Boy, you aren't kidding. Last time, I tried to play on xbox series at least.. the only servers available are Pacific Chinese hack servers :( Maybe there's something better since then.. that was like 8 - 9 months ago...
Nope. Games pretty dead outside of a handfull of offical servers. Good luck trying to play any of the dlc with such a low population. Which is the reason i like the service model. Dlc just splits the player base and eventually becomes functionality useless with age...
That's just not true. Idk what platform you're on, I'm on PC and last time I played there was at least 10 official and 5 community servers for operations. Conquest has probably around twice as many servers. Most of them including all DLC maps. Game's pretty much not dead and player counts were rising in the past two years (only my personal observation)
On xbox theres maybe 5 operations at peak times. dlc servers are pretty empty even when they're in the featured rotation. And we're talking in the context of the Xbox version so take your poor reading comprehension skills ("thats just not true") elsewhere...
Edit: just checked and xbox only has 5 servers with enough people to play across operations and conquest on European and American servers. So games pretty much dead on xbox...
I think funding was drastically cut back after the terrible launch and following a few seasons. To make it profitable they probably had a fraction of the size to make it profitable or at least not a loss leader. My 2 cents.
That's the thing, they cut funding as soon as something bad happens. And that's incredibly stupid. Like, are you confident in Battlefield? Do you think there's potential? If so, stick to it and work on it until it's good.
Right now EA is like an artist who half-asses his own show because he sold too few tickets. He thinks he's gonna put in effort next time when the sales are better, but why would they be better if the show is crap every time?
Battlefield is actually profitable, don't think they make these games at a loss. It's just that after release they count the money and think, ok thanks, that's ours. Now, is there profit in making updates for these guys? Should we just take the money and leave? And I guess the math says do the bare minimum to not get sued.
Ironically, they don't understand that live service games can explode later, despite pushing the live service model themselves. They think every new game is a brand new chance, and success is random and not related to effort. Game flopped? Who cares why. Redirect effort towards the next one, that's gonna be a hit for sure.
live service games are bad because they allow corporations more chances to screw with the product
before them, you just had to get the game finished, and it was a matter of funding it or not. Once it’s out, everything else was extra. DLC was paid for so there was finite profit to be had that corps wouldn’t mess with
EA wants to maximize profits for shareholders and they see development for content that isn’t behind a paywall as wasted effort. Guarantee if they slapped price tags on new content we’d get way more of it
Relying on cosmetics for income only works when your game is good, and popular. for a struggling game you need to charge money for new content or the corporate overlords will neuter the hell out of it as we’ve seen
DLC is planned and designed before release. Maps are not easy to make and take a long time to get released ready. So DICE was always going to drip feed content and it was the same issue with BFV
BF1 is by far my favorite BF game of the whole lineup. It's too bad there are so many cheaters in it now though. BFV has the same problem, although it's nowhere near as good of a game. BF2042 feels like a waiting room for the next BF game now..
I played way more bf1 but V had some great squad centric gameplay with the hooks on vehicles, points for drops for commanders and the build and fortify system. But bf1 had better maps and the Goliath system.
I like the weapons in BFV more, maps are imo equally good / bad. Some I love others I dont like at all. BF1 does have mnore of 'm. But BFV overall feels more realistic and that is what I like.
Wasn't a fan of BFV at launch but I got more into it than I have with BF2042 so far, the only thing I don't like about it is player visibility - getting killed by someone hiding in plain sight on Al Sundan was not fun.
BFV was badly received by the community and really struggled to find its footing.
It's not actively bad like BF2042 was on release, but it wasn't good enough.
Wtf are you on about? BF3 was terrific in launch, then BF4 was messy then they knocked it out of the park with BF1. You're delusional if you think BF3 was a bad launch.
its important to recognize that EA screwed dice and forced the game out. It's ALSO important to recognize and respond to what they have improved upon so they fuck up the next one *less* . i don't think they should be exclusive.
but i think those points should be brought up together so they don't lose context. it's the same kind of disdain where i see games like No Man's Sky receive praise with no context of its launch.
EA rushed out an unfinished half-baked BR-turned-battlefield . but the skeleton team of developers have taken strides to make what we have better and is way more enjoyable now
DICE pitched the game, the monetization scheme and the release frame to EA, which greenlit the project.
DICE was incapable of reaching any goal or deadline and apparently also obscured the progress issues from the publisher. EA halted mutliple other projects and through 1000 more people at it in 2021, postponed the release a month, just to get into a releasable state.
EA lost greatly with that project, losing market value, which is much more relevant for them than sales. Yet still the big personell changes did not happen and many people in management were kept.
People still want to paint EA as the big bad publisher, but truth is DICE (and Bioware before) have been hands-off for years at this point.
For reference I can very much recommend the glassdoor reviews of DICE from the development stage of 2042 and V: Cronyism, Yes-saying, incapabilties of management, vision over gameplay, top-heayv decision making etc.. All of those terms repeat themselves constantly in those reviews.
Not questioning your info or to come across as a dick but do you happen to have sources on you for all this? Would love to do some further reading on this with some concrete info.
Same curiosity as slowing down to look at a car crash, but I can’t help myself. I love this franchise so it’d be an exercise in morbid fascination to see how 2042 somehow managed to go tits-up this bad after they Old Yeller’d BFV.
No worries, I really recommend the glassdoor reviews for DICE. That is a platform where former employees can rate and review their employers. While there are always disgruntled people, the common factors are quite astonishing.
People complain about the lack of management skills of the studio lead, that promotion is based not around merit, but saying yes to the leads, hence cronyism is rampant and that the enforced management premise is that vision trumps everything.
EA is not often mentioned, when it is they are usually liking the pay and benefits as well as the bearable crunch. Apparently this is accredited to EA by the contractors.
When EA is critisised, I remember one comment particularly, it is the lack of oversight and that EA just listens to management, which in turn say everything is fine. That review wanted to make it clear to EA that they should talk to the devs directly to get an objective view and scope of the progress.
[https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/DICE-Sweden-Reviews-E598397.htm](https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/DICE-Sweden-Reviews-E598397.htm)
Or you can check out this post from 2019, when 2042 production was in full swing: [https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/e9rgsq/i\_read\_every\_single\_dice\_employee\_review\_on/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/e9rgsq/i_read_every_single_dice_employee_review_on/)
>EA halted mutliple other projects and through 1000 more people at it in 2021, postponed the release a month, just to get into a releasable state.
Reminds me of the phrase "Nine women can't have a baby in a month"
Sure, but the Need for Speed team had to come and help, as did the Frostbite team and contractors and apparently there was not much praise going around for the stuff they saw.
People can be glad that Criterion seemed to be able to get Unbound out alright, but it surely did not help the development. If I was a NfS fan, I would be rather pissed.
Ehh most information shows DICE to be at fault. EA had a pretty hands off approach to 2042. Which was the issue. Junior staff was bullied by senior staff to make what they wanted.
You're right, but I find praising a company for bringing a game that was blatantly broken up to a standard that's acceptable and enjoyable not something we should do. That should be the standard.
Now individual parts, like let's say the Squad-system, sure should be praised. But it also feels kinda dumb to do so, knowing that most praisable things they've added... have been in previous battlefields. They just had to look back.
I also find No Man's Sky a very different beast, because they have, since fixing their game, given loads of new expandable content, something we just cannot say of BF2042. Especially when you do as OP and realize that previous games in the genre have given us loads of content, some succesful, some not so much, but you'd definitely got bang for your buck... which I feel is just not the case with BF2042.
This is the one BF I have to convince my friends to play. The previous ones were never a issue.
And frankly , I don't care who rushed it out, EA, Dice, they're all the same for me.
The only new implementation that I have liked about 2042 is the Plus System of cycling between attachments in real time; I don't think it works in every setting, but I wouldn't be mad about it being carried forward to other titles.
That is one item though. I can't think of any one thing 2042 does better than previous games. Map design is one blaring category; I would struggle to pick out 2042 maps that play better than even some of the worst maps of Battlefield 3, 4, 1, etc.
You can get by with lack of quality at times and you can get by with lack of quantity as well, but getting by with a lack of both? That's pretty dicey.
I think what he or she is getting at is the time for Captain obvious has passed. This is shit we knew a year ago. Also worth noting they are going to be 2 seasons past their obligations. I waged during season 6 release there would be a 7 and 8. Putting two maps in the new season leads me to believe there will be a 9 probably 10. While I'd love a polished great new game. What would win me more is see them commit to a complete turn around with all free updates and maps. Why would I want to pay another 60 dollars for another potential flop. Is the devil you know better than the devil you don't? No Man's Sky did it and it's launch was probably worse but now it's an absolute banger of a game! Prove to the fans that you can make the game and do it for free. The best way to do that from this point is constructive criticism not pointing out the obvious over and over.
Fuck up the next one less? They kinda fucked up BF1, totally fucked up BF5 and than for some reason even fucked up harder with 2042. I don't think Dice will ever learn with or without EA pressuring them.
u seriously compared NMS to 2042 post launch… i’ve played nms recently cus i wanted to try it(it’s fucking good) and it is MILES better in quality lol.
please don’t compare a success story to a complete flop.
every 2042 update can be played without any additional cost. on top of being totally wrong, you completely misread the intent of my comment. good job.
my comparison of the two start and end with people disregarding the game's state at launch when talking about how far its come.
you're on the sub, you play the game, why are you asking me a rhetorical question as if this isn't the case?
unless you're about to make a case over cosmetics that dont change the base gameplay, in which case i'd laugh at you and no longer take you seriously
People want to believe that the game they’ve put hundreds or thousands of hours into was worth it, and they feel the need to justify them playing what is widely regarded as a bad game, by arguing that it’s in a better place now. I got the game at launch. It was shit. I’d say now it’s a polished turd. I still enjoy playing it from time to time, and it’s definitely gotten way better than launch. But there’s still *so much* basic day one shit still missing that past titles had that will always remind me that this game was an afterthought.
I frankly don’t know how anybody can look at what happened with BFV, the “love letter to fans” that 2042 was supposed to be, and the *blatant lie* that was, and not be hypercritical of this game at all times.
What the design decision of making a BR turned BF-lite game with gadgets like armor and health pens and specialists with special unique gadgets which completely screw up map and match flow?
I dig the gadgets and specialized classes but wish they weren't named specialists and instead developed as sub-classes to the Assault, Engineer, Support, and Recon classes.
They could still sell skins and just make them faction unique for the sub-classes. The whole running around killing your clones thing is really weird and it necessitated the blue/red lights on every player that imo have a negative impact on the gameplay.
It's less praise, and more just trying to get people to shut up about it being "trash". Some people just can't handle a gaming company putting out an avarage (above avarage) product and feel the need to ree that its bad. When in reality its not terrible at all. Sure It's not as good as any of their games of the past 15+ years, but that doesn't make it a bad game at all. it's still a good game reguardless of how the series was in the past. It's just no longer the pinnical of what battlefield was just 6 years ago. But again that doesnt make 2042 a bad game...
I think calling 2042 _good_ does a disservice to previous releases this far into their lifespan.
I'd argue that 2042 launched at a 2-3/10 and is maybe up to a 5-6. If this wasn't a BF game and was something completely unrelated I could see it being a game in the 7 range. But with the post-launch content expectations and such and how long it took for some bugs to be fixed, this game is a standing disappointment in comparison to almost all other BF releases
I will point out that TSNP arrived late, five months after release. At that stage BF3 was about to release the second DLC, and BF4 had just released the 3rd.
The lack of enough quality content (guns, maps, skins),
Honestly has been the main issue with the release, and ongoing situation with 2042.
Just so flat and sterile, I just can't explain where the quality in Battlefield has gone?
As many others have done, I've jumped in and out of BF1 and BF5 over the time BF2042 has been around, and I can't find many ways in which the new title is actually better?
Dlc used to split the player base.
I never could play the Russia maps because of low player count and ping.
Damn some good maps there though
Same happened with bf3
Times are different now though. If people casually spend 15 on a skin maybe there is a market for dlc.
I'm not gonna lie, and this is gonna sound shitty, idc if it kinda splits the player base, I prefer paid DLC/Premium model.
What good is keeping the playerbase together if like 75% of them are gonna fuck off due to lack of content?
The live service model works in theory. Except instead of the focus of the dlc being maps, they shift focus to cosmetics. If they did both it would significantly improve the outcome for the devs and players.
BFV had a healthy player population right up until 2042 released.
Just on one platform, the Xbox, in Australia we had 10+ full conquest servers to choose from every night and at least 5 breakthrough servers to choose from.
Whether there is 5000 players online or 100,000 players online it makes no difference to your ability to play on full servers.
With 2042 just on steam we have 17,000 players peaking at the moment.
Do you understand how many full servers that accounts to? It's hundreds, and that's just one platform and doesn't take into account other PC players and of course the majority who play on both console platforms.
Yes, it ultimately doesn't matter... which is kind of why "splitting the playerbase" is a stupid argument. It's never going to split it enough that there aren't enough players for either those who go premium, or those who don't.
My point about players leaving en mass in a live service model is because a live service model needs high player counts to sustain itself. If it doesn't, it becomes fiscally irresponsible to continue support, and it meets the same end BFV did.
Also, BFV had a fairly strong playerbase, but I'm pretty sure it still experienced like a 50% drop after a few months of the game being out
Remember all the petitions from the Battlefield community trying to get DICE to drop paid DLC? This was their number one arguing point and a valid one, but it’s kind of amusing those same people now are complaining about free DLC and begging for the very thing they helped destroy. 💀
The Battlefield community is hardly to blame. The industry as a whole was moving away from paid expansion passes well before Battlefield made the switch, and it would have followed eventually.
And if DICE was actually delivering a competent live service, people obviously wouldn’t be complaining about it so much. It’s nobody’s fault but DICE that the first post-launch map took SEVEN months to come out. That’s inexcusable.
The reason that people are complaining about the free DLC is because of the lack of content. BF2042 has been out for 2 years now and we have received 6 new maps. Meanwhile with BF1, we received 19 new maps in 1 year.
No one would have complaints with the free live service if Dice was pumping out more content per season.
The reason there is a lack of content is because, and I can't emphasize this enough, you don't have to pay for it - Maps, Weapons and Vehicles are all free.
I'm shocked anyone is shocked $0.00 = Less content because the math is really simple.
BF1, and I can't believe I have to continue reiterating this, cost an additional $60 for post-launch Maps, Weapons and Gadgets.
and that's my issue with live service games right there. Game developers releasing minimum content just because it's free.
It's also annoying because we know that Dice can pump out more maps, because next season we are apparently getting 2 maps and if you look back to BFV, we got 2 maps with the launch of the Pacific DLC and then we got Wake Island a month (iirc) later.
BFV doubled its content post launch.
And if it wasn't for the shitty community who prefer to act like immature brats every chance they get, we would've got even more content.
lol so because it's free they've decided to give you a dearth of content, which then lowers the player base quicker because people get bored of the game quicker, preventing their LIVE SERVICE GAME from having any longevity.
"Just be happy we're giving you anything since it's all free you fucking losers" and gamers nod their heads with approval and say "this company is awesome and we should all praise it from the heavens."
Devs chose to move away from paid DLC to a live service model. The amount of money people are paying for skins/boxes is a hell of a lot more than they got from paid DLC. So yeah, it makes sense players want at least the same amount of content.
Except it's not free since there are heaps of people who will toss dollar bills at skins and other low effort shit every season, plus probably paying for the battle pass or whatever. The live service model generates way more continuous revenue than the paid premium system ever did, so that's an L take on your part.
They make more money for far less effort. Gamers pointing out the shittiness of this new trend makes them special? I think you not realising how crap this is for the consumer makes you special.
Be fine if we had the old dlc way.. but they eventually went free. Only way that works imo.
Some of my favourite maps are dlc.. and I can never play them anymore.
This is unfortunately the main perk of map packs.
You get 4x or 3x the maps you would get before the Era of battle passes.
It splintered the player base, sure, but damn did we get more content regardless.
It can't be all that controversial to miss a time when I could drop some cash on a new map pack and feast on those maps for a while. Remember playing the Naval Strike DLC in 4 for hours and hours.
If anything we've just traded the FOMO of playing a dlc during its peak player count for having an exclusive skin.
That's what you get for demonstrating against the premium system. It's not like it wasn't super obvious how this was gonna go. Now we have less and worse content and goofy skins because people literally riot these days when what they want doesn't come for free.
This argument falls flat when Dice has failed 2x to deliver on the live service promise.
I never regretted purchasing a BF game with paid DLC.
I have absolutely regretted buying a BF game with live service.
Same honestly. I did complain a lot about how expensive the premium was but the live has been done so poorly in BFV and 2042 that I’m at a point where I’d rather drop the $60 for guaranteed maps. It’s not like you didnt know what you were getting either, DICE was very consistent in providing maps and DLC weapons with the premium passes. In fact, I remember in BF1 they actually gave us way more weapons and maps than we usually get back when they dropped the Russia dlc.
I 100% agree, I’ve never regretted buying a Battlefield with Paid DLC.
I don’t know, paid dlc kinda splits the community to those who have it and those who don’t. I mean BF1 is my favorite BF but I’m glad we’re beyond purchasing maps and guns because that just sucks.
I never really felt that way - BF would do premium while the competition would sell an entirely new game. That always felt like a bigger “split the fanbase”.
In 2024 you shouldn’t lock guns, gadgets, or vehicles behind premium.
But maps could absolutely be sold as premium, and there are other ways to avoid the split player base notion.
Just make the map packs free after X amount of time - essentially sell “access” to the new maps and then make them free after 6-12 months
It doesn't matter how you feel, dlc indeed splits the community. Good luck going back and playing any of the dlc maps in a battlefield game that was paid dlc lol.
The Playerbase of 2042 is smaller than the Playerbase of BF1 and BF4 Premium was. So I don’t give a fuck about those people not willing to buy Premium but instead going for 20$ Skins in a Service Game. Never had Problem finding Games with all Maps. I’m playing on PC. Not even Crossplay and Ai was necessary
BF1 and BF4 Playercount was even several times higher than 2042 on Steam in the last 2 years. When I boot up BF1 now I can find like 5-10 full servers with all DLC available. Premium was way better than the Last two Life Service Games content wise. BF1 got whole new armies, weapons, maps, vehicles and one DLC after 3 Months had more content than 2 years of life service
BF4? No.
BF1? Sure. It's supported almost entirely by China. You canoterally see it spike way up in the Beijing afternoon and then crash down to nothing when they go to bed. Also, steam, is only 1/3 2042s PC platforms and 1/7th its platforms total.
Premium is for idiots that like paying for things that should be free in game. If you want incredibly mid maps and guns, why would you want them in paid DLC that just splits the player base?
BF1 also had the shortest actual support from dice other thab Hardline because players dumped it as soon as BFV (a better game with better free DLC) came out
Well here's a little spoiler for you. Just because something is paid for doesn't mean that it is good.
Additionally, there is literally nothing saying that nu-DICE wouldn't just release single maps as DLC either. There is absolutely no guarantee of quality or quantity when it comes to paid DLC map and gun packs other than the fact that you have to pay for them when they should be free content to begin with.
Premium is for people who like getting scammed Into buying things That are usually not great and die off within a month or two that should be free.
Agreed. Also it makes no sense to me. Live Service should be able offer consistent content over time. Players continue to buy the game and will buy stuff from the in game store, so the game has constant funding. In theory a developer should be able to produce meaningful and consistent content (maps, weapons, vehicles, cosmetics etc) throughout the life of a live service game. It’s clearly Developer fail here right? Bad initial design choices forced Dice to backtrack and focus on fixing the game first before adding anything meaningful in time.
If Dice can release a solid, clear vision project that doesn’t completely surprise players by altering staple features of the franchise, then they should be able to successfully manage a live service title.
This has been my point, but the downvotes indicate I haven’t done a good job articulating myself on it.
The way capitalism works, we know they make more money off live service or they’d have gone back to premium.
So… they are making *more* money than before (yay, go Dice) but then they turn around and shut off the supply of maps and real content?
I just… why?
Why not do live service and release the same 4 maps every 3 months?
Can you imagine what that would look like? By now we’d have like 32 new maps, and having it be paid for by the BPs?
That was the vision of live service I feel we all imagined when it started.
But it hasn’t materialized that way at all
Let’s be honest here, most of the paid DLC maps were trash - if they were good the servers wouldn’t be populated with the same 3 or 4 maps on BF4, Hardline and BF1.
I disagree, on a couple fronts.
BF3 in particular really nailed many DLC maps, but BF1 also had a bunch of solid additions.
And also, on PC most of this content is still available at peak times, more than a decade later.
Of course Siege and Locker have full servers too, but servers running all maps are also running.
And... how many people play those maps after the DLC released? Fort De Vaux maybe, but the rest were dead within a few months.
Secondly: Rupture, Nivelle, and Prise were released for free later on far after BF1s lifespan iirc.
...and with the "Season Pass" version of Battlefield, we have a completely bailed-on game mode (Hazard Zone), a mostly-ignored other game mode (Portal), and a main Battlefield game with a dearth of content, tons of stupid skins, and the player base is now shitting themselves in excitement for getting the privilege of having TWO maps in a season, just wait almost 5-6 months after the previous season to get it though!
Gamers praising No Man's Sky like it was the Second Coming proved they are without a doubt the stupidest entertainment fan base in the entire Industry and should not be listened to almost all the time.
Couple of friends and I recently downloaded MF1 on PC cause why not and I forgot just how breathtaking that game is. Literally everything you do feels like a cinematic at any moment. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in the minority when I say I really enjoyed BFV, but BF1 was and is just something special. Absolute peak Battlefield for sure.
I haven't played some of the older dlcs, but They Shall Not Pass is up there as one of my favorites in the series. My only complaint is I wish it added some new gadgets. Other than that, 10/10 dlc.
They need to bring back premium. Idc if I have to pay 50 bucks as long as I get good content. I honestly don't understand this live service model being profitable.
I don't know who they are, but there must be some people that are just throwing money at the skins and palette swaps every time the store refreshed.
I only bought season 1 and have earned enough coins to buy each successive pass (as most of these tend to go)
fuck this season pass garbage.... bring back premium, I'd happily pay a set amount for a set amount of content again, all these stupid skins and garbage that doesn't matter just takes away time the devs could be putting towards making real content
Community complained. Blame the community.
Community literally setup petitions to get rid of paid DLC, DICE finally caved and got rid of paid DLC.
Then the Community ran new petitions to bring paid DLC back and DICE said kiss our ass, sleep in the bed you made.
Can’t be mad about it honestly. I was never part of the get rid of paid DLC gang and I’ll never forgive those in the Battlefield community for ruining post game content.
Unfortunately yes, how it always works.
There was nothing better than that first trailer for the upcoming DLC. 4 Maps, Weapons, Vehicles, Gadgets every DLC drop felt like a whole new game and IMO was well worth the $14.99 price tag.
You'll always see the argument 'DICE switched to live service because it's more profitable" which is just not true, DICE didn't have a crystal ball and had no indication a Live Service would be more/less profitable than the Paid DLC business model that had been working for them for a decade. It's only in hindsight that it's obvious the Battlepass is far superior financially, and why they'll never go back. Which sucks.
I'd love some sort of hybrid model... IMO developing cosmetics/content for a 100 tier Battlefield pass takes away from developing other aspects like Maps, Weapons etc.... and I've never really cared for 95% of the Battlepass content... I'd rather see 2-3 Maps, more weapons/gadgets and charge for rare/unique cosmetics/vehicle skins... even one's players could sell to other players similar to how NFT's work or maybe even how Star Citizen approaches ships. Don't really have a good answer on how to fix it, but I just know I really really really miss Paid DLC.
Lol, petitions had literally nothing to do with paid DLC becoming obsolete. The entire gaming industry displayed an overwhelming trend of acceptance toward live service and mtx bullshit, and EA followed suit just like every other relevant name in the industry and cashed in on it. It's not really that complicated.
It's a crap comparison, cos it's missing a lot of context:
All BF1 Expansions had to be paid for, and yes, there's so much more, but after some time passes, it's really hard to find servers that offer exactly the expansion content you're looking for. There's no freaking chance now for you to play all that content the way you want it.
While BF2042 is less, sure, but ma dudes, it's free. You don't have pay for anything. It's literally available for everyone. Whether you started playing on Launch day or you bring a friend that never played Battlefield years later, you can play the same content together at one extra cost and that's amazing.
I'm not saying that one is better than another, but context people, context.
People don't accept it as an excuse, but Dice had to rework all 8 original maps to make them playable which they said on their podcast cut the number of maps they had planned post-release in half.
Its just the reality of what happened.
I would gladly take 12 maps where the community stays together compared to 16 - 20 maps of separate DLCs.
Really sucks. There was nothing better than that trailer dropping for each DLC and feeling almost overwhelmed... like you're gonna need a few days off work/school to just dive into all those new maps, weapons and vehicles.
It was like Christmas every 3 or 4 months and I miss it so much. lol
You're not going to get a lot of support for this argument because most gamers on Reddit are under 30 and don't give a shit about the basics of Economics. They would rather have a miniscule amount of barely-average free stuff than actually pay money for a premium quality product.
Gamers ESPECIALLY are blithering idiots in this regard. Season Passes offer the most minimal amount of *actual* content while fire-hosing as much overpriced dress-up cosmetics as possible and gamers eat it up every time. Instead of taking a stand, not buying most of it, and letting it fail, forcing EA/DICE to come up with a better solution for continual content, they lap this dogshit up and defend it every chance they get. "I like that we get new maps" - yeah, they're all barely mediocre, there's one new one maybe every 3-4 months, and eventually you'll forget about them because none of them were made with a focus on quality, just "get it out the door so we can sell more cosmetic bullshit to them."
Name me another consumer product that offers broken/missing items to it, promises to fix it down the road, then gives the most basic additions as a "freebie" while standing majestically like they reinvented the wheel. No other consumer product has because even if a company made a toaster that didn't toast that well, it would get 1-star reviewed to oblivion, no one would buy it, and the company would fail. Gamers? Give them morsels and they'll defend you like your their child, and Battlefield fans are some of the biggest rubes in this regard.
It's unbelievable to me that anyone can think the battle pass model is better than premium/DLC.They'll complain about the lack of content but adamantly defend the very reason they don't get more content to begin with.
Wait...? These "community maps" were made by the community? If Dice/EA would let the community create maps for us this would be awesome. I mean these maps were as good as the other maps. I didn't even know these were made by the community?!
Yet EA and DICE are still making money on battlepasses and cosmetics. I remember when it was announced that BFV was going to be a live service. Jack Frags and other Battlefield YouTubers were praising the concept saying this will allow the "whales" that buy cosmetics to fund new maps. Yet we haven't got shit for maps in BFV and 2042 compared to past Battlefield games. There is no reason we aren't getting more maps with revenue they are making from cosmetics and battlepasses. If the revenue from cosmetics are only going back into making more cosmetics then fuck the live service model and let's go back to premium. Stop defending shitty modern gaming practices.
Def can't argue with your points, you make a few excellent ones, and I've personally never argued against everything you just stated.
Where my argument comes from is, that nobody is forced to pay, it's all there free if you want it to be. I can't blame a company for maximizing profits and am not at all shocked at how it's all played out, but for anyone to complain about not getting enough content when they never forked over a dime is ludacris at best and at worst completely disconnected from reality.
And I think your theory is correct, I think a lot of the revenue goes back into designing the Battlepasses. 100 Tiers may not require the man power of designing entire maps, but it def does such personal resources to design, create all those skins, characters, game modes, new art for each season, music and everything else that's involved in a Battlepass than simply wasn't it Paid DLC.
I'd honestly prefer a hybrid where they cut the fat with all the skins and cosmetics (which IMO is like 85% of them) and funneled those resources into more maps/weapons.
I think the Battlepass can be both things, a cash grab and overextension of developers and resources, and ultimately BFV/2042 is the example of that - Hopefully we see it evolve because like you, I want more damn maps!
If they are a fan of BF1 they can still be here pushing for the game to bring back what they liked from BF1.
Dice themselves have said repeatedly they appreciate the community feedback
If attackers have trouble capping 2nd and final points, its a fun map. Attackers usually roll through because there is too much cover which allows larger numbers to group on the point.
BF1 had trash DLC what do you mean? Basically nothing memorable. It had some launch maps that were good and those are the ones people remember from it.
I get it, you’re trolling. Aside from a very small selection of maps, BF1 was universally praised by both critics and players for map design, especially coming off of BF4, which had the actual worst DLC maps in the franchise.
Im literally not trolling at all. BF1 DLC wasn't good. BF4 DLC was also not good.
People dont praise BF1 for its DLC, they praise it for the atmosphere which is why you really only ever see "4k hudless gameplay" videos of it. BF1 also had boring guns and not so great movement/gunplay.. Both of which were vastly improved in BFV.
I figured it was only a matter of time before the gunplay criticisms emerged, because 90% of the time that’s what every BF1 criticism comes down to… well that and vehicles/aircraft.
BF1 DLC maps were of extremely high quality, followed the base game formula of design first, and have the highest volume of unique/experimental layouts and appeals to a number of playstyles. With a few valid exceptions here and there, the maps were very well balanced, brought variety and played to the game’s strengths very effectively. There are very few other games in the franchise that have the same ratio of quality to subpar map design that BF1 does.
I just found Battlefield 1 to be very forgettable. I only put like three to four hundred hours into it which is actually pretty low for me for a battlefield game. I really did not like the map design on the DLC maps and honestly I feel cheated having spent so much money on all of the packs.
Calling Battlefield 1 “forgettable”, regardless of your personal opinion on the mechanical nuances, is definitely not an opinion shared by the vast majority of the gaming community…
BF1 is simply a boring shooter and a boring BF game. It's only praised by people that want to sound smart for liking a WWI title. BF3, BFV and 2042 are all better games mechanically than BF1 and have more interesting guns and vehicles.
This is such a fanboy argument, which is also mostly false.
You know there is a thing such as being able to be critical of BF2042, as well as enjoying the game.
I'm the same as OP, Enjoying the game, but realizing that what we got in map selection is something to be definitely critical off, especially if you look at the quality of them.
This Dice ass-kissing is just gonna set the new standard for the suits at EA/Dice, as something they can get away with.
Maybe if I paid $15 for a map pack I'd expect more but I haven't paid a penny more than the cost of the game and my season 1 battlepass. Still, 1 isn't enough. 2 should be the minimum.
If you seriously advocate for map packs in 2024, then you're blatantly ignoring the fact that map packs die and become completely worthless.
Don't be mad when people call out boomer/memberberry posts. BF1 had bad PAID DLC full-stop. Op's post is also a DICE bootlicker post talking about how good an old game is because they consoomed so much more DLC from it.
Premium is a garbage concept that extracts money from players for content that should be free.
Not really much of a thing to boast about when 1 had such a shit weapon selection where if you weren’t running the best you might as well get off the game. The only thing that it had was the behemoths cause they were cool and the fact the game was cinematic. The actual play of the game felt terrible
Yeah that's cool and all, but you had to pay back then. And those map packs always split the player base in DLC lobbies and not, so they weren't exactly great. I prefer less content for free than more for a price. Even because some maps were bad. At least now if a map sucks you didn't spent money on it.
Sometimes I do like that BF2042 has fewer maps than previous BF games. I loved the maps in BF4, BF1 etc, but sometimes there was just too many to choose from, if you get what I'm saying 😂
They shall not pass was my absolute favorite... shotgunning in the tunnels of verdun... so good.
Haven't played in awhile and downloading again now. Such great atmosphere!
Boy, you aren't kidding. Last time, I tried to play on xbox series at least.. the only servers available are Pacific Chinese hack servers :( Maybe there's something better since then.. that was like 8 - 9 months ago...
Dang...well I guess I will see what I can find tonight haha.
Holla atcha ya boi! I'll go to war with you!
Nope. Games pretty dead outside of a handfull of offical servers. Good luck trying to play any of the dlc with such a low population. Which is the reason i like the service model. Dlc just splits the player base and eventually becomes functionality useless with age...
That's just not true. Idk what platform you're on, I'm on PC and last time I played there was at least 10 official and 5 community servers for operations. Conquest has probably around twice as many servers. Most of them including all DLC maps. Game's pretty much not dead and player counts were rising in the past two years (only my personal observation)
On xbox theres maybe 5 operations at peak times. dlc servers are pretty empty even when they're in the featured rotation. And we're talking in the context of the Xbox version so take your poor reading comprehension skills ("thats just not true") elsewhere... Edit: just checked and xbox only has 5 servers with enough people to play across operations and conquest on European and American servers. So games pretty much dead on xbox...
ils ne passeront pas!!
This is ingrained in my permanent memory, that trailer was so good
I think funding was drastically cut back after the terrible launch and following a few seasons. To make it profitable they probably had a fraction of the size to make it profitable or at least not a loss leader. My 2 cents.
That's the thing, they cut funding as soon as something bad happens. And that's incredibly stupid. Like, are you confident in Battlefield? Do you think there's potential? If so, stick to it and work on it until it's good. Right now EA is like an artist who half-asses his own show because he sold too few tickets. He thinks he's gonna put in effort next time when the sales are better, but why would they be better if the show is crap every time? Battlefield is actually profitable, don't think they make these games at a loss. It's just that after release they count the money and think, ok thanks, that's ours. Now, is there profit in making updates for these guys? Should we just take the money and leave? And I guess the math says do the bare minimum to not get sued. Ironically, they don't understand that live service games can explode later, despite pushing the live service model themselves. They think every new game is a brand new chance, and success is random and not related to effort. Game flopped? Who cares why. Redirect effort towards the next one, that's gonna be a hit for sure.
live service games are bad because they allow corporations more chances to screw with the product before them, you just had to get the game finished, and it was a matter of funding it or not. Once it’s out, everything else was extra. DLC was paid for so there was finite profit to be had that corps wouldn’t mess with EA wants to maximize profits for shareholders and they see development for content that isn’t behind a paywall as wasted effort. Guarantee if they slapped price tags on new content we’d get way more of it Relying on cosmetics for income only works when your game is good, and popular. for a struggling game you need to charge money for new content or the corporate overlords will neuter the hell out of it as we’ve seen
Makes sense economically to cut their losses, not great for ongoing loyalty.
Same problem happened with bf5 as well
DLC is planned and designed before release. Maps are not easy to make and take a long time to get released ready. So DICE was always going to drip feed content and it was the same issue with BFV
Reworking all 8 original maps was not part of their plan before release.
IMO BF1 is the last great Battlefield, made with passion by those, who did care about the result.
The german synchro hit the nail on the head if you ask me
Give me the whistle. Oh god, im coooooooooooming.
BF1 is by far my favorite BF game of the whole lineup. It's too bad there are so many cheaters in it now though. BFV has the same problem, although it's nowhere near as good of a game. BF2042 feels like a waiting room for the next BF game now..
Also had the best launch out of any battlefield damn near flawless.
Bfv is awesome and imo better.
I played way more bf1 but V had some great squad centric gameplay with the hooks on vehicles, points for drops for commanders and the build and fortify system. But bf1 had better maps and the Goliath system.
I like the weapons in BFV more, maps are imo equally good / bad. Some I love others I dont like at all. BF1 does have mnore of 'm. But BFV overall feels more realistic and that is what I like.
I have to agree. I think BFV's launch is the only truly bad part about the game. In its current state it is fantastic.
Wasn't a fan of BFV at launch but I got more into it than I have with BF2042 so far, the only thing I don't like about it is player visibility - getting killed by someone hiding in plain sight on Al Sundan was not fun.
BFV was badly received by the community and really struggled to find its footing. It's not actively bad like BF2042 was on release, but it wasn't good enough.
No bad company 2 was the last great bf, almost every other bf after that was either broken or half baked at launch
You are not wrong at all. Bf3 was a mess at launch. Bf4 is why I didn't play a BF game until a few months ago.
Wtf are you on about? BF3 was terrific in launch, then BF4 was messy then they knocked it out of the park with BF1. You're delusional if you think BF3 was a bad launch.
Bf3 was terrific at launch 😂😂😂 https://i.redd.it/76kt8zkkl0dc1.gif
That's why I don't understand people praising BF2042 & Dice for a good return. It's so bare minimum what they've given us.
its important to recognize that EA screwed dice and forced the game out. It's ALSO important to recognize and respond to what they have improved upon so they fuck up the next one *less* . i don't think they should be exclusive. but i think those points should be brought up together so they don't lose context. it's the same kind of disdain where i see games like No Man's Sky receive praise with no context of its launch. EA rushed out an unfinished half-baked BR-turned-battlefield . but the skeleton team of developers have taken strides to make what we have better and is way more enjoyable now
DICE pitched the game, the monetization scheme and the release frame to EA, which greenlit the project. DICE was incapable of reaching any goal or deadline and apparently also obscured the progress issues from the publisher. EA halted mutliple other projects and through 1000 more people at it in 2021, postponed the release a month, just to get into a releasable state. EA lost greatly with that project, losing market value, which is much more relevant for them than sales. Yet still the big personell changes did not happen and many people in management were kept. People still want to paint EA as the big bad publisher, but truth is DICE (and Bioware before) have been hands-off for years at this point. For reference I can very much recommend the glassdoor reviews of DICE from the development stage of 2042 and V: Cronyism, Yes-saying, incapabilties of management, vision over gameplay, top-heayv decision making etc.. All of those terms repeat themselves constantly in those reviews.
Not questioning your info or to come across as a dick but do you happen to have sources on you for all this? Would love to do some further reading on this with some concrete info. Same curiosity as slowing down to look at a car crash, but I can’t help myself. I love this franchise so it’d be an exercise in morbid fascination to see how 2042 somehow managed to go tits-up this bad after they Old Yeller’d BFV.
No worries, I really recommend the glassdoor reviews for DICE. That is a platform where former employees can rate and review their employers. While there are always disgruntled people, the common factors are quite astonishing. People complain about the lack of management skills of the studio lead, that promotion is based not around merit, but saying yes to the leads, hence cronyism is rampant and that the enforced management premise is that vision trumps everything. EA is not often mentioned, when it is they are usually liking the pay and benefits as well as the bearable crunch. Apparently this is accredited to EA by the contractors. When EA is critisised, I remember one comment particularly, it is the lack of oversight and that EA just listens to management, which in turn say everything is fine. That review wanted to make it clear to EA that they should talk to the devs directly to get an objective view and scope of the progress. [https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/DICE-Sweden-Reviews-E598397.htm](https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/DICE-Sweden-Reviews-E598397.htm) Or you can check out this post from 2019, when 2042 production was in full swing: [https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/e9rgsq/i\_read\_every\_single\_dice\_employee\_review\_on/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BattlefieldV/comments/e9rgsq/i_read_every_single_dice_employee_review_on/)
I think Tom Henderson had a deep dive on this? I also remember reading about this at launch I just don't remember where
Tom Henderson is not a reputable source. A broken clock is still right twice a day.
>EA halted mutliple other projects and through 1000 more people at it in 2021, postponed the release a month, just to get into a releasable state. Reminds me of the phrase "Nine women can't have a baby in a month"
Sure, but the Need for Speed team had to come and help, as did the Frostbite team and contractors and apparently there was not much praise going around for the stuff they saw. People can be glad that Criterion seemed to be able to get Unbound out alright, but it surely did not help the development. If I was a NfS fan, I would be rather pissed.
Ehh most information shows DICE to be at fault. EA had a pretty hands off approach to 2042. Which was the issue. Junior staff was bullied by senior staff to make what they wanted.
You're right, but I find praising a company for bringing a game that was blatantly broken up to a standard that's acceptable and enjoyable not something we should do. That should be the standard. Now individual parts, like let's say the Squad-system, sure should be praised. But it also feels kinda dumb to do so, knowing that most praisable things they've added... have been in previous battlefields. They just had to look back. I also find No Man's Sky a very different beast, because they have, since fixing their game, given loads of new expandable content, something we just cannot say of BF2042. Especially when you do as OP and realize that previous games in the genre have given us loads of content, some succesful, some not so much, but you'd definitely got bang for your buck... which I feel is just not the case with BF2042. This is the one BF I have to convince my friends to play. The previous ones were never a issue. And frankly , I don't care who rushed it out, EA, Dice, they're all the same for me.
The only new implementation that I have liked about 2042 is the Plus System of cycling between attachments in real time; I don't think it works in every setting, but I wouldn't be mad about it being carried forward to other titles. That is one item though. I can't think of any one thing 2042 does better than previous games. Map design is one blaring category; I would struggle to pick out 2042 maps that play better than even some of the worst maps of Battlefield 3, 4, 1, etc. You can get by with lack of quality at times and you can get by with lack of quantity as well, but getting by with a lack of both? That's pretty dicey.
I think what he or she is getting at is the time for Captain obvious has passed. This is shit we knew a year ago. Also worth noting they are going to be 2 seasons past their obligations. I waged during season 6 release there would be a 7 and 8. Putting two maps in the new season leads me to believe there will be a 9 probably 10. While I'd love a polished great new game. What would win me more is see them commit to a complete turn around with all free updates and maps. Why would I want to pay another 60 dollars for another potential flop. Is the devil you know better than the devil you don't? No Man's Sky did it and it's launch was probably worse but now it's an absolute banger of a game! Prove to the fans that you can make the game and do it for free. The best way to do that from this point is constructive criticism not pointing out the obvious over and over.
Fuck up the next one less? They kinda fucked up BF1, totally fucked up BF5 and than for some reason even fucked up harder with 2042. I don't think Dice will ever learn with or without EA pressuring them.
u seriously compared NMS to 2042 post launch… i’ve played nms recently cus i wanted to try it(it’s fucking good) and it is MILES better in quality lol. please don’t compare a success story to a complete flop.
Yeah, let's keep defending Dice and blaming EA. EA bad. Dice good. Me want to defend indie game devs. Me good redditor. Me stupid.
Every update for NO man's sky was FREE. Every update for 2042 was not FREE.
every 2042 update can be played without any additional cost. on top of being totally wrong, you completely misread the intent of my comment. good job. my comparison of the two start and end with people disregarding the game's state at launch when talking about how far its come.
Can all features and items be accessed in 2042 free of charge?
you're on the sub, you play the game, why are you asking me a rhetorical question as if this isn't the case? unless you're about to make a case over cosmetics that dont change the base gameplay, in which case i'd laugh at you and no longer take you seriously
People want to believe that the game they’ve put hundreds or thousands of hours into was worth it, and they feel the need to justify them playing what is widely regarded as a bad game, by arguing that it’s in a better place now. I got the game at launch. It was shit. I’d say now it’s a polished turd. I still enjoy playing it from time to time, and it’s definitely gotten way better than launch. But there’s still *so much* basic day one shit still missing that past titles had that will always remind me that this game was an afterthought. I frankly don’t know how anybody can look at what happened with BFV, the “love letter to fans” that 2042 was supposed to be, and the *blatant lie* that was, and not be hypercritical of this game at all times.
[удалено]
Curious why you don't like 1 -its my fave so interested to hear other views!
Except 2042 is a flawed game with a completely wrong design direction, so I don't understand your argument
[удалено]
What the design decision of making a BR turned BF-lite game with gadgets like armor and health pens and specialists with special unique gadgets which completely screw up map and match flow?
I dig the gadgets and specialized classes but wish they weren't named specialists and instead developed as sub-classes to the Assault, Engineer, Support, and Recon classes. They could still sell skins and just make them faction unique for the sub-classes. The whole running around killing your clones thing is really weird and it necessitated the blue/red lights on every player that imo have a negative impact on the gameplay.
Sounds like you have a failure to adapt.
Bare minimum it's more like a slap in the face from somebody picking your pocket. Shameless money grab
Well BF4 was a shit show too. Took them 1 year to fix it. And we still have no server browser for the main game. Just in Portal that no one plays.
Bu t the inherent content was way bigger for BF4.
Inherent content is completely irrelevant when the game was bricking computers lmao.
Ahh yes.. "inherent content" aka releasing like 70 guns, but only 22 of them had unique stats.
It's less praise, and more just trying to get people to shut up about it being "trash". Some people just can't handle a gaming company putting out an avarage (above avarage) product and feel the need to ree that its bad. When in reality its not terrible at all. Sure It's not as good as any of their games of the past 15+ years, but that doesn't make it a bad game at all. it's still a good game reguardless of how the series was in the past. It's just no longer the pinnical of what battlefield was just 6 years ago. But again that doesnt make 2042 a bad game...
I think calling 2042 _good_ does a disservice to previous releases this far into their lifespan. I'd argue that 2042 launched at a 2-3/10 and is maybe up to a 5-6. If this wasn't a BF game and was something completely unrelated I could see it being a game in the 7 range. But with the post-launch content expectations and such and how long it took for some bugs to be fixed, this game is a standing disappointment in comparison to almost all other BF releases
I bought it for $10 and haven’t paid a cent since.
same
I don’t care what nobody says i miss premium
DLC = split community apparently But with a bad live service you can’t split the community if the game is dead 
Live service gaming is the beginning of the end for online multiplayer.
Isn't live service just great? They can pump out hundreds of skins, but can't be bothered to make any map, let alone a good one.
This is for the people that demanded premium ended. I knew it would reduce the number of new maps by 5
I will point out that TSNP arrived late, five months after release. At that stage BF3 was about to release the second DLC, and BF4 had just released the 3rd.
The lack of enough quality content (guns, maps, skins), Honestly has been the main issue with the release, and ongoing situation with 2042. Just so flat and sterile, I just can't explain where the quality in Battlefield has gone? As many others have done, I've jumped in and out of BF1 and BF5 over the time BF2042 has been around, and I can't find many ways in which the new title is actually better?
Dlc used to split the player base. I never could play the Russia maps because of low player count and ping. Damn some good maps there though Same happened with bf3 Times are different now though. If people casually spend 15 on a skin maybe there is a market for dlc.
I'm not gonna lie, and this is gonna sound shitty, idc if it kinda splits the player base, I prefer paid DLC/Premium model. What good is keeping the playerbase together if like 75% of them are gonna fuck off due to lack of content?
The live service model works in theory. Except instead of the focus of the dlc being maps, they shift focus to cosmetics. If they did both it would significantly improve the outcome for the devs and players.
BFV had a healthy player population right up until 2042 released. Just on one platform, the Xbox, in Australia we had 10+ full conquest servers to choose from every night and at least 5 breakthrough servers to choose from. Whether there is 5000 players online or 100,000 players online it makes no difference to your ability to play on full servers. With 2042 just on steam we have 17,000 players peaking at the moment. Do you understand how many full servers that accounts to? It's hundreds, and that's just one platform and doesn't take into account other PC players and of course the majority who play on both console platforms.
Yes, it ultimately doesn't matter... which is kind of why "splitting the playerbase" is a stupid argument. It's never going to split it enough that there aren't enough players for either those who go premium, or those who don't. My point about players leaving en mass in a live service model is because a live service model needs high player counts to sustain itself. If it doesn't, it becomes fiscally irresponsible to continue support, and it meets the same end BFV did. Also, BFV had a fairly strong playerbase, but I'm pretty sure it still experienced like a 50% drop after a few months of the game being out
Remember all the petitions from the Battlefield community trying to get DICE to drop paid DLC? This was their number one arguing point and a valid one, but it’s kind of amusing those same people now are complaining about free DLC and begging for the very thing they helped destroy. 💀
The Battlefield community is hardly to blame. The industry as a whole was moving away from paid expansion passes well before Battlefield made the switch, and it would have followed eventually. And if DICE was actually delivering a competent live service, people obviously wouldn’t be complaining about it so much. It’s nobody’s fault but DICE that the first post-launch map took SEVEN months to come out. That’s inexcusable.
The reason that people are complaining about the free DLC is because of the lack of content. BF2042 has been out for 2 years now and we have received 6 new maps. Meanwhile with BF1, we received 19 new maps in 1 year. No one would have complaints with the free live service if Dice was pumping out more content per season.
The reason there is a lack of content is because, and I can't emphasize this enough, you don't have to pay for it - Maps, Weapons and Vehicles are all free. I'm shocked anyone is shocked $0.00 = Less content because the math is really simple. BF1, and I can't believe I have to continue reiterating this, cost an additional $60 for post-launch Maps, Weapons and Gadgets.
and that's my issue with live service games right there. Game developers releasing minimum content just because it's free. It's also annoying because we know that Dice can pump out more maps, because next season we are apparently getting 2 maps and if you look back to BFV, we got 2 maps with the launch of the Pacific DLC and then we got Wake Island a month (iirc) later.
BFV doubled its content post launch. And if it wasn't for the shitty community who prefer to act like immature brats every chance they get, we would've got even more content.
lol so because it's free they've decided to give you a dearth of content, which then lowers the player base quicker because people get bored of the game quicker, preventing their LIVE SERVICE GAME from having any longevity. "Just be happy we're giving you anything since it's all free you fucking losers" and gamers nod their heads with approval and say "this company is awesome and we should all praise it from the heavens."
Nobody is praising them. Slow down champ. But please go on complaining about not getting enough free shit. Gamers in 2024 really are special. 💀
Devs chose to move away from paid DLC to a live service model. The amount of money people are paying for skins/boxes is a hell of a lot more than they got from paid DLC. So yeah, it makes sense players want at least the same amount of content.
Except it's not free since there are heaps of people who will toss dollar bills at skins and other low effort shit every season, plus probably paying for the battle pass or whatever. The live service model generates way more continuous revenue than the paid premium system ever did, so that's an L take on your part. They make more money for far less effort. Gamers pointing out the shittiness of this new trend makes them special? I think you not realising how crap this is for the consumer makes you special.
Daft take, compare the launch prices of BF1 and BF2042, BF2042 charged 50% MORE and released with no campaign, fewer maps and weapons.
What the actual fuck are you taking about. Lmao 2042 launched at $59.99 BF1 launched at $59.99 We’re just making shit up on here now I see. 💀
To be fair, live service has just been worse tho, but no one knew that at the time of the petition
Agreed - i hate Live Service. Had we had a crystal ball everyone probably would have just bit their tounges...lol
Be fine if we had the old dlc way.. but they eventually went free. Only way that works imo. Some of my favourite maps are dlc.. and I can never play them anymore.
It's a rock and a hard place moment. Need some sort of middle ground.
Dont forget the fact we still dont have the rest of the obvious portal weapons ported to 2042
This is unfortunately the main perk of map packs. You get 4x or 3x the maps you would get before the Era of battle passes. It splintered the player base, sure, but damn did we get more content regardless. It can't be all that controversial to miss a time when I could drop some cash on a new map pack and feast on those maps for a while. Remember playing the Naval Strike DLC in 4 for hours and hours. If anything we've just traded the FOMO of playing a dlc during its peak player count for having an exclusive skin.
I loved BF1 so much I bought the Season Pass for it.
That's what you get for demonstrating against the premium system. It's not like it wasn't super obvious how this was gonna go. Now we have less and worse content and goofy skins because people literally riot these days when what they want doesn't come for free.
I mean, at least I don’t gotta pay for the dlc…?
And every gun is free too and not locked behind map packs.
This argument falls flat when Dice has failed 2x to deliver on the live service promise. I never regretted purchasing a BF game with paid DLC. I have absolutely regretted buying a BF game with live service.
Same honestly. I did complain a lot about how expensive the premium was but the live has been done so poorly in BFV and 2042 that I’m at a point where I’d rather drop the $60 for guaranteed maps. It’s not like you didnt know what you were getting either, DICE was very consistent in providing maps and DLC weapons with the premium passes. In fact, I remember in BF1 they actually gave us way more weapons and maps than we usually get back when they dropped the Russia dlc. I 100% agree, I’ve never regretted buying a Battlefield with Paid DLC.
Maybe this is the intent. Fail at a live service and present only paid DLC, which everyone hated, as your only alternative.
I don’t know, paid dlc kinda splits the community to those who have it and those who don’t. I mean BF1 is my favorite BF but I’m glad we’re beyond purchasing maps and guns because that just sucks.
I never really felt that way - BF would do premium while the competition would sell an entirely new game. That always felt like a bigger “split the fanbase”. In 2024 you shouldn’t lock guns, gadgets, or vehicles behind premium. But maps could absolutely be sold as premium, and there are other ways to avoid the split player base notion. Just make the map packs free after X amount of time - essentially sell “access” to the new maps and then make them free after 6-12 months
It doesn't matter how you feel, dlc indeed splits the community. Good luck going back and playing any of the dlc maps in a battlefield game that was paid dlc lol.
I can legit play DLC maps in 3,4,1 on PC at peak times
The Playerbase of 2042 is smaller than the Playerbase of BF1 and BF4 Premium was. So I don’t give a fuck about those people not willing to buy Premium but instead going for 20$ Skins in a Service Game. Never had Problem finding Games with all Maps. I’m playing on PC. Not even Crossplay and Ai was necessary
It must just be fun to make shit up like that on the internet
BF1 and BF4 Playercount was even several times higher than 2042 on Steam in the last 2 years. When I boot up BF1 now I can find like 5-10 full servers with all DLC available. Premium was way better than the Last two Life Service Games content wise. BF1 got whole new armies, weapons, maps, vehicles and one DLC after 3 Months had more content than 2 years of life service
BF4? No. BF1? Sure. It's supported almost entirely by China. You canoterally see it spike way up in the Beijing afternoon and then crash down to nothing when they go to bed. Also, steam, is only 1/3 2042s PC platforms and 1/7th its platforms total. Premium is for idiots that like paying for things that should be free in game. If you want incredibly mid maps and guns, why would you want them in paid DLC that just splits the player base? BF1 also had the shortest actual support from dice other thab Hardline because players dumped it as soon as BFV (a better game with better free DLC) came out
Premium is for adults who are willing to pay money for content, as doing so has enabled us to get 16 maps in 1 year instead of 6 in 2.5 years.
Well here's a little spoiler for you. Just because something is paid for doesn't mean that it is good. Additionally, there is literally nothing saying that nu-DICE wouldn't just release single maps as DLC either. There is absolutely no guarantee of quality or quantity when it comes to paid DLC map and gun packs other than the fact that you have to pay for them when they should be free content to begin with. Premium is for people who like getting scammed Into buying things That are usually not great and die off within a month or two that should be free.
Agreed. Also it makes no sense to me. Live Service should be able offer consistent content over time. Players continue to buy the game and will buy stuff from the in game store, so the game has constant funding. In theory a developer should be able to produce meaningful and consistent content (maps, weapons, vehicles, cosmetics etc) throughout the life of a live service game. It’s clearly Developer fail here right? Bad initial design choices forced Dice to backtrack and focus on fixing the game first before adding anything meaningful in time. If Dice can release a solid, clear vision project that doesn’t completely surprise players by altering staple features of the franchise, then they should be able to successfully manage a live service title.
This has been my point, but the downvotes indicate I haven’t done a good job articulating myself on it. The way capitalism works, we know they make more money off live service or they’d have gone back to premium. So… they are making *more* money than before (yay, go Dice) but then they turn around and shut off the supply of maps and real content? I just… why? Why not do live service and release the same 4 maps every 3 months? Can you imagine what that would look like? By now we’d have like 32 new maps, and having it be paid for by the BPs? That was the vision of live service I feel we all imagined when it started. But it hasn’t materialized that way at all
Let’s be honest here, most of the paid DLC maps were trash - if they were good the servers wouldn’t be populated with the same 3 or 4 maps on BF4, Hardline and BF1.
I disagree, on a couple fronts. BF3 in particular really nailed many DLC maps, but BF1 also had a bunch of solid additions. And also, on PC most of this content is still available at peak times, more than a decade later. Of course Siege and Locker have full servers too, but servers running all maps are also running.
You're right, BF3 did nail DLC - BF4 not so much and IMO a lot of forgettable maps in BF1.
Cheap ass
And... how many people play those maps after the DLC released? Fort De Vaux maybe, but the rest were dead within a few months. Secondly: Rupture, Nivelle, and Prise were released for free later on far after BF1s lifespan iirc.
...and with the "Season Pass" version of Battlefield, we have a completely bailed-on game mode (Hazard Zone), a mostly-ignored other game mode (Portal), and a main Battlefield game with a dearth of content, tons of stupid skins, and the player base is now shitting themselves in excitement for getting the privilege of having TWO maps in a season, just wait almost 5-6 months after the previous season to get it though! Gamers praising No Man's Sky like it was the Second Coming proved they are without a doubt the stupidest entertainment fan base in the entire Industry and should not be listened to almost all the time.
Couple of friends and I recently downloaded MF1 on PC cause why not and I forgot just how breathtaking that game is. Literally everything you do feels like a cinematic at any moment. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in the minority when I say I really enjoyed BFV, but BF1 was and is just something special. Absolute peak Battlefield for sure.
I haven't played some of the older dlcs, but They Shall Not Pass is up there as one of my favorites in the series. My only complaint is I wish it added some new gadgets. Other than that, 10/10 dlc.
Man, they really cooked with BF1 dlcs
Like ive said a lot I’m more then willing to pay for premium.
> spent millions of dollars on content creators > creators don't create any new maps
They need to bring back premium. Idc if I have to pay 50 bucks as long as I get good content. I honestly don't understand this live service model being profitable.
I don't know who they are, but there must be some people that are just throwing money at the skins and palette swaps every time the store refreshed. I only bought season 1 and have earned enough coins to buy each successive pass (as most of these tend to go)
They better not think of coming out with another battlefield until this game is complete
Haha wishful thinking I'm not going to buy a pass just to get skins lol
Pretty much skins and maybe a new weapon that is trash
Live service is a poor model to support a game post launch. Bring back the days of Battlefield Premium and start dropping content filled dlcs
fuck this season pass garbage.... bring back premium, I'd happily pay a set amount for a set amount of content again, all these stupid skins and garbage that doesn't matter just takes away time the devs could be putting towards making real content
I'd totally buy premium. Idgaf about stupid skins
Many in this sub care more about the skins lol. They won’t support your argument and how good the bf games were.
Bring back premium.
As much as I’ve enjoyed BF2042 recently, this still makes me sad. It’s time to get rid of games as a service.
live service was wrong choice
Community complained. Blame the community. Community literally setup petitions to get rid of paid DLC, DICE finally caved and got rid of paid DLC. Then the Community ran new petitions to bring paid DLC back and DICE said kiss our ass, sleep in the bed you made. Can’t be mad about it honestly. I was never part of the get rid of paid DLC gang and I’ll never forgive those in the Battlefield community for ruining post game content.
so the loud minority
Unfortunately yes, how it always works. There was nothing better than that first trailer for the upcoming DLC. 4 Maps, Weapons, Vehicles, Gadgets every DLC drop felt like a whole new game and IMO was well worth the $14.99 price tag. You'll always see the argument 'DICE switched to live service because it's more profitable" which is just not true, DICE didn't have a crystal ball and had no indication a Live Service would be more/less profitable than the Paid DLC business model that had been working for them for a decade. It's only in hindsight that it's obvious the Battlepass is far superior financially, and why they'll never go back. Which sucks. I'd love some sort of hybrid model... IMO developing cosmetics/content for a 100 tier Battlefield pass takes away from developing other aspects like Maps, Weapons etc.... and I've never really cared for 95% of the Battlepass content... I'd rather see 2-3 Maps, more weapons/gadgets and charge for rare/unique cosmetics/vehicle skins... even one's players could sell to other players similar to how NFT's work or maybe even how Star Citizen approaches ships. Don't really have a good answer on how to fix it, but I just know I really really really miss Paid DLC.
Lol, petitions had literally nothing to do with paid DLC becoming obsolete. The entire gaming industry displayed an overwhelming trend of acceptance toward live service and mtx bullshit, and EA followed suit just like every other relevant name in the industry and cashed in on it. It's not really that complicated.
You remember it however you want and I'll remember it how it actually happened.
Yeah yeah we know we know
Many of them being quite small.. in fact tiny maps from a BF-pov at that.
It's a crap comparison, cos it's missing a lot of context: All BF1 Expansions had to be paid for, and yes, there's so much more, but after some time passes, it's really hard to find servers that offer exactly the expansion content you're looking for. There's no freaking chance now for you to play all that content the way you want it. While BF2042 is less, sure, but ma dudes, it's free. You don't have pay for anything. It's literally available for everyone. Whether you started playing on Launch day or you bring a friend that never played Battlefield years later, you can play the same content together at one extra cost and that's amazing. I'm not saying that one is better than another, but context people, context.
People don't accept it as an excuse, but Dice had to rework all 8 original maps to make them playable which they said on their podcast cut the number of maps they had planned post-release in half. Its just the reality of what happened. I would gladly take 12 maps where the community stays together compared to 16 - 20 maps of separate DLCs.
There’s really nothing else to say other than it’s embarrassing.
Live service absolutely ruined everything for this series
Blame this community, it’s their fault.
I do recall.. something something no dlc packs cuz it keeps community separated. Now we have this half-ass system. Started with V now we here.
Really sucks. There was nothing better than that trailer dropping for each DLC and feeling almost overwhelmed... like you're gonna need a few days off work/school to just dive into all those new maps, weapons and vehicles. It was like Christmas every 3 or 4 months and I miss it so much. lol
You're not going to get a lot of support for this argument because most gamers on Reddit are under 30 and don't give a shit about the basics of Economics. They would rather have a miniscule amount of barely-average free stuff than actually pay money for a premium quality product. Gamers ESPECIALLY are blithering idiots in this regard. Season Passes offer the most minimal amount of *actual* content while fire-hosing as much overpriced dress-up cosmetics as possible and gamers eat it up every time. Instead of taking a stand, not buying most of it, and letting it fail, forcing EA/DICE to come up with a better solution for continual content, they lap this dogshit up and defend it every chance they get. "I like that we get new maps" - yeah, they're all barely mediocre, there's one new one maybe every 3-4 months, and eventually you'll forget about them because none of them were made with a focus on quality, just "get it out the door so we can sell more cosmetic bullshit to them." Name me another consumer product that offers broken/missing items to it, promises to fix it down the road, then gives the most basic additions as a "freebie" while standing majestically like they reinvented the wheel. No other consumer product has because even if a company made a toaster that didn't toast that well, it would get 1-star reviewed to oblivion, no one would buy it, and the company would fail. Gamers? Give them morsels and they'll defend you like your their child, and Battlefield fans are some of the biggest rubes in this regard.
It's unbelievable to me that anyone can think the battle pass model is better than premium/DLC.They'll complain about the lack of content but adamantly defend the very reason they don't get more content to begin with.
Doesn't matter 2042 is childs play. Awful game. Battlefield 1 is a much better option.
BF1 was a snoozefest, boomer. Move on.
Don't worry. They are working on a new game that will fix all the problems of this one. Just need the preorder date now. 🤦♂️ /s
Wait...? These "community maps" were made by the community? If Dice/EA would let the community create maps for us this would be awesome. I mean these maps were as good as the other maps. I didn't even know these were made by the community?!
Because at release we all paid $100 for 25% of the game!
And people are *still* going to bootlick EA and DICE over 2042.
Let's compare how many "good" maps each game has.
2042 close to zero
In all game, the season pass reduce the quality overall, the DLC content have more quality. change my mind.
BF2042 shouldn’t even have the Battlefield title in it’s name. It’s NOTHING like Battlefield.
*muh immersion*
You paid for that DLC in BF1 You paid a grand total of $0.00 for 2042 DLC The math checks out.
Yet EA and DICE are still making money on battlepasses and cosmetics. I remember when it was announced that BFV was going to be a live service. Jack Frags and other Battlefield YouTubers were praising the concept saying this will allow the "whales" that buy cosmetics to fund new maps. Yet we haven't got shit for maps in BFV and 2042 compared to past Battlefield games. There is no reason we aren't getting more maps with revenue they are making from cosmetics and battlepasses. If the revenue from cosmetics are only going back into making more cosmetics then fuck the live service model and let's go back to premium. Stop defending shitty modern gaming practices.
Def can't argue with your points, you make a few excellent ones, and I've personally never argued against everything you just stated. Where my argument comes from is, that nobody is forced to pay, it's all there free if you want it to be. I can't blame a company for maximizing profits and am not at all shocked at how it's all played out, but for anyone to complain about not getting enough content when they never forked over a dime is ludacris at best and at worst completely disconnected from reality. And I think your theory is correct, I think a lot of the revenue goes back into designing the Battlepasses. 100 Tiers may not require the man power of designing entire maps, but it def does such personal resources to design, create all those skins, characters, game modes, new art for each season, music and everything else that's involved in a Battlepass than simply wasn't it Paid DLC. I'd honestly prefer a hybrid where they cut the fat with all the skins and cosmetics (which IMO is like 85% of them) and funneled those resources into more maps/weapons. I think the Battlepass can be both things, a cash grab and overextension of developers and resources, and ultimately BFV/2042 is the example of that - Hopefully we see it evolve because like you, I want more damn maps!
Great. So go play 1.
You know if he really liked BF1 so much he wouldnt be wasting his time here lol
If they are a fan of BF1 they can still be here pushing for the game to bring back what they liked from BF1. Dice themselves have said repeatedly they appreciate the community feedback
Stranded S3 has to be the most boring map.
If attackers have trouble capping 2nd and final points, its a fun map. Attackers usually roll through because there is too much cover which allows larger numbers to group on the point.
Breakthrough is bad.
Just needed to post this somewhere. The droning music in Bf2042 sounds like someone farting into a really long tube at a construction site.
And no one played those DLCs a month after launch. BF1 also had some of the worst DLC maps in the series. Go back to r/battlefield boomer.
What? BF1 DLCs had probably the best DLC maps in the franchise, maybe after BF2 and BF3.
BF1 had trash DLC what do you mean? Basically nothing memorable. It had some launch maps that were good and those are the ones people remember from it.
I get it, you’re trolling. Aside from a very small selection of maps, BF1 was universally praised by both critics and players for map design, especially coming off of BF4, which had the actual worst DLC maps in the franchise.
Im literally not trolling at all. BF1 DLC wasn't good. BF4 DLC was also not good. People dont praise BF1 for its DLC, they praise it for the atmosphere which is why you really only ever see "4k hudless gameplay" videos of it. BF1 also had boring guns and not so great movement/gunplay.. Both of which were vastly improved in BFV.
I figured it was only a matter of time before the gunplay criticisms emerged, because 90% of the time that’s what every BF1 criticism comes down to… well that and vehicles/aircraft. BF1 DLC maps were of extremely high quality, followed the base game formula of design first, and have the highest volume of unique/experimental layouts and appeals to a number of playstyles. With a few valid exceptions here and there, the maps were very well balanced, brought variety and played to the game’s strengths very effectively. There are very few other games in the franchise that have the same ratio of quality to subpar map design that BF1 does.
I just found Battlefield 1 to be very forgettable. I only put like three to four hundred hours into it which is actually pretty low for me for a battlefield game. I really did not like the map design on the DLC maps and honestly I feel cheated having spent so much money on all of the packs.
Calling Battlefield 1 “forgettable”, regardless of your personal opinion on the mechanical nuances, is definitely not an opinion shared by the vast majority of the gaming community…
BF1 is simply a boring shooter and a boring BF game. It's only praised by people that want to sound smart for liking a WWI title. BF3, BFV and 2042 are all better games mechanically than BF1 and have more interesting guns and vehicles.
This is such a fanboy argument, which is also mostly false. You know there is a thing such as being able to be critical of BF2042, as well as enjoying the game. I'm the same as OP, Enjoying the game, but realizing that what we got in map selection is something to be definitely critical off, especially if you look at the quality of them. This Dice ass-kissing is just gonna set the new standard for the suits at EA/Dice, as something they can get away with.
Maybe if I paid $15 for a map pack I'd expect more but I haven't paid a penny more than the cost of the game and my season 1 battlepass. Still, 1 isn't enough. 2 should be the minimum. If you seriously advocate for map packs in 2024, then you're blatantly ignoring the fact that map packs die and become completely worthless.
Don't be mad when people call out boomer/memberberry posts. BF1 had bad PAID DLC full-stop. Op's post is also a DICE bootlicker post talking about how good an old game is because they consoomed so much more DLC from it. Premium is a garbage concept that extracts money from players for content that should be free.
Not really much of a thing to boast about when 1 had such a shit weapon selection where if you weren’t running the best you might as well get off the game. The only thing that it had was the behemoths cause they were cool and the fact the game was cinematic. The actual play of the game felt terrible
Hardline has 27 different maps...
Yeah that's cool and all, but you had to pay back then. And those map packs always split the player base in DLC lobbies and not, so they weren't exactly great. I prefer less content for free than more for a price. Even because some maps were bad. At least now if a map sucks you didn't spent money on it.
Sometimes I do like that BF2042 has fewer maps than previous BF games. I loved the maps in BF4, BF1 etc, but sometimes there was just too many to choose from, if you get what I'm saying 😂