• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Battlefield 2042 won't have a campaign, will feature paid seasons

Maxwell Jacob Friedman

leads to fear. Fear leads to xbox.
https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-2042/game-overview




We’ll be evolving our world and expanding on the fiction through Seasons, each one lasting for about three months. Every Season will come with a new free and paid-for Battle Pass, delivering new content to chase after.
In our first year of live service, we will deliver four Seasons, with four Battle Passes, four new Specialists, along with more fresh content.

 

SlimySnake

Member
Paid seasons?

It's so sad to see what this franchise has become.
Why? Paid seasons are good. You get what you pay for. They did away with Paid DLC for BFV and Battlefront 2 and look at how poorly it was supported.

BF1 had paid DLC and they got 20 maps in just over 18 months after launch. BFV and Battlefront got maybe 5-6 maps.

You cannot expect developers to make 20 massive maps for free. That's not how things work. You get what you pay for.

I would rather pay for high quality maps than F2P shit that doesnt get supported. how many maps have Fortnite and CoD Warzone gotten?
 

Naked Lunch

Member
No campaign in BF2042 might be the best decision EA has ever made.
Fuck all the campaign-only Battlefield players - you are the reason the series has fallen off a cliff. Wasted resources.
BF started as MP only and stayed that way for years - not a coincidence those were the best games in the franchise.

As for paid seasons - thats a bad thing if its tied to maps. Modern Battlefield always split the playerbase between people who owned the maps and not - and when a premium map popped up, the servers emptied and died. It also made it tough to play with friends - managing who had the maps and who didnt.
 

Mossybrew

Member
On one hand, the campaigns have always been so mediocre I could never finish them, so no loss there. On the other, I hate this trend of seasons/battle passes, but I understand it from a business perspective. If gamers didn't buy these shit passes they wouldn't keep making them I guess.
 

GHG

Member
Why? Paid seasons are good. You get what you pay for. They did away with Paid DLC for BFV and Battlefront 2 and look at how poorly it was supported.

BF1 had paid DLC and they got 20 maps in just over 18 months after launch. BFV and Battlefront got maybe 5-6 maps.

You cannot expect developers to make 20 massive maps for free. That's not how things work. You get what you pay for.

I would rather pay for high quality maps than F2P shit that doesnt get supported. how many maps have Fortnite and CoD Warzone gotten?

If that's how they want to do it then the game should be cheaper up-front.

1942 had 17 maps at launch and bad company had about 15 i believe. The comparison to f2p games is a flawed one when you consider they aren't charging you $60-$70 up front.
 

Maxwell Jacob Friedman

leads to fear. Fear leads to xbox.
No campaign in BF2042 might be the best decision EA has ever made.
Fuck all the campaign-only Battlefield players - you are the reason the series has fallen off a cliff. Wasted resources.
BF started as MP only and stayed that way for years - not a coincidence those were the best games in the franchise.


As for paid seasons - thats a bad thing if its tied to maps. Modern Battlefield always split the playerbase between people who owned the maps and not - and when a premium map popped up, the servers emptied and died. It also made it tough to play with friends - managing who had the maps and who didnt.
Peak Battlefield has always been Bad Company series, and they had great campaigns and a stellar multiplayer that has still YET to be met, matched or even duplicated
 

MarkyG

Member
I won't miss the lack of campaign, I didn't even finish BF1's. It reads like they're using a similar Battle Pass system as CoD, which while not great, just means it won't divide the player base like in previous games. Gotta pay the bills somehow. EA is down to it's last trillion quids. /sarcasm
 

GhostOfTsu

Member
No campaign feels like a Warzone-type F2P game but after the awful reception of BFV I'm not surprised. That franchise is pretty much dead now after they went woke with their garbage marketing last time.

#Everyonebattlefield my ass (worst-selling, dead multiplayer shortly after release lol)
 

MOTM

Member
Sorry, I come from a time when you could just buy your multiplayer focused game and be done with it.

Enjoy your live service GAAS.
Was also a time where you had to play the same maps for 4 years.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: amc

Naked Lunch

Member
Peak Battlefield has always been Bad Company series, and they had great campaigns and a stellar multiplayer that has still YET to be met, matched or even duplicated
As a PC Battlefielder since the beginning - when the console BC games popped up they were viewed as a joke. I mean BC1 auto spotted people thru walls - everyone had an automatic wall back. BC2 was decent, had nice gunplay particularly, but it only went to 24-32 players max. Thats weak bro.
 

Altares13th

Member
Ok let's be real, who play BF for the campaign ?
As for seasons, it's just another name for DLC's pack
I do. I don't even install multiplayer when they give me the choice.
This one will be a pass. Not that I was super excited to play it but whatever. I actually enjoyed BF3 quite a bit.
 

SlimySnake

Member
If that's how they want to do it then the game should be cheaper up-front.

1942 had 17 maps at launch and bad company had about 15 i believe. The comparison to f2p games is a flawed one when you consider they aren't charging you $60-$70 up front.
How large were those maps? BF1 and BFV maps are massive compared to BFBC2.

They took an extra year and had six studios make this game. Trust me they werent sitting around gutting maps on purpose. They pick quality over quantity.
 

Cornbread78

Member
Meh, I'll stick to Destiny most likely. At least the learning curve isn't nearly as bad as BF...


Hopefully, it hits the bargain bin, Gamepass list after 6 mos and I'll give it a whirl for free
 

Maxwell Jacob Friedman

leads to fear. Fear leads to xbox.
As a PC Battlefielder since the beginning - when the console BC games popped up they were viewed as a joke. I mean BC1 auto spotted people thru walls - everyone had an automatic wall back. BC2 was decent, had nice gunplay particularly, but it only went to 24-32 players max. Thats weak bro.
and yet its still the majority of peoples fav battlefield with BC2....Gunplay was amazing, maps were diverse and fit all modes properly INCLUDING RUSH, the destruction was better than newer iterations the list goes on and on. Hell why do you think people keep clamoring for a BC2 remake or a BC3? They want that magic again.
 

ANDS

Thought gaf was racist. Now knows better, honorary gaffer 2022
. . .because you played Battlefield for the campaign right? Hell did the first three even have one?

Seven maps at launch lol. They haven't learned from their mistakes, eh?

How many maps that can handle over a hundred players do you need?
 
Last edited:

Saaleh

Banned
Multiplayer is priority, they need to nail that before even thinking about single player. So I'm glad that they are trying to fix up in that side.

Impressive next gen first impression + solid and satisfying base game. If they can't do that, all the future battle pass content won't save it.
 
Top Bottom