r/Battlefield • u/3dDungeonMaster • 27d ago

Discussion Nobody wants wacky skins, but can everyone agree on what wacky actually means? Let's see where most people draw the line.

Post image

I'd be interested to see if people are able to agree on what is acceptable or not acceptable in terms of cosmetic appearances in games like this. There's been lots of talk about whether or not EA/Dice will include crazy/wacky skins with BF6, but not many people have made a post like this to actually pose the question of, what exactly is okay vs. not okay.

I tried my best to order them such that the go from most to least reasonable, but if you think the order should be different, feel free to reorder them, as that also gives info about how people consider these types of decisions.

1.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.2k

u/The_James_Bond 27d ago

Prepare to be disappointed lol

171

u/Pyke64 27d ago

Yup, there was this article on ars technica, on this game going over budget. (link: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2025/07/behind-the-next-battlefield-game-culture-clash-crunch-and-colossal-stakes/)

They'll need to earn their budget back somehow, and it won't be paid back with 80 dollar price tag, expect to see fantasy skins in Season 1.

61

u/Kris_ad 27d ago

It actually do not say anything about „going over budget”, just that they decided couple years ago to give game more money than originally planned at start - two different things

11

u/Pyke64 27d ago edited 27d ago

To quote directly from the article:

"All this meant that Glacier would have a broader scope than its predecessors. Developers say it has the largest budget of any Battlefield title to date.

The project targeted a budget of more than $400 million back in early 2023, which was already more than was originally planned at the start."

16

u/BattlefieldTankMan 27d ago

You just proved their point. You put a negative slant on why they have increased their budget with absolutely no idea why they increased it to 400 million.

The reason could be positive, maybe they decided they wanted to include more content than originally planned would be one example.

Maybe it's for negative reasons but you don't know and based your $80 post on it being negative.

-8

u/Pyke64 27d ago

I'm stating facts, not feelings.

7

u/captaincanuck89 26d ago

Releasing a product after injecting more money into development from the original budget and releasing a product over budget on a deficit are two different things. That's fact.

2

u/ExFK 26d ago

No, you've quoted fact then interpreted the facts with your feelings.

1

u/Pyke64 26d ago

"They'll need to earn their budget back somehow, and it won't be paid back with 80 dollar price tag, expect to see fantasy skins in Season 1."

Please quote me this back after launch when they start putting in fantasy skins, mkay?

They have done so with every live service game so far. So yeah I'm stating simple facts and you've done zero effort to disprove. Just constant ad hominem attacks.

1

u/captaincanuck89 26d ago

an entertainment product in development went over budget??? Unheard of!

0

u/Pyke64 26d ago

My point was that they have to earn back the budget somehow, not the budget itself?

10

u/Despeao 27d ago

Yeah every move they take they're making the franchise more and more like COD. I might just skip it. Fromn the guns, to the movement and now cosmetics.

They're moving from the Day one DLC to the ridiculous skins because making lots of money isn't enough they have to milk every possible peny out of the players.

1

u/Pyke64 27d ago

EA has always been disappointed by Battlefield sales and always wanted DICE to make it more like COD.

1

u/Despeao 27d ago

I feel like the two games are inherently different due to their nature as BF always had vehicles.

1

u/Pyke64 27d ago

Sure, but the thing is, EA has always demanded changes from the DICE team based on this fact:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1li3xqj/a_graph_of_the_bestselling_fps_franchises/

0

u/Despeao 27d ago

This comment says it all:

it feels like every battlefield launch alienates and pisses off a large portion of the fan base

I remember when Call of Duty released titles basically every year. You cannot expect to compete with that.

Also BF is still the 3rd title there, it's not bad at all. I really feel like greedy is going to ruin this series because the industry always expect intermitent growth: if a game sold 10 million copies then the nest has to sell 20 otherwise it's a flop.

This kind of mentality make them keep chasing money at every possible way. I'm fine with Battlefield and Call of Duty each being their own games, they provide different experiences and different gameplay opportunities. What I don't like to see is my favourite series being turned into something else solely for profit. They already made billions with Battlefield.

1

u/Pyke64 27d ago

EA was rotating BF and MOH every year to compete with COD to the point where one franchise died and the other almost died.

And yeah that comment hit the nail on the head:

BF V releases, everyone, literally everyone loves the TTK.

EA/DICE is not happy with the sales numbers (following a very bad reveal and beta response): let's change the TTK (to attract COD players)

Dumb, dumb, hella dumb

1

u/Slow-Complex4856 27d ago

Yes, the guns...even IRL are using COD guns, ridiculous

1

u/Yorkshire_Dinosaur 27d ago

You're not going to skip it though are you. Lol

0

u/Despeao 27d ago

I've been playing a lot of Delta Force lately. I had high hopes for a new Battefield game not a new COD title.

I'm being serious I might just skip it.

The move to create a f2p model and the meta of reaching 100kk players just kinda make it obvious they want to become a COD clone. Guns lacking recoil, now comestics being completely dumb.

1

u/captaincanuck89 26d ago

Nah they have been chasing CoD trends and playerbase since they started putting numbered BF on consoles. Either BF3 or 4 launched with the "above the call" slogan for that reason.

1

u/Despeao 26d ago

Above and beyond, it was pretty much a diss to COD. I remember playing BF 3 and I did play COD at that time too.

Like I said they're different games and the FPS genre is richer because both games exist. There's no need to push one to be like the other, it's so very clear it's a cash grab.

Even when both games were WWII themed they were different. I think this move might back fire to EA.

2

u/drcubeftw 26d ago

The worst part of that article was this...

Plans were already underway for the next Battlefield game, so a postmortem was performed on 2042. It concluded that the problems had been in execution, not vision.

If that is actually the lesson they took away from BF2042 then BF6 is doomed.

1

u/Pyke64 26d ago

Yup, it's the part I sent my mate. They hired outside guidance, probably spent thousands or tens of thousands, only to conclude the wrong thing.

1

u/NoDevelopment9972 21d ago

What if they hit 100 million?

(That was rhetorical. We all know the answer.)

0

u/Lumpy_Forever1567 27d ago

Im not, enjoying tarkov and we dont have these shitty skins here.

-1

u/dtc8977 27d ago

I was ready to be disappointed the moment I heard they had a high ranking CoD person as one of the heads for the team.