Too expensive, market too limited overall. The number of AAA shooters coming out keeps going down and down. Back in the era of about BF3 and earlier a couple games did attempt direct competition with the battlefield games, but none caught on enough to have steady squeals and the cost of developing a competitive product was a lot lower back then. Attempts to compete on a low budget like that WW3 game that released last year meanwhile have just flopped. WW3 was actually pretty good in conception, but too bugged on release to be reliable, and unlike the BF4 release it didn’t have a vast amount of content to make up for it. Because again, not enough money.
Games focused on smaller number of players have always been more popular. BFV made a bunch of stupid decisions to try to attract those players into battlefield, but these decisions were made by people who obviously don’t realize how unworkable that is, they basically destroyed core game play loops instead and generally brought frustration to the forefront of the game play. Basically BFV highlights the reasons why most shooters don’t have 64 players on two teams, instead of showing off how fun battlefield used to be.
Splitting the live service even further for player chasing reasons just made this worse. Someone at EA thought they could attract every kind of player to battlefield with this live service. But instead they’ve just made everyone unhappy because they split the content three dramatically different ways, normal, firestorm, 5v5. And the playerbase sucks as a result creating all kinds of ripple effect problems from that.
!!! This game wasnt even pre-heated what do you mean ma dawg 