They probably won’t.
Pre order sales were dramatically low, modern shooters are done too often, futuristic shooter isn’t on Dice’s wishlist. So what’s left to do?
Free games earn a lot in micro transactions, they have a ww2 theme with a somewhat modern approach, they could expand it into the future with Korea war and then Vietnam war.
That would mean they would make it f2p in the future also, to attract a massive player base.
The seeds are all there, whether it’s something ea wants is a different matter.
But I wouldn’t expect the next battlefield game to sell well, it’s only downhill from here on.
It might as well be a realistic idea.
Btw how is gta5 doing nowadays? When is 6 coming? How many years is gta5 already running live services?
BFV has a life of at least 5 years
the content we can get is HUGE
nations
weapons
tanks
theatres of WW2
uniforms
you name it
Not without Premium or buying Expansion packs.
I’d buy that in a heartbeat. I’d buy the new “seasons”, if the content was released that way. The question is, would it be economically feasible? I don’t know.
I’m fine with a longer period playing bfv. It would probably be cheaper to design new maps than a complete new game on a much lower budget this time - which I believe would definitely be the case after poor initial sales. EA would be unwilling to match the dev budget of bfv.
Bfv has solid gameplay. Once we have more maps, I think people should then reassess it and let go of their grudge regarding the launch and Internet herd mentality.
@kohagan1942 wrote
Once we have more maps
Depends on the maps. More of the same stuff will not make much of a difference imo.
But if they add the pacific and eastern front + another 10-15 good designed maps, BFV could end up being a good game.
I just can’t see this happen.
I also picked up on that in Jack’s video and it did make me wonder at the time but after thinking I can’t see this happening tho.
Where does the money come from for development etc? This would mean they wouldn’t sell anything battlefield (other than cosmetics) for another 5 years where as they could release battlefield 6 or whatever it’s called in 2020 for another potential 10million plus sales.
They have already abandoned ship on BFV, there is probably a skeleton crew working on it now and the rest are onto the next money grab. probably the only thing that will be running still later this year will be the BR, because people love BR for some reason.
To that I can agree. The priorities have clearly shifted over the years, but each shift has been predicated on past data - which was my only point.
Please no, just let this game go the way of HL, die quickly and introduce something decent.
I’m still really digging BFV, I’ve been playing it since launch and I’m looking forward to the PTO and other future content. I’ll be playing until the next gen engines come out with another WWII FPS.
WWII is the best era for an FPS - the biggest conflict in human history, with massive battles and modern weapons.
Korea - pretty much the same weapons as 5 years earlier and the opposition - Nth Korea & Chinese hoards? In battles that most people don’t know about?
Vietnam - very few stand-up battles. Blokes in black pyjamas camping in tunnels and shooting you in the . Boring.
Falklands - over pretty quickly and the Yanks weren’t invited.
Gulf Wars - Iraqi’s desperately trying to find reverse in clapped out T54’s
Insurgency’s - hanging out in caves to avoid B52 bombs and planting the odd IED.
Future - the battle has already moved a mile down the road before the troopers get a chance to fight the other troopers.
You’re free to move along if you don’t like it, but there are enough players interested to keep this game going. BF1 was good and still going strong, BFV is better, it’s a great looking game with awesome gun mechanics and destruction. It’s the real deal people, so harden up and get some!
You misunderstand the events of the Vietnam War.
And at 32v32 it is hardly the epic large scale battles of WWII. There are probably loads of gunfights in the modern era which match that.
I cant picture them milking BF5 for a few more years. Seems battlefield comes out every two years. Also XBOX2 and PS5 comes out in 2020. The way EA is. I wouldn’t be surprised they changed it up and had two DICE teams making a game. 1 every year. Kinda like COD. So if one game bombs another game be out within the year.
They just have a mess and it will take them losing business for them to change course. Those of us not buying the game are heroes lol.
Reduce camping… Lol. It battle royal.
EA are really focused on driving their subscription schemes forward. In the context of lost retail revenue per title the subscriptions start to look like a good insurance policy for a video game publisher.
Origin Premier is £90 a year. Which isn’t much more than what people pay for one pre-order.
I don’t know for sure, obviously, but I think that EA looks at it like this. BFV, in terms of anyone not buying it, would really mean that BFV didn’t entice some customers to pay for a subscription.
Which is a loss of sales coverage for subscriptions. Because it doesn’t really make sense to buy a full priced pre-order game anymore instead of a subscription. Which is also possibly why they don’t reduce the price of BFV as that would devalue the Access Premier subscription.
then BFV is the last BF for me…back to BF3 & BFH
I think the lifeservice-system of BFV could cover the longer developmenttime for BF6.
If bfv got no more Content after 2 years, while develop a newer game for 3 to 4 years, they will have some Problems, because they will lose Players to other franchises for a Long time. Thats why you shouldn´t have a “gap” between games and normally this wouldn´t happen because the Players have enough Motivation to Play on. So it would make sense, if DICE really want to develope a game for a longer Periode, to do so.
**BF5 won’t even last a year
Heroes. Lol.
Some people. Jesus.