• 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

ManaByte

Member
Again. The "seasons" are free, all content that comes with them like specialists, guns, maps, etc. Basically gameplay related components, will all be free. The "battle passes" that are released with ever new season are paid for, but they're solely cosmetic based.
But would this thread have gone on for 9 pages of outrage if that was made clear in the first place?
 

MiguelItUp

Gold Member
But would this thread have gone on for 9 pages of outrage if that was made clear in the first place?
You and I both know the answer to this, but it doesn't make it any less lmao. Especially since the thread is bloated with reactions from people that haven't read the details throughout it. Y'know, the usual, lmao.
 
Last edited:

IYAOYAS2019

Member
Sorry, but that's such a silly comment. You are basically saying Battlefield is known as being online so keep it online only. Yeah ok.

Just because you don't care for a campaign doesn't mean others don't.
I never claimed others don't. I simply stated my own opinion on the topic. Thanks for your two cents. Bye....
 

Hestar69

Member
There is no season pass. MP shooters haven't had season passes for years. Maps are always free now.
What do you mean they don't have season passes? COD,Apex,PUBG & Fortnite all have season passes on them.I'm sure the year 1 will be a season type pass or they will add one. It's easy $$.
 

Sygma

Member
What do you mean they don't have season passes? COD,Apex,PUBG & Fortnite all have season passes on them.I'm sure the year 1 will be a season type pass or they will add one. It's easy $$.

There will be 4 seasons a year in which you'll get 2 kinds of battlepass in each : free and premium. All the new maps, guns and operatives will be in the free battlepass. Premium is for cosmetics only

I'd like to know a free to play multi-player game done with AAA budget in which you can level down entire maps and deform terrain, on top of fighting in weather conditions actually really changing the environment. There'll be tornadoes straight up lifting / throwing vehicles. So all of that at 128 players with top notch tech behind yet the game should be free because they cut the campaign
 
Last edited:
Why hunger for a battlefield campaign when you know its weak?

Theres plant of games with a campaign in it. Good ones. Why getting upset over a franchise who's primary focus was online?
What singleplayer shooter with polish and graphics/presentation and possibilities is there similar to Battlefield? Oh thats right, 0.

The problem is paying the same for less content and its being applauded. The shareholders are grinning
 

EDMIX

Member
What singleplayer shooter with polish and graphics/presentation and possibilities is there similar to Battlefield? Oh thats right, 0.

The problem is paying the same for less content and its being applauded. The shareholders are grinning
I don't disagree with you in terms of factually a SP mode makes it less then before, but my issue is many don't even value that mode for this to even be some issue.

As a massive BF fan....I just don't give a shit about the SP mode, we generally ignore it and its almost a unspoken thing in the community that we are here for its MP, so when someone says the "PLAY" BF, they rarely are telling you they are doing its SP, they likely are referring to the MP mode. So I just don't feel much was lost in a mode I don't even fucking play in the BF's that released in the past, so in order for me to feel like I'm getting less, the thing needed to actually provide real VALUE to consumers and based on how little even played those modes and how poorly they are done, shows nothing of REAL VALUE was been lost here to many.

Its a day 1 for me. I don't have any feeling of "oh I'm missing out", on what? The modes I don't play in BF? I put 400 hours in BFV, I don't think I put 5 mins in the single player..... so its value to me is, amazing ass BF game, over 120 players fighting on epic maps, levolution , return of dog tag stealing, tornados and sandstorms, FREE MAPS! So sir, the single player with polish and great presentation has been the fucking Battlefield series since 2008, stop telling us about ummmm "possibilities" they tried, it failed....like a lot and many didn't play it and it was poorly received. DICE do wonders with their engines and a masters at that shit, but it takes more then that to actually make a good single player.

Having great tech doesn't just magically make a single player get awards, I'd argue we learned that literally with the BF series since 2008. They had all their chances for years to do something great, I feel they where given a respectable amount of time to really make that work. Its time to move on. I have no issue playing full price for what DICE is making, they are doing a cross gen title with massive features for next gen and I see no reason to not pay that team their fair share, as if not having a single player means they didn't work hard to do all those new features in this BF or something (keep in mind I"m not saying you mean that btw)
 

MilkyJoe

Member
 
But would this thread have gone on for 9 pages of outrage if that was made clear in the first place?
I mean... probably.
They are still selling a $/€70 game and charge you for content over the years.

Many people think that everything unlockable should be able to be done so without spending more money. There's a reason these topics always escalate. Cosmetics are progress content as well and paywalling them will always bring up some anger.
 
What singleplayer shooter with polish and graphics/presentation and possibilities is there similar to Battlefield? Oh thats right, 0.
The Battlefield campaigns for BF3 and BF4 were Call of Duty rip-offs. So there is that. Hardline's campaign was anything but polished. Neither was BF1's, but at least they tried making it a little different to COD for once. So yeah, single-player shooters that are more polished and have more possibilities are abound.

The only BF campaign that was close to being decent was Bad Company 1.
 
Is this where we pretend like the BF campaigns were ever any good aside from Bad Company?
We now pretend that somebody is playing them :messenger_tears_of_joy: I mean the campaigns were basically Dice's attempt to become COD and it failed.

I think the next entry might become F2P as the multiplayer games are going towards that across the board - too much money from MTX so it would be better to bring people in and then will stick for a long time.
 
Last edited:

Sygma

Member
Apparently the new way conquest works is that you don't actually capture a b c d flags like before, now they're sectors with multiple flags in them. So if you're out for sector c you'll capture c1 c2 etc, and in terms of size they're bigger then bf 3 maps. Also you permanently keep a captured sector
 
The Battlefield campaigns for BF3 and BF4 were Call of Duty rip-offs. So there is that. Hardline's campaign was anything but polished. Neither was BF1's, but at least they tried making it a little different to COD for once. So yeah, single-player shooters that are more polished and have more possibilities are abound.

The only BF campaign that was close to being decent was Bad Company 1.
Thats why I didnt even mention the quality of the SP. Because they dont put any effort in
 

ZywyPL

Gold Member
Apparently the new way conquest works is that you don't actually capture a b c d flags like before, now they're sectors with multiple flags in them. So if you're out for sector c you'll capture c1 c2 etc, and in terms of size they're bigger then bf 3 maps. Also you permanently keep a captured sector

Yeah that would've made sense to somehow organize all those 128 players on the map, otherwise just 5 capture points wouldn't cut it. MAG worked similar to that fashion.
 

DustQueen

Banned
Yeah that damn content! Hate content! Id rather pay for other content!
Are we gonna pretend that 7 maps for 128 players is a small amount of content?

1 map ll be about as much content as 10 smaller mp maps.
And it takes allot of work to make em interesting to play, it will make or break the game.
It is much preferred that they make 7 large, balanced n thought out maps n then test the shit outa them rather than spend resources on mediocre singleplayer 80% of the audience ll not play even once.
 
Last edited:

Dr.Morris79

Member
Of what shit? Getting rid of sub-par campaigns in favor of providing a better multiplayer experience?


You know....the reason why people buy battlefield games in the first place?
Alright, alright. We'll see, I just wanted a Battlefield that hearken back to those marvelous 1942 days

Will this though, what with all these trappings of modern day bullshittery?

I'm in doubt personally.
 
Last edited:

TastyPastry

Member
imagine paying $70 for 7 maps (or over 100$ for the ultimate edition) lol
i bet the launch is also going to be a bugfest, can't wait for the outrage

edit: also were are the strong independent women with bionic arms and the guys with the soy beards. what happened to #everyonesbattlefield?
 
Last edited:

Joey.

Member
I'm ok with all of this - being MP only, battle passes, etc. only on the caveat that this game comes out day one on GamePass...

Then we're talking!
 
Good. That's the people I wanna be playing with. Free to play games bring with them a certain cancerous attitude that I have no interest in at all. It also attracts a shitload of hackers. Look at what is going on with Warzone and their cheating problem.


So if the price tag keeps a lot of them out then that is just another plus for me.
I can see where you are coming from there.
 

RaptorGTA

Member
I always played the single-player of BF...except for BF5..only played 'The Last Tiger' which was good. Sad to see no single player but the meat and potatoes of BF is multiplayer. I expect the online experience to be great on day 1 since they are going this route.
 

HTK

Member
And please explain why that is?
Battlefield as a franchise has been predominantly a multiplayer experience, therefore most of its fan base is multiplayer oriented. Naturally, the studio is going to concentrate on that aspect more-so than the single player.

Historically when DICE has done single player as part of Battlefield they simply weren't long enough or good enough. I believe personally they are wasting time and resources on something that not a lot of players will experience.

There are a lot of reasons why their single player attempts have sucked or not sucked. It can be from budget, resources, time, etc...

I'm not saying it's impossible, or it can't be done. It's that they have tried quite a few times and failed. Either bolster the team and try to do an amazing Single Player and Multiplayer or drop one and concentrate on something you are good at and where majority of your audience is at.

I think only a few games have handled FPS Single Player and Multiplayer that is good, and that's HALO. I think Resistance 2 was good as well. There are probably a few others, but not much. Also, I just want to add, most of the Single Player FPS games do the same shit, go here in the world do this mission, then go to the other part of the world, a set piece here and set piece there, the way they do it, it just sucks. They need to do something new and different rather than the traditional approach of failed single player.

Again, not an impossible, but either take it seriously or don't even bother with it. I haven't played any of the Battlefield single player experience, same goes for Call of Duty except Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare because it was actually decent.
 

Hestar69

Member
AA budget in which you can level down entire maps and deform terrain, on top of fighting in weather conditions actually really changing the environment. There'll b
I have no problem with a season pass, but charging 70 for ONLY MP is trash when the two biggeest shooters out right now are fre. EA/Dice just being greedy as fuck 120 for teh game and season pass BS LOL. I'm not a hater either, I've been a huge BF fan since 1942 strike at karkand. Will I buy the game,yes. but it's still BS and if the BR isn't free/standalone next year that'll be DOA like BFV one.
 

GetemMa

Member
Almost No battlefield fans will care.

The only decent campaigns in a Battlefield game were the Bad Company games. Most battlefield games don't even have one. Battlefield has always been a Multiplayer game. Don't love season passes, but the only thing you actually spend money are cosmetics, which makes me care a lot less.

Can't wait to play BF 2042.
 

user1337

Member
As long as the multiplayer is really good, people will play it and will also buy season passes.
Also depends on how they reward season pass purchases. Some games (like Apex) give you enough credit back each season to buy the next season without paying any extra cash. Other games (like Destiny) require you to pay for each new season (roughly £7-£8).

Unfortunately I don't have the time to commit to multiple games where a season pass exists.

Also knowing how the last BF game was at the start, I will probably just wait a year or two and then see how the game is doing.
 
Last edited:

TLZ

Member
Why is a commercial entity charging customers for a product they invested hundreds of millions of dollars into? Hmmm...

The tables are flipping as we speak. Multiplayer provides more value to consumers than single player. It took these giant publishers long enough to realize that fact.
What about those other popular f2p games? They've also spent many monies on them yet they're f2p multiplayer games.
 
What about those other popular f2p games? They've also spent many monies on them yet they're f2p multiplayer games.

It's almost as if free market capitalism encourages enterprise to pursue varying strategies?

Or

Genshin Impact is F2P so all single player games should be F2P.
 
All I care about is shit tons of maps like 12 15 of of them at release I'm ok with no campaign , and fuck battleroyale but if this releases with 6 7 maps than they can fuck off with that 70 dollar asking price.
If it has 7 maps and it releases with 70 dollars that's like asking 10 dollar a map which is insanity tbh
Cod justfies it's price with maps modes warzone , this won't
 
There is no season pass. MP shooters haven't had season passes for years. Maps are always free now.
Maps are free now, yes.
The problem is we now get like 75% less new maps because you know... It's free and why I would put out like 4 new maps every 3 to 4 months if nobody is paying for it. Fuck cosmetics and useless skins made for cod and fortnite kiddies.
 

ManaByte

Member
Maps are free now, yes.
The problem is we now get like 75% less new maps because you know... It's free and why I would put out like 4 new maps every 3 to 4 months if nobody is paying for it. Fuck cosmetics and useless skins made for cod and fortnite kiddies.
They did free maps/paid cosmetics in BFV and that game isn't suffering from a lack of maps. Hell they remade the greatest BF map, Wake Island. But hey, the hot takes from people who never intended to play the game in the first place must continue.
 
They did free maps/paid cosmetics in BFV and that game isn't suffering from a lack of maps. Hell they remade the greatest BF map, Wake Island. But hey, the hot takes from people who never intended to play the game in the first place must continue.
I've played every battlefield since battlefield 2. But hey, hot takes from excusers must continue.
 
Then why didn't you know this is what DICE has been doing for the last couple of games?
Never said I didn't know. I did know and wasn't fond of it. I'd rather pay for a premium pass and have a guaranteed amount of new maps instead of maybe 3 to 4 maps a year. But that's just me. U are being hostile for no reason,friend.
Peace and love 😘
 

ManaByte

Member
Never said I didn't know. I did know and wasn't fond of it. I'd rather pay for a premium pass and have a guaranteed amount of new maps instead of maybe 3 to 4 maps a year. But that's just me. U are being hostile for no reason,friend.
Peace and love 😘

Battlefield V launched with 8 (one more than 2042) and in the end has 22 (twenty two) maps and they were all added to the game for free. That's not 3 to 4 maps that were added.
 
Top Bottom