Battlefield 2042's Battle Passes & No Campaign Leaves A Bad Impression

EA and DICE have finally revealed Battlefield 2042, but the news of Battle Passes and no campaign has left a sour taste in the mouth.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Bigman4k44d ago (Edited 44d ago )

Yup and on top of that they charging $70

TheRealTedCruz44d ago (Edited 44d ago )

I also think it's lame that it doesn't have a campaign, but that was never Battlefield's strong suit.
Even their best campaigns were... alright.
If they really concentrate on the multiplayer, then there's still a lot of value to be had.

The game in the series I played the most was BF3. I put 5 hours into completing the campaign. Over 400 hours into the multiplayer.

I dropped off of the series for years. This is the first time I'm excited for the series in a long time.

There's probably more value here than a number of games asking for that price hike already.

Good-Smurf44d ago

DICE proved they can make single player game with engaging atmospheric story and setting take 2008 Mirror's Edge for example.

1nsomniac44d ago (Edited 44d ago )

Value should never be based on how much you can repeat the same content. Yes you may have played 400 hours MP over your 5 hours with the campaign. Just because you’ve repeated the same 8 maps, over and over again for 400 hours. That’s not value! This is the silly mentality that the industry has grabbed hold of and running with.

They’re selling you content. That is what you are paying for. You are not paying for time. That attitude needs to stop and people need to realise how damaging it is.

TheRealTedCruz44d ago (Edited 44d ago )


I, uh ... don't really know what to say to that.
It's multiplayer. It's meant to be replayable.

They hand you multiple maps, multiple game modes, and usually a ranking/upgrade system to keep people entertained and coming back to it.

According to your logic, each and every single player game in existence is ripping you off because you're pretty much just repeating the same several hours of content to be had.
I guess the industry should just not make games in general, because they are repeat experiences, thus ripping you off.

1nsomniac43d ago (Edited 43d ago )

I understand but that has nothing to do with what I said.

Developers make content, then sell you exactly what they have created nothing more. You are paying for what you have received, not what you personally make out of that content. In your logic of value people who enjoy playing the game often should pay £70 while those who don’t should be able to purchase the exact same product for less because it it less valuable despite it being exactly the same product…. Again, you’re not buying the time you spend with it. You’re buying the content of what has been sold at point of sale. That is the legal terminology of a sold product.

That mind set is what’s destroying the industry and why there’s such a push for subscription based services so you no longer believe you are buying a single product but an ever extending product.

Over the last few years there has been massive scientific research gone into consumer subscription models from the big companies. And it shows that the vast majority will invest in them because they see their time spent with them as valuable. However they quickly stop using them but do not cancel their subscription s. It’s due to the minds evolution or lack of it if you will because it believes that you have something stored that you may want at some point in the future so your mind persuades you not to give it up. Despite the fact in reality you can cancel and start it again whenever you want. It’s the Hunter gatherer mentality. It’s big business and they’re using it against you.

NeoGamer23243d ago

Ya, the BF MP players will buy this as a no-brainer. The trailer was slick and it looks like a lot of MP fun.

Value is based on what you get out of it and is subjective. What one person values is different then another. Personally I value SP campaigns and don't play a lot of MP. But, that is just me, so I will probably skip on this. But there are a lot more gamers that value the MP more then SP, so they will jump on this. Fortnite has no campaign yet it is a really popular game.

b00mFargl343d ago

Can we just get a new bad company?!?!

bouzebbal43d ago (Edited 43d ago )

RIP Battlefield. Each loves to kill its best franchises. Burnout is off, dead space titanfall now this?

StoneyYoshi43d ago


I see your passion with how you feel on this but you need to understand that value is subjective and not something you can really designate it in a specific way.

Ever hear of the saying one man's trash is another man's treasure? Same applies here... You don't think it has value, but others do and others feel the same as you too.

Also, the study you speak about... To me it sounds like they studied that many people are lazy and don't want to go through the trouble of cancelling and resubscribing down the road. Now In regards to myself this isn't an issue. If I don't use a service, I cancel until I wish to use it again. I'm a cheap ass when it comes to subscriptions lol.

43d ago
+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 43d ago
seanpitt2344d ago

It takes a lot of resources and time to make a campaign… I am happy in a way all them resources went into making the best possible MP.

Campaigns have become boring to me

mch2011uk44d ago

£70 which I think is $95.
That's EA for you.

arkard43d ago

It will be 30$ for black Friday a month later

43d ago
Zeref43d ago (Edited 43d ago )

Why are we so biased about Single Player vs Multiplayer games?

Theres constantly single player only games coming out for 70 dollars with no multiplayer(As a matter of fact they're praised for it a lot of the time) . But when it's a multiplayer only game without campaign it's a problem?

I think there's room for games that only focuses on multiplayer. I personally dont have a problem with BF not having campaign.

But when you look at the broader scope, Battlefield is gonna have to compete with Warzone, Halo Infinite, Fortnite, PUBG, Rainbow Six Siege etc, all big games that have free multiplayer.

How is it ever gonna compete with that? It has to be absolutely stellar to even make a dent.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 43d ago
Abear2144d ago

As someone who ditched COD a while ago I’m beyond ready for this, but no campaign…really? Should be safe to expect rock solid multiplayer, but last few efforts from Dice have stumbled out the gate bad. I’ll likely wait for deep discount. I hate all multiplayer shooters now and I used to love them all…what happened to the genre? Maybe I’m just old but holy shit the season passes and micro transactions have sucked all the fun out for me and there’s no end in sight.

northpaws44d ago

I miss the day when I can just grind to unlock stuff, not pay for every little extra thing.

JEECE44d ago

I miss the days before COD4 ruined shooters when guns weren't artificially locked away behind a "progression system," there were just balanced classes, and you played because the game was good, not to grind.

44d ago Replies(2)
quenomamen43d ago

With all the BS gadgets that will require another 6 months of patching just to balance the game not to mention the weapons I think calling the the MP Rock Solid at this point is an over statement.

BrockEmSockEm44d ago

DICE!!!! LEARN YOUR LESSON! Don't walk into the constant consumer disappointment like BF5.

annoyedgamer44d ago

Dice is just a skin for EA. Its EA that is behind this.

Juiceid44d ago

Yep, these mp only games can be shoved up the collective butts of the people who decided to make them.

ElCapitan00643d ago

As a mostly online gamer, I will take really well made MP only games all day every day.

Jin_Sakai44d ago

“Battlefield 2042's Battle Passes, No Campaign, And A $70 Price Tag Leaves A Bad Impression“

Fixed that title for you.