EA Prepared for Battlefield V to Fail

@powerati Fat chance.

@spiralblitz Exactly, however isn't the women suppose to be a Norweign resistance fighter. However the whole game looks like a alternative history WW2 fucked by SJW and Fortnite.

@jakethesnak Yup. And meh. It's an FPS in the same vein as Fifa is a footy game... there is room for some accuracy but it's used more as a jumping off point than the primary driver. If you want hstorical accuracy you're gonna have to go with something rather more brutal (maybe even without respawns) or something that isn't an FPS.

@RiverRunning I wasn't talking about gameplay or mechanics of the battlefield games, however I do think that they a going the wrong way in thoose areas as well, the point I was trying to drive home was that battles and game scenarios should losely be based on real battles and scenarios from time period the game is in. Just looking at a little of the gameplay they have shown in the trailers, they are trying to make the Scadinavian front look like the battle of Kursk or Normady.

@cherch222 Even World of Tanks is more historically accurate!!

@cherch222 "realism" in battlefield doesn't mean a real battle simulation, but more that the game has a legacy of gun play and vechicle play that it should live up to.

@royalimpact Yup.

@RyanSmith5 If you want historical accuracy you do not get Battlefield... unless you're an idiot. Period.

@RiverRunning I don't play Battlefield. I'm advocating that developers give their fans what they want that way everyone wins. You really only gleaned "historical accuracy" from my post?

@RyanSmith5 Asking money making monopolies to give you want you want rather than what they want seems rather far-fetched but maybe I don't understand mega-corps, business and economics as well as my daughter - out of curiousity have you heard about the boot theory? A rich person buys a pair of boots that last ten years and costs a hundred quid, a poor person buys a pair of boots that lasts six months and costs twenty quid becaue they can't afford to buy the hundred quid boots because they need working boots for work - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; from the boot business' perspective they are making more money from the poor person than the rich person too so their incentive to make more money is to sell worse boots for the same price... that's why consumer protection laws exist but why the quality (in terms of life expectacy) of boots (and shoes) has still been decreasing with time (because those laws depend on people's expectations rather than absolutes in terms of quality.)

@RiverRunning So you really aren't reading what I'm saying, are you? You're just strawmanning my argument so that you can spread your bullshit? Ok. Let's go through this piece by piece. EA isn't a monopoly, in fact gaming is one of the few spaces in the market in which we have actual serious competition largely due to a lack of government intervention. Monopolies cannot exist without state support because competition in a market. EA is losing money because it is not listening to its fanbase. Nintendo is listening to its fans and is giving them what they want. Nintendo is seeing record sales, EA is seeing losses and missed goals for preorders. The common thread here is that the company that caters to its fans makes money while the company that makes games that its fans don't like with features they don't want loses that money and goodwill. Please actually read what I say instead of writing a poorly thought out anti-capitalist screed next time.