@hampton2003: I know they're going to stick with it, but I have no idea why it's an actual dilemma for them. There was a lot of controversy before BFV came out and what happened? It was deemed a commercial disappointment and got far fewer updates than was anticipated for it. They blamed it on marketing issues and "unprecedented competition" (feel free to Google).
So what's happening here? The beta, at least in part, was a marketing issue - there's been an overwhelming amount of dislike/hate for specialists, the amount of bugs, the bland menus. And "unprecedented competition?" They're now releasing two weeks after Vanguard, and it's already been announced that Warzone is getting a new map.
Battlefield, as much as I love it, is going to flop again (low sales, low content after release) if they don't swallow their pride and stick to what made the series as strong as it did. Yeah, I'm sure specialists tied up a whole lot of time, but it can be a wasted effort with low sales or a wasted effort that was reversed to try to recoup from those losses.
Ultimately, the only thing I see saving this game at this point will be Portal, potentially.
TL;DR: I agree with you that they need to scrap it and that DICE/EA won't swallow their pride enough to do so, so the sales and post-release content are both going to be disappointing.
Even as an Xbox player, I have to say that 'The main motivator for us as a company is not cash, it's entertainment--we're entertaining vast numbers of people' is hilarious. It's known by numbers that (at least, for now) Sony has the larger playerbase. I think that'll change as Game Pass continues to expand and Xbox games become more widely available on PC, but for now... it IS about the upfront money.
I'm seriously excited for Wasteland 3, but I feel like they've been super quiet about it lately. I was honestly expecting another delay with just how quiet it's been.
Fantastic! So, by cutting out so much in wages and insurance for those inefficient humans, that means the price will drastically be lower on Sony's consoles going forward, right? /s
"Crazy ambitious" like... releasing a game, changing core styles of the game TWICE (against the wishes of the majority of your fanbase), promising updates for continuing stories and expanding existing game modes and then not doing either, banking on cashing in on all of the microtransactions that don't fit the style of the game and then choosing to fully stop developing new content after you killed much of the interest? Because we had all of that already.
If they had simply pursued what they had with the core game and the quality of content for War in the Pacific, this could've easily been the best WWII game available on consoles. Yet, they're banking on their previous prestige in hopes to move the sequel.
They can't specifically state how many and which games are backwards compatible.
There's lots of "believe" and "expecting" in that article, whereas I know exactly what I can play on my Series X. I can't justify buying a product where the manufacturer isn't certain what it can do.
@johnny0779: I'm not really impressed with the initial line up of either console, but I feel like - between Game Pass and my already extensive catalog of Xbox games - I have much better reasoning to stick with Xbox.
Going to PS5, particularly for exclusives' sequels (which I potentially won't be able to play in backwards compat) kind of kills the whole reason of pursuing exclusives, particularly for the story-heavy games.
It's an interesting idea, but I would've preferred space battles like Battlefront II (2005) where 1.) you've got more than just 5v5, 2.) you're attacking/defending capital ships, 3.) has a mix of on-foot fighting (inside the ships).
Expand on that - have capital ships destructible from both inside and out (both equally difficult, both requiring defenses for both); have fighters for taking out bombers/carriers, bombers for taking out capital ships, carriers for landing inside capital ships with ground units. Ground units on defense can use large defensive guns inside capital ships to take out pilots outside. Maybe throw in engineers to try to keep defenses up.
For prequel/Clone Wars, throw in reskinned sky battles above notable planets.
Maybe throw in an alternate attack/defend where rebels are trying to infiltrate the Death Star before it can power up to destroy a planet, while Imperialists defend during the power-up.
There's immense potential on that, compared to a 5v5 mode that they're already stating won't be at a triple-A price, meaning it likely won't get triple-A effort.
SkytheWiz1's comments