Thursday, August 30th 2018
EA Delays Battlefield V Release by a Full Month - Available on November 20th
Via a blog post on EA's website, Oskar Gabrielson, General Manager of DICE, made it known that Battlefield V would be facing a one month delay, moving its previously-announced October 19th release to November 20th. Gabrielson goes on to say that there are some core gameplay features - "gameplay tempo", "soldier visibility" and "player friction" that have been met with copious amounts of feedback, and that DICE wants to dive into these as it improves the game to "get it right".
Gabrielson ends his take with a promise to "(...) take the time to continue to make some final adjustments to core gameplay, and to ensure we really deliver on the potential of Tides of War", a live service which will replace the previous system of Premium Passes and expansion packs with an "evolving journey" - perhaps something in the like of Destiny's non-expansion content - read, events - updates. Battlefield V is one of the games that will launch with support for NVIDIA's RTX technology, by the way (in Alpha mode at GAMESCOM) - and the game was supposed to drop just a single day before NVIDIA's official September 20th launch for the RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti graphics cards.
Sources:
EA Blog, via IGN
Gabrielson ends his take with a promise to "(...) take the time to continue to make some final adjustments to core gameplay, and to ensure we really deliver on the potential of Tides of War", a live service which will replace the previous system of Premium Passes and expansion packs with an "evolving journey" - perhaps something in the like of Destiny's non-expansion content - read, events - updates. Battlefield V is one of the games that will launch with support for NVIDIA's RTX technology, by the way (in Alpha mode at GAMESCOM) - and the game was supposed to drop just a single day before NVIDIA's official September 20th launch for the RTX 2080 and 2080 Ti graphics cards.
25 Comments on EA Delays Battlefield V Release by a Full Month - Available on November 20th
Either way more time just means it may end up being more polished at launch. Lots of new system to work on in the game.
Edit: I really wanted a modern BF so I was a bit disappointed by BFV's reveal. I'll still get it eventually but I'm less excited for it. On the plus side, there's no way it could be worse than BF1, and after playing the closed alpha it's already miles ahead of that game in terms of gunplay.
www.techpowerup.com/247007/nvidia-rtx-2080-ti-ray-tracing-sotr-barely-manages-30-60-fps-at-full-hd
So was the game supposed to launch on 19th September or 19th October?
The Battlefield community was upset with the direction taken by the Developers and EA and they voiced their concerns. In return EA head honchos told them they are uneducated and "If you don't like, don't buy."
So lo and behold the BF community listened and did not pre-order and by the looks of it probably wont even buy after release and now Mr. Soderlund parted ways with EA.
Probably too hard to do a decent iteration of Battlefield 1942 with modern graphics and decent gun play, which is what the community wanted for the past 5 years?
1942 was the best, with 2142 Titan mode up there with it, to somewhat of a lesser degree. No game today has the scope 1942 did. You could drive aircraft carriers around... and you could also drive a battleship and use it to sink the enemy carrier, or other naval craft, or bombard land targets with the guns like an artillery strike. 2142 Titan mode kinda had this, but the whole point of that game mode was to blow up the enemy Titan, which was fun, but in 1942, the aircraft carriers, valuable though they were, the entire game didn't hinge on them. You could theoretically lose your carrier and still be in the game so long as you had at least one other base somewhere.
It was supposed to launch between Black Ops 4 and Red Dead 2. Coupled with poor preorders, it would have been suicidal.
If this BF would be an alternate history setting, maybe from the C&C Red Alert universe and tell some prequel story from that mid 1940s it would make sense that it doesn't make sense in the sense making WWII kind of a way. If you get my drift.
I mean, sure, he definitely was representing all humanity in one sense.. but it's missing the point of the whole backdrop of the Space Race. Which had jack to do with this Gene Roddenberry globalist vision of Space. It was about America and the Soviets. I'd sure as hell give Yuri Gagarin credit enough to tell his whole story too. There's no shame in that. This revisionist stuff is annoying... even when there's a kernel of truth in what they (or BF) is saying, they go about it in an insulting way.