Axlerod

Oct 12, 2017 #2 In BF 2018 rumor news: Sources close to Dice and EA state that there is a new Battlefield project underway called “Battlefield Unthinkable”. It is unclear if this will be the final name of the project but for now I will refer to it as “BFU”. BFU is supposedly set in an alternate version of the 1960s where the cuban missile crisis escalates into nuclear war between the united states and the soviet union. From there players find themselves in a world war III set in the 1960s/70s using vietnam style equipment across the globe. Two missions that have been described are set in cuba during the united states invasion and west berlin during a soviet offensive. Campaign moves away from “war stories” and focuses on a group of soldiers rather than an individual during three distinct campaigns. One multiplayer map has been described as havana during the 1960s and it is codenamed “havana_day”. Operations are also rumored to be returning on a bigger scale with branching storylines for each operation. 64vs64 will also become available for PC players- no details on console users. Overall the game has a very “fallout vibe” when it comes to the setting, like america during the 1950s/60s. You will be fighting on the american homefront as well which will be the first battlefield game to feature this since hardline. This is not from any of my sources and sounds like black ops to me but hey we shall see "SOON". That was the post I originally made back on October 12th.

already posted.

predator? How cool.

THis goes with the info that I posted already. https://www.thearmory.cc/threads/current-ea-dice-info.29181/ The other big rumor is no RSP or 3rd party servers. That is what I am most interested in knowing. If they do the RSP shit that they did in BF1, I am skipping the game. I sent him a message and asked if he had any info on servers.

At long last the US NPS sales figures are out for November, revealing just how big an impact the loot crate controversy had on Star Wars Battlefront 2’s sales across the pond. The news isn’t good, if you happen to be an EA shareholder. Battlefront 2 shifted just 882,000 physical copies during its opening month, coming in at around a fifth of Call of Duty: WWII’s opening month sales of 4.4 million. Those are disappointing/uplifting figures depending on which side of the fence you sit on, further backing up the reports from the UK last month whereupon it turned out Battlefront 2’s launch week sales were down considerably compared to the original 2015 title. Taking into account Star Wars Battlefront 2015 underperformed by EA’s standards, and still managed to ship 14 million copies within six months, then Star Wars Battlefront 2 has to be chalked up as an underperformer for now. It is, of course, worth bearing in mind that these sales figures are for physical copies only, so a shift towards digital in the last couple of years may have contributed somewhat to the decline. Still, EA and investors remain hopeful that Star Wars Battlefront II’s fortunes can be turned around, aided by the release of The Last Jedi and the steady stream of additional content that will be coming its way. “We believe that the loyalty of the Star Wars fan base, the game’s appeal as a holiday gift and the release of Star Wars: The Last Jedi on December 15 will result in sales of the game bouncing back,” said Wedbush analytics. Clearly, the handling of microtransactions in Star Wars Battlefront 2 has had a much wider impact on sales than the usual core market. The average consumer is potentially staying away from Battlefront 2 after seeing its controversy played out on mainstream news networks. DICE and EA have got a lot of work to do if they want to right this ship; it’ll be interesting to see if they can indeed turn it around. The counterpoint to all this is that Call of Duty has rebounded in fine style after Infinite Warfare sold disappointingly last year. An impressive feat considering COD: WWII isn't even a particularly good game. What do you think then, can Star Wars Battlefront 2 bounce back and achieve sales as high as the original? Or is the damage well and truly done, and what impact will this have on AAA games going forward? Let us know your thoughts!

Yeah That is what I was thinking too.

Ok New maps RSP is said to be working more or less Blah, Blah , Blah 404 - Official EA Site WWW.BATTLEFIELD.COM

Loads of fun playing last night. See you all on tonight. Oh and the warehouse rooftop It is a glitch. Ubi tried blocking it off but missed a spot. There is a way to up. go inside the building, there are three piles of boxes in the center near a column Climb the first pile, now you see a message in your screen to cross to the other side, (X Cross on ps4 ) if you move slowly near the column the message change to climb. so, you can climb to the second pile of boxes and then to the first floor. I hope it make sense for you.

EA's Battlefront II changes highlight the disconnect between gameplay and progress - The Verge WWW.THEVERGE.COM Treating the symptoms, not the cause

EA's Battlefront II changes highlight the disconnect between gameplay and progress - The Verge WWW.THEVERGE.COM Treating the symptoms, not the cause

Reminds me of BF1942. Looks good but I will wait. I am just tired in investing in games that no one plays.

Following last year’s surprise Worst Company In America victory by Electronic Arts, there was hope that the video game giant would get the message: Stop treating your customers like human piggy banks, and don’t put out so many incomplete and/or broken games with the intent of getting your customers to pay extra for what they should have received in the first place. And yet, here we are again, with EA becoming the first company to ever win a second Golden Poo from Consumerist readers. After an astounding number of votes, Consumerist readers once again chose EA over Bank of America, with the video game company taking nearly 78% of the vote. LESSONS UNLEARNED What did EA do (or not do) that it managed to achieve what none of the previous WCIA champs — Comcast, AIG, BP, Halliburton, RIAA, Countrywide — have ever been able to? Like many other competitors in the WCIA bracket, EA has repeatedly failed at three core requirements of running a consumer-friendly business: 1. Provide a Product People Want and Like Yes, EA has games that sell in the millions, a number of which are well-reviewed and some of which are genuinely loved. But the company also has a history of pumping out products, or rushing games through development, in order to cash in on a brand name. Just in recent years, there have been several notable examples. Dragon Age 2, while it has its defenders, was seen by many as an inferior cash-in that would have benefited from a longer development schedule. Likewise, the sequels for Dead Space have been been similarly derided by some fans of the original. This ballsy decision on EA’s part sets a precedent that the company will surely follow in future games, meaning that consumers will have to choose between the game they want to play and the company that requires them to always be online, whether it’s to monitor their use or sell them new outfits for characters. “EA has become a company that releases mediocre products created by faceless teams,” wrote Penny Arcade’s Ben Kuchera in a story about the WCIA finals. “There is no real vision at work, no grand design. Just the idea that free-to-play games and microtransactions are the wave of the future, or at least they better be, because none of the company’s $60 boxed releases are finding much success with either critics or gamers.” 2. Sell Your Product at a Reasonable Price Like movies, video games require a large amount of money and the efforts of many talented individuals. And so games are going to cost an amount of money that will allow the publisher to make a profit. But the largest video game publishers, including EA, have been accused of refusing to compete on pricing, meaning that consumers pay $60 for a new game because that’s what the studios tells us it will cost. By the same token, EA’s deals with sports leagues like the NFL mean that no other competitor is free to offer a competing game that either offers more content for the same price, or similar content for a lower price. Then there are the free-to-play games that EA makes such noise about. They may be “free” to play, but EA openly admits that the goal of creating these games is to nickel-and-dime users into paying for in-game purchases. The company’s CFO recently stated that EA intends to include these microtransactions in all its free-to-play games. Beyond any possible price-fixing or consumer chiseling, EA is making money by allowing advertisers into its games — even the ones that people pay a lot of money for. Most recently, people who purchased SimCity 5 were treated to their first piece of extra content — a de facto ad for the Nissan Leaf. So EA gets paid, while its customers get to download an interactive advertisement. 3. Support the Products You Sell EA made a royal mess of the SimCity release by failing to foresee that the people who would buy the game — and who would, per the game’s design, be required to connect to the EA servers — might actually want to play at some point in the week after making their purchase. But that’s just the latest in EA’s long history of annoying its customer base with bad support. Customers who paid full price for games, or who spent or saved huge piles of in-game cash in EA’s online products, would suddenly find a problem with their accounts, but attempts to rectify the problem — or even get a response from EA — would go unheeded. In the wake of last year’s WCIA win, EA’s head of customer service told CNET that big changes were coming for the company and that it would be improving how it responds to customers and adding call centers to better handle things. And yet, just the other day a Consumerist reader in Europe sent us his chat transcript with an EA rep that shows the company still has a long way to go. The customer had a simple question about linking an Origin account to his Xbox gamer tag, but the EA rep could only tell the customer that nothing could be done over chat and that he would need to call a customer support number to discuss the problem. Making matters worse, though the customer was in Europe, the EA rep provided him with a phone number for EA’s U.S. support office. The support issue is only going to become an even bigger concern as EA includes more ways of making in-game purchases and requires Internet access just to play games. Each transaction is a chance for an error, and one server crash could mean millions of people left with useless games until someone slaps a shoe against the side of the server. SEALING THE DEAL Perhaps EA is secretly of the school of thought that there is no such thing as bad publicity. That’s the only way to explain the decision by Peter Moore, the company’s chief operating officer, to release one of the most defensive, deflective, non-apology apologies we’ve ever seen. In his misguided, misinformed missive, Moore says things like “we can do better,” while at the same time attempting to put the blame for its WCIA success on a mysterious, unseen cabal of homophobic right-wing blog commenters and people who don’t like whichever football player(s) are on the cover of Madden NFL. “I have a feeling that a rather pronounced enthusiasm for nickel-and-diming might have caused a slightly more elevated level of dissatisfaction with customers,” writes CNET’s Chris Matyszczyk. Moore’s note also marked the second time EA has tried to deflect criticism by pointing to previous winners of the Worst Company tournament, as if to mock consumers who dared to express their discontent with a mere video game publisher. Make no mistake: Video games are big business. A company like EA — and Activision, Ubisoft, Nintendo, and Sony, etc. — merits just as much scrutiny as any other business that plays a leading role in a multibillion-dollar industry. It’s only a fractured, antiquated public perception that video games are somehow frivolous holdovers from childhood that allows gamers to be abused and taken advantage of by the very people who supply them the games they play. “Until EA stops sucking the blood out of games in order to make uninspiring sequels, or at least until they begin caring about how much gamers hate their lack of respect for our money and intelligence, this is going to continue,” writes Penny Arcade’s Kuchera. “We don’t hate them because we’re homophobes, we hate them because they destroy companies we love. We hate them because they release poor games. We hate them because they claim our hate doesn’t matter as long as we give them our money.” Instead of deflecting, we ask the higher-ups at EA to reflect on the following question: When we live in an era marked by massive oil spills, faulty foreclosures by bad banks, and rampant consolidation in the airline and telecom industry, what does it say about EA’s business practices that so many people have — for the second year in a row — come out to hand it the title of Worst Company In America? Funny, this is what players are bitching about currently. I just had to read this article again. I thought this all sounded familiar.

It is not about fun anymore. It is about getting money to buy either skill or weapon or some elite class that overpowers everything else. It is not about team work or skill or trying to better ones self or team. I remeber back in 2013 when everyone thought EA was going to go belly up. Well, EA can not afford another bad video game or bad press. When Disney pulls out, it might be really bad and EA will have to put up a game that screams buy me.

Lets get dice to figure out how to make a basic game first. As of right now, DICE can't even figure out how to play with themselves let alone make a video game that is fun.

Support guns getting a buff. I love that MP5

As fucked up as EA and DICE are right now, I can not say this will be missed by me.

Market closed and EA lost $5.19 per share today. I think that is about $7 billion since the launch of SWBF2.

OMG ea stock is taking another huge hit this morning. Their stock dropped another $4 per share. That is nearly 3 billion again. That means since Swbf2 launch, they have lost 6.5 billion dollars.

Scoot sales are not booming 3 billion worth. I could only afford a $28,000 street glide. Not the 4$41000 that I really wanted. LOL

EA has lost $3 billion Dollars since the launch of SWBF2. EA's day of reckoning is here after 'Star Wars' game uproar, $3 billion in stock value wiped out WWW.CNBC.COM Leading gaming YouTube personalities believe EA will be forced to change its practices after the "Star Wars Battlefront II" controversy. Their stock before launch was $119.60 and is now down to $105.98. They lost $3.98 today per share. Investors are letting wallstreet know they are not happy with EA. Disney has already came out and said they are not happy with EA. Update at market close: Market summary > Electronic Arts Inc. NASDAQ: EA - Nov 29, 5:30 PM EST 105.49USD3.98 (3.64%) I can not wait to hear EA explain this to shareholders how the SWBF2 game released and they lost $15 per share and the company overal has lost 3 billion Dollars. This is in a day an age where 3 billion is a lot of money.

WTG Gator! A lot snappier!

interesting article from forbes magazine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2017/11/24/ea-is-now-ironically-stuck-with-60-battlefront-2-and-no-good-way-to-re-monetize-it/#72b1fe341753 A new way to not play and gain credits: https://gamehypermart.com/blog/playing-star-wars-battlefront-2-with-rubber-bands-to-boost-credits http://gamehypermart.com/image/GHM/BLOG/StarWars/starwarselasticbandscheat.jpg

https://support.ubi.com/en-US/Cases/New You must include evidence. Video or Pics otherwise it never happened and nothing will be done against the player.