered high end?

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[thegarbz]

Also excuse double post but AMD have already stated Navi won't do ray tracing. Even when they come out I wouldn't expect NVIDIA to move their pricing on a "unique" product.

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[Lonewolf666]

My "steps below" are mostly based on performance, to a lesser part on the effort the manufacturer put in with memory size, bus width and so on. The exact thresholds are arbitrary of course, but if a GPU has only half of the computing power of the top model, I usually consider it midrange. BTW, by that measure the RTX 2070, compared to the RTX 2080 Ti, would only be a midrange GPU too.
Raytracing appears not (yet?) to make for outright superior graphics. Maybe that will be different in the next generation.

About Navi, there are only vague rumors yet, but it seems AMD will aim for "only midrange" with the first models. Perhaps a successor to the Polaris series, which was never considered high end.

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[thegarbz]

My "steps below" are mostly based on performance

And yet you have a small portion of the final release to make your claim on. The logical extension of your steps are: The RTX2070 was a "low end" card up until last week. The GTX1080Ti was magically demoted from high end to "mid tier" due to the release of faster products.

but if a GPU has only half of the computing power of the top model, I usually consider it midrange

Do you include the Titan in your arbitrary definition? I guess the RTX2080 is midrange too.

Raytracing appears not (yet?) to make for outright superior graphics.

That is quite obviously wrong in every way both in theory and in practice when you look at the actual results. The remaining valid question is if the obviously superior graphics are worth the performance hit and cost of the new hardware.

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[Lonewolf666]

The logical extension of your steps are: The RTX2070 was a "low end" card up until last week. The GTX1080Ti was magically demoted from high end to "mid tier" due to the release of faster products.

Well, it is somewhat arbitrary. Nvidia tends to release the fastest cards first, within a few weeks. Except the Titan that comes a few months later. We could dispute if the Titan still counts for defining the categories. As you wrote, it could lead to magic demotions after the fact, so I'd arbitrarily exclude the Titan and go with the first wave of releases.
With the RTX2060, raw computing power drops below half that of the RTX 20180 Ti => I call that midrange, not high end anymore. Arbitrarily of course, it's not an exact science.
The GTX1080Ti is still almost on the level of the RTX2080 and I count it in the high end range.

But to return the question, what exactly makes a product high end to you? Is it enough to have the latest features, even if it is beaten in performance by other models? Compare the GTX1080Ti to the RTX2060, what is higher end?

Re:Nvidia's problem...

[thegarbz]

Well, it is somewhat arbitrary. Nvidia tends to release the fastest cards first, within a few weeks.

Precisely my point: You haven't seen the range of cards released in this generation so how do you know which one is high / mid / low range if you're only going by price without seeing the price *range*.

But to return the question, what exactly makes a product high end to you?

I gave a rough definition of what I consider high-end: A product without mass market appeal with a technical sub feature that is unique and not widely used. Given that NVIDIA have come out and said that they will be releasing non-raytracing cards, given AMD have said that their next generation will not support raytracing, and given that all leaks point to a second xx60 series card being released alongside the RTX 2060, I currently consider the entire RTX line high-end.

I fully agree the GTX 1060 was mid-end. However I also acknowledge that this card is about to be split in two, one for a niche gamer and one which will almost certainly be more affordable.

DICE is the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

EA bought DICE, the scandanavian ENGINE company, back when it seemed their work was good. The EA turned over most of their other IPs to this increasingly awful engine. Worse, being scandanavian, DICE is sjw to the power infinity.

Anyway EA combined the complete lack of game play design skills exhibited by DICE (DICE's Mirror's Edge 2 was a critical and technical disaster) with the whole lootbox/microtransaction 'gaming as a service' nonsense to create a perfect storm of fail.

BF V, initially stripped of lootboxes after the pervious year's Star Wars Battlefront debacle, had to lean 100% on the SJW 'strategy' which boils down to calling your core playerbase 'racist' and/or 'sexist' scumbgas that the company sincerely hopes will not purchase their products.

Well Battlefield has also been significantly dumbed down since the first, and the last good one was BF2 (or Bad Company 2). In chasing the stoned/drunk couch potato console casual market, gameplay has to boil down to the worst kind of 'pew, pew- you're dead' dribble.

This at a time where thanks to Indy and Steam, good gaming has never been more diverse. It's just the AAA crap from Bethesda, Ubisoft, Activision and EA that is this lootbox casual brainless cr-p now entirely marketed at dribblers. See Fallout 76 for an even worse example.

But as I said, DICE is at the heart of all of this. As a company of programmers who cannot program or ever create new gameplay mechanisms, they fixate on the things they can achieve. Games that use photogammatry rather than excellence in engine work. Games that focus on microtransaction mechanisms. A complete loss of quality.

Whaty killed BF V's sales was SJW sh-it in place of good game design, rather than SJW sh-t ALONGSIDE good game design. And having the voice of women screeching and screaming as they kill and die in every online game was a psychological idiocy beyond words.

Fortnite is all SJW, with no impact on usage cos the game is perceived as excellent by the audience that plays it. Nothing DICE has done in many many years comes close to good, let alone excellent. And DICE infects 90% of current EA- even the new Titanfall 3 may be on their sh-it engine.

The mantra- make good games- would fix the current woes of these publishers. But they are doubling down on 'gaming as a service' instead.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[Kokuyo]

" 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.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[Kokuyo]

I would like to add that there being memes also is kinda strange since the memeing community is getting more and more chauvinistic in response to the SJW pressure on society.

And STILL these women receive laudation from that camp. Let that sink in for a moment...

Re:DICE is the real problem

[dunkelfalke]

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

Re:DICE is the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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

More than this: many of the suffragettes, from Emmeline Pankhurst on down, were members of the White Feather movement, which campaigned for any remaining men in Britain to be sent to the Western Front to die on behalf of the womenfolk.

It's interesting that of the two greatest advances for sexual equality in the 20th century - extending the vote to women, and ending conscription of men - the suffragettes helped to achieve the first but worked to delay the second.

Re: DICE is the real problem

[Type44Q]

e the memeing community

If we can project it, it must be a thing.

Most likely a projected thing.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[angel'o'sphere]

In ancient history between roughly 600 and 1000, samurai in Japan went to war as couples, as husband and wife.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[Rockoon]

The, lets say. female vocalisations are barely noticeable at best.

Stop being a lying fuck.

For fuck sakes.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[AmiMoJo]

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?!

Strange that Mortal Kombat sold well then. The women scream a lot as you hack their limbs off and burn the skin off their faces. They are mostly wearing pretty sexy outfits too, really going after those male hormones.

even the suffragettes were fighting for a right to vote for females without being under threat of a draft

Actually they opposed the draft for everyone. Later feminists in the US tried to get it stopped by arguing that women must be drafted too, and took it all the way to the supreme court where the predominantly male judges ruled against them.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[Mashiki]

Strange that Mortal Kombat sold well then. The women scream a lot as you hack their limbs off and burn the skin off their faces. They are mostly wearing pretty sexy outfits too, really going after those male hormones.

Think you're talking about DOA. Mortal Kombat has had moderate sales over the last few titles.

Actually they opposed the draft for everyone.

That's why those groups supported things like white feather campaigns. That sure makes sense, for those that are historically unaware. That was a feminist attempt to label men who refused the draft, or where "on the home front" instead of the front line as cowards. You can find plenty of news articles from both WWI and WWII where feminist mobs attacked men, or instigated near riots trying to shame men, including a few high profile cases where men were on leave and/or receiving medals and they tried the same bullshit too.

Later feminists in the US tried to get it stopped by arguing that women must be drafted too, and took it all the way to the supreme court where the predominantly male judges ruled against them.

1981 is a far cry from 1917 or even Korea and Vietnam.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[AmiMoJo]

X sold very well, the best of any game in the series. Well enough to get a special edition and sequel. This is a franchise that has been going since the mid 90s.

During WW1 the feminist movement in the UK was pacifist and campaigned for an end to the fighting, supporting those who chose not to participate. It actually got a few of them threatened with charges of treason by the government for helping men make the conscientious objector applications. Many of those men were illiterate or at least had little chance at the tribunal on their own.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The last good one was BF2/BC2? Bull. Shit.

2142 was fucking ACE.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[Mashiki]

X sold very well, the best of any game in the series. Well enough to get a special edition and sequel. This is a franchise that has been going since the mid 90s.

Looks like 1.8m sales for X over 10 weeks. While DOA5 was 2.2m over 10 weeks. Nothing on DOA6 yet of course. X is probably the best selling of all MK titles, and that's because it became a very big thing in the semi-pro and pro fighting game circuits, especially since DOA5 is very dated.

During WW1 the feminist movement in the UK was pacifist and campaigned for an end to the fighting, supporting those who chose not to participate. It actually got a few of them threatened with charges of treason by the government for helping men make the conscientious objector applications. Many of those men were illiterate or at least had little chance at the tribunal on their own.

So, why did the white feather movement start there. And why did it become increasingly popular with the various feminist movements of both WWI and WWII.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[QuantumPion]

I think it is ironic that putting women in war games for the sake of diversity may backfire and end up desensitizing men to violence against women.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[Mashiki]

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

Pinball FX2 and FX3 are far better pinball games if you have that itch and if you buy previous tables, they automatically give you those tables free in the new version. And I say that as someone who hasn't yet recovered from feeding quarters into tables back in the 1980's. They're good, not perfect, but damn good. If you've got another suggestion for a pinball game I'm all ears though.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they [suffragettes] opposed the draft for everyone.

Wrong. From Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst on down, most of them supported the continued conscription of men. They constituted the White Feather movement, so called for their habit of giving a white feather to any able-bodied man they saw on the streets of London, as a symbol of their supposed cowardice for not being on the Western Front.

The suffragettes were most definitely fighting for the rights of *women*, and *against* the rights of men - an essential dichotomy which has pervaded feminism since then.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[Kokuyo]

That's as interesting as it's irrelevant.

EA isn't trying to sell Battlefield V to ancient Samurai.

The target audience has neither the militaristic training nor the social conditioning for this to apply.

Of course it can be done. Who would dispute that? But it's not relevant for the young men playing the game.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[Kokuyo]

Battlefield V was hyped as a realistic portrayal of historic events and you put Mortal Kombat on the table? Are you mentally damaged?

Re:DICE is the real problem

[AmiMoJo]

So basically Mortal Kombat X sold really well, almost as well as the leading soft porn game. Glad you agree.

As for the white feather movement, it was founded by a crust old dude called Charles Fitzgerald (military man) and Mary Augusta Ward, a woman who campaigned *against* women getting the vote. She actually founded the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League.

Doesn't sound like a feminist movement to me.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[stealth_finger]

Wow, he absolutely owns you with a Youtube clip and one line, for being the absolute and utter miserable cuck that you are and the best you can tell him is that passive-aggressive shit.

You know what, they shouldn't have women in video games, dickless faggots like you don't deserve to look at them.

Right here ladies and gents. This is the problem.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[stealth_finger]

Alright then, I barely notice them and when I do they get are just part of the soundscape. Better?

Re: DICE is the real problem

[stealth_finger]

Look here fucko. They are barely noticeable, that's not to say you can't notice them. From my experience in the game ~80% are running around as dudes and the screams and shouts you hear are based on proximity. The female call outs are such a non issue that it's laughable so calm the fuck down. If you are obsessed with the issue of course you are going to notice it more, just like you would anything else you were focused on but it's not like they are constantly playing a track of womens screams over the rest of the soundtrack is it? They put the female models in for player choice and some of them are choosing it, so fucking what? This is a battlefield game not a fucking war documentary, it's not a realistic representation, at all, and has never claimed to be. It's only a notch above call of duty in terms realism, at best.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[stealth_finger]

I'll give you that

Go give yourself a contusion. You're bullshit doesn't fly in the real world.

Posting multiple times as AC doesn't fool anyone you know.

Re:DICE is the real problem

[Mashiki]

So basically Mortal Kombat X sold really

By AAA standards they sold "okay" not well.

almost as well as the leading soft porn game. Glad you agree.

Hmm I think that's a bit shy of 7m copies, keep in mind that those sales numbers mentioned previously are worldwide.

t was founded by a crust old dude called Charles Fitzgerald (military man) and Mary Augusta Ward, a woman who campaigned *against* women getting the vote. She actually founded the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League.

And you missed the key part.

Doesn't sound like a feminist movement to me.

So NUWSS and WSPU who were the big feminist movements of the day, and openly supported it. Going as far as to expel members who were pacifists and protested against these organizations that backed the white feather movement. Boy it sure sounds like a feminist movement to me.

Took longer than I thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Microtransactions, seven types of premium version, and the same formulaic products are finally starting to sour the tastes of the purchasing public.

I have no idea why it took this long to happen but I'm unsurprised that it eventually has. Releasing what is ostensibly the same game five times in a row was surely never going to keep making good money.

Then again it works for Apple.

Re:Took longer than I thought

[jeff4747]

Releasing what is ostensibly the same game five times in a row was surely never going to keep making good money.

It works for all of EA's sports titles. Can't blame them too much for taking a shot at annualizing a shooter.

Zeitgeist Market

[mentil]

Marketing no longer has a stranglehold on the zeitgeist. Free/cheap multiplayer games are in at the moment; why pay $60 to play that new game some people are playing, when you can pay $0-$30 to play that game everyone's playing? It's like the WoW network effects, only if it were F2P. There were plenty of comparable F2P MMORPGs but they never rose to the prominence of WoW.

Another interpretation is that gamers are burned out on cinematic FPSes or deathmatch. Remember when Horde Mode was all the rage a few years back? Battle Royale is the same. If anything, this is proof that graphics don't automatically sell games. If this translates into publishers no longer thinking of shooters as a 'safe bet' then I see that as a good thing, as they are a huge portion of AAA action games.

Re:Zeitgeist Market

[JaredOfEuropa]

Maybe. Though I think that the network effect plays a much bigger role in an MMO, where people are much more socially invested in the game than in a casual shooter with short rounds and little if any social interaction. Total number of player also matters a lot more for MMOs, where insufficiently populated shards tend do die out. In games like BF or Fortnite, you can basically grab the next 24-64 players off the global queue and populate a game with them (doesn't work quite like that, but it almost amounts to the same thing).

What brought Fortnite to prominence is not a network effect, but word of mouth about a really fun F2P game. Not the same thing.

Re:Zeitgeist Market

[angel'o'sphere]

The "quality" of graphics is completely irrelevant for most "gamers".
With gamers I mean people who play the game to play the game.

Graphics is only relevant for people who consider the game as an ersatz cinema experience.

Flight simulators with more FPS but less details are much more enjoyable than one where you can see a naked girl at a lake. There is a reason why WoW never went for photo realistic scenary or models.

This is Patrick Soderlund fault

[slashmydots]

He literally said if you don't like the inclusion of a woman with disabilities (very inaccurately) on the front line then you're ignorant and shouldn't buy the game. So nobody bought the game and he took a big bonus and quit. They also added in mission where the French are seen as racist against black people, which is completely and utterly inaccurate to those two groups actually working together during the war. Then they took a special ops mission and replaced the actual heroes with women and claimed it was historically accurate. This disgraceful lunacy in the twisted version of reality that these SJW assholes live in is so vast it can crash and entire project/company/product. Every SJW and far left liberal nut job needs to lose their job after this wonderful public display of how crazy these people are.

Re:This is Patrick Soderlund fault

[NettiWelho]

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.

Re:This is Patrick Soderlund fault

[dunkelfalke]

Yep. Should have licensed Deus Ex from Square Enix and set the game in the Australian Civil War.

Re:This is Patrick Soderlund fault

[Mashiki]

I'm confused. It sounds like you're hating on SJWs while simultaneously being outraged at the historical misrepresentation of various groups of people. Isn't that how SJWs react?

It's not hard to understand why you're confused. They want to play their product that's tailored to what is has been previously, and keep playing it. SJWs want to change the product to suit them, and not play it.

Need an example? Look up Rimworld, where it catered to the market and the people that were the audience, but SJWs went out and attacked them but "transphobia" and so on.

Re:This is Patrick Soderlund fault

[Mashiki]

Too bad Squeex already beat them to the punch, it was called Deus Ex: The Fall

Re:This is Patrick Soderlund fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't insinuate similarity between SJW and "far left" and "liberals".

Its only in usa, that a solid center-right position like this would be labelled as "far left liberal".

Actual far left og even regular left, or something-like-left to the left of the center is not included in your silly political spectrum at all.

Educate yourself.
Thank you.

Re:This is Patrick Soderlund fault

[dunkelfalke]

The Fail.

Re:This is Patrick Soderlund fault

[Mashiki]

Well a user review score of 3.3/10 is accurate in this case.

Re:This is Patrick Soderlund fault

[Parker Lewis]

Wow, much more accurate now!

Re:This is Patrick Soderlund fault

[ceoyoyo]

She's differently abled. ;)

I watched the trailer. It looked like a decent shooter with a kind of space cowboy / Firefly flavour with a very subtle touch of manga. I'm not surprised it pissed off Battlefield players.

Re:This is Patrick Soderlund fault

[lgw]

There was an SJW outcry over Rimworld? I missed that one. I take it the devs ignored that and made the game they wanted to make? Of course, it's hard to compare indie devs to the big guys: the big guys try to make a game that sells, where the indies make what they want, and we become aware of the successes and not the failures.

Re:This is Patrick Soderlund fault

[Mashiki]

There was an SJW outcry over Rimworld? I missed that one. I take it the devs ignored that and made the game they wanted to make?

Yep. The devs basically made the game as they wanted and listened to the community. There's diverse subcultures within the game's culture and when the devs wanted specific backstories they went to those subcultures and asked them to write them, then had the community vote on the best ones.

The stories were written by trans individuals and nobody within the community gave a shit. But gaming press went out of their way to attack them, and the developer for them because it didn't "conform" to their view on trans individuals. At least 4 sites did this RPS and PCGamer I remember off the top of my head, and both knocked points off for it. Oh, and when gamers actually started complaining about it, they shut down their comment systems.

Re:This is Patrick Soderlund fault

[lgw]

Wait, so the SJW press is complaining that trans people were participating in game development? Just more evidence that there's no point in trying to please SJWs; they aren't even coherent.

Religion is more important than money

[Jarwulf]

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.

Re:Religion is more important than money

[Pinky's Brain]

Upper layer management are still sociopathic capitalists. They let the SJW run amock to keep the peace.

If EA starts to perceive the costs of driving through a more traditional feel for the games to be less than the cost/churn of unhappy employees they'll do the former.

Re:Religion is more important than money

[Rockoon]

If EA starts to perceive the costs of driving through a more traditional feel for the games to be less than the cost/churn of unhappy employees they'll do the former.

Or the tl;dr version:

Get woke, go broke.

Re:Religion is more important than money

[Tailhook]

Joe Rogan put it well when interviewing Peter Boghossian & James Lindsay; and discussing where all this shit is coming from:

There's many fields of [grievance] study you can get legitimate degrees in that are absolutely preposterous. Literally filled with nonsense, taught by nonsense people who live in these nonsense bubbles. And then they give these degrees and these people go out in the real world and they infect things; their ridiculousness infects certain, particularly tech industry businesses.

So EA has been fully subsumed and they're paying the price of infection. Their WWII game is full of fictional combat super women, the player base has walked away, and EA is fine with it, going full retard and demeaning their customers.

The silver lining in all this sick fail is that young men — doing their level best to avoid everything (college, women, politics, etc.,) beyond their gaming machine — have had a small taste of this Orwellian bullshit. Their coming for you there as well, you latent rapist oppressors.

A Hard Lesson to Learn...

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you build it, they will come. If you ruin it, they will leave."

I can't help but feel that EA is getting exactly what they deserve with their cookie-cutter game philosophy.

So before anyone judges those evil gamers...

[AbRASiON]

The article is slightly off, in that itâ(TM)s implying that gamers took issue with EA misrepresenting women in historical battles.
Well, look, some of them did, for sure.

However, as usual, if I recall, the backlash was due to EA / DICE responding, effectively that anyone who takes issue with women in gaming, in any capacity is clearly a basement dweller, behind the times, gamergater or some other thing. (Something, to this effect, was said, if I recall correctly)

So much like GameGate itself, what happens is some idiots shout and whine and then, in response to this, someone says something over the top, in a blanket generalisation kind of way, next thing you know, youâ(TM)ve pissed people off who actually werenâ(TM)t that bad. So begins divisiveness *(ie: skub vs anti-skub)

So to go back on topic, /some/ people probably just said âoeGee, this seems a little historically inaccurate, why canâ(TM)t you just make the women in this be X, who were actually in the war and were badass!â And those guys (or even girls) were called chauvinists.

This keeps on going on, on the internet, as much as it sucks to walk on eggshells, people continue to not be careful and end up inciting this kind of thing.

Also, free âvirtual signalâ(TM) points for EA if they appeal to the far left crowd (ie, generally the journalists)

A mess, as usual.
Oh one last thing, worst of all really.

1 game, getting bad sales numbers impacting the company this much? Someone needs to re-evaluate their budgeting!

Re: So before anyone judges those evil gamers...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably the only intelligent person on this thread. The rest of them couldn't spot nuance if it slapped them in the face. They're all too desperate to spin there own narratives.

Re:So before anyone judges those evil gamers...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just one bad game. EA has been having a track record of poor titles. Closing a lot of studios, namely Maxis studios after screwing with Sims and SimCity franchises, both Battlefront titles, Mass Effect Andromeda, now Battlefield 5 which was supposed to be the love letter to the community, with no loot boxes and no microtransactions and no launch-day DLCs. Full on WWII experience from the get go for 60$. Honestly, right now, they only have FIFA that's turning up a buck. Everything else has been a colossal disaster. If Anthem fails, EA is done.

Re:So before anyone judges those evil gamers...

[Mashiki]

EA's response generally isn't to "be done" but get more investments and buy up more studios. If Anthem fails, expect Bioware to be shutdown like Bioware Montreal, and as you mentioned Maxis.

But just think of the shitty fuckups that have gone on with EA too. Deadspace 3 despite being a success and profitable, they decided to nuke the entire studio because "it didn't sell enough."

Re:So before anyone judges those evil gamers...

[AbRASiON]

Can anyone explain to me why Slashdot seems to retest something as fucking simple as a quotation mark? Why do my posts get butchered on this site so frequently, is punctuation banned?

I've been posting here a long time, why is this not fixed? My post looks like an abortion.

Re:So before anyone judges those evil gamers...

[Atomic Fro]

For the sake of continuing the discussion, I believe there are a few points of contention that have come to a head with this title specifically.

1. Console gamers != PC gamers, or Consolitis wrecks a series.
2. Open wounds from the games journalism debacle
3. Resentment from EA's business practices, like Battlefield 1943 not getting a PC port or the Wilson Loot Box)
4. False hope the series was getting back to its roots with its return to WWII.

Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142 were all released from 2002 - 2006. This was the tail end of the PC as a separate platform. Prior to 2004, consoles were for arcade ports, games with a Japanese aesthetic, and party games (multiplayer games where all the players were in the same room). PC games leaned more toward the simulation side, hopefully balancing that out with fun game play. Racing sims, space sims, business sims, city sims, sims sims, etc etc etc. The first four entries in the Battlefield series gave us a game that was a happy medium between crazy fast arcade FPS Unreal Tournament and a much more serious sim such as ARMA. Yes, far from a hardcore sim, but it was a balance and a balance that worked.

After 2004, PC games became ports of console games. PC gamers put up with it to an extent as long as they could still have PC things, like modding or running your own server. Then that was taken away and they got micro transactions, the Wilson Loot Box, and unfinished buggy games instead. At this point the main stream games industry, which EA is a major player in, no longer cared about games, and only about the extraction of wealth they believed they were entitled to.

The PC games industry has started to change in the last couple years. Elite Dangerous and others has revitalized the space sim which has been dead since the early oughts. Codemasters gave the fans Dirt Rally, which is much closer to Richard Burns Rally than the joke that was Dirt 3.

With the return of the Battlefield franchise to WWII, the PC gamers was hopeful the game would go back to it's roots back into that sweet spot between Unreal Tournament and ARMA. The Wilson loot box would hopefully be out after threat of government regulation. However the title being Battlefield V and not something like Battlefield 1942:2 gave foresight into the truth.

Male gamers play as female characters in RPGs and the like all of the time. There are quite a few games where a female is the primary protaganist in the game. You don't hear about an outrage with female characters in Overwatch or Fortnite. Normies don't care. What happened was DICE revealed the cyborg woman in a WW2 setting, and PC gamers realized they weren't going to get the game they were hoping for, and complained.

Nathan Grayson, of course, let all the SJWs know about the so sad sexist gamers complaining about there being women in the game in the most condescending way possible, and Mr. Grayson reignited Gamergate. EA/DICE went along with that narrative to cover up the fact they were releasing an unfinished game that their customers didn't want.

The authoritarian intersectionalist mob attacked the complainers and anyone who could understand their point of view, regardless if they agreed with it or not. They came out and called everyone gamerphobe slurs and accused them of sexism, racism, and ableism. The Gamergate wounds tore right open and EA/DICE agreed with the mob and told the gamers not to buy the game.

Re:"BF3 and BF4 were not great from a gameplay..."

[Jarwulf]

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.

SJW scum - nation wreckers

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so glad that they are losing money because of trying to push Bolshevik SJW bullshit (i.e. LIES) on their customers. SJWs are insane. They hate white people, especially white men, and want to flood our countries with millions of the 'perpetually oppressed', whom they hope will rise up against white people and take over. What joy. Fuck them. I have to work with pricks like this every day, literally insane, virtue signalling nutcases who believe that 'Hidden Figures' is reality, rather than 'based on a true story' - a Jewish phrase used to confuse the public.

Re:1942

[stealth_finger]

1942, Vietnam (also known as bfv), 2, 2142, Bad Co, 1943, Bad Co 2, 3, 4, Hardline, 1, V

That's how you number a series!

I'm baffled

[Anonymous Coward]

I really can't understand how people don't understand that getting woke is what got EA broke. I mean, if nothing else, they are the masters of rehashing old content and making it profitable. Look at FIFA. People buy this shit every single freaking year, paying full price for literally the same game with refreshed teams. Something that a patch should've done. Imagine if FIFA team adds mixed gender teams. Imagine for a second that FIFA 2020 has Real Madrid with both males and females and tell me if that game would sell like a hotcake or it would flop.

This is what happened to Battlefield V. It could've easily reached the sales numbers of 3/4 or 1. But it didn't. Nowhere near close, and it's not because the game is not vastly different from Bf1.

They'll probably recover and get those stock numbers up again with successful Anthem, it's their best people working on it. Bunch more FIFA releases and the shitshow that FUT is. But I hope they take this as a wake-up call. The same that the likes of Activision/Blizzard are taking right now, and they better start focusing on their core audience, or yet another game crash is coming upon us.

Gaming can be the highest grossing form of entertainment, but it has to be done right. Look at Red Dead Redemption, or hell, the latest God of War. They didn't spend their time dealing with political correctness bull*, they targetted their core audience that keeps those titles in borderline religion sense, and it paid. Those 2 are the highest grossing games of 2018, if not all time. RDR at least is. And GoW is a platform exclusive, so a lot of gamers simply couldn't play it on their platform of choice. And it still sold freaking well.

Historical authenticity got me

[DrXym]

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.

Re:Historical authenticity got me

[RabidStoat]

I think this is the key reason, yeah, all the stuff about catering to minorities is going to affect some people, but not most. EA have been churning out the same game for years now - is their policy going to be rotating around releasing WW1, WW2, Vietnam (60s/70s era) and modern day games that are increasingly similar and have annoying in game and DLC costs? It's a stale model that I think people are tired with it. Go and find a new game genre EA then you'll get sales again, until then stop regurgitating the same old content.

Far Cry 5 had similar controversy

[rsilvergun]

Far Cry 5 had similar controversy and ended up the best selling entry in the series. It's not the SJWs ruining things, it's the BF3 launch all over (minus the worst of the bugs).

BF5's missing key modes that have been around for ages with a bunch of promises to fix it later. Oh, and the single player is another 3-4 hour snoozefest (though at least it has one).

If they wanted to do early access they should have called it that. As it is they released a $60 title with about the same content you can get for free from Fortnite. The realistic art style might have carried it if they'd released a finished product but, well, they didn't.

And besides, that SJW controversy was mostly cooked up by the Youtube outrage engine looking for something to complain about. If EA's numbskull marketers had just kept their mouth shut it would have fizzled out, but that was the point. They got a ton of free publicity on what's little more than this years entry into a tired genre.

Re:Far Cry 5 had similar controversy

[Mashiki]

Far Cry 5 had similar controversy and ended up the best selling entry in the series. It's not the SJWs ruining things, it's the BF3 launch all over (minus the worst of the bugs).

I seem to remember the main complaints were SJWs complaining that it really wasn't a "time to shoot racists" simulator full of backwards Christians in KKK regalia(instead it being a drug-running cult), and then went out of it's way actually portray Montana as really not a racist shit hole. Montana still being partly shit is up for debate. You can find the mainstream game site complaints on that on sites like Polygon or RPS if you really want.

Re:Far Cry 5 had similar controversy

[Shadow of Eternity]

BF5 pandered to SJWs, FC5 pissed off SJWs. That's the difference.

Re:Far Cry 5 had similar controversy

[RedK]

Far Cry 5 had the absolute OPPOSITE controversy, and it's easy to see by the fact the "complaining" is coming from the people praising BFV. Namely, TheVerge, Vox, Polygon and other SJW pandering "gaming" blogs suddenly writing negative pieces about Far Cry 5 :

https://www.theverge.com/2018/...

Literally :

Ever since its reveal nearly a year ago, Far Cry 5 has invited controversy. Whereas most shooters have players aim their weapons at zombies, demons, or Nazis, Far Cry 5 takes place in Montana, and its enemies are American citizens who bear a strong resemblance to the stereotypical image of a modern, young white supremacist. The first piece of art for the game was a re-creation of The Last Supper, but with Southern hipsters wielding guns and knives and a tablecloth that was an alternate reality version of the American flag.

In the months since, the developers at Ubisoft Montreal have been hesitant to draw any true parallels between the gameâ(TM)s world and the real world. And after playing a few dozen hours of the game, the reason for their reticence is clear: Far Cry 5 doesnâ(TM)t have anything to say about race in America. It doesnâ(TM)t have much to say at all. Itâ(TM)s a big, dumb action game with an artificial sheen implying depth.

How disingenuous to you have to be to pretend both games received the same kind of "controversy".

Re: Far Cry 5 had similar controversy

[CronoCloud]

SJWs don't game. Pandering to them is retarded at best.

Hmmph, there are some of the alt-right/libertarian/gamergater/randroid/MRA crowd on Slashdot that would consider me a SJW.

I've probably been gaming before you were born. I have played Arcade pong in it's arcade form. Battlezone, Asteroids, Pac Man, Space Invaders, yeah those too. Home games from the Atari VCS to the PS4.

I don't know what kind of kool-aid you're drinking to think SJW's don't game.

Re:Far Cry 5 had similar controversy

[TechyImmigrant]

Far Cry 5 had similar controversy and ended up the best selling entry in the series. It's not the SJWs ruining things, it's the BF3 launch all over (minus the worst of the bugs).

I seem to remember the main complaints were SJWs complaining that it really wasn't a "time to shoot racists" simulator full of backwards Christians in KKK regalia(instead it being a drug-running cult), and then went out of it's way actually portray Montana as really not a racist shit hole. Montana still being partly shit is up for debate. You can find the mainstream game site complaints on that on sites like Polygon or RPS if you really want.

It was a pretty good game too. I just finished it and I'm working through the "Lost on Mars" add-on. I'm not feeling cheated. It was alright. I like the games where stealth and strategy work well, over running around with bullets flying in all directions.

Re:Far Cry 5 had similar controversy

[Anonymous Coward]

that SJW controversy was mostly cooked up by the Youtube outrage engine looking for something to complain about

No, it wasn't. DICE themselves told people not to buy the game instead of addressing the criticism properly.

People just took that advice to heart and fucked off.

Re: Far Cry 5 had similar controversy

[Shadow of Eternity]

So where's all of BF5's sales then? Get Woke, Go Broke.

Re: Far Cry 5 had similar controversy

[CronoCloud]

Occams Razor. Perhaps instead of coming up with a "it's not selling because...SJW" theory, perhaps instead it's because of:

1. EA's DLC/Loot box policies
2. Game mechanics not all that fun.
3. Basically the same game released yearly.
4. Instead of buying BF5, people are playing Fortnite, Overwatch, PUBG, Paladins, etc etc.

After all, Fortnite, Overwatch, Paladins, PUBG, and many other single player games (like big open-world RPG's) have playable female heroes.

Re: Far Cry 5 had similar controversy

[Shadow of Eternity]

You're acting like SJWism isn't deeply embedded in corrupt corporatocracy and crony capitalism.

To be fair Battlefield is mostly an engine

[rsilvergun]

It's EA's competitor to Unreal. They just never got it off the ground. I don't think that's because Frostbite is bad so much as because Unreal is good. Doesn't hurt that Unreal is the established player in this space so it's got a ton more optimizations.

Can you tell me how many bunny hoppers

[rsilvergun]

spawn campers and aim bots were on the beaches of Normandy? Cause that's the message I get playing a military shooter.

It's a video game. Lighten up, Francis.

I think it's more the devs fault

[rsilvergun]

for not getting the finished game out in time. Half the modes are missing and there's not a lot of reason to stop playing BF1. Also they're the first to market with ray tracing which probably took a lot of development time away right at the end, but then that tech turned out to be a dud with $1000 cards that struggle to maintain 60 fps at 1080p with the feature turned on.

Far Cry 5 showed that if the games good gamers will buy it anyway, controversy be damned.

Re:I think it's more the devs fault

[Mashiki]

Far Cry 5 showed that if the games good gamers will buy it anyway, controversy be damned.

FC5 is a rather poor example, even though the gaming press tried to tank it several times, finally giving up. Kingdom Come: Deliverance would be a far better example. The mainstream gaming sites? Kotaku('gamers want to keep medieval games white!' Polygon(blahblah misogyny, gamers want to keep it white!') Giant Bomb(we refuse to review it!) and so on. A title that was attacked by SJWs for having white characters, not being diverse, rampant complaints of misogyny, was blacklisted by other members of the gaming press, was topic banned in several gaming subreddits to boot. Which went on to sell around 1.5m copies.

It's very easy to sell an established title, on a storefront you already own, with 5ish prior titles to build off of. Far more difficult to go from nobody studio to holy shit this is awesome.

It's not about the "historical accuracy"

[gotan]

... players wouldn't care about historical inaccuracies if it's due to an oversight or to benefit the game in some way. But if there is an inaccuracy willfully introduced in the game, then one may ask why. The answer in this case is: to take up the cause for diversity politics.

And that's (in my opinion) what at least some gamers dislike: buying a product that force feeds you thinly disguised political propaganda. It's like in game advertising, only with politics: If you want to get away with it at least make it unobtrusive.

But maybe the EA developers didn't want to be unobtrusive, maybe they wanted to make a blatant statement. In that case they should expect some opposition, especially on a subject as polarizing as the diversity agenda is.

So it sparked a debate and probably factored in buying decisions for those undecided after considering more important aspects, like gameplay, pricing etc.

If the game is as mediocre as seems to be the case, then maybe the developers should have put more effort in the game itself and less in the "correct" political message though.

Re:It's not about the "historical accuracy"

[thegarbz]

This cannot be reiterated enough. Those people comparing a casting choice to a mechanic such as respawning as in a lot of the comments here have most fundamentally and colossally missed the point.

A Few Things

[Anonymous Coward]

1) If you introduce new graphics techniques, do not wrap the engine around them. Use those new techniques as an additive. When constructing the engine, ensure that it flows efficiently across what would normally be considered "Legacy" cards. DX12 has been around for a long time. There is absolutely no need to take things to a new level that really doesn't exist. There have always been engine issues upon release. Someone is trying to do too much with no precision.

2) Catering to a small minority of obnoxious SJWs is a really fucking stupid business model. Most of them don't play games because they get triggered. Walking on eggshells to create a game that will be deemed offensive given time, (I mean did you forget about transwerepires? You are transwerephobic!), gets exactly what you deserved. On top of that, you screwed Nvidia a bit on top of their own problems.

3) When you market larger maps...You really need to make the maps larger. Not just a few units here, few units there, or creating a game mode that still has a small area but expands as the game goes on. Going back to even BF3, flying a plane was a perpetual zoom and boom and continuous turning because the map was cramped. Going all the way back to BF1942, the maps were so much bigger then. The maps need to be BIG. If you don't know what that means, I suggest Planetside 2, or Arma 3. If you make the excuse that an engine can't handle extremely large maps, I suggest you play Elite Dangerous.

The SJW complaints are mostly with story mode

[rsilvergun]

but you know what, only about 10% of Call of Duty players finish story mode. I couldn't find BF stats but I'm guessing it's the same (they're in the same genre and are basically the Mortal Kombat/Street Fighter of the military shooter world, discuss among yourselves which is MK and which is SF).

The sales suck because:

1. It went up against Rockstar's Red Dead. Everybody was gonna take a bath this year no matter what. It's like when a new Elder Scrolls comes out, there's only so many hours in the day and everybody is busy playing that.
2. The game's unfinished (it's missing half it's modes) so folks are playing BF1, which was $5 bucks on Origin recently. I'm guessing the last minute push to put Ray Tracing in is to blame.

There's no such thing as bad publicity. Far Cry 5 had similar controversy and managed to be the best selling Far Cry in history. Gamers will put their dislikes and politics aside if you bring a good game. But if you bring a mediocre one while they're 50 hours into a 200 Red Dead play through expect to get hosed.

On the plus side no Rockstar games in 2019 (I'm not a fan of Red Dead & GTA) so there's a ton of great games coming out. The rest of the game industry noticed a new Rockstar game and planned their releases accordingly, but that doesn't work for annual & bi-annual franchises. You can't risk your player base getting out of the habit of buying this years release. Hell, if the community should be mad it's about that crap.

Re:The SJW complaints are mostly with story mode

[drinkypoo]

I'm guessing the last minute push to put Ray Tracing in is to blame.

Does that really make sense? The people working on rendering probably aren't the same as the people working on game modes.

Re: The SJW complaints are mostly with story mode

[rsilvergun]

You still have to rest and debug it. And they can't risk breaking it with Ray tracing. Nvidia would be pissed and they need a good relationship with the largest video card manufacturer.

Re:The SJW complaints are mostly with story mode

[asdfman2000]

Far Cry 5 had similar controversy and managed to be the best selling Far Cry in history.

Are you guys getting your talking points from somewhere? You're like the 3rd or 4th person in this thread claiming Far Cry 5 had a similar controversy.

Far Cry 5's "controversy" was literally the opposite case. Gaming media was upset it WAS NOT the white supremist murder simulator they wanted it to be. The "controversy" was that it WASN'T political, not that it was. And surprise surprise, gamers at it up.

The damage of shit talking.

[Computershack]

Unfortunately most of the damage has been down to people shit talking the game before it even came out and then continuing, the majority of whom have never ever played it but are merely regurgitating comments made by others. A lot of the videos on Youtube which were apparently "reviews" didn't contain the reviewer playing it but merely showed clips of gameplay mostly from promo videos. Fortunately for me I'm old enough to ignore such bollocks from people who would never get a job reviewing a turd in the real world and I'm glad I did because I enjoy playing the game.

Re:The damage of shit talking.

[NettiWelho]

Unfortunately most of the damage has been down to people shit talking the game before it even came out and then continuing, the majority of whom have never ever played it but are merely regurgitating comments made by others.

If you cannot trust the game devs whos word can you trust? The following picture was tweeted out by devs and is completely unaltered: https://i.imgur.com/Yu2ms5k.jp...
Also those are not just their opinions, they included their personal biases into the game as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/Lives...

Re:That's a load of shit.

[Nidi62]

Prosthetics COULD allow someone to go into battle with a rifle with only one arm and it is NOT a cybernetic enhancement.

The Luftwaffe's top Stuka pilot, Rudel, flew with a prosthetic leg after he was shot down late in the war. Douglas Bader flew for the RAF as a double amputee (both legs). I want to say there was a Marine aviator in WW2 as well who flew with a prosthetic leg but the name escapes me and google is failing me at the moment. I believe it was mentioned in Robert Leckie's book.

it has nothing to do with sjw

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont buy battlefield games anymore because they have not done a game better than the current bf that i play (bf4) and because their games have no anticheat whatsoever while other companies actually bother to try to do something about it

not going to buy a 70 bucks game INFERIOR game to play with the same cheaters i already play with

you might ask, how is the game inferior? again, it has nothing to do with sjw with purple hairs, ww2, and ww1 by definition, are lamer than a modern game, the maps are worse, the weapons are worse, the gameplay is worse, and i have less gadgets and stuff to use. Its by all metrics except graphics, a worse game

if the game were worse but at least did not have so many cheaters, i would buy it, even if all characters were bernie voters, i would literally not care, but since the community already told me that its some kind of DICE tradition to not do anything about at all about cheating (i guess its because they are swedish and becausse when something bad happens in sweden they just pretend it didnt), BF4 will obviously be my FIRST and LAST battlefield purchase. And since electronic arts makes no other multiplayer game that is somewhat decent and i PIRATE everything non multiplayer, i guess im going to be spending very little in electronic arts products

And thats fine with me, it seems its what they want so we have come to an understanding. So everything is fine :-)

How to make a game

[AHuxley]

Remember who is going to be buying the game.
What the users expect to play during a game sold as been historic.
When a game is set in a historic setting don't add large amounts unexpected of pure fantasy.
A fantasy game can be sold as a fantasy game.
A game promoted to be about history, sell the content as such.
Always listen to your fans and reviewers. Be nice to all reviewers and fans.
They are the real people with money who will be buying and promoting the game.

Get the talked about CPU and GPU support correct before selling a game.

Re:How to make a game

[NettiWelho]

Be nice to [..] fans. .

Really this, they dropped the ball big time

Re:How to make a game

[AHuxley]

The fans expect a war game.
With uniforms, history, sounds and music thats fitting to a few years.
Do not mix true events with pure political fantasy. The reviewers and fans who have to pay for the game will notice.
Want pure political fantasy? Make the game as such. It will could do well as the game is presented and promoted as such.
Want ww2? Look at the physics, sounds, uniforms, people, culture, politics, missions.
Don't write out a well known hero that existed in history with new pure political fantasy.
Create the historical mission with names as it happened. People like playing as the hero on the winning team.
Create a fantasy alternative history setting and its all wide open to the imagination.

No one gives a sh*t ...

[Qbertino]

... about wether a game is catering to diversity or social justice or not. Absolutely positively no one at all. People do care if it's a good game or not. And my assumption, knowing EA, is that it's probably a shitty and utterly pointless game. For all I care EA along with today's ActiJizz can go die in a fire and I figure most games think the same of today's triple A industry.

Re:No one gives a sh*t ...

[Moof123]

+1. I grabbed it on-sale, and kind of want my money back. The whole nickel and diming for the "Deluxe" version, or early access pisses me off. The weird roll-out schedule annoyed me into waiting till it went on-sale. It sucks to then be the guy with a pea shooter while everyone else is a month or two ahead on unlocks. Grinding through the ranks to unlock stuff has gotten to be tiresome and rather boring.

I want to hop into a game and have fun, not suffer through paying my figurative dues that much (or literally paying to avoid doing so).

So BF5 feels like a movie with beautiful set and a shitty script. The game play is barely distinguishable from BF1, which I barely played and regret buying. It bogs down hard on my GTX 970 unless I really ratchet down the effects to mostly Low settings, which is also frustrating. Upgrading to something substantially better is a $300+ proposition, so folks like me who only get a few hours a week to play games anymore have a pretty hard time justifying that kind of Nvidia tax.

Shocking!

[Pyramid]

Too bad it was utterly impossible to predict this would happen...

Battlefield V?

[artemis67]

I just finished Battlefield I, now I have to play through Battlefields II, III, and IV.

Assassin's Creed Odyssey has the same issue

[Gription]

Assassin's Creed Odyssey has a similar awkward and stilted bent towards gender and gender identity equality that it is a constant nagging irritation throughout the game. The percentage of female soldiers is ridiculously high and the endless number of NPCs trying for same sex hookups jars you out of your suspended disbelief.

MAKE A GAME. DON'T PUSH A SOCIAL AGENDA.
If you really want to display same sex relationships in an ancient Greek setting you have a historically accurate example sitting there: Adult men with young boys. It was an accepted relationship that was seen as a form of mentor-ship. But that doesn't fit your social agenda does it?!

EA is just a bad game company

[Toxiz]

I haven't bought an EA game since 2013 and it has nothing do with politics. I have three main issues with EA, not in any order. The first is reskins. Every AAA title they release for AAA prices is just a re-skin of a game they already made years ago. The second is the Origin Storefront. They force you to use the Origin store for their games, when they don't have anywhere near a big enough game catalog to force another store on me. The thrid is the complete wasting of prime IP. They have some of my favorite IP tied up in licenses and refuse to make decent games.

NFL keep cranking out those crappy madden titles
PGA tour golf they haven't made a decent game since 08
Harry Potter - how you waste this with a single crappy quidditch game i don't know
Star Wars - Only made battlefield reskins, never even made a real game for it
SimCity - acquired, made one crappy attempt at some online BS and killed it
I'm ready to see this company go away, and stop wasting prime IP.

Fuck em

[spacecav]

I came late to the game for BF3 but before all the DLC had been released and I found it quite fun. Went all-in, paid for a console, television, and sound setup to play it, got premium, the works. Fast forward a year or two, BF4 gets announced and released. Feels like a step backwards in so many ways, then I realize the graphics are running in compatibility because the engine really isn't designed for my console but EA released on it anyway because of market share. Well, ok can't fault them too much for that. Not having as much fun, the maps and design have deemphasized the parts I liked to emphasize dueling and some shit about hunting for trinkets in random spots on the map...um well okay...BF3 died so this is what there is to play, I'll just adjust...at least there's missions...but nope, those are only for people that are on nextgen consoles...wtf?? Fine, whatever... Few years later, here comes BF1. We're keeping snipers, but there's nowhere on the map for them, just duel like everyone else loser. Good luck understanding the customization and advancement system...there's only like 2 attachments per gun anyway but don't worry we'll release 80 skins for each that nobody will ever see. Forget any further investment in the other titles in the series at this point, BF1 is all that matters. Well, ok...at least the setting is interesting and different... Another 2 years and poof...fuck that BF1 here comes BF5, you'll want a $1000 video card to render Jennie Mnemonic in the Battle of the Bulge... You know what...no...no I won't...even gamers will eventually stop following a carrot that turns into a turd everytime EA swaps out sticks.

The sales models have changed. Also BR is required

[Viewsonic]

Launching without a BR mode for a multiplayer based game today is suicide. It's currently the mode most gamers are craving today if Fortnite / PUBG / CoD is any indication. Team DM is still fun, but it's BR that is the "hot new thing". Also, we are seeing that releasing BR games for pay just don't have thriving player bases. The idea that players should drop $60 for the game, then subscribe to season passes is so early 2000s. That era has come to an end. Players demand the games to be free, all the maps to be free, but charge for in-game items like hats, clothes, gun skins, etc. Everyone saw this coming with Team Fortress YEARS ago, and now it's here.

What can they do to fix this? Made BF5 free to play. Add in purchasable skins. Not maps, or guns. Just skins. Emotes. Then get the BR mode out ASAP. Single, Squad, Team modes. 1/4/50 player teams in this mode.

I'll gladly download it and buy a pile of skins. I have for Fortnite, PubG, and CoD. But I refuse to buy any map packs or any other content that isn't free going forward.

Wrong headline

[Colourspace]

It should actually read "Electronic Arts Has Become a Disaster For Electronic Arts"

Did not buy

[Hadlock]

I ran a series of very popular Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4 servers for four years, we had a pretty complex signup process (used both steam and origin systems, as steam had a better event popup system) and still had over 3500 people sign up... for Battlefield 3 we had the #2 most popular server according to gametracker (cantaloupe island). I would qualify as one of the most dedicated fans of the series, perhaps.
 
Did not buy Battlefield 1 until a couple weeks before BF5 was supposed to come out, Battlefield 1 gameplay was so awful that I never bothered to keep track of when BF5 was eventually released. I never bought Battlefield 5. Also there's the whole problem of having to know which version of Battlefield 5 to buy that will have all the map packs built in from the beginning. I just don't have time for that anymore. I even bought a new gaming laptop before it came out, but.... changing release dates and spending time looking up which versions actually ship with all the maps... not worth it. I might buy BF5 in a couple months when all the bugs have been worked out and maps have been released. Maybe.

try Foxhole instead of EA games

[HongPong]

Well I would recommend a much better value from an independent publisher, Foxhole by independent house Clapfoot Games, got it on discount for a whopping $11. It is based on Unreal Engine with recently overhauled graphics. http://www.foxholegame.com/ The wars go on for a few weeks like a multi-capture the flag, you can follow them at https://foxholestats.com/ . The current war has gone back and forth a few times, now Wardens are starting to womp the Colonials. The publishers have promised no microtransactions or other schemes.

Also the independently produced Rimworld turned out to be the most highly rated game on Steam last year. Understandable due to good game and character design and an extensive modding community (for example you can make a whole complex cannabis industry lol). Note how the fanciness of graphics is absolutely minimal, the characters are outlines with swappable clothes, but their behaviors are unique and relatable and they spontaneously react to stress. Some people have criticized character design decisions in the game, but also modders have made alternative models including for example the Kinsey scale.

https://www.techquila.co.in/ri...
https://www.pcgamer.com/rimwor...
https://www.pcgamesn.com/rimwo...

Disappointing that this post is overrun by snarly anonymous gamergate weirdos. Everyone knows EA is a scam machine, they drove Maxis and Simcity into the ground. If you don't like how a giant corporation tacks on pseudo social awareness then avoid the company.

heaving to buy

[epine]

Sucks when you have to hold a puke bucket in one hand and your CC in the other.

I guess it's a good thing those expensive, iBuds now allow you to talk hands free, with no dangling wire to aim around, if your IRL aim is substandard.

With a spattered wire, you'd have to map out the kitchen where you actually live, address the cabinet below the sink, and issue "OPEN door", "GET rag" and "GET bleach", follow the helpful breadcrumbs you dropped along the way back to your desk, "PUT bleach on rag", "WIPE all"—more than once, until the stench is sufficiently abated to restore single vision—and then after all of that, the only thing you find in your plunder box are some crusty Kleenex from yesteryear wedged into a desk-side crevice.

Re:heaving to buy

[VampBoy]

You forgot about the grue that randomly appears and consumes you. Game Over, man, game over!

There's a lot of irony here. And maybe a lesson.

[urbanriot]

Prior to release, concerning the game's backlash re: historical accuracy with so much inclusivity, from Wikipedia, "EA chief creative officer Patrick SÃderlund said the developer was uninterested in taking flak for diversifying the gaming space. "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," he said."

From this Slashdot post's summary at the end, "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."

... maybe now EA will start listening?

Re:The sales models have changed. Also BR is requi

[Nidi62]

Launching without a BR mode for a multiplayer based game today is suicide.

For crappy, arcadey, mass-produced bullet sponge shooters, maybe. But hardcore, tactical shooters seem to be doing just fine without them. Only problem (if you can call it that) with that game is that everything barring cosmetics are unlocked from the get go so there are almost too many weapons/attachments/loadouts to figure out and get comfortable with at first.

Getting too complicated

[stinkyj]

I've played every battlefield game since 1942. I enjoyed BF1, but probably spent less time with it then previous generations. BFV looks like vietnam so I will call if BF5, it's a beautiful looking game, plays well, but it's getting too complicated. You used to be able to click twice and be in a game. I spend more time trying to figure out what the heck is going on in the menus now. Maybe I'm just an old fart now, but it could have shipped with less game modes. I don't think everyone wants to grind and grind to get stuff anymore. What are all these different kinds of loot boxes? Daily challenges? I just want to shoot some folks and use some vehicles. does it have to be so complex now? I don't play fortnite, but that seems like a jump in quick game.

Loved BF2

[irp]

I loved BF2. Played it until they closed the servers.

BF2 was primitive with today's standards (and the plane/choppers was difficult to use and FAR too powerful in the hands of those who mastered them!).

Its strength - in my opinion - was a nice balance between being sufficiently slow paced that you could act strategically, while still have enough close quarters action that it wasn't boring. The snipers worked well. They were annoying but not that dangerous if you were aware. Could hide fairly well (not like in BF3 where the choppers had infrared vision). Generally if a team started winning too much, people would start sniping, which automatically would leveling the game back, until the winners started loosing again. It balanced itself out. I loved playing as a counter-sniper sniper :)

But the best part that it actually tried to make the squads cooperate. 90% of all squads were bad, but with some luck (and I soon started to recognize the good leaders) I could get on a squad which really worked together. When that happened we could CRUSH the other team. Of course there were a good change that the other team had the good squads. In that case it was just a matter of playing cannon food for the round, so at least the other team could have a great time - and hope for a better next round...

With the servers offline I bought BF3. What a waste. Felt far to arcade-like. The squads did not work. If you were on one, you were randomly assigned as "leader" - so with a squad of 5(?) there was a >80% change that the squad leader DID NOT want to lead... :-(

Then the BF2 servers were resurrected, and I played until EA forced them closed.
After which I swore never to buy from EA again! Good thing they are making it SOO easy! :-)

For me, it was the wrong era

[elrick_the_brave]

I thoroughly enjoyed BF3 & 4, especially 4. I was hoping for a modern or futurist era update for multiplayer. BF1 was a good game and I did play it for a while.

I went back to BF4 to continue. If/when a viable modern or futurist BF equivalent comes out, I'll give it a go.

Somber relfection

[sinij]

I played BF since BF2 and FPS since Doom 2, but I took pass on BF5 for the following reasons:

a. I don't want to grind unlocks again.
b. I don't want to have to pay for season pass on top of full price or have everyone abandon 'base' game and move-on to newer maps in a couple months.
c. I really don't like loot boxes, and I expect EA to push them on me even harder.
d. Getting BF5 to run would require me to download Origins and recover my account, which is a bother.
e. I don't want to pay $1500 for a new video card or have the game look like minecraft on my moderately sized screen.
...
z. Brouhaha with inclusivity and virtue signaling wokeness.

As much as I want to see the end of victimhood and grievance culture, BF5 failure is unlikely to be the beginning of the end for it in gaming. The likely explanation is that EA's nickel-and-dime DLCs and loot boxes caught up to them, not their attempts to virtue-signal wokeness.

Good! Screw that game ....

[King_TJ]

I regret every dollar I wasted buying previous Battlefield titles, and I had the good sense to skip this one.

I do like first-person shooters and I had a lot of fun playing some of the Call of Duty games, so all the hype over the latest Battlefield installment usually got the best of me and caused me to go ahead and purchase/try it. But among other things, I really dislike that UI they insist on sticking with where everything is managed from a web-based front end/menu. I don't know why exactly? I guess it just feels like it hogs needless resources running a browser session just to draw screens that any other game I ever played just hard-coded in as the menus?

Beyond that, though? I just never got that into the game-play. Each new iteration promises "more" -- but it's got the same basic formula that just doesn't do it for me. As formulaic as EA titles are anyway? They *really* need to get everything right with them, or else gamers seem doomed to suffer through the same flaws, no matter how many new editions they release.

Time for some of these tired re-hashes to see poor enough sales so maybe they make the effort to do something totally new.

Few things in life so sweet...

[HanzoSpam]

...as seeing a company full of SJWs getting the drubbing they deserve. Now do Google, Facebook and Twitter.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

FC5 didn't piss off SJWs

[rsilvergun]

it's pissed off the right wing who saw it as an attack on rural culture and conservative values. The antagonist is an authoritarian religious crack pot modeled after Clive Bundy for Pete's sake.

Now, you're probably right that some of the most extreme SJWs were upset over FC5's stereotypical depiction of evangelicals (these are the same folks who defend Islam as a religion of peace and freedom when their bible is chock full of violence & misogyny). But you can find a crack pot on the left willing to say anything just like you can find guys like this on the right.

They're all a side show. There are bigger issues. In this case the bigger issue is that BF1 was pretty great and was $5 bucks, Red Dead 2 just came out and Fortnite's free and runs on a Potato and BF5 was yet another unfinished $60 dollar title.

You are ignoring why

[SuperKendall]

Or, you know... it's just not a very good game. Couldn't have anything to do with it, though, no

That is why, but ignore then the question of WHY it's not a very good game, and there you get right back into the SJW territory of them having messed up the single player story.

I really liked the original Battlefield games and was thinking about getting this one. But I like the single player aspects of these games too, and them overly messing with the historical reality really put my off. It's sort of the uncanny valley but for story - don't try to make it historical but then mess with facts when it pleases you. Either make it an alternate history (which is fine) or stick to what was, which is pretty damn interesting all by itself.

From reading Angry Joe's review the multiplayer aspect and gameplay is actually pretty good. So if it's not that which has been messed up, what is left for reasons why people are not buying it...

Women in video games are roundly celebrated

[SuperKendall]

"Women? In my game? THAT'S NOT REALISTIC!

It is beyond absurd to me that people think anyone cares if women are in games just because they are women, when so many examples abound of hugely popular games that had either women leads or strong women in them.

So then when people say something is not realistic, perhaps you should look into why they are saying that rather than assume it's the fact women that are in there is the problem (read up on how they changed the Norwegian campaign).

The sad part is you could have an AWESOME and very realistic WW2 game that had women in it, sticking to historical accuracy. No need to revise history if that's a part of history you want to highlight.

More fake news.

[JustNiz]

Battlefield 5 was released on Nov 9, 2018.
On that date, EA stock was 88.89 USD.
Midday today, EA stock was 89 USD.

Because it's fun

[rsilvergun]

that's why. If you want realism go play Red Orchestra.

I haven't heard anyone but hard core incels complain about the women in multiplayer. I _have_ heard some legit complaints about the story mode, but I don't know enough about BF's level of realism to comment on whether they're well founded.

Still, does anyone really buy a BF game for the story mode? Story mode is where an FPS newb learns the mechanics.

Movie studios are more profitable than ever

[rsilvergun]

because of China. Ford, GM & Chrysler are doing just fine. AMC didn't go bust, they just got bought out, by Chrysler no less. New Coke was more than likely just Coke experimenting with new HFCS formulas. And again, Coke seems to be doing just fine.

All of these companies are doing just fine. Their business practices were often abominable (GM basically folder the company making all the stock worthless except for the wealthiest shareholders), but they did just fine.

As for EA, it's a bad year for everyone what with Red Dead 2 out and Fortnite still a thing. Wait till next year.

Past a certain point of money and power bad decisions don't hurt anymore. The only thing that'll kill a mega corp is a vulture capitalist like Eddie Lambert sucking the life out of Sears. Anything short of that and they're functionally immortal.

Re:Movie studios are more profitable than ever

[Mashiki]

AMC got a federal bailout and went broke, then got bought out by Chrysler - who had recovered from their bailout. All of the above companies attempted to pull the "they'll buy what we tell them to buy" go read the interviews with the CEO's at the time. New Coke was a "they'll buy what we're telling them" otherwise they wouldn't have stopped all production of the original formula. Did you forget that? All of those companies are more or less fine because their only options were: Listen to the actual market instead of marketers, or go broke.

As for EA, it's a bad year for everyone what with Red Dead 2 out and Fortnite still a thing. Wait till next year.

So ME:A was a great seller and the satellite studio hasn't been folded? And Deadspace 4 is still a thing? Oh and DA:I wasn't a clusterfuck, and then there was the bit about the "if you don't like social justice agendas, don't buy DA4" bit. Then there was that gigantic clusterfuck with C&C Generals, or the previous multiple fuckups with the Red Alert series in the last year?

Starting to sound like you're talking about a topic that you don't even have basic knowledge on.

Doesn't that just mean

[rsilvergun]

that lots of people are opting to play as females?

I'm not a Military Shooter guy

[rsilvergun]

more a Borderlands type, but BF3 was supposed to be pretty great once the bugs were patched. BF5 lacks content but it's also pretty stable by all accounts. Give it 6 months and it'll probably be a pretty great game and $20 bucks.

It's not propaganda

[rsilvergun]

You're giving them too much credit. They saw how successful the first Star Wars movie was with girls and in their own sad, clumsy way they were trying to attract a female audience.

Now, to be fair, they were doing that out of greed (do you have any idea how much money they could make if they could get girls to play Battlefield games? I'm not even joking).

EA has shot their feet off and need a medic

[CareBear-Killer]

I don't think most core BF fans care about the game having female amputees fighting... because for one, it's a fucking game. Two, it's Battlefield. and if you want to start in about inaccuracies, then you better go back and replay 1942 all the way up to V, because you've clearly missed some inaccuracies over the years. The only thing that's ever been accurate about Battlefield is the year of the game. Where they shot themselves in the foot is how they handled the situation. They handled it poorly. If they had the right PR people in place, most people would have just moved on. They shot themselves in the foot with a freaking RPG when they gave Origin Premier users access *BEFORE* Pre-orders. Essentially, they let millions of people try the game for $15. Thousands of people returned their pre-orders in favor of Origin Premier. When the game didn't pan out well, everyone just canceled. The quickest way to turn $60 into $15. Great job, EA! This worked out well for me and several people I know. We all returned our pre-orders and went with Premier. After a few days, they released the Day1 patch, which broke the game for a lot of people... We would randomly crash somewhere between 30seconds to 2hours. No error popups or anything. Windows Event viewer gave a crash code. Upon looking up that crash code, you'd see a couple posts for BFV....However, you'd see that same error and symptom showing up in both Battlefront games and BF1.... So... For a game that was supposedly written from scratch...well... it wasn't. Kind of leaves a salty taste in your mouth. Then the December patch was delayed past my Premier bill date, so canceling premier became a very easy decision.

Re:EA has shot their feet off and need a medic

[Gilgaron]

For an online game that depends on a threshold of motivated users, this sounds much more plausible that the culture warfare everyone else is blaming. If the most excited people about the game could opt to get it earlier for cheaper, and then were disillusioned... that pretty much ensures it is going to be stillborn.

Re: Is it?

[Kohlrabi82]

I was pretty happily playing Return of the Obra Dinn lately and didn't have to touch any of these awful titles you mentioned. Into the Breach was great as well.

Realism is not Authenticity

[Tanon]

Those attempting to make the argument that the presence of inherently "unrealistic" features in games like Battlefield (e.g player respawns) contradicts the criticism of the design choices in Battlefield 5 as "unrealistic" are either missing the point, or being deliberately facetious.

The reason I used quotation marks in the sentence above, is that, when gamers talk of "realism", they often use it as a catch-all phrase to describe a variety of distinct things, including physical realism and contextual authenticity.

Physical realism relates mainly to the underlying mechanics of gameplay; things like gravitationally dependent bullet trajectories, destructible environments, calibre/material dependent bullet penetration, weight dependent stamina of characters etc. Gamers often appreciate these effects for two reasons; it adds more complexity to the game and therefore a greater degree of strategy, as well as aiding suspension of disbelief, making the experience more engrossing.

Contextual authenticity , on the other hand, rarely relates to the actual mechanics of the game, but instead deals with things such as the narrative and presentation. These aspects rarely affect the gameplay and tend not to offer any greater complexity, but further aid suspension of disbelief and go someway to making the experience feel distinct; the kind of way that Call of Duty: World at War was different to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, resulting in sales of 15.02m vs 17.28m, bucking the trend of sequels improving sales figures, despite having almost exactly the same underlying game mechanics.

Why is contextual authenticity important to people? I don't know, why do people like to go to the cinema or imax for films, to listen to high definition audio through $1000 speakers?

At the end of the day, the players were asking for both that physical realism and contextual realism and Dice decided they were happy to sacrifice the latter on the altar of Social Justice. The fact that they claimed the game was "realistic" and in fact "authentic", I think, made it much worse, as it came across as them deliberately setting out to make a political message out of the game, which, at the end of the day, is completely inappropriate and ultimately short-sighted, which is why they're deservedly in the mess that they're in now.

It's the Gameplay, Stupid

[nealric]

The people complaining about a box cover with a woman on it are a vocal, but ultimately small minority. If you are actually playing the multiplayer portion of the game (which is 95% of what people buy BF for), the actual "intrusion" of some women characters is hardly noticeable other than the screams if you are playing sniper or medic. You might recall that BF1 had female snipers as well and nobody gave a rat's behind. Nor is EA's reaction to the "scandal" a big part of it. The vast majority of buyers aren't paying attention to nonsense the blow-by blow.

No, the reason people aren't buying BFV is the same reason people don't go see a flop movie: it's just not the greatest product. Mind you, I think BFV actually has a lot of potential, but months after release it still feels like a beta game in a lot of ways. It still has very few maps, many bugs, and uneven game play. Important details were overlooked. For example, it's almost impossible to keep teams properly balanced (no autobalance or easy team switching), so 90%+ of games are lopsided victories/defeats (not particularly exciting).

The renewed focus on squadplay by limiting ammo and allowing squad revives is great in theory, but in practice people still don't play together that well. I can't tell you how many times I've jumped up and down in front of a support teammate asking for ammo and gotten ignored. It's not EA's fault that people don't play as squads, but it is their fault for not anticipating that. People anonymously matched from a server don't immediately form coherent teams- most of the time only one or two members of a squad has a microphone and tying to type to squad members is just not useful in real time. In the event you do have a coherent squad to play with, you end up with the lopsided victory scenario, as you are probably the only squad playing as intended.

While people may not really be thinking about all of these things explicitly, it all adds up to the fact that people who've played the game don't feel like they had fun. When their friends ask how BFV is, they say "it sucks," and their friends don't buy the game. That's why it's not selling- ignore the politics.