Again, lumping EA in might be easy due to past actions, but considering the entire context of the Battlefield situation clearly shows it as distinct from the other pubs on your picture.
Again, lumping EA in might be easy due to past actions, but considering the entire context of the Battlefield situation clearly shows it as distinct from the other pubs on your picture.
I ever tell you my secret rating system? First, I decide if I myself like a game. That's the base score. Then, I look to see if Kotaku likes it or hates it. Kotaku likes it, -5. Kotaku hates it? +10.
Kotaku defended the shit out of BF5.
Haha fair enough!
The reviews for BFV still weren't stellar, but my reading seemed to point to little to no evolution of the overarching game loop as the biggest culprit. Just another Battlefield game with a new skin was about the most accurate one-sentence description I can think of based off the review snippets I read.
The reviews for BFV still weren't stellar, but my reading seemed to point to little to no evolution of the overarching game loop as the biggest culprit. Just another Battlefield game with a new skin was about the most accurate one-sentence description I can think of based off the review snippets I read.
BFV has its problems, it's not just a PR issue.
1) BFV had 3 game modes missing at launch, some are still missing.
2) The game is really buggy (although is not in the same league as 76) 3) Historically inaccurate (important because historical accuracy has been the trademark of Battlefield since the beginning).
The title tanked at launch, pre-sales were particularly bad, and my guess is that what Patrick Soderlund said, hit pre-sales the most.
The reviews for BFV still weren't stellar, but my reading seemed to point to little to no evolution of the overarching game loop as the biggest culprit. Just another Battlefield game with a new skin was about the most accurate one-sentence description I can think of based off the review snippets I read.
BFV has its problems, it's not just a PR issue.
1) BFV had 3 game modes missing at launch, some are still missing.
2) The game is really buggy (although is not in the same league as 76) 3) Historically inaccurate (important because historical accuracy has been the trademark of Battlefield since the beginning).
The title tanked at launch, pre-sales were particularly bad, and my guess is that what Patrick Soderlund said, hit pre-sales the most.
His comments look really bad as a singular quote, true.
But again, DICE addressed historical accuracy in a professional manner in the weeks after V's announcement. They moved away from historical realism (a good idea imo, because there are as many different ways to view history as there are historians), and did publicly address the move.
The reviews for BFV still weren't stellar, but my reading seemed to point to little to no evolution of the overarching game loop as the biggest culprit. Just another Battlefield game with a new skin was about the most accurate one-sentence description I can think of based off the review snippets I read.
BFV has its problems, it's not just a PR issue.
1) BFV had 3 game modes missing at launch, some are still missing.
2) The game is really buggy (although is not in the same league as 76) 3) Historically inaccurate (important because historical accuracy has been the trademark of Battlefield since the beginning).
The title tanked at launch, pre-sales were particularly bad, and my guess is that what Patrick Soderlund said, hit pre-sales the most.
His comments look really bad as a singular quote, true.
But again, DICE addressed historical accuracy in a professional manner in the weeks after V's announcement. They moved away from historical realism (a good idea imo, because there are as many different ways to view history as there are historians), and did publicly address the move.
I just wanna add this while leaving my personal opinion about BFV by the door. The reason they acted stupid is irrelevant and wouldn't make it any less stupid. So let's not justify it because you believe in some morals that they may or may not actually believe in.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
The reviews for BFV still weren't stellar, but my reading seemed to point to little to no evolution of the overarching game loop as the biggest culprit. Just another Battlefield game with a new skin was about the most accurate one-sentence description I can think of based off the review snippets I read.
BFV has its problems, it's not just a PR issue.
1) BFV had 3 game modes missing at launch, some are still missing.
2) The game is really buggy (although is not in the same league as 76) 3) Historically inaccurate (important because historical accuracy has been the trademark of Battlefield since the beginning).
The title tanked at launch, pre-sales were particularly bad, and my guess is that what Patrick Soderlund said, hit pre-sales the most.
His comments look really bad as a singular quote, true.
But again, DICE addressed historical accuracy in a professional manner in the weeks after V's announcement. They moved away from historical realism (a good idea imo, because there are as many different ways to view history as there are historians), and did publicly address the move.
I just wanna add this while leaving my personal opinion about BFV by the door. The reason they acted stupid is irrelevant and wouldn't make it any less stupid. So let's not justify it because you believe in some morals that they may or may not actually believe in.
The justification comes from EA trying to address their audience professionally, and the audience refusing to accept the address.
My dog gets into the trash the first time, I tell him no and tell him trash is bad. He continues to do it, I escalate my response until he gets the message.
EDIT- if we're going to castrate those who come outta left field with bullshit statements insulting gamers or money-grubbing moves to platforms none of the core fanbase asked for or wanted, we have to give them credit when they address players professionally. If players can't accept that they won't hear yes and okay every single time they disagree, they don't deserve an address at all, honestly.
The reviews for BFV still weren't stellar, but my reading seemed to point to little to no evolution of the overarching game loop as the biggest culprit. Just another Battlefield game with a new skin was about the most accurate one-sentence description I can think of based off the review snippets I read.
BFV has its problems, it's not just a PR issue.
1) BFV had 3 game modes missing at launch, some are still missing.
2) The game is really buggy (although is not in the same league as 76) 3) Historically inaccurate (important because historical accuracy has been the trademark of Battlefield since the beginning).
The title tanked at launch, pre-sales were particularly bad, and my guess is that what Patrick Soderlund said, hit pre-sales the most.
His comments look really bad as a singular quote, true.
But again, DICE addressed historical accuracy in a professional manner in the weeks after V's announcement. They moved away from historical realism (a good idea imo, because there are as many different ways to view history as there are historians), and did publicly address the move.
I just wanna add this while leaving my personal opinion about BFV by the door. The reason they acted stupid is irrelevant and wouldn't make it any less stupid. So let's not justify it because you believe in some morals that they may or may not actually believe in.
The justification comes from EA trying to address their audience professionally, and the audience refusing to accept the address.
My dog gets into the trash the first time, I tell him no and tell him trash is bad. He continues to do it, I escalate my response until he gets the message.
Public relations and personal relations are different worlds. People aren't your dog to train and you shouldn't apply the same methods that you would use to convey a message to your pet to your customers nor you posses vast superior intelligence as a company compared to people. Very wrong analogy.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
The reviews for BFV still weren't stellar, but my reading seemed to point to little to no evolution of the overarching game loop as the biggest culprit. Just another Battlefield game with a new skin was about the most accurate one-sentence description I can think of based off the review snippets I read.
BFV has its problems, it's not just a PR issue.
1) BFV had 3 game modes missing at launch, some are still missing.
2) The game is really buggy (although is not in the same league as 76) 3) Historically inaccurate (important because historical accuracy has been the trademark of Battlefield since the beginning).
The title tanked at launch, pre-sales were particularly bad, and my guess is that what Patrick Soderlund said, hit pre-sales the most.
His comments look really bad as a singular quote, true.
But again, DICE addressed historical accuracy in a professional manner in the weeks after V's announcement. They moved away from historical realism (a good idea imo, because there are as many different ways to view history as there are historians), and did publicly address the move.
I just wanna add this while leaving my personal opinion about BFV by the door. The reason they acted stupid is irrelevant and wouldn't make it any less stupid. So let's not justify it because you believe in some morals that they may or may not actually believe in.
The justification comes from EA trying to address their audience professionally, and the audience refusing to accept the address.
My dog gets into the trash the first time, I tell him no and tell him trash is bad. He continues to do it, I escalate my response until he gets the message.
Public relations and personal relations are different worlds. People aren't your dog to train and you shouldn't apply the same methods that you would use to convey a message to your pet to your customers nor you posses vast superior intelligence as a company compared to people. Very wrong analogy.
Check the edit. Consumers need to accept when a dev professionally addresses their concerns without giving in to them wantonly. Specifically when the concern is reference artistic license. If they cannot, I'll say it again: they don't even deserve an address.
EA's mistake here was revisiting an issue they had already publicly settled for their fans.
The reviews for BFV still weren't stellar, but my reading seemed to point to little to no evolution of the overarching game loop as the biggest culprit. Just another Battlefield game with a new skin was about the most accurate one-sentence description I can think of based off the review snippets I read.
BFV has its problems, it's not just a PR issue.
1) BFV had 3 game modes missing at launch, some are still missing.
2) The game is really buggy (although is not in the same league as 76) 3) Historically inaccurate (important because historical accuracy has been the trademark of Battlefield since the beginning).
The title tanked at launch, pre-sales were particularly bad, and my guess is that what Patrick Soderlund said, hit pre-sales the most.
His comments look really bad as a singular quote, true.
But again, DICE addressed historical accuracy in a professional manner in the weeks after V's announcement. They moved away from historical realism (a good idea imo, because there are as many different ways to view history as there are historians), and did publicly address the move.
I just wanna add this while leaving my personal opinion about BFV by the door. The reason they acted stupid is irrelevant and wouldn't make it any less stupid. So let's not justify it because you believe in some morals that they may or may not actually believe in.
The justification comes from EA trying to address their audience professionally, and the audience refusing to accept the address.
My dog gets into the trash the first time, I tell him no and tell him trash is bad. He continues to do it, I escalate my response until he gets the message.
Public relations and personal relations are different worlds. People aren't your dog to train and you shouldn't apply the same methods that you would use to convey a message to your pet to your customers nor you posses vast superior intelligence as a company compared to people. Very wrong analogy.
Check the edit. Consumers need to accept when a dev addresses their concerns without giving in to them wantonly. If they cannot, I'll say it again: they don't even deserve an address.
EA's mistake here was revisiting an issue they had already publicly settled for their fans.
Not addressing it any further would've been fine. But that's not what they did, they did something stupid, hence they made the list.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
The reviews for BFV still weren't stellar, but my reading seemed to point to little to no evolution of the overarching game loop as the biggest culprit. Just another Battlefield game with a new skin was about the most accurate one-sentence description I can think of based off the review snippets I read.
BFV has its problems, it's not just a PR issue.
1) BFV had 3 game modes missing at launch, some are still missing.
2) The game is really buggy (although is not in the same league as 76) 3) Historically inaccurate (important because historical accuracy has been the trademark of Battlefield since the beginning).
The title tanked at launch, pre-sales were particularly bad, and my guess is that what Patrick Soderlund said, hit pre-sales the most.
His comments look really bad as a singular quote, true.
But again, DICE addressed historical accuracy in a professional manner in the weeks after V's announcement. They moved away from historical realism (a good idea imo, because there are as many different ways to view history as there are historians), and did publicly address the move.
I just wanna add this while leaving my personal opinion about BFV by the door. The reason they acted stupid is irrelevant and wouldn't make it any less stupid. So let's not justify it because you believe in some morals that they may or may not actually believe in.
The justification comes from EA trying to address their audience professionally, and the audience refusing to accept the address.
My dog gets into the trash the first time, I tell him no and tell him trash is bad. He continues to do it, I escalate my response until he gets the message.
Public relations and personal relations are different worlds. People aren't your dog to train and you shouldn't apply the same methods that you would use to convey a message to your pet to your customers nor you posses vast superior intelligence as a company compared to people. Very wrong analogy.
Check the edit. Consumers need to accept when a dev addresses their concerns without giving in to them wantonly. If they cannot, I'll say it again: they don't even deserve an address.
EA's mistake here was revisiting an issue they had already publicly settled for their fans.
Not addressing it any further would've been fine. But that's not what they did, they did something stupid, hence they made the list.
And I was very clear that the context surrounding the statement is what sets them clearly apart from the others on the list.
The situations have very different merits. Generalizing these into the same pot is not being fair to pubs.
The justification comes from EA trying to address their audience professionally, and the audience refusing to accept the address.
My dog gets into the trash the first time, I tell him no and tell him trash is bad. He continues to do it, I escalate my response until he gets the message.
Public relations and personal relations are different worlds. People aren't your dog to train and you shouldn't apply the same methods that you would use to convey a message to your pet to your customers nor you posses vast superior intelligence as a company compared to people. Very wrong analogy.
I tend to agree with this. The right thing to do after a company dealt professionally with a negative feedback is to ignore future feedback. Telling your customers to get stuffed because they don't agree with your stance, it's unprofessional and only damage your business and erode the relation with your loyal customers.
The reviews for BFV still weren't stellar, but my reading seemed to point to little to no evolution of the overarching game loop as the biggest culprit. Just another Battlefield game with a new skin was about the most accurate one-sentence description I can think of based off the review snippets I read.
BFV has its problems, it's not just a PR issue.
1) BFV had 3 game modes missing at launch, some are still missing.
2) The game is really buggy (although is not in the same league as 76) 3) Historically inaccurate (important because historical accuracy has been the trademark of Battlefield since the beginning).
The title tanked at launch, pre-sales were particularly bad, and my guess is that what Patrick Soderlund said, hit pre-sales the most.
His comments look really bad as a singular quote, true.
But again, DICE addressed historical accuracy in a professional manner in the weeks after V's announcement. They moved away from historical realism (a good idea imo, because there are as many different ways to view history as there are historians), and did publicly address the move.
I just wanna add this while leaving my personal opinion about BFV by the door. The reason they acted stupid is irrelevant and wouldn't make it any less stupid. So let's not justify it because you believe in some morals that they may or may not actually believe in.
The justification comes from EA trying to address their audience professionally, and the audience refusing to accept the address.
My dog gets into the trash the first time, I tell him no and tell him trash is bad. He continues to do it, I escalate my response until he gets the message.
Public relations and personal relations are different worlds. People aren't your dog to train and you shouldn't apply the same methods that you would use to convey a message to your pet to your customers nor you posses vast superior intelligence as a company compared to people. Very wrong analogy.
Check the edit. Consumers need to accept when a dev addresses their concerns without giving in to them wantonly. If they cannot, I'll say it again: they don't even deserve an address.
EA's mistake here was revisiting an issue they had already publicly settled for their fans.
Not addressing it any further would've been fine. But that's not what they did, they did something stupid, hence they made the list.
And I was very clear that the context surrounding the statement is what sets them clearly apart from the others on the list.
The situations have very different merits. Generalizing these into the same pot is not being fair to pubs.
Not sure what are you exactly referring to.
Are you saying they acted professional but people were still acting stupid so it is somewhat okay that they acted stupid in return?
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
The reviews for BFV still weren't stellar, but my reading seemed to point to little to no evolution of the overarching game loop as the biggest culprit. Just another Battlefield game with a new skin was about the most accurate one-sentence description I can think of based off the review snippets I read.
BFV has its problems, it's not just a PR issue.
1) BFV had 3 game modes missing at launch, some are still missing.
2) The game is really buggy (although is not in the same league as 76) 3) Historically inaccurate (important because historical accuracy has been the trademark of Battlefield since the beginning).
The title tanked at launch, pre-sales were particularly bad, and my guess is that what Patrick Soderlund said, hit pre-sales the most.
His comments look really bad as a singular quote, true.
But again, DICE addressed historical accuracy in a professional manner in the weeks after V's announcement. They moved away from historical realism (a good idea imo, because there are as many different ways to view history as there are historians), and did publicly address the move.
I just wanna add this while leaving my personal opinion about BFV by the door. The reason they acted stupid is irrelevant and wouldn't make it any less stupid. So let's not justify it because you believe in some morals that they may or may not actually believe in.
The justification comes from EA trying to address their audience professionally, and the audience refusing to accept the address.
My dog gets into the trash the first time, I tell him no and tell him trash is bad. He continues to do it, I escalate my response until he gets the message.
Public relations and personal relations are different worlds. People aren't your dog to train and you shouldn't apply the same methods that you would use to convey a message to your pet to your customers nor you posses vast superior intelligence as a company compared to people. Very wrong analogy.
Check the edit. Consumers need to accept when a dev addresses their concerns without giving in to them wantonly. If they cannot, I'll say it again: they don't even deserve an address.
EA's mistake here was revisiting an issue they had already publicly settled for their fans.
Not addressing it any further would've been fine. But that's not what they did, they did something stupid, hence they made the list.
And I was very clear that the context surrounding the statement is what sets them clearly apart from the others on the list.
The situations have very different merits. Generalizing these into the same pot is not being fair to pubs.
Not sure what are you exactly referring to.
Are you saying they acted professional but people were still acting stupid so it is somewhat okay that they acted stupid in return?
It's not okay, but it's not the same as Bethesda releasing a half-baked conversion mod for FO4 for full price, or baiting and switching the CE bags.
Not even close. Gamers need to act like adults, too. They were given a chance to act like adults, even receiving an address delivered professionally and fairly, but continued to act like petulant children because they didn't get their way.
Mad mate the discussion is about the PR part of the companies and their recent stupid behavior. If you introduce other stuff like the box price, the collector's editions perks and bugs then yeah maybe EA is better than Bethesda, I don't know, I didn't play BF5 so I can't say. But PR failure part remains the same.
Also gamers as a whole had never acted like adults. I doubt if any large group does.
I think you are defending the moral they banked on, not their behavior. If another issue had resulted in the exact same scenario then you wouldn't be here defending EA. Personal observation, I could be wrong.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Mad mate the discussion is about the PR part of the companies and their recent stupid behavior. If you introduce other stuff like the box price, the collector's editions perks and bugs then yeah maybe EA is better than Bethesda, I don't know, I didn't play BF5 so I can't say. But PR failure part remains the same.
Also gamers as a whole had never acted like adults. I doubt if any large group does.
I think you are defending the moral they banked on, not their behavior. If another issue had resulted in the exact same scenario then you wouldn't be here defending EA. Personal observation, I could be wrong.
Well, first of all, comparing the relative core issues shows them to be different. Sorry, but Battlefield has never been realism first, even way back when. It's not a sim. You can get a soldier from fatal gunshot wound to combat ready in about 3 seconds with defibs for Christ's sake. So the entire argument being made by the fans is merely preference, not calling out shoddy business practices (nobody at EA said "we're devoted to making Battlefield ultra-realistic" and then dropped 3 guys riding a horse with a flamethrower on consumers outta nowhere after, say, taking non-refundable cash from gamers). So yeah, they are different, but not by some social virtue signaling, but by the actual facts of the situation and dev/pub behavior the players took issue with in the first place.
Secondly, when comparing PR, we see that DICE attempted to address the group professionally. This is starkly contrasted with Bethesda's PR tone deaf and/or straight up "fuck you pay me" responses, specifically to customers who had issues with the CE bag.
So yeah, at all points, there are significant differences that, again, make DICE and EA's position different.
EDIT- I likely don't need to say it because we've interacted enough, but realize I'm not insisting you personally held the belief of BF being super-realistic. It's referencing the gamers who submitted it should be or was as justification for the backlash at DICE and EA.
The worst of it is that these are AAA developers, yet they didn't produce a single decent game between them, about the only redeeming feature in gaming currently is that the indi developers are putting out games worth playing, at one time AAA games used to mean quality games, something that Bethesda/ActiBlizz/EA seem unable to make anymore, its hard not to see the future of PC gaming relying almost entirely on the Indi developers, didn't see that coming.
The worst of it is that these are AAA developers, yet they didn't produce a single decent game between them, about the only redeeming feature in gaming currently is that the indi developers are putting out games worth playing, at one time AAA games used to mean quality games, something that Bethesda/ActiBlizz/EA seem unable to make anymore, its hard not to see the future of PC gaming relying almost entirely on the Indi developers, didn't see that coming.
The big pubs have become very risk averse with new ideas or innovations. It mimics the large Hollywood studios. Which is why the titles we get mimic those same Hollywood studios; fan favorite IPs get the tires kicked every year until we literally have enough computer generated animations of Lara Croft throughout the years to put together a 2-hour virtual lap dance video of pieced together animations starring the Tomb Raider.
It's worth noting the Battlefield 5 "you don't like it, don't buy it" was not referencing title quality, but pushback that it would feature women on the battlefield.
There's nothing wrong with telling ignorant consumers lambasting your title for including female avatars to shove off. That's not a fair critique of the title's quality as a video game, because it's a video game and not a documentary (not to mention that females served in WWII anyways).
I remember it being more about the prosthetic arm, neon blue face paint, and the katana(in the western front) in the reveal trailer calling into question the authenticity aspect that the battle field franchise formerly strived to achieve. Then the gaming media bringing up the female aspect of it.....causing unneeded controversy from outside sources not even interested in the game.
the comment "you don't like it, dont buy it" was rude at the time and poor PR. could have easily went with "we are trying to appeal to our female fan base with a female model, and there is historical precedent for females on the battle field. Please give the game a chance" ...this would have been a more appropriate response.
There is everything wrong with telling customers off...they are paying your salary and the salary of everyone else in your company. its literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Yeah, it wasn't specifically about a woman being part of BF. There has been other women in battlefield that fought as well. It was more about them messing up the setting. EA made it about women, aka Jessica Price style.
It's worth noting the Battlefield 5 "you don't like it, don't buy it" was not referencing title quality, but pushback that it would feature women on the battlefield.
There's nothing wrong with telling ignorant consumers lambasting your title for including female avatars to shove off. That's not a fair critique of the title's quality as a video game, because it's a video game and not a documentary (not to mention that females served in WWII anyways).
I remember it being more about the prosthetic arm, neon blue face paint, and the katana(in the western front) in the reveal trailer calling into question the authenticity aspect that the battle field franchise formerly strived to achieve. Then the gaming media bringing up the female aspect of it.....causing unneeded controversy from outside sources not even interested in the game.
the comment "you don't like it, dont buy it" was rude at the time and poor PR. could have easily went with "we are trying to appeal to our female fan base with a female model, and there is historical precedent for females on the battle field. Please give the game a chance" ...this would have been a more appropriate response.
There is everything wrong with telling customers off...they are paying your salary and the salary of everyone else in your company. its literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Yeah, it wasn't specifically about a woman being part of BF. There has been other women in battlefield that fought as well. It was more about them messing up the setting. EA made it about women, aka Jessica Price style.
Messing up the setting would require they were going for strict historical accuracy in the first place. Battlefield has never been a sim nor a shooter that's core design philosophy was realism.
Hell, some guns induce heavier suppression than others artificially. Some guns receive heavier accuracy penalties when suppressed; pistols receive no accuracy penalty. Been that way since Battlefield 3 or 4, whenever they introduced the system.
The only folks who thought Battlefield was ever a sim or historically or even logically accurate within itself were seeing what they wanted to see, not what was there, and that's coming from someone who once loved the Battlefield franchise, but no longer cares for it and has never cared for EA.
EDIT- consider that in BF4, an expac saw Russia and the U.S. battling over a city in friggin' Qatar, iirc. Battlefield has always, always taken liberties with history and reality.
"professional"...that's what I'm getting with Dice/EA/BFV
Any rate, like it or not, the whole "You don't like it? Don't buy it" thing was a fairly popular meme this year and that was really the only criteria for being listed right? Seems like the debate is going into a lot more detail then may have been implied.
That said, I think the Blizzard one will probably be the winner. There are plenty of tone-deaf comments, with varying degrees of "wtf-ness" to them, issued throughout a year, but the setting and delivery were just perfect on that one. And, while it may be the most popular, I think it'll probably be the most readily forgiven. I think Bethesda can still turn the ship (through improving FO76 and/or other releases) and people will just find other reasons to dislike EA.
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers. Do something wrong, no one forgets" -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
It's worth noting the Battlefield 5 "you don't like it, don't buy it" was not referencing title quality, but pushback that it would feature women on the battlefield.
There's nothing wrong with telling ignorant consumers lambasting your title for including female avatars to shove off. That's not a fair critique of the title's quality as a video game, because it's a video game and not a documentary (not to mention that females served in WWII anyways).
I remember it being more about the prosthetic arm, neon blue face paint, and the katana(in the western front) in the reveal trailer calling into question the authenticity aspect that the battle field franchise formerly strived to achieve. Then the gaming media bringing up the female aspect of it.....causing unneeded controversy from outside sources not even interested in the game.
the comment "you don't like it, dont buy it" was rude at the time and poor PR. could have easily went with "we are trying to appeal to our female fan base with a female model, and there is historical precedent for females on the battle field. Please give the game a chance" ...this would have been a more appropriate response.
There is everything wrong with telling customers off...they are paying your salary and the salary of everyone else in your company. its literally shooting yourself in the foot.
There were some mentioning prosthetics or other things such as standard uniforms (even though there's literally a documented case in a female fighting in WWII WITH prosthetics), but it got swallowed up by idiots complaining about the female avatars ignorantly.
Sure, EA could've responded more diplomatically to that vocal group, or they could've ghosted them to more diplomatically address the other issues (i.e. prosthetic usage). But the group had already been given the facts to refute their stance by other gamers on the internet multiple times before EA responded because it wouldn't die.
Even so, disputing artistic liberties with a setting isn't nearly the same level as broken games or griefer's-dream-glitches. I mean, do we shit on Wolfenstein because Hitler never actually owned a mecha-battle suit, and there were never genetically altered German supersoldiers as shown in those games? We do not.
sure with could be like, if the game was good, people could overlook it, but since the game is meh at the best, lets wait for the BF6 and see if they finally get it right, becasue serious after bf4 they didn't make a good one
It's worth noting the Battlefield 5 "you don't like it, don't buy it" was not referencing title quality, but pushback that it would feature women on the battlefield.
There's nothing wrong with telling ignorant consumers lambasting your title for including female avatars to shove off. That's not a fair critique of the title's quality as a video game, because it's a video game and not a documentary (not to mention that females served in WWII anyways).
I remember it being more about the prosthetic arm, neon blue face paint, and the katana(in the western front) in the reveal trailer calling into question the authenticity aspect that the battle field franchise formerly strived to achieve. Then the gaming media bringing up the female aspect of it.....causing unneeded controversy from outside sources not even interested in the game.
the comment "you don't like it, dont buy it" was rude at the time and poor PR. could have easily went with "we are trying to appeal to our female fan base with a female model, and there is historical precedent for females on the battle field. Please give the game a chance" ...this would have been a more appropriate response.
There is everything wrong with telling customers off...they are paying your salary and the salary of everyone else in your company. its literally shooting yourself in the foot.
There were some mentioning prosthetics or other things such as standard uniforms (even though there's literally a documented case in a female fighting in WWII WITH prosthetics), but it got swallowed up by idiots complaining about the female avatars ignorantly.
Sure, EA could've responded more diplomatically to that vocal group, or they could've ghosted them to more diplomatically address the other issues (i.e. prosthetic usage). But the group had already been given the facts to refute their stance by other gamers on the internet multiple times before EA responded because it wouldn't die.
Even so, disputing artistic liberties with a setting isn't nearly the same level as broken games or griefer's-dream-glitches. I mean, do we shit on Wolfenstein because Hitler never actually owned a mecha-battle suit, and there were never genetically altered German supersoldiers as shown in those games? We do not.
sure with could be like, if the game was good, people could overlook it, but since the game is meh at the best, lets wait for the BF6 and see if they finally get it right, becasue serious after bf4 they didn't make a good one
I don't disagree at all. They're not really pushing their own franchise forward in any meaningful way. I agree the franchise peaked at BF4.
Comments
The reviews for BFV still weren't stellar, but my reading seemed to point to little to no evolution of the overarching game loop as the biggest culprit. Just another Battlefield game with a new skin was about the most accurate one-sentence description I can think of based off the review snippets I read.
3) Historically inaccurate (important because historical accuracy has been the trademark of Battlefield since the beginning).
The title tanked at launch, pre-sales were particularly bad, and my guess is that what Patrick Soderlund said, hit pre-sales the most.
But again, DICE addressed historical accuracy in a professional manner in the weeks after V's announcement. They moved away from historical realism (a good idea imo, because there are as many different ways to view history as there are historians), and did publicly address the move.
My dog gets into the trash the first time, I tell him no and tell him trash is bad. He continues to do it, I escalate my response until he gets the message.
EDIT- if we're going to castrate those who come outta left field with bullshit statements insulting gamers or money-grubbing moves to platforms none of the core fanbase asked for or wanted, we have to give them credit when they address players professionally. If players can't accept that they won't hear yes and okay every single time they disagree, they don't deserve an address at all, honestly.
EA's mistake here was revisiting an issue they had already publicly settled for their fans.
The situations have very different merits. Generalizing these into the same pot is not being fair to pubs.
The right thing to do after a company dealt professionally with a negative feedback is to ignore future feedback.
Telling your customers to get stuffed because they don't agree with your stance, it's unprofessional and only damage your business and erode the relation with your loyal customers.
Are you saying they acted professional but people were still acting stupid so it is somewhat okay that they acted stupid in return?
Not even close. Gamers need to act like adults, too. They were given a chance to act like adults, even receiving an address delivered professionally and fairly, but continued to act like petulant children because they didn't get their way.
Also gamers as a whole had never acted like adults. I doubt if any large group does.
I think you are defending the moral they banked on, not their behavior. If another issue had resulted in the exact same scenario then you wouldn't be here defending EA. Personal observation, I could be wrong.
Secondly, when comparing PR, we see that DICE attempted to address the group professionally. This is starkly contrasted with Bethesda's PR tone deaf and/or straight up "fuck you pay me" responses, specifically to customers who had issues with the CE bag.
So yeah, at all points, there are significant differences that, again, make DICE and EA's position different.
EDIT- I likely don't need to say it because we've interacted enough, but realize I'm not insisting you personally held the belief of BF being super-realistic. It's referencing the gamers who submitted it should be or was as justification for the backlash at DICE and EA.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hell, some guns induce heavier suppression than others artificially. Some guns receive heavier accuracy penalties when suppressed; pistols receive no accuracy penalty. Been that way since Battlefield 3 or 4, whenever they introduced the system.
The only folks who thought Battlefield was ever a sim or historically or even logically accurate within itself were seeing what they wanted to see, not what was there, and that's coming from someone who once loved the Battlefield franchise, but no longer cares for it and has never cared for EA.
EDIT- consider that in BF4, an expac saw Russia and the U.S. battling over a city in friggin' Qatar, iirc. Battlefield has always, always taken liberties with history and reality.
Any rate, like it or not, the whole "You don't like it? Don't buy it" thing was a fairly popular meme this year and that was really the only criteria for being listed right? Seems like the debate is going into a lot more detail then may have been implied.
That said, I think the Blizzard one will probably be the winner. There are plenty of tone-deaf comments, with varying degrees of "wtf-ness" to them, issued throughout a year, but the setting and delivery were just perfect on that one. And, while it may be the most popular, I think it'll probably be the most readily forgiven. I think Bethesda can still turn the ship (through improving FO76 and/or other releases) and people will just find other reasons to dislike EA.
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers.
Do something wrong, no one forgets"
-from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence