Battlefield V Delayed to November for Gameplay 'Adjustments'

in other words, "we just realised that releasing between Call of Duty and Red Dead Redemption 2 was a mistake because it wasn't selling"

or they are planning to actually release all the game modes at launch instead of releasing them afterwards,which is 1 of the reasons bf5 is not getting much hype.

Yes gameplay adjustments, nothing to do with Red Dead 2 and Black OPS. Cynicism aside I was thinking along the lines of @NintendoFan4Lyf amd that perhaps they want to perfect the ray tracing for a technical showpiece on PC and one that would offer the best experience for all this who have plenty of money to splash on the new cards

Weird to see a game like Battlefield get delayed.

This falls into the same problem Spyro now falls into.

Sure, you aren't sandwiched between CoD, FIFA and Red Dead on the platform you are releasing on.

But now you are sandwiched around Hitman, Fallout and Pokemon.

So it's only a marginal improvement.

"reducing player friction" means what exactly?. too many camping snipers rubbing up and down against one other?..

I'll still take a delayed BF5 over a campaign-less COD and day of the week!!

This is good news... October was looking expensive! At least now I can afford ac odyssey 😎

@Oddbodjunior Same. Battlefield is 10x better than Call of Duty. Plus, no single player campaign in COD is a deal-breaker.

'augmentations' or the removal of them, i.e. Cybernetic arms

Ha, this is the first year I'm skipping CoD since it has no campaign, BF has nothing to worry about there as far as I'm concerned.
The new date for Battlefield helps as Soul Calibur was out the same day so now I can easily get both!

Lololol

EA and Dice will be paying the price for the Battlefront PR disaster as well

So maybe it wont need a day 1 patch then?

@Knuckles-Fajita Hitman is not that big and Pokemon isnt even close to the target audience so i think its a tradeup. 😁

@Flaming_Kaiser Okay Hitman I will give you that, but those same people that say Pokemon Let's Go is trash is the same thousands/millions that's gonna buy the game anyways. Trust me, don't be surprised if that game is one of if not THE best selling game of this year.

Ahahahaha.
Ahahahahaha.

Not sold.

I'm sure they're just using this time to prep more microtransactions and ride out the RDR2 wave, that's about it.

Definitely scared of big giants RDR2 and COD Black Ops IV. But its not gonna work. People are still gonna ignore it because they will be busy playing above both games and AC: Odyssey.

Its not the first time a BF game has been delayed due to lack of interest and feedback - remember Hardline? All reports seemed to indicate that pre-orders were very low - a lot lower than expected. It also didn't help that the trailers made the game look like 'CoD' in a lot of ways too. I totally disagree with the 'realism vs gender/inclusivity' debate, that women shouldn't be in the front line fighting alongside men as this is a 'game' first and foremost and not a historical documentary. Its never affected me what 'gender' my team-mates characters are or what gender my enemies opted to play as - they are just 'soldiers' and often you don't see their 'gender' when immersed in a battle.

I do think though that Battlefield needs to focus on keeping the cosmetics contemporary to the time-period and the battlefield. I doubt there was any soldier (male or female) running around sleeveless with a mechanical arm. Certainly prosthestics of the time wouldn't have enabled the soldiers to pull triggers etc and you wouldn't want to see bright or shiny colours that would give your enemies a greater chance of spotting you. Its all about monetisation rather than trying to keep within the setting.

Going back to the Realism debate, Battlefield has never been 'realistic'. You can't 'respawn' on you team mates or at a base after a death, you wouldn't take as much risk if you only had 1 life. You can't jump out of aircraft, fire an RPG/sniper etc, and get back into the aircraft in mid-flight etc so its never been realistic...

My nan done a war and she had a robot hand. It's very realistic.

What is player friction?

@BAMozzy I don’t understand why so many people are being negative towards this? If it’s the setting, it makes sense to go the WW2 route after BF 1’s WW1. The Premium Pass has also been scraped so the player base will no longer be split. The game is doing all the right things and it’s looking like the best BF yet but there’s a lack of interest? What gives?

What part(s) of the trailer did it look like CoD? You don’t have vehicles, destruction, huge maps, 32 vs 32 etc in CoD. It looked a bit chaotic and fast paced but it’s supposed to be, WW2 was chaotic and you had to move fast to stay alive. I thought the trailer looked amazing, the graphics, certain little things like the guy jumping through the window and rolling as he landed, that’s never been seen in BF multiplayer before, the V1 rocket, would be great if you can hear it so you can take cover before it explodes. Okay so those things aren’t exactly revolutionary but at least BF always adds, changes and mixes things up unlike CoD which seems like it’s stuck in the past. IMO you only need to buy one CoD game and no need to play another.

CoD is obviously still going to sell better but let’s be honest, BF offers much more in terms of gameplay like vehicles, 64 players in huge destructible maps, a single player campaign, COD offers none of these but the masses will still prefer CoD. If you compare both Black Ops 4 and BF5 trailers, how anyone would prefer CoD’s is beyond me, BF5 looks leagues ahead in every department.

@MaccaMUFC I think it was all the sliding and shooting, jumping through windows, knocking back grenades as well as the cinematic OTT presentation - all of which is synonymous with CoD. You also have a V1 which is much like a CoD scorestreak too. The character outfits too where more befitting of CoD rather than a more serious Battlefield game and even the arm had a bit of 'CoD' about it with the exo-skeleton that CoD had.

Of course the game-play is different - not necessarily 'better' as that depends on whether you prefer the more arcade, gun on gun action with much more intimate and fast paced map design as opposed to the large scale combat with vehicles that could get very 1 sided if the one side gained air superiority and would just sit over the base destroying the others vehicles as they spawned.

CoD has almost always had a better campaign - not this year of course but to say BF's Campaign is an advantage over CoD in general is a mistake. This is the first year in many that BF actually will have a better campaign. CoD also offers Zombies though as well as a LOT more modes and maps at launch than BF as well as a suite of Hardcore modes too.

Like I said though at the beginning, BF is 'different' and I doubt anyone would argue visually much better too but visuals are only part of the equation. For many of the Battlefield 'faithful', the new Battlefield has introduced aspects that some feel belong in CoD and that trailer did very little to convince them otherwise.

Personally I don't care too much for the new CoD either - its BF3 with the Jet-pacs and campaign removed. The removal of the campaign is a mistake in my opinion and this will be the first year since CoD4 that I will not be buying at launch (if at all). The only aspect that 'appeals' in anyway is Zombies. I am not that interested in BF5 either and much prefer the more modern shooter and would prefer to play BF4 over any of these. Neither will be bought Day 1 and may only be bought once they hit the bargain bin - which won't be too long after release if recent years are anything to go by...