Battlefield V Delayed Away From Call Of Duty And Red Dead 2

Battlefield V Delayed Away From Call Of Duty And Red Dead 2

EA has delayed the next big Battlefield game a month, pushing it back to November 20 for what developer DICE says are “final adjustments to core gameplay.” There’s another good reason for the delay, though: the competition.

Battlefield V had been previously scheduled for October 19, a week after Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 and a week before Red Dead Redemption 2. It seemed like a big misstep for EA to launch its flagship fall game that close to two other, far more anticipated games, and rumours had circulated for the past few weeks about Battlefield V pre-orders failing to meet EA’s expectations.

Now, the next Battlefield is clear of most other fall blockbusters, although it’ll still be out in time for Black Friday (November 23).

Battlefield V, which is set in World War II, will hold an open beta next week on September 6 (with early access for those who pre-order, or have Origin Premier/EA Access accounts, starting September 4). “We can’t wait to see you on the battlefield,” DICE said in today’s announcement. Get it?


  • I read they’ve been freaked out by a massive 85% reduction in their preorder predictions compared to previous battlefield games.

    There’s more than competition going on for the lower pre orders I think. Previous battlefield games have gone off against big titles and done well, not to mention that red dead is a completely different market for a game.

    • Your translation is correct. They’re shitting their pants. Maybe they shouldn’t have told us to be PC or don’t buy it. So that’s what most of us are doing, not buying. Power of the Wallet.

          • I’m not oversimplying anything, dude.

            People got upset that a woman was on the cover. If those people are not buying a game because a woman was on the cover, they’re pathetic.

          • Sigh, the vast amount of commentary on the issue has zero issues with females in the game (BF has already done this, with the In the name of the Tsar DLC, with zero outrage). The outrage came from the front and center historical revisionism that was front and center, and then being told to bugger off by the creator when the issue was raised.

            I for one welcome being able to customise myself as a lady, but why spend all that effort researching locations, weapons, tone, etc, to throw the baby out by focusing on 0.001% of combatants in WW2, and more importantly, trying to portray it is an ‘everyday occurance’?

            DICE would have been much better waiting until it got back to modern day or future (2142) to do this, and would have caused zero outrage.

          • Absolute load of horse shit.

            I have never seen anyone complain about historical inaccuracies in a game until the historical inaccuracy is something they don’t like, in this case having women in the game.

            It was the same BS outrage in Star Wars when they had a black Storm Trooper. This doesn’t change the game one iota. You either buy it because you enjoy those games or you don’t. If you’re not buying it because a female is on the cover then I find it pathetic.

            Also ironic that the people who refer to SJWs as snowflakes seem to be the same people who are being very snowflakey about a fucking cover image.

          • The women have been shoehorned in as a symbolic gesture. You can’t do something symbolically and then expect people to objectively assess the impact of the change, or use objectivity as a benchmark for judging their reactions.

            People are pissed because a game which purports to be an interpretation/ representation of a historical event is being revised in a token gesture of political correctness.
            People are pissed because of what it represents, not because a bunch of pixels are representing a woman and not man.

            There is an objective argument that the intended realistic tone of the game is undermined by having lots of women fighting.
            There’s also the ideological view of f*ck off with that sh*t, EA. Historical revisionism is obnoxious. Your political correctness is obnoxious. If women don’t feel “included” because they have to play as a historically accurate character then that’s their problem and my experience shouldn’t be compromised for them.

            The political symbolism of the change does annoy me. It’s just stupid and tokenistic. If EA wants creative licence to be as inclusive as they want then set the f*cking game now or in the future.

          • False equivalency, and I proved that my no one having issues with the introduction of women in ‘In the name of the Tsar’, and thats because the women were there, as fighters.

          • @Camm So it seems to me you’re arguing a point that I’m not arguing?

            I’m saying if you’re not buying the game because a woman is on the cover, you’re pathetic and you’re apparently saying that’s not the reason why people aren’t buying the game and then you provided examples.

            So what exactly are you arguing with me about?

          • Stop deluding yourself, you’ve managed to post another argument after that one, in fact, its the one I’m replying to.

          • Seems I was wrong about you guys.

            You are indeed pathetic. How cute.

            @foggy – I never said anything about my political correctness. The fact that you are trying to include a game as “historical revisionism” shows just how many straws you’re attempting to clutch. Historical revisionism is about challenging old views and I don’t think this is doing that. It’s a fucking game not a history paper. Are we really that precious?

            @Camm – It seems you’re the only deluded one. You’re either upset that a woman is on the game/front cover or you’re not. If you are not buying a game simply because of this then I find it pathetic. You can downvote me all you like. It shows even more how pathetic you are.

        • A shitty initial trailer dropped looking closer to fortnight then prior battlefield games with a clear emphasis on putting a one armed war painted women front and center.

          People reacted with WTF
          EA exec told people to get stuffed and don’t buy the game

          Pre-orders are down and the exec has stepped down.

          Sure u can have women in a ww2 game, can have minorities too as long as it’s contextual (be awesome to play as a Gurkha) otherwise it dilutes the atmosphere and it’s pandering to a “whaa what about my representation” crowd.

          Let’s face it, EA decision to grandstand their inclusiveness was pandering to the SJW crowd and a marketing ploy to project themselves as a paragon of virtue. This backfired as their actual sales base doesn’t care for their games being a platform for political correctness.

          • @colonelwhiskey – I’m hoping you and I are both smart enough to know that that is not what occurred.

            No one complained that the game looked more like Fortnite. The only complaints front and centre was that a woman was on the front cover. There is no fucking way on earth there would’ve been uproar about not having contextual characters in a game before a woman was put there. There are multiple games out there that haven’t maintained historical accuracy and I’ve never heard boo. It’s a FPS and I’m sure you can choose whether you’re male or female so really who gives a shit?

            So I maintain and stick by my comment. If you’re seriously not buying a game simply because they have women in it, you’re pathetic.

          • Ah, yeah they did @tonez. It was all over reddit and discord when the trailer dropped. The game looked like Fortnite garbage, and many people said so. Maybe stop trying to disregard peoples legitimate complaints by saying it’s all sexism?

          • When did I ever disregard anyone’s legitimate complaint? You seem to be ignoring what I’m saying.

            My initial comment was “If you’re not buying it because of the women in the game, you’re pathetic”. That was it. And it was in response to someone actually stating no one is buying the game because we’re being forced to be PC.

            If you are genuinely not buying the game due to a legitimate issue with the game, why would I care? In fact I don’t care if you’re not buying the game due to an (in my opinion) illegitimate concern about women being in the game, I just simply think it’s pathetic if that’s your reason.

  • I don’t really give a crap about any of the “dumb” customisations or female soldiers. I usually love Battlefield (I even loved Hardline!), but everything I’ve seen about BFV so far has just left me thinking “so what?”

    Either I’ve changed, or there is something fundamentally wrong with their approach to this one. I’m waiting for the open beta to see if I can be convinced to buy. If not, I think I’ll just keep playing BF1 until it dies and then move on to WW3 if it ends up being popular enough to have a decent selection of Aussie servers.

    • I am not buying it because the last few games made by dice have been seriously lacking in content.

      I am still annoyed that BF1 had 4 or so guns per class at launch when BF4 had more than 10 and it even included a bunch of weapons that could be used on any class. I remember at the time people said they couldn’t have more weapons because there weren’t many around in WW1 but what a shock it was when they managed to come up with more weapons to sell to us in DLC.

  • The Battlefield games have kinda become stagnant, and after being told that if you don’t like the alternate reality shit being pushed (which, I think the community is perfectly fine with having female soldiers in the game as a customisation option, but abhored the historical revisionism to put it front and center), don’t buy it, well, I guess a large chunk of the community decided to just not buy it.

  • Meh, I was going to hold out for the Fat Sh*t DLC that adds all 2018’s fat people so they feel included in World War 2 as well.

    Maybe this will give them a month to patch some gender fluid options into the game, don’t want another “my non-gender is not a non-option” controversy.

    • Really my dude? the game is trash, but you are being a tool about it. BF hasn’t ever been about accurately depicting any theater it has featured.

      • I’m pretty sure every single aesthetic decision the made for BF1 was done so with the intention of recreating WW1. I think you’ll find it was one of the most heavily praised elements of the game.

        The gameplay is designed to be fun and it takes liberties to ensure that (hint: war isn’t actually fun), but the visuals are trying to depict a real historical event. So yeah, shoehorning in people who weren’t there to appease 2018 standards of “inclusivity” is stupid and unnecessary.

        That said, I was being a complete tool about it.

        • Was there a big fuss made over having black soldiers fight alongside white soldiers in BF1?

          • Kinda. For that I felt like in general those chucking up a stink just needed to be educated on ‘yeah, there were african-american’s fighting’ and it went away about as quickly.

          • The point I am trying to make is, if people are now saying BF1 has created an aesthetically and historically accurate WWI settings when there are black soldiers fighting alongside white soldiers in the game (not historically accurate), then it would be hypocritical of them to complain about having female soldiers in the game.

          • Most people don’t have an issue with having women in the game, it’s the way the EA guy came out reacting to it. There’s going to be douchebags everywhere, no doubt, but his reaction was definitely on the nose. I haven’t passed judgement myself, I’m waiting to see how they’re included. It’s just a game after all, not a life changing event.

          • I am with you, I am not a fan of how EA handled it either but there are lots of people on the internet made it out to be some sort SJW conspiracy.

  • I couldn’t care less about aesthetic since I don’t pay attention to the character model of the person I am shooting at anyway.
    The game looks great in the recent game play videos so I am leaving my pre-order as is.

    Side note: I hope people who complains about the decision to include female character models in game because it is historically inaccurate also complained about black soldiers were depicted to fight alongside white soldiers in BF1 when US had racial segregated units in WW1. I also expect these people to make a big fuss for all future games that has a modern warfare settings (e.g. World War 3) if they do not include female character models.

  • I have an issue with the game that is caused by ” having women in the game” as opposed to “I dont want women in my history war zone rawr rawr rawr” and it’s this. The sound of any female character getting killed is so off putting. It’s super high pitched and sounds super gross. But is that enough to make me not buy the game? I honestly have to watch more gameplay and try the Beta in a week but yeah… I dont really like it. Am I the only one?

Show more comments

Comments are closed.

Log in to comment on this story!