Players have been getting less and less patient with disaster launch and thus hated the game which is known for disaster launches. A few games get away with it but since Cyberpunk or maybe even Fallout 76, the general concensus is that a broken game is not worth the time, not even if it gets better later. Games that get away with it usually have some saving grace, like Jedi Survivor being playable but having unplayable performance on PC. Even then, it pretty much lost the PC crowd. BF 2042 was unplayable at launch on every platform, had no redeeming qualities and it even tore out core parts of the game, like the class system, in favor of systems that can be indefinitely monetised. In a game that costet AAA money.

The only reason Ubisoft is getting away with the "it'll be good later" thing is that a) they invented it in the AAA space with Rainbow6Siege and b) they actually stick to these games for a long time. EA gave 2 years for Star Wars BF2 to sort its shit out, put out a new release of the game with all the cosmetics in it and the the next week announced that they no longer support it. Neat. Meanwhile, Ubisoft has not only stuck with R6S, but also developed a new anti-cheat system so it doesn't die to cheater and are still sticking with it. Another Ubisoft title, For honor. The game was okay at launch but playercount wise it was DOA. Yet, the game is still getting updates and new content regurarly 5 or so years later. THAT is the difference. EA dips on the first sign of losing money while, for all the things I despise Ubisoft, I gotta give props to them for sticking to their games for long time.

Also, Battlebit has shown that BF has a place in the modern gaming, EA/Dice just refused to just make a BF game for the past almost decade. They made something that resembled BF with WW1 and WW2 paint, then a piece of turd, but not a single BF game.