- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 32,853
Yes it is. It's just named differently.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Battlefield 2042
- Thread starter Blackstone
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 7,367
skip it then.....How many people skipped BF4? And for what? This is most certainly the sequel to BF4
Correct me if im wrong but it seems to fill in the gaps between BF4 and 2142?
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 53,974
Unless they're going the crowdfunding or "early access" route, games are made on a budget. Preordering doesn't help those games get finished. Preordering is mostly about preloading in this age of mostly digital sales, but I'm sure publishers like getting a head start on their ROI. Especially AAA games where the marketing budget can be just as much as the development budget was.
Zorachus
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 12,415
Wait BF2042 is BF6? When and why did they change the name last minute? Even Dice was calling it Battlefield 6 up until this time.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 32,853
It's called marketing. BF6 was a working title, not the actual one.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,098
Done and done. Don’t forget to cancel your preorders for Battlefield VI.
EA games were my only exception for preorders and that was due to the great game guarantee....
They have no play time limit and it is all automated.
where did you get it for $40?
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 32,853
I didn't yet. I was just putting it forth as a sarcastic example.
Real money will only buy cosmetics for specialists they add post launch in free DLC.
And the confusion about specialists replacing classes continues to rage on Reddit, but it's simple. The four traditional combat classes are still there, but they've added subclasses under the classic four Assault-Medic-Engineer-Recon, and to distinguish the subclasses they've been humanized them with names.
So instead of "Assault 1" and "Assault 2" it's "MacKay" and "Espinoza", etc.
Last edited:
Blade-Runner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 5,671
Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 26,274
U
Noshahr Canals comparison that map is perfect they tried making it bigger one time but it failed.
WOJust pre-ordered the Gold Edition on Origin!
Noshahr Canals comparison that map is perfect they tried making it bigger one time but it failed.
supastar1568
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 470
Day 1 buy for me. I'm not really going to read the reviews since most of them will probably dock it 1 point (out of 10) off the bat for not having a single-player mode. Guaranteed.
This is a Battlefield game, no single player needed in my opinion.
This is a Battlefield game, no single player needed in my opinion.
Same. I'm just waiting for a major studio to make a game like tarkov. eventually someone will do it cause it can give more adrenaline than BR.
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,848
Yeah that sucks.
"Specialists" is just their take on the hero shooter craze. If you want to see how it will play out, look up Modern Warfare or R6 Siege.
What you think you'll be getting:
What you'll actually see in game post release:
Cosmetics are a huge part of a game, and if they're paid you'll see outrageous crap because that is what sells. And outrageous crap = worse graphics.
I'd rather pay for another Premium Seasons pass with a bunch of map packs than see that crap in game if it gets them their money. Yes, even if it means the playerbase is a bit smaller. Wasn't a problem with BF4. I'd pay more for quality.
Maybe they'll limit it to sensible cosmetics, but I am doubtful. Not many people will fork over money for a different vest design or different spray paint pattern.
What I wish they would do is leave the crazy cosmetics out of the paid game and if there is going to be a free BR next year, put all the crazy stuff in that. people are more likely to spend money on a free game anyway. the idea of BR makes no sense so who cares but US vs Russia crazy cosmetics don't fit in. they could be making a ton of money if they had a free BR, warzone has made over 2 billion. use the money they make off skins and battle passes for future content for both games.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,293
The saddest thing is that that graphic shows that BF 1942 had the largest map (at least out of the ones listed) until this new game.
That paid Year 1 Pass only grants unlockable cosmetics for the "4 new specialists". It's not a paywall to additional specialists. Everything I've read so far indicates everyone will have access to the same maps, modes, specialists, and weapons - both at launch and any added in future. Which makes sense because if they paywalled them, the complaining would never end and the bad PR would write itself.
FWIW I always felt like I got my money's worth with Premium Pass for BF3 and BF4, though it was bad that the paywalled maps fragmented playerbase. But they're not even going that far this time around, and are making anything non-cosmetic open to all.
Last edited:
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,848
You can always do cosmetics that are realistic and theme fitting. The problem is they don't standout as much so I doubt people will spend money on them. People like the flashy gimmicks and that is what sells. I expect EA to cater to them. And AAA game companies are chasing after every last cent.
As an example, you can do many different AK-74 configurations. You can go for a more classic Soviet look:
Or some of the more modern setups the special forces use:
Problem is, for the average gamer, a pink gun and an neon alien character with underwear on its head will be more appealing. Especially the Twitch/Twitter crowd which is the rage in multiplayer games it seems. All three images above look the same to the typical gamer. If they had to go the cosmetic route, I wish they'd keep it sensible for a military themed game. Not everything needs to be Fortnite.
I don't why people care about anything besides weapon skins in a fps game. in warzone, everyone uses dark skins so they are harder to see.
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,848
In Modern Warfare most use bright skins, I only played Warzone once. As to why... I don't know. They like to show off? Remember Activision was pushing the unlocking aspect really hard a few games back. They wanted people to see everyone else's unlocks as research showed that would translate into a "keeping up with the Jones effect". EA likely has the same idea. Anything that can sell, they will implement.
I'd like to be wrong but that is how I see it. I don't trust EA much. They overstepped a line with Battlefront 2 but I don't see them giving up paid microtransactions completely. They're just moving it to "harmless cosmetics" and "specialists". Which is only a minor step up from "surprise mechanics".
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 32,853
That was already debunked above. It's cosmetics for specialists, not actual specialists themselves.
Blade-Runner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 5,671
Considering this is EA we are talking about, I will believe it when I see it.
Nothing has been debunked, despite looking I have not found any official explanation from EA about the way these battle passes are going to work....just superficial news bites from the usual corporate mouth pieces. If EA wanted to be transparent about this they could easily include a black and white explanation on the official website for the game, the fact that they haven't gives them plausible deniability after the bulk of pre-orders have been made.
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,848
As I mentioned, "specialists" is just their take on the hero shooter aspect that has become popular due to things like Overwatch, R6 Siege and Fortnite. It will be cosmetic, but check my post above showing off what they look like in Modern Warfare. I expect EA to go this route. Some people don't care about graphics, but I do. If it was a free to play game I'd understand. But this is a AAA game that will be $60.
Strange bird
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2021
- Messages
- 1,576
All already seen from previous sequels, they made some modern mix.
Is it known what the minimum network requirements are? 128 players act like chaos on servers, I have a 4mbit copper connection, so far I've been able to play somehow, I don't know what this will look like with 128.
I really don't like the game, they better have made bad company 3 with new graphics.
It seems most similar to battlefield 4 with elements from all previous series.
The real news is 128 players and how it will look on the computer from the technological and strategic side.
Is it known what the minimum network requirements are? 128 players act like chaos on servers, I have a 4mbit copper connection, so far I've been able to play somehow, I don't know what this will look like with 128.
I really don't like the game, they better have made bad company 3 with new graphics.
It seems most similar to battlefield 4 with elements from all previous series.
The real news is 128 players and how it will look on the computer from the technological and strategic side.
Last edited:
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,848
I feel 128 players will be too much, even with the map sizes they're showing. And if the map can still support 64 player teams I wonder if it will even play well. The BF maps have been fairly large but still small enough so that you can realistically traverse and fight across the entire map over the course of a game. Wonder if this will just result in people playing a game in half the map in a typical game.
But they need to allow servers to adjust the size. I didn't like 64 player servers in BF4. 48 and I think 58 player servers were common. They also had control over vehicle spawn times. So if the map had a higher player count some servers would respawn vehicles more quickly to get people back into the action quicker and prevent players from waiting for a tank.
And please, don't do that limited ammo crap of BF5.
But they need to allow servers to adjust the size. I didn't like 64 player servers in BF4. 48 and I think 58 player servers were common. They also had control over vehicle spawn times. So if the map had a higher player count some servers would respawn vehicles more quickly to get people back into the action quicker and prevent players from waiting for a tank.
And please, don't do that limited ammo crap of BF5.
Porter_
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 8,467
Agreed, in BF4 I tended to have the most fun in ~48 player servers.
fine with me if we only see half the map in a round, since we're getting less maps than ever before. squad has 100 player servers, and huge maps. I've played some maps multiple times and still manage to fight in parts I've never fought in.
German Muscle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 7,264
Still undecided on if im gonna buy this. I wanted a modern BF game and skipped BF1 and BFV. I was pretty excited until i saw the R6 Seige template being used with operators and the season pass to unlock operators being used. That is a big negative imo. Guess ill have wait and see more footage to see if its a dealbreaker or not.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 9,163
They have already stated that the main game mode will limit the maps to smaller sections and each round will move to another section of the map. Probably a lot like how Rush mode worked in Bad Company 2. But this sounds like it will be something more akin to Conquest---but with that push/pull aspect from rounds/map sections, in Rush mode.
That said, they will probably try a conquest mode, which will have the entire map open to 128 players. But I could easily see that not being very focused. It could still be fun in some sense. But it would probably drastically limit anyone's ability to get a few friends together on some mics, exercise some focus, and actually make a big difference.
I'm another person whom has preferred 48 player servers----since BF2. The maps and amount of flags, were better balanced for it.
I played BC2 almost exclusively on PS3, because the maps were balanced for 24 players (the max on PS3). 32 players on PC was, in my opinion, awful. There were very few 24 player servers ever running, during the times I would try to play the PC version.
I agree on 48 feeling best back then, but in recalling why, it was mostly because too many people were spawn camping vehicles / aircraft when it was 32v32 and it was hard to get one. That was the main headache. That and a lot of the maps were designed around console limitations, were small, and 64p felt a bit claustrophobic on them. I'm probably forgetting some of the other stuff.
But it seems they've overhauled vehicle spawns, and it's some sort of summon or on-call system in 2042 which we don't have enough info on yet. Have to evaluate first before deciding if 128p is good/bad, because the old pain points of 64p may no longer apply. If done right, there's a sense of scale with 128p on huge maps that can be really compelling (I'm thinking of PlanetSide 2).
Last edited:
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,848
Sounds like what they had in BF5. The "campaign" thing. I don't like that because I tend to play a few rounds and often join mid match obviously. Problem is actual playable area is limited yet you have 128 players, that might become very congested. RO2/RS and BF5 did the campaign system where each map was determined by who won what in the previous round. Which sounds great if you're playing on one server for 8+ hours. I didn't like those modes. Really just want a regular Conquest Large that I can jump, grab a vehicle and play.
On one of the streams they said that the largest map is bigger than the pubg/apex/fortnite BR maps, clocking in at about 6km^2. That's something like twice the size of the Fortnite map. If anything, even with 120 players you might end up running around for minutes at a time without seeing another player.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 32,853
I care too. I hope they don't sell anything that doesn't fit with the military theme.
Flogger23m
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 16,848
I think it is almost a given that they will. I simply don't trust EA enough, or even DICE.
I bought into the marketing that CoD Modern Warfare was supposed to have an authentic feel. Which it does, compared to other CoD games. Running up to the release I never recall they clearly stating that there would be crazy, out of theme cosmetics in the game. But then two weeks after release the out of theme cosmetics started popping up online. Shortly after, everyone uses them and still do. That is the problem with "games as a service" business models.