So EA recently released statisics on Battlefield Hardline, which you can find here: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefield-hardline-players-earned-901-billion-of/1100-6426496/

There's a lots of useless crap there, but no sales. We get a 2 billion minute figure for multiplayer (which is around 33,333,333 hrs), so that can give us some insight. If the average person has played multiplayer for around 12 hours since release (I'm being a bit generous since it released almost a month ago) this adds up to around 2.75 million sales on all platforms. That is awful for a battlefield game. Even if it can have a few boost's, it'll be lucky to do 4 million lifetime. And if you think 2.75 million is low, why does it already have a price cut? Isn't that a bit strange?

        Compare this to Battlefield 4's 12 million, and Battlefield 3's 17 million (which was by the way only on Xbox 360, ps3, and PC) this is just a sales catastrophe. A 2/3 hit in sales in one year? And Battlefield 4 was already down over Battlefield 3!!! People are saying Call of Duty Advanced Warfare may "only do" 20 million which is down almost a 1/4 from its peak, but you have to remember two things. The last gen sales are down by more than 2/3's from their peak, and more and more people are moving digital. So a 1/4 hit can be feasible, but a 3/4 hit since Battlefield 3?! And another thing I want to mention was that Battlefield 3 was a big thread to Call of Duty, in fact it was actually comparable in sales. Now though, no its just bad! Bad! Bad!

So with this sales catastrophe, I see two things happening. One for the good, but one for the bad. One, I see visceral games being shut down by EA (so bye bye dead space) but I also see EA being forced to develope better games. That means actually extending their development period from 2 years to 3 years (like activision did with Call of Duty) focus on innovative new ways to change the genre, and of course better campaigns and more stable multiplayer. There's a lot more to mention, but if I where to it'd take all day. If EA doesn't do this, they'll lose the genre completely to Call of Duty and Halo, and FPS is a big genre out their in the gaming world.

  Anyway this is the only choice EA will have. If they stick to the money sucking route (which they usually do) they can say bye bye to Battlefield and the whole genre (don't worry, EA still has EA sports LOL). But if they innovate and improve their business model, they just might be competitive till then. But if they keep this up, well I'm just a broken record at this point...

I'll wait for NPD to verify. Also, these useless in-game statistics have become a trend this gen so I'm surprised they also EA also did it..

^ There's that as well. 

Doesn't matter. Such sales drop offs especially for games like this is a disaster for EA. Having an 80% drop off from your best selling game in a few years is a recipe for disaster.

It must've sold much worse than expected, as EA isn't releasing sales figure's.

It was always going to flop. It games that really no one wanted. At least EA/Dice did try something a little different.

Why would they release sales figures? They are not obligated to and many publishers don't from what I know.

Pretty sure Fifa sells more?

I don't expect big numbers, but I doubt it will flop.

Bear in mind BF4 sold over 12 million according to VGChartz. So even a fraction of that could be very profitable.

I'm comparing to battlefield 3.