Battlefield 2042

pendragon1

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
28,423
One of my friends preordered Duke Nukem Forever in 2002-2003. Had a group of friends who preordered Final Fantasy VII in 1997.

In the days of more physical sales a preorder or presale was good because retailers didn't want to order more than they were going to sell. It was especially important with localized Japanese titles. I remember when I went out to buy a copy of Final Fantasy IX after it came out that it was really difficult to find at any of the large retail stores.
i get that, and we just covered all that and its not really the same thing. thats like putting a deposit down that the retailer has. current day preorders are helping devs raise money to finish games, well the longer ones are.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
9,367
When does the BF6 trailer come out? I’m looking forward to Battlefield 6 the true sequel to BF4.

I have no idea what this BF2042 thing is? But it’s not BF6.
 

primetime

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
6,939
When does the BF6 trailer come out? I’m looking forward to Battlefield 6 the true sequel to BF4.

I have no idea what this BF2042 thing is? But it’s not BF6.
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

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
25,847
i get that, and we just covered all that and its not really the same thing. thats like putting a deposit down that the retailer has. current day preorders are helping devs raise money to finish games, well the longer ones are.
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
9,367
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.
 

Blackstone

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
3,293

brennok

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
1,303
why?! youll just refunded it in a couples days anyways.


DO NOT preorder, they should have the money to finish the fucking game.
EA games were my only exception for preorders and that was due to the great game guarantee....
Refund requests can be made within 24 hours after you first launch the game

They have no play time limit and it is all automated.
 

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,376
Just pre-ordered for $40 origin key. You suckers wait and pay full price with your "no pre-orders!" cult.

P. S. I never had any issues with bf4 on launch, only read about them. I played a lot too.
where did you get it for $40?
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
11,646

Comparison of Battlefield 2042 Map Sizes to Past Games in the Series​

This is now a party!

sm.533249_HQx6okbvg3_bf2142.750.jpg
 
Last edited:

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
11,646
Yeah, but I'd say they will have more and more specialists that are part of the battle pass and real money as time goes on. just like how operators are in rainbow six siege.
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:

damstr

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
1,453
Curious to hear more about this highstakes game mode. I like EFT it just requires too much of my time so something casual to fill the gap would be awesome.

edit: game mode is Hazard Zone I believe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gabe3
like this

supastar1568

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
437
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.
 

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,376
Curious to hear more about this highstakes game mode. I like EFT it just requires too much of my time so something casual to fill the gap would be awesome.

edit: game mode is Hazard Zone I believe.
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

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622
So instead of "Assault 1" and "Assault 2" it's "MacKay" and "Espinoza", etc.

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:

Untitled.jpg


What you'll actually see in game post release:
Untitled2.jpg


Rampage.jpg

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.
 

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,376
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:

View attachment 365127

What you'll actually see in game post release:
View attachment 365128

View attachment 365138

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.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
11,646

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

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622
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.

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:

12aca11f7bcd5b74a933cec5cb9a23f4.jpg

Or some of the more modern setups the special forces use:

5f9a8a3c15e9f92eb26703c7.jpg

AK-74M-3.jpg

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.
 

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,376
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:

View attachment 365191

Or some of the more modern setups the special forces use:

View attachment 365192

View attachment 365193

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

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622
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.

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".
 

Blade-Runner

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,600
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.

Considering this is EA we are talking about, I will believe it when I see it.

That was already debunked above. It's cosmetics for specialists, not actual specialists themselves.

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

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622
That was already debunked above. It's cosmetics for specialists, not actual specialists themselves.

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.
 

pt1c4

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
68
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.
 
Last edited:

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622
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.
 

Porter_

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
8,288
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.
Agreed, in BF4 I tended to have the most fun in ~48 player servers.
 

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,376
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.
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
6,549
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.
 

chameleoneel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
4,373
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.
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.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
11,646
Agreed, in BF4 I tended to have the most fun in ~48 player servers.
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

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,622
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.

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.
 

Drexion

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
1,396
I feel 128 players will be too much
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.

1.jpeg
 
Top