• 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

Welcome to CoD. But i never see any negative threads about that game.
CoD has no single player and seasons where you have to pay for? Im not talking about the battle pass, thats in CoD but no season pass.

And you never hear anything negative about greedy Activision? You been playing games for a year or so?
 

Sygma

Member
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.

Because you're actually not getting less content, its just the dominant narrative mostly being amplified by people such as yourself and others, you're welcome. The fact that people still haven't caught up on the premium battlepass being cosmetic only while conflating that as an imperative to pay to get content speaks for itself.

Since, once again, you will get all the new maps and operatives FOR FREE

Now I'm gonna ask to people pushing this narrative to list the multiplayer modes shipped AT LAUNCH with Battlefield 3, 4, 1 and V

And now compare that with what you're getting here + the fact that we're getting for the very first time an actual 64v64, in what seems to be a brand new mode for it. And another brand new mode by the looks of it. If it also has traditional conquest, domination and rush, you're effectively not getting LESS content. You're getting as much, (if not more) its just that the resources allocated for the singleplayer went into the multiplayer (as it should, this is battlefield, not fucking call of duty)

See right there, thats logic. For it to be a free to play game would mean you'd get a very minimal amount of maps AND modes and a not exactly ground breaking kind of tech behind. The game will push boundaries way further than BF V which by the way was the first multiplayer game to include RTX reflections (and looked fucking crazy on top of that). See why you guys arguments just dont make sense to begin with ? "oh no its multiplayer only it has to be cheaper" since when ?
 
Last edited:

Kenpachii

Member
3 months season, holy shit they are not even hiding how ridiculous that shit is.

campaign is good that its gone, should never have been in a battlefield game.
 
Last edited:
I understand taking the single player mode out of the game to use those resources for multiple player but charging $70 upfront then asking for more money for seasonal battle passes seems like overkill. At least COD for the PS5/Xbox Series ships with single player, multiple player and zombie modes at the same $70 price.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
CoD has no single player and seasons where you have to pay for? Im not talking about the battle pass, thats in CoD but no season pass.

Battlefield doesn't have a season pass either. It has seasons just like CoD. The Gold edition includes all of the seasons for year 1, which is more than CoD did with their expensive "cross-gen" bundle last year.
 

Rambone

Member
I personally don't care about the campaign but for $70 dollars and paid seasons this game better deliver (I am sure it will). I have been itching for a new modern Battlefield game so count me in day 1.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
I personally don't care about the campaign but for $70 dollars and paid seasons this game better deliver (I am sure it will). I have been itching for a new modern Battlefield game so count me in day 1.

Why do paid cosmetics trigger people so much? You get the full game and all maps/weapons/specialists with that $70.
 

Nobody_Important

β€œAww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
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.
Why on earth would they slash the price for their multiplayer game just because they cut the single player campaign? People don't buy Battlefield for the campaign. Nobody has ever stood in line at midnight for a Battlefield launch just chomping at the bit to play the single player.
 

TheStam

Member
Hope we get a good amount of maps again. Don't care about the campaign, I play quite a lot of BF and try the campaigns, but the last campaign I finished was 3..which had the worst ending of all time. Final boss was a single press QTE as I recall πŸ˜…. I also hated the standalone story format of BF1 and V.

7 maps is weak though. They better have more free maps than BFV. I wouldn't mind paying premium if it meant more maps. Love me some maps! The variety in BF1 was amazing.
 

ZywyPL

Gold Member
It's almost as if people aren't familiar with Battlefield and are just shitposting.

Or people simply aren't mentally stuck in the past and live in times where MP-only games are free. You wanna full price, sure, release the full content then, fair and simple. When each new installment offer less and less, for more and more, people have all the right to vote with their wallets. And vice versa,no pne is stopping you from buying 10 ultimate copies, if you really think EA deserves it.
 

Sybrix

Member
This thread really shows the age of some members in here lol

Winging that the game is full price with no single player

Battlefield games pre-Bad Company had NO single player and were still full price AND were some of the best PC games ever warranting the full price tag.

Battlefield is a MP only game and always will be.

The single player crap in recent BF games was that…. Crap.
 

Ezquimacore

Member
This thread really shows the age of some members in here lol

Winging that the game is full price with no single player

Battlefield games pre-Bad Company had NO single player and were still full price AND were some of the best PC games ever warranting the full price tag.

Battlefield is a MP only game and always will be.

The single player crap in recent BF games was that…. Crap.
just burn your money man, it's a better experience than buying this crap.
 

Nobody_Important

β€œAww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
You wouldnt. Others would πŸ€·πŸΌβ€β™‚οΈ

Im just saying its kinda stupid to advocate for less content for the same amount of money but hey
It's only stupid if there is less content AND the multiplayer sucks.


If this redirection of resources results in a better experience in the only place that actually matters in Battlefield then it is not stupid at all.
 
Last edited:

Nobody_Important

β€œAww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
it doesn't matter, the value is diminished by not having it, when the servers go offline this battlefield game becomes useless.
Who cares? By the time that is even up for consideration then nobody is playing the game anyway.


BF3 servers are still up for god sake. What stupid line of logic.
 

Sybrix

Member
I normally side with the single player ftw argument however this is Battlefield….. it doesn’t have single player, the best BF games haven’t had it
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
when the servers go offline this battlefield game becomes useless.
who cares family guy GIF
 
Top Bottom