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.
Yup and on top of that they charging $70
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.
DICE proved they can make single player game with engaging atmospheric story and setting take 2008 Mirror's Edge for example.
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.
@1nsomniac 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.
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.
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. @1nsomniac 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.
Can we just get a new bad company?!?!
RIP Battlefield. Each loves to kill its best franchises. Burnout is off, dead space titanfall now this?
@insomniac. 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.
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
£70 which I think is $95. That's EA for you.
It will be 30$ for black Friday a month later
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.
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.
I miss the day when I can just grind to unlock stuff, not pay for every little extra thing.
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.
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.
DICE!!!! LEARN YOUR LESSON! Don't walk into the constant consumer disappointment like BF5.
Dice is just a skin for EA. Its EA that is behind this.
Yep, these mp only games can be shoved up the collective butts of the people who decided to make them.
As a mostly online gamer, I will take really well made MP only games all day every day.
“Battlefield 2042's Battle Passes, No Campaign, And A $70 Price Tag Leaves A Bad Impression“ Fixed that title for you.
this fake outrage for the lack of the TRADITIONALLY lackluster bf campaign is hilarious. You want to be mad at the $10 increased pricetag? That's understandable. But, don't pretend that ANYONE buys a bf to play the campaign.
I bought BFBC1-2, BF3, and BF4 primarily for Campaign just like I do for COD. Everything else like multiplayer and zombie is secondary for me. If doesn't include campaign then is not worth paying full price for a multiplayer game only.
You are the minority. DICE makes a campaign that most don’t play instead of focusing on the MP which is the bread and butter of the series. Nobody talks about the bf3/4/1/5 campaigns because nobody really cared about them.
I only buy these for campaign. I'll dabble with mp every decade or so in a game but that's about it. I would like to see a single player only Battlefield.
@zum - they can't win. People whined and complained and put down Dice/previous BF games because of their campaigns but when they don't have one people 180 and complain about them not doing it. I personally would love them to have a SP campaign. I find it funny that there were endless comments about "bf campaigns suck, they shouldn't bother" and "no one buys bf for the campaign" etc for previous titles. But now it's a different story.
"Nobody talks about the bf3/4/1/5 campaigns because nobody really cared about them." That's because those campaigns were mediocre. Battlefield has the mechanics on which a fun campaign could be built, so it's fair to be disappointed that they didn't even try this time.
They haven’t made a good campaign in over a decade with 5 games in that time. I think they’ve had their chance to try and get it right. Plenty of sp games to play if that’s what you want.
I liked their previous campaigns, but at this point they should consentrate their resources making the best mp game they can. That's what matters for the game in the long run.
Disagree completely. BF’s campaign other than Bad Company 1&2 have been mediocre at best. Better to spend those resources making multiplayer (BF’s bread & butter) the best it can possibly be.
Beg to differ
Well he's not wrong, 42/BF2/2142's "campaigns" were just bot matches on MP maps, 3/4/Hardline were pretty mediocre and BF1/5 felt more like tech demo's with little chunks of dialogue to show off the game engines rather than engaging stories.
Well you got me there.. those were the best campaigns they had which is why I've waited a decade for a BC3.
My biggest complaint besides the lack of campaign is the lack of launch maps. There is 7. If this a multiplayer game and I get that most people play conquest and rush however some people the smaller modes like TDM being stuck with only 7 maps is crappy and those maps are just smaller maps from the other bigger modes. If they are focusing strictly on multiplayer and putting all their resources in that bucket then I think it should launch with 10-12 maps. I say this because: Battlefield 3 launched with 9 Battlefield 4 launched with 10 Battlefield Hardline launched with 9 Battlefield 1 launched with 9 Battlefield 5 launched with 8 All these game’s had campaigns and still launched with more maps than Battlefield 6 if there focus is on multiplayer I want quantity and quality
We know the maps are going to be significantly larger than in past games due to player count but not much past that, if each one is full of fun gimmicks and/or events with heavily detailed environments then the quantity personally don't bother me but that's a big if, hopefully they show all this off on the weekend gameplay reveal.
Yeah I agree. Although I was disappointed when they said there were only 7 maps. I'm hoping that the size and the amount of destruction and gameplay changes to the map game make them really unique each time you play... Obviously not forever but more-so than an Overwatch map.
Agree but these are much larger maps and take way more time to make than 10 bf4 maps. They could literally make 6 TDM or smaller game mode maps from 1 conquest map now.
Yeah I was just about to say the same, if the maps are as big as they're promising the they could make a few TDM style maps inside one of the bigger maps.
I believe they could’ve have made smaller maps done with some of the 64 player maps, not all but some maps had good points of interest that could be used for other modes. But they weren’t. All I know is I won’t hold my breath thinking they will make smaller maps out of the bigger maps since they have never done this. And I get the bigger player count adds in more detail for the maps and more “value”. But that is just an excuse. Especially when you think of the people who are on the older consoles, will their maps be slightly smaller since they have a lower player count? Or will they be getting the same size $70 maps current gen consoles are getting just emptier? DICE and EA have a lot of resources when they made the jump to 64 player matches nothing was sacrificed I throughly enjoyed BF4 on my PS4. so I don’t believe anything should be sacrificed going forward.
Battle passes are bad, but no campaign is great as long it wasn't something they just cut due to time and resources along the way. If it's been multiplayer focused from day 1 that's what the series should've done from the get go. If you are a fan of Battlefield, the campaign has never been the reason you play the series, and it has been nothing but a drain on time and resources since they started pushing it when it came to consoles.
More shovelware brought to you via EA. ENJOY!!!!!
Yea and this whole stupid next-gen price hike makes it all the more absurd. That’s why I’m voting with my Wallet and waiting for a Black Friday sale.
Remember how charging $70 was fine as long as it reduced pressure on Devs to push for DLC and passes?
I have no problem with no campaign but charging for $70 for what. Last time you charged pretty much the entire time was with campaign, so shouldn't it be at least $40-50?
Why shouldn't it be a full price game if they put the time and effort into it?
battlefield doesn't need a campaign. while I'm against battle passes and micro transactions, I'm all for battlefield going to it's roots and focusing on what it's all about - multiplayer. play something else if u want a military single player campaign.
Gonna sell like hotcakes, as a matter of fact most of you guys in here complaining are gonna buy it.🤣
Of course they are. They'll act like internet gamer warriors, and then still buy the thing. Remember the giant (I don't remember which CoD it was at this point) but CoD "don't buy the game" campaign that happened years ago, and then they found hundreds of those accounts playing the game, simultaneously?
Lol...sounds about right.
paying 70 dlls to just play a game of just mindlessly killing each other and respawning ? lol, still there will be people who will support this nonsense, but you ain't getting a dime from me that's for sure 😀
People pay full price for a game that lasts only 6 to maybe 10 hours? What fools!
One thing I'm annoyed with is the made up unlicensed weapons, i feel like they set the game in 2042 to justify having made up weapons and not having to pay manufacturers license fees. It just stinks like COD to me. Before anyone suggests that's it correct to do so because of the future setting, you have to remember guns like the MP5 launched in 1966, and are still being depicted in modern games.
I appreciate where people are coming from when they say it’s fine not to have a campaign, but I don’t agree when they say BF doesn’t need one. Literally one of the best, and for quite a lot of people, the best entry in the series BFBC2, has a solid campaign, one that fans have been yearning to continue. Clearly if done right it can be an important part. Sure BF3 and BF4 were run of the mill campaigns, but honestly BF4 imo has one of the best milshooter campaigns, and I can go on and on about the shanghai mission, and the use of sound as you are safe inside the car vs its leak in when danger creeps in, and so so many more interesting details. Lets list the major Battlefield games before this: Battlefield 1942 Battlefield Vietnam Battlefield 2 Battlefield 2 Modern Combat** Battlefield 2142 Battlefield Bad Company** Battlefield Bad Company 2** Battlefield 3** Battlefield 4** Battlefield Hardline** Battlefield 1** Battlefield V** Everything that has an asterisk next to them, had a campaign, that’s like 8/12 that have had campaigns so far, so it's not confusing to assume that there is demand for it, lots of players have played them. I don’t mind if this doesn’t have it as it’s the developers choice, but I would be lying if I said I wasn’t bummed. Honestly, war stories are one of the best things to happen in gaming, imagine something like that, piecemeal stories that talk about this really interesting world of non-patriots, guns for hires. I want to know what’s the world like here, what is the human cost to all this, what’s happening. MP looks amazing no doubt, but I don’t think saying that not having SP is 100% the best thing, because something good will only happen if they put effort into it. Look at Titanfall 2, 1 had barely a campaign. Ok enough ranting...
It left more than a sour taste in my mouth. I was hoping EA would at least bring the Battlefield franchise back, and treat it with respect. But, hell no. If there's anything I've learned about gaming in these freaking times is, don't get to excited for anything, because there's always someone, or something that will ruin the excitement.
This is them bringing back the BF series to it's roots and treating it with respect.
The price tag on next gen consoles is most definitely questionable. I hate EA's policy as much as the next guy but this time im not sure if EA is to blame for the extra 10$. The Battle Pass can be executed well or terribly. So far it has been confirmed that content unlocks (weapons, specialists) are available for everyone whether they've bought the season pass or not. Sadly there is misleading information about this in the article: "...will require players to fork over an additional $10 every season just to keep unlocking new content...". No you wont need to pay 10$ every season to unlock content, the paid part of the season pass only has cosmetics. Best would be if you could earn the cost of the season pass when you finish the pass (for example: Apex Legends). If they do it like this then it gets a pass from me. If you cant re-farm the price of the season pass and content would be locked behind it then it would be a different story. The campaign part is a sensitive topic. Cutting singleplayer campaign so they can put more resources into multiplayer is not necessarly a bad thing. The original Battlefield 1942 launched without any campaign, you could play with AI bots on the maps and that was it, and this feature will be back in Battlefield 2042, you can enjoy the game populated by AI bots. Battlefield 2 also launched without single player campaign (got an expansion later on). And all the big entries in the series after Battlefield 2 had campaigns. Were they amazing and must have though? That depends on what you like. Personally I think that Bad Company 1 and 2 were good, 3 was enjoyable, Battlefield 4 was below average, Hardline was okay, 1 wasn't really good, V also not good except for The Last Tiger segment which was super nice. The singleplayer portion of these games are around ~5 hours long on average with little replay value. Campaign was never the selling point of Battlefield games, multiplayer was always in the spotlight and it looks like they are focusing even more on it.
Steering clear of this abomination.
Day 1 purchase for me. As a long time BF fan, this news couldn't have made me any happier.
Hope it's everything you hoped it would be
I don’t see anyone complaining about COD BlackOps 4 doing the same thing not too long ago! There will be a mode where some type of story is involved for Battlefield 2042! An guess what it was the same thing for COD specOp mode! Hold your horses, gamers forget again smh 🤦♂️
I feel that the majority of the player base picks that game up for it's multiplayer mode. From a business perspective it makes more sence with the fierce competition for great shooters to focus your financials and development resources on a the multiplayer experience. I loved the single player but at the end I would play more multiplayer than anything. Though it will be missed we must all adapt to the changing times. Online play is where the majority of the money is with the exception of some AAA studios IP. Now the real problem here is that if this game docent out due the likes of quality above Warzone and others and this comes out with tons of bugs like Bf4 did, this Ip might never again regain a mass following again. So I hope they get it right cause all eyes will be on the multiplayer given that they dedicated their resources to online only. I use to be addicted to BF4 and now only play Overwatch and other AAA exclusives
After the BF5 fiasco, nobody should be preordering this by default. It being $70 doesn't help either.
Personally I don't care for the campaign in either COD or Battlefield so it doesn't bother me in the slightest that they won't be having one. The campaign in the Bad Company games was great but every other one is just generic military missions.
Don’t get why everyone is so upset over no campaign and the price battlefield has always been know for multiplayer, hell older battlefields were only multiplayer why suddenly people are crying about no campaign you’re going to play it once and then play multiplayer only afterwards only just like everyone does with call of duty
Because they are either naive children, or they just like complain on the internet. I've played every BF game in the franchise, minus hardline, and I never once touched any of the campaigns. Yet, I have spent hundreds of hours on each game, along with the crew I have been playing BF with for over 15 years. They are all also very happy that Dice isn't going to waste time and resources on a campaign.
That $70 will drop to $40 in a month. Then $20 in three months. It's typical EA strategy milking the fans.
Standard Edition = $70 _____Battlefield™ 2042 _____Pre-order Pack Gold Edition = $100 _____Battlefield™ 2042 _____Pre-order Pack _____Early Access to Game Launch _____Year 1 Pass _____Cross-Gen Bundle Ultimate Edition = $120 _____Battlefield™ 2042 _____Pre-order Pack _____Early Access to Game Launch _____Year 1 Pass _____Cross-Gen Bundle _____Midnight Ultimate Bundle _____Official Digital Artbook _____Exclusive Digital Soundtrack Not gonna support EA's greedy thirst