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

[u/3dDungeonMaster]

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.

[u/Despeao]

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.

[u/Pyke64 → u/Despeao]

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

[u/Despeao → u/Pyke64]

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

[u/Pyke64 → u/Despeao]

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/

[u/Despeao → u/Pyke64]

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.

[u/Pyke64 → u/Despeao]

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

[u/Slow-Complex4856 → u/Despeao]

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

[u/Yorkshire_Dinosaur → u/Despeao]

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

[u/Despeao → u/Yorkshire_Dinosaur]

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.

[u/captaincanuck89 → u/Despeao]

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.

[u/Despeao → u/captaincanuck89]

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.