Low Battlefield 5 Preoders due to controversy (Update on "White Man" Censorship Controversy)

Rational Poster said:
<{poor?}>
Click to expand...

I sound old, in my time games had mod communities. EA pretty much "consolized" the whole online FPS market. People don´t seem to mind EA selling skins, unlocks and other shit while never working on netcode, bugs and maps. They basically release a buggy game and go right into selling updates

Oh and I forgot, making the servers impossible to host with the excuse of cheats, when in fact the game is filled with cheats. This makes server so much worse because only a handful of places are certified to host by EA.
 
DespicablePeep said:
I sound old, in my time games had mod communities. EA pretty much "consolized" the whole online FPS market. People don´t seem to mind EA selling skins, unlocks and other shit while never working on netcode, bugs and maps. They basically release a buggy game and go right into selling updates

Oh and I forgot, making the servers impossible to host with the excuse of cheats, when in fact the game is filled with cheats. This makes server so much worse because only a handful of places are certified to host by EA.
Click to expand...

I was there too buddy, I remember all that.

Those days are gone and EA isn't the only one doing it, nor were they the first.

They just like money like everyone else.

If you want to blame someone, blame Blizzard and the MMO-pioneers.

They're the ones who started the whole pay for content fad.

I used to gripe about that too, but I have a well paying job now and I don't think twice about buying content for games I like and want to support. I don't look at it as paying for content anymore. I support the developers I like with my wallet. I've bought games and not even played them because I like the dev. I give games to friends that I'm not going to play from my humble bundle.
 
Rational Poster said:
But that's what's selling now.

People aren't concerned with realism. They're looking for value and entertainment. People like cosmetics in games, but they don't like P2W.

Just look at Fortnite, it's a huge success and it's not realistic at all and it's chock full of cosmetics.. and people fucking love it for that. It's fun and cheap and you can play it near endlessly if it's your thing. PUGB also has a similar approach, and it's slightly more realistic in aesthetic and play style, but it's still off the wall with purchasable cosmetics.

People don't seem to understand that this isn't a WW2 sim, and it's not even trying to play. It's going to have a Battle Royale mode in the game. Did they Battle Royale in WW2 and I missed it somewhere?

Releasing a shitty trailer was dumb. Releasing between CoD and RDR2, also completely stupid. No one was clamoring for a new Battlefield yet. BF1 is still a great experience if that's what you're looking for. They really should have delayed release till Christmas.

Adding playable female characters and character customization with purchasable cosmetics? That seems like a pretty good business decision to me, imo.

It's not just ladies that want female characters either. I have several friends that are men that prefer playing females in games because they'd rather look at a female than a man while they're playing.
Click to expand...
I don't think people want fortnite in their battlefield, at least the main base.

I remember Dice barking at Star Wars Battlefront 2 fans about having to stay true to lore, which was their excuse for not having cosmetic microtransactions over lootboxes. I don't recall anyone having a beef with cosmetic DLC's, it's pretty accepted nowadays, so I agree with you there. However, the cosmetics they showcased felt out of place, and they spent too much time on it in that first BF 5 trailer. It felt more like virtue signaling than anything.

The cosmetics isn't the biggest issue though, and probably wouldn't be one at all if they went with the 2nd trailer. Shitting on their fan base and giving consumers a bad first impression is what did them in, aside from a poor release window.
 
GtehMVP said:
I don't think people want fortnite in their battlefield, at least the main base.

I remember Dice barking at Star Wars Battlefront 2 fans about having to stay true to lore, which was their excuse for not having cosmetic microtransactions over lootboxes. I don't recall anyone having a beef with cosmetic DLC's, it's pretty accepted nowadays, so I agree with you there. However, the cosmetics they showcased felt out of place, and they spent too much time on it in that first BF 5 trailer. It felt more like virtue signaling than anything.

The cosmetics isn't the biggest issue though, and probably wouldn't be one at all if they went with the 2nd trailer. Shitting on their fan base and giving consumers a bad first impression is what did them in, aside from a poor release window.
Click to expand...

WW2 is just a setting here, IMO.

A place to draw weapons and vehicles from to make a compelling squad based shooter different from the rest of the pack.

The base game is just a multiplayer shooter and I like being able to customize my appearance completely. This is a feature Battlefield fans have actually been asking for since before cosmetic DLC or DLC period was even a thing.
 
Rational Poster said:
WW2 is just a setting here, IMO.

A place to draw weapons and vehicles from to make a compelling squad based shooter different from the rest of the pack.

The base game is just a multiplayer shooter and I like being able to customize my appearance completely. This is a feature Battlefield fans have actually been asking for since before cosmetic DLC or DLC period was even a thing.
Click to expand...
I agree, partially. I've always wanted to create myself as closely as possible, and I've heard pleads for that for years too, but within certain limits. I don't think anyone wants to play a BF where you can outfit your avatar like PUBG's.

PUBG-70s-80s-Cosmetics-600x290.jpg
 
GtehMVP said:
I agree, partially. I've always wanted to create myself as closely as possible, and I've heard pleads for that for years too, but within certain limits. I don't think anyone wants to play a BF where you can outfit your avatar like PUBG's.

PUBG-70s-80s-Cosmetics-600x290.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't think we're getting anywhere near that level of customization though, so it's fine.
 
Rational Poster said:
I used to gripe about that too, but I have a well paying job now and I don't think twice about buying content for games I like and want to support. I don't look at it as paying for content anymore. I support the developers I like with my wallet. I've bought games and not even played them because I like the dev. I give games to friends that I'm not going to play from my humble bundle.
Click to expand...

That´s the reason why I don´t support EA, they don´t provide a good game anymore.
 
@GtehMVP

Also, all this complaining over the prosthetic.. like who cares.

It's actually a real thing.

wpwynr488xz01.png
 
Gregolian said:
I'm not a huge fan of the prosthetic on the arm as that feels highly unlikely back then and even now. I only know ONE guy that still served after losing a limb and he was stuck in an office job and he lost his right leg below the knee.

The problem BFV has though isn't this... it's the gameplay looking more and more like CoD and when your biggest selling point was "we aren't CoD" as a shooter that's going to hurt. Plus.. there's this:
Red-Dead-Redemption-2-Background.png


That's what's hurting BFV more than anything.
Click to expand...

This. Why would anyone play BF when RDR2 is coming?

<DisgustingHHH>
 
wtf. even on sherdog, there are dummies that think this is just about a female character.

steampunk amputee woman with a cricket bat vs FUCKING AIRPLANES... somehow becomes some "female character" strawman, omitting context.
 
rob mafia said:
wtf. even on sherdog, there are dummies that think this is just about a female character.

steampunk amputee woman with a cricket bat vs FUCKING AIRPLANES... somehow becomes some "female character" strawman, omitting context.
Click to expand...
wpwynr488xz01.png


Cricket has been a sport since the 1600s.
 
Rational Poster said:
wpwynr488xz01.png
Click to expand...


..............and?
1. dat steampunk makeup
2. she's british. which means this is britian.
3. battle of britain was........ an air war. RAF vs luftwaffe.
4. she's armed with a damn cricket bat.
5. amputee.

"steampunk amputee woman with a cricket bat vs FUCKING AIRPLANES" - yeah, just like i said.


notice that i never said a damn thing about whether the prosthetic was realish or not. it's as if that part didn't matter, or something. herp. derp.
 
rob mafia said:
..............and?
1. dat steampunk makeup
2. she's british. which means this is britian.
3. battle of britain was........ an air war. RAF vs luftwaffe.
4. she's armed with a damn cricket bat.
5. amputee.

"steampunk amputee woman with a cricket bat vs FUCKING AIRPLANES" - yeah, just like i said.


notice that i never said a damn thing about whether the prosthetic was realish or not. it's as if that part didn't matter, or something. herp. derp.
Click to expand...

1, Actually that looks like Pictish/Scottish war paint.

2. Based on her complexion and hair color, and war paint, I'd wager she's a Scot not a Brit. I'm not sure if you're aware however. The British Commonwealth had boats and British and Scottish men and women resisted the Nazis all over the globe, not just on mainland Britain.

3. Your point? It's a video game. There have been plenty of maps and scenarios in the BF series that had no historical context.

4. So what? It's just a melee weapon.

5. Again, so what? Lots of people were amputees and they had prosthetic back then very similar to the one she has.
 
Last edited:
"Battlefield V - The 5th Trans division" hahahaahhahahahhahahahahhaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,053
Messages
55,463,841
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top