• 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

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
They mentioned an updated Levelution, so just a micro level destruction like in BF3/4, so just cosmetics that don't affect the gameplay
Did you even play BF3 and 4? Because there absolutely was destruction that affected the gameplay.
 

Slikk360

Neo 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?
That's all they want Free but High Quality content still and crying about a $70 price tag when a studio spends hours and millions to make the game. Some people are just sad and cheap.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
That's all they want Free but High Quality content still and crying about a $70 price tag when a studio spends hours and millions to make the game. Some people are just sad and cheap.
Yeah if it was free to play quality and they were charging $70 then yeah that would piss me off too, but I sincerely doubt that is the case. We will know for sure with the gameplay reveal.
 

MiguelItUp

Gold Member
Paid seasons? But you are paying $70 already?
Nick Young Reaction GIF
Yes, paid seasons for C O S M E T I C only items apparently.

So, unless you want some super "cool" gun decal or specialist color, you don't need it.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
All are games as a service. All have dedicated fanbases A traditional model may have provided more mass appeal. Instead, EA may only carve out a piece of the same market in which only the die-hard Battlefield fans will take part of. We will see.
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.
 

SantaC

Member
They mentioned an updated Levelution, so just a micro level destruction like in BF3/4, so just cosmetics that don't affect the gameplay
They will actually have terrain deformation this time.

I suspect that crossgen holds back destruction.
 

dottme

Member
It looks like EA made a good job here. People are ready to spend hundreds of dollars on one game while when Sony try to sell Rachet and Clank $80 they’ve got a big push back.
 

iJudged

Banned
There is nothing retarded about the concept of paid DLC. What's retarded is expecting free shit just because you bought something for full price.

Paid DLC maps have been a thing since console multiplayer became a thing. Everyone paid $60 for cod every year then $15 per map pack. Every single game from CoD to Battlefield to Killzone and Destiny have done this.

MAG was single player only for $60. BF used to be a single player only franchise for almost 10 years. This is nothing new.

now if you are a single player Battlefield fan then I can understand you being upset. If i were you i would not buy the game, but 99% of players dont buy BF for single player campaigns.
Fuck MAG and fuck EA with this BS, i will be skipping it as i did MAG, i refuse to pay full price for a game that doesn't even include SP and plans to milk us, the gamers, every fucking month for new shit, and don't fucking tell me it's only cosmetics, we know it will be everything, from weapons to cosmetics , you are a part of the problem if you are ok with this, no thnx for me.

word rearrangement
 
Last edited:

ZywyPL

Gold Member
Did you even play BF3 and 4? Because there absolutely was destruction that affected the gameplay.

It was nowhere near of what BC1/2 offered, sorry, that level of destruction there was something never done before, and afterwards, that was the next-gen element that brought something truly new to the table, while BF3 and kater installments were a huge step back. But this is a cross-gen title that has to still run on a tablet CPU, so what to expect. Maybe next time.
 

Fbh

Member
Since they seem to have cut everything except for 3 multiplayer modes and increased the price, I expected more than 7 maps and paid seasons.

As a casual online shooter player I think I'll just check out Halo Infinite later this year. At least it will be free.
 

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
It was nowhere near of what BC1/2 offered, sorry, that level of destruction there was something never done before, and afterwards, that was the next-gen element that brought something truly new to the table, while BF3 and kater installments were a huge step back. But this is a cross-gen title that has to still run on a tablet CPU, so what to expect. Maybe next time.
Okay so it's not that there was no game changing destruction there just wasn't enough of it for you? Okay that's a different discussion.


But there most certainly was destruction. You could level entire buildings on capture points to take away cover from the enemy. That is still WAY more than you get from the average game in the genre. Especially CoD who doesn't have literally any destruction at all.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
i refuse to pay full price for a game that doesn't even include SP and plans to milk us, the gamers, every fucking month for new shit, and don't fucking tell me it's only cosmetics, we know it will be everything, from weapons to cosmetics , you are a part of the problem if you are ok with this, no thnx for me.

It literally is just cosmetics (skins, profile banners, player icons, etc)

Maps, weapons, and specialists are free for everyone.
 

SlimySnake

Member
Fuck MAG and fuck EA with this BS, i will be skipping it as i did MAG, i refuse to pay full price for a game that doesn't even include SP and plans to milk us, the gamers, every fucking month for new shit, and don't fucking tell me it's only cosmetics, we know it will be everything, from weapons to cosmetics , you are a part of the problem if you are ok with this, no thnx for me.

word rearrangement
That's ok. SP means a lot to me too. My reaction wouldve been the same if ND released TLOU2 without SP and just factions. But they are actually working on a standalone multiplayer game, likely factions in the vein of Destiny so I am ok with that too. i got my single player TLOU2 and now I am ok with an online only factions for full price as long as its meaty enough.

I actually hope it's not cosmetics and that they charge everyone for maps. I dont want a situation where they promise maps for free like they did with Battlefront 2 and BFV and end up delivering like 5 maps in two years. Id rather pay $40-50 and get 20 maps and weapons to play over the course of the next two years.
 

iJudged

Banned
$69.99, no SP, only MP.
That's ok. SP means a lot to me too. My reaction wouldve been the same if ND released TLOU2 without SP and just factions. But they are actually working on a standalone multiplayer game, likely factions in the vein of Destiny so I am ok with that too. i got my single player TLOU2 and now I am ok with an online only factions for full price as long as its meaty enough.

I actually hope it's not cosmetics and that they charge everyone for maps. I dont want a situation where they promise maps for free like they did with Battlefront 2 and BFV and end up delivering like 5 maps in two years. Id rather pay $40-50 and get 20 maps and weapons to play over the course of the next two years.
i guarantee you it will be maps and in game items, it is EA, i appreciate that you are able to see my frustration. I am still holding on to a possibility of this thing being on GP, then it would be a whole diff story.
 

SlimySnake

Member
$69.99, no SP, only MP.

i guarantee you it will be maps and in game items, it is EA, i appreciate that you are able to see my frustration. I am still holding on to a possibility of this thing being on GP, then it would be a whole diff story.
What about EA Origin Access for $15?

I believe it's PC only unless MS decides to make it part of Gamepass or something.

Played Star Wars Fallen Order for $15. Pretty good deal for a month I'd say.
 

Barakov

Member
Really liked the trailer but no campaign definitely stings. Granted Dice's campaigns are very much hit and miss. Still it seems like the multiplayer is firing on all cylinders.

The worrying thing is that EA might(will) start charging people for season passes and battle passes. Along with a $70 price tag would make me want to straight up pass on it.
 

Shai-Tan

Banned
It was nowhere near of what BC1/2 offered, sorry, that level of destruction there was something never done before, and afterwards, that was the next-gen element that brought something truly new to the table, while BF3 and kater installments were a huge step back. But this is a cross-gen title that has to still run on a tablet CPU, so what to expect. Maybe next time.
a few of the back to karkand maps had good destruction, but yeah, like 90% indestructible objects on every other map
 
What is paid seasons ? Expansion packs for maps or like paid battlepass bullshit grind system
Either way it sucks ass
Expansion pass stuff will never work now post cod free content era
U have to give credit where it's due black ops releases alot of free content for free on every season
 

SlimySnake

Member
Okay so it's not that there was no game changing destruction there just wasn't enough of it for you? Okay that's a different discussion.


But there most certainly was destruction. You could level entire buildings on capture points to take away cover from the enemy. That is still WAY more than you get from the average game in the genre. Especially CoD who doesn't have literally any destruction at all.
I think the destruction in BFBC2 to BF4 wasnt a generational leap but yeah I remember playing around with a tank just blowing up buildings and houses all game when it first came out. It was almost exactly like BFBC2 which had great destruction.

I think the shitty jaguar CPUs which were only just as powerful as the Cell and the Xenon 360 CPUs really held them back. Not to mention the 60 fps target which took away even more CPU resources. BF3 and BFBC2 were only 30 fps on PS360.
 

iJudged

Banned
Gotta love the people jumping in and stating false things that have been corrected about 100 times already in the topic.
That is what I believe is going to happen, and I won't shut up until I am corrected by someone from EA or DICE, even then I will remain skeptical, as we all know well how quickly their minds can change.
 

MiguelItUp

Gold Member
I guess a lot of the folks that are okay with this were fans of the Battlefield series before Bad Company, which was always AAA prices and multiplayer only. To be okay with such a thing now I guess makes me a "shill" because I understand that AAA prices have gone up and it is what it is?

Yo, if they could be cheaper, I'd be BEYOND happy about that, but unfortunately that's not how things are. But that's also why I'm still going to wait and then nab it from a site that will offer a cheaper price. I'm not running to Gamestop and preordering, wtf, lmao.

The paid seasons/battle passes all revolve around cosmetic items, from what they've said. This was mentioned in JackFrag's video with a ton of information. There will be different seasons that release new specialists, maps, modes, etc. Those will all be free. However, each season includes a paid battle pass with new items every season.

Honestly I'm impressed that all of this isn't sounding worse because it's EA/DICE. But on that same note, they've done a lot of stupid shit over the passed few years so they have to make some changes somewhere.
 
Last edited:

ANDS

Thought gaf was racist. Now knows better, honorary gaffer 2022
Really liked the trailer but no campaign definitely stings. Granted Dice's campaigns are very much hit and miss. Still it seems like the multiplayer is firing on all cylinders.

The worrying thing is that EA might(will) start charging people for season passes and battle passes. Along with a $70 price tag would make me want to straight up pass on it.

You absolutely are going to have to pay for the "premium" track of this season pass. . .like all season passes.

And I am legit amazed at this forum: We're getting what looks like a return to the BF2 through 4 era of excellent multiplayer focused gameplay (hopefully more BF3 than the other two) and all we hear about is how it costs 70 bucks (it doesn't) and that the battlepass will split the playerbase (it won't). Wild.
 
Are people still pushing this bullshit CoD/Battlefield rivalry? Grow up

This has nothing to do with Call of Duty. This everything to do with EA cutting content but selling the game at a higher price.

I just noticed a lot of concern from threads created about this BF reveal from biggest Cod fans on this site. Thats all.
 

Sygma

Member
All the content will be free minus the premium battlepass which only includes cosmetics. The communication around this title is beyond horrible, not a lot of people understood that theres much more than just 7 maps to begin with and now this ?

Uncharacteristic of EA

Also, people buying battlefield for the campaign ? lmao what the fuck is wrong with that garbage take. Campaigns in battlefield only were introduced because of Bad Company which had to aim the console market. Now that they consistently showed that they absolutely don't have the talent to do decent ones, they're back to BF 1942 / 2 / 1943 / Vietnam / 2142 kinda focus which ... you know

Always has been multiplayer. And they upped the ante quite a lot of with this game. It ain't no 20$ Counter Strike, there's no need for a campaign in Battlefield, period
 
Last edited:
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.
Battlefield bad company and Bad Company 2 had amazing Campaigns. If they would continued those with the humor and heavy gun play as a separate series, then i wouldn't care about this too much.

I come from the time when battlefield was pc centric anyway. Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2142, and Battlefield 2.
All great pc centric games with tons of mods and dedicated servers, before console peasants :p got involved.

Sure Battlefield 3 and 4 were great multiplayer games but they had vastly different feel. Bf1 was ok and then they went woke with a ww2 game no less.
After the shit that was the bf5 campaign where some lady takes the place of whole squad of soldiers and infiltrates a facility, yeah, I don't want a campaign if they are doing the woke nonesense and rewriting history.
I'd be all over for a dedicated Bf Bad company 3 though (if the original writers were back doing it)
 

MiguelItUp

Gold Member
All the content will be free minus the premium battlepass which only includes cosmetics. The communication around this title is beyond horrible, not a lot of people understood that theres much more than just 7 maps to begin with and now this ?

Uncharacteristic of EA
I think there are just a lot of people that are knee jerking instead of looking into details. I just watched the JackFrags breakdown and there was plenty there. I'm sure they'll talk about more on Sunday. It's just wild how many people need someone to show and tell them something when plenty of the information is there for you to see, like on battlefield.com, for instance.

So far I've seen people are mad that...

It's a fully priced AAA title, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

There's no campaign, which is how the series first number of games were in the first place.

There's no BR or plans for BR, BFV's Firefight mode was poorly received. Why try again? EA has Apex, they are fine.

There's a paid battle pass even though it's cosmetic only, but they've stated it's ONLY cosmetics. So everything else is free and will be released for everyone over their roadmap.

It's wild to me.
 

Sygma

Member
paid seasons is just the cosmetic battlepass, you get the actual content for free (maps and specialists)

Honestly I'll never get the craze around skins
 
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.
BC3 would be amazing. I don't think they could pull it off. Somehow I doubt it's even the same people working there.
BC had humor and amazing destruction and heavy gunplay. Sure it wasn't 64player but it was its own thing. They need to go back to the roots.
Numbered battlefield no capampagin, make it pc centric and port to consoles.
Make a single player bad company game and expieriment with the new things on the bad company multiplayer. Leave all woke nonsense out and go back to humor and camaraderie between soldiers.

This isn't a hard forumla, for success, they did it before. They could do it again , but somehow i think EA is SJW infested and greedy.
 

Sygma

Member
I think there are just a lot of people that are knee jerking instead of looking into details. I just watched the JackFrags breakdown and there was plenty there. I'm sure they'll talk about more on Sunday. It's just wild how many people need someone to show and tell them something when plenty of the information is there for you to see, like on battlefield.com, for instance.

So far I've seen people are mad that...

It's a fully priced AAA title, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

There's no campaign, which is how the series first number of games were in the first place.

There's no BR or plans for BR, BFV's Firefight mode was poorly received. Why try again? EA has Apex, they are fine.

There's a paid battle pass even though it's cosmetic only, but they've stated it's ONLY cosmetics. So everything else is free and will be released for everyone over their roadmap.

It's wild to me.

I mean, look, to me Battlefield is about 2 things : Conquest and Domination

Conquest : tickets based mode. Whoever has the most of before the round ends wins. If you manage to fully deplete the other team's, you also do win. To drain them out you do need to kill players and capture more points than the other team for the loss of tickets to happen faster.

Domination : CQC insanity


Thats battlefield for me. I'm glad that they're bringing new stuff on the table and I'm just hoping that the levolution / terrain deformation is something actually having an impact akin to what was doable in Bad Company, but with nowadays graphics. Dice has honestly been fucking trash with the franchise since Battlefield 3 but there's a glimpse of hope somehow somewhere, at least to me.
 
Last edited:

junguler

Banned
paying money for a game with a expiration date on it? i wasn't going to get this regardless as i can't play fps games anymore (because of motion sickness issues) but i think the value is just not there when you compare this to the direct competitor which is cod.
 

oagboghi2

Member
All the content will be free minus the premium battlepass which only includes cosmetics. The communication around this title is beyond horrible, not a lot of people understood that theres much more than just 7 maps to begin with and now this ?

Uncharacteristic of EA

Also, people buying battlefield for the campaign ? lmao what the fuck is wrong with that garbage take. Campaigns in battlefield only were introduced because of Bad Company which had to aim the console market. Now that they consistently showed that they absolutely don't have the talent to do decent ones, they're back to BF 1942 / 2 / 1943 / Vietnam / 2142 kinda focus which ... you know

Always has been multiplayer. And they upped the ante quite a lot of with this game. It ain't no 20$ Counter Strike, there's no need for a campaign in Battlefield, period
If they want to remove the single player, slash the price or make it f2p.

I don’t understand this nonsense logic. People are cheering that they are getting less content at launch, and will be paying to receive more in the future. Dumb all around.
 

Sygma

Member
paying money for a game with a expiration date on it? i wasn't going to get this regardless as i can't play fps games anymore (because of motion sickness issues) but i think the value is just not there when you compare this to the direct competitor which is cod.

and every single CoD has a one year timeline, your point ?
 
Top Bottom