• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Battlefield 5 retail listing at World of Games (Swiss), "tactical shooter in WW1"

Battlefield 4 was not set in the Middle East...

but still felt like the 100th modern military shooter... That's why I'm half curious about the new CoD in space, they can at least try to go a bit bonker on weapons, setting, set pieces, level design, etc... (a man can dream)
 
Gemüsepizza;202196661 said:
Lmao. If BF5 does not have a campaign, it will bomb.

So wrong, who buys BF for single player. BF5 will be $60 season pass will be $40, the inclusion of a single player campaign has no effect on price.
 
Gemüsepizza;202196661 said:
Lmao. If BF5 does not have a campaign, it will bomb.

I think you forget how powerful the 'Battlefield' name is.

It wont.

It didnt for Battlefront either, which has a greater brand recognisiton.

Hell they even managed to sell Hardline of the back of the Battlefield name.
 
lmao no it wont.

After SW:BF? It sure as hell would bomb.

So wrong, who buys BF for single player. BF5 will be $60 season pass will be $40, the inclusion of a single player campaign has no effect on price.

Lots of people buy games like BF, CoD for the campaign. Suddenly dropping the campaign while keeping the price the same would backfire.

I think you forget how powerful the 'Battlefield' name is.

It wont.

It didnt for Battlefront either, which has a greater brand recognisiton.

Hell they even managed to sell Hardline of the back of the Battlefield name.

BF:H at least had a campaign. And Battlefront did damage DICE's reputation quite a bit. If their next game won't be much better, sales won't match EA's expectations.
 
Gemüsepizza;202197281 said:

Yeah, because all of those MP servers that are still populated 2 and a half years on are because the SP made such a huge impression on them...

25e.gif


People play, and more importantly stay with BF for the MP. That won't change.
 
Gemüsepizza;202197281 said:
After SW:BF? It sure as hell would bomb.

Battlefront did fine.

Dont now about you, but the last two DICE Battlefield games had a awful campaign.
Hardline Campaign wasnt great either to me.


And most people buy Battlefield for MP. So yeah no, it wont bomb.

Games known for their Multiplayer are not doomed if they dont provide a shitty 6 hours Singleplayer campaign.

Gamers should just accept that concept of MP only games.
 
Battlefront did fine.

Initially, because it's a strong IP. But the game was received poorly, and servers on PC are already a wasteland.

Dont now about you, but the last two DICE Battlefield games had a awful campaign.
Hardline Campaign wasnt great either to me.

They just need better writers. And I enjoyed the Battlefield Hardline campaign actually quite a lot.

And most people buy Battlefield for MP. So yeah no, it wont bomb.

Games known for their Multiplayer are not doomed if they dont provide a shitty 6 hours Singleplayer campaign.

Gamers should just accept that concept of MP only games.

There is nothing wrong with the existence of MP only games. But suddenly removing the SP mode from a game series is not a good idea. People will be disappointed. And then charging the same price, while not noticeably improving the MP part? Really, really bad idea. Battlefront demonstrated how to not make a game like this.
 
Gemüsepizza;202197281 said:
After SW:BF? It sure as hell would bomb.



Lots of people buy games like BF, CoD for the campaign. Suddenly dropping the campaign while keeping the price the same would backfire.



BF:H at least had a campaign. And Battlefront did damage DICE's reputation quite a bit. If their next game won't be much better, sales won't match EA's expectations.

I don't understand.

Sales wise Battlefront completely shattered EA's expectations.

Hell, in the UK the game is showing good legs. I think it's 3rd on charts behind new releases.

If anything, EA shouldn't expect Battlefront numbers intially. I can't see Battlefield selling 13 mil within a few months, over the course of a year or two, sure.

If anything, BF4 was always gonna be what people judged and still to this day I see judge future DICE/Battlefield games on.

With that said, I think most people have been impressed by how they recovered.
 

E.B.E

Banned
Battlefront did fine.

Dont now about you, but the last two DICE Battlefield games had a awful campaign.
Hardline Campaign wasnt great either to me.


And most people buy Battlefield for MP. So yeah no, it wont bomb.

Games known for their Multiplayer are not doomed if they dont provide a shitty 6 hours Singleplayer campaign.

Gamers should just accept that concept of MP only games.

Like fuck. I'm not paying 130NZD for MP only that needs an additional paywall fee to play online. You seem to have very aggressive opinions on what you think BF should be, even more so with your Reddit posts.
 
Like fuck. I'm not paying 130NZD for MP only that needs an additional paywall fee to play online. You seem to have very aggressive opinions on what you think BF should be, even more so with your Reddit posts.

But you get a lot of playtime out of a MP only game.

With a SP only game, that costs 60 bucks and only containts 6-8 hours of campaign i dont get such amount of playtime. Not in this current market.
 
I don't understand.

Sales wise Battlefront completely shattered EA's expectations.

Hell, in the UK the game is showing good legs. I think it's 3rd on charts behind new releases.

If anything, EA shouldn't expect Battlefront numbers intially. I can't see Battlefield selling 13 mil within a few months, over the course of a year or two, sure.

If anything, BF4 was always gonna be what people judged and still to this day I see judge future DICE/Battlefield games on.

With that said, I think most people have been impressed by how they recovered.

I'm not an EA shareholder, I'm just a gamer who wants to play good games. And Battlefront wasn't a good game. I don't really care about the financial aspect, I care about critical reception and the quality of a game.

But you get a lot of playtime out of a MP only game.

With a SP only game, that costs 60 bucks and only containts 6-8 hours of campaign i dont get such amount of playtime. Not in this current market.

SP is a different and (imo) higher quality experience. And why should I have to choose? I want SP and MP. There hasn't been a MP only game yet that proved that dropping SP (while keeping the price the same) did improve the MP quality.
 

E.B.E

Banned
But you get a lot of playtime out of a MP only game.

With a SP only game, that costs 60 bucks and only containts 6-8 hours of campaign i dont get such amount of playtime. Not in this current market.

I would be happy if campaign was dropped altogether in favour of full offline MP modes with bots.
 
I would be happy if campaign was dropped altogether in favour of full offline MP modes with bots.

lol why? Whats the point for that?

Gemüsepizza;202197937 said:
I'm not an EA shareholder, I'm just a gamer who wants to play good games. And Battlefront wasn't a good game. I don't really care about the financial aspect, I care about critical reception and the quality of a game.



SP is a different and (imo) higher quality experience. And why should I have to choose? I want SP and MP. There hasn't been a MP only game yet that proved that dropping SP (while keeping the price the same) did improve the MP quality.

If you want both then dont buy games that are MP only. Simple as that.

Will you complain about Overwatch? Because you know... that doesnt have a Campaign either.
 
I would be happy if campaign was dropped altogether in favour of full offline MP modes with bots.

Why such low expectations? If they really drop the campaign, I would want them to invest all those free resources into the rest of the game. Will they do that? No, not really. But it will increase the profit for EA. Why is this a good thing for me?

lol why? Whats the point for that?

If you want both then dont buy games that are MP only. Simple as that.

Will you complain about Overwatch? Because you know... that doesnt have a Campaign either.

I (usually) don't buy MP only games. If a game series had campaigns in previous games, and then suddenly stops having them, I will complain. Especially if it's a game series I actually like.
 
Gemüsepizza;202197937 said:
I'm not an EA shareholder, I'm just a gamer who wants to play good games. And Battlefront wasn't a good game. I don't really care about the financial aspect, I care about critical reception and the quality of a game.

Then your opinion is (obviously) subjective.

and therefore irrelevant to Battlefield bombing. Because that did not happen to Battlefront nor Hardline (which has lower metacritic than even Battlefront)
 

Varth

Member
Getting some mighty SFV vibes from the "lack of campaign" discussion. Are we giving a free pass for less content and same price to DICE too, now?
 

Voho

Member
lol why? Whats the point for that?



If you want both then dont buy games that are MP only. Simple as that.

Will you complain about Overwatch? Because you know... that doesnt have a Campaign either.

So the game doesn't become a coaster when the population dies off.
 
I honestly couldn't give a shit about BF4's campaign it was so boring and was an almost pointless inclusion to me. Played about 2 hours then stopped.

As long as the mp content is there for this WW1/2-inspired BF5, I'm all in.
 
So the game doesn't become a coaster when the population dies off.

I honestly do not mind if Battlefield or any MP focused game wants to go this route.

We all know the transient nature of MP population, it is a risk we take buying these types of games.
 

WillyFive

Member
So the game doesn't become a coaster when the population dies off.

Yeah, being able to play the game without being forced to search for a server that just happens to have the game mode and map you want to play on would be a massive quality of life upgrade for the series.
 

Gamezone

Gold Member
But you get a lot of playtime out of a MP only game.

With a SP only game, that costs 60 bucks and only containts 6-8 hours of campaign i dont get such amount of playtime. Not in this current market.

I agree, but there might be hope. It seems like they are adding bots to Battlefront soon, after a bunch of complaints.
 

Starfield

Member
Screw BF5 we need Bad Company 3 with a focus on full destruction and an awesome campaign with amazing locations.

Panama Canal ftw
 
Can't wait to know more about BF5. BF4 is my favorite shooter since it got released. At this moment i could live with only BF4 spin offs, like Vietnam in Bad Company 2. But if they have a new one in store, specially after witnessing Star Wars running on ps4, im listening.
 
Top Bottom