EA sets ambitious 100 million player goal for Battlefield 6 as development costs reach $400 million

[DragonSlayer101]

Forward-looking: EA is betting big on the future of one of its most iconic franchises. The Battlefield franchise has sold 88 million copies since the release of the first title in 2002, but EA apparently believes the next installment in the popular series will outperform all of its predecessors. A new report reveals that EA is aiming for an unprecedented 100 million players with its upcoming release, unofficially known as Battlefield 6 – a bold target that could redefine the series, or expose the limits of its reach.

Speaking to Ars Technica, several EA developers who have worked on the project expressed concerns that the company is setting an unrealistic goal by targeting 100 million players, a figure significantly higher than what any previous title in the franchise has achieved.

For instance, Battlefield 2042 attracted around 22 million players, while the most successful entry in the series, Battlefield 1, peaked at "maybe 30 million" players, according to one of the sources.

It is worth noting, however, that most previous titles were premium releases, while Battlefield 6 is expected to include a free-to-play mode, which could help attract a much larger audience.

To help the game reach its target, EA is collaborating with multiple studios, assigning different aspects of development to separate teams in order to build a more expansive experience that appeals to a wider range of players.

Rumors suggest the game will include a free-to-play battle royale mode, a full single-player campaign, a community-driven mode, and several paid online components.

Sources also claimed that Battlefield 6's budget has ballooned to more than $400 million, putting it in the same league as major Hollywood blockbusters such as Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. All three are among the most expensive films produced in the twenty-first century.

Meanwhile, a new leak has seemingly given us our first glimpse at the battle royale mode in Battlefield 6, showcasing a map set in California. The video, which was posted on X but has since been disabled for copyright infringement, showed a fleet of CH-47 Chinhook helicopters dropping combatants into a zone surrounded by a "destructive ring made of a compound called NXC."

EA has confirmed that Battlefield 6 will launch in March 2026, five years after the disastrous release of Battlefield 2042. While most gamers and reviewers were unimpressed by the last game, the company is certainly hoping the upcoming release will do significantly better and help justify its massive investment.

Permalink to story:

EA sets ambitious 100 million player goal for Battlefield 6 as development costs reach $400 million

 

[NumberNine]

I stopped giving EA my money over a decade ago, when they stopped working to earn it.

 

[winjer]

They will be lucky to have 1/10 of that.

 

[MSIGamer]

Oh boy

 

[Eldrach]

Battlefield is cool - but it is also chaos. The trend is that people tend to lean towards cleaner games with a thight skill focus. I love Battlefield as a concept because as a mediocre FPS player I still get to wreak some havoc with all the chaos in Battlefield..but the masses, I dunno - the audience for Battlefield is older than the kids that make up most of the FPS genre today

 

[Kirby1]

I love battlefield games overall but the series has moved in the wrong direction. Instead of trying to copy COD but with vehicles, they should have really fleshed out the large scale aspects more. I would have loved to have seen the franchise focus on bigger maps with more tanks and aircrafts for players to fight each other with rather than just maintaining some vehicle mechanics while focusing on COD crap. The fact that 2042 doubled the payer count without doubling the number of vehicles on maps is absurd.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

100 million. ROFLMAO. Yeah right, EA. It's fascinating to em watching these companies learn all the wrong lessons from previous series entries. Battlefield has never sold CoD numbers, and CoD has never hit anywhere close to 100 million players. There are a grand total of TWO games that have sold over 100 million copies, Minecraft (350 million, jesus) and GTA V (215 millon, jesus deux). Incidentally, these games were both published by companies crying that they need to raise game prices because of "muh inflation", in case you needed more reasons to hate publishers.

The best selling battlefield game has been BF1, which had quite a long lifespan and hit 25 million copies, IMO, because of the novelty of the WW1 setting. BF2042 was a wet fart of Dice removing features to "protect" players with sensitive tushies and utterly failing to produce a functional game.

There is no chance in hell of this game selling 100 million copies. These companies NEED to get their spending under control. A FPS game has no right costing $400 million to make.

Battlefield is cool - but it is also chaos. The trend is that people tend to lean towards cleaner games with a thight skill focus. I love Battlefield as a concept because as a mediocre FPS player I still get to wreak some havoc with all the chaos in Battlefield..but the masses, I dunno - the audience for Battlefield is older than the kids that make up most of the FPS genre today

I love battlefield games overall but the series has moved in the wrong direction. Instead of trying to copy COD but with vehicles, they should have really fleshed out the large scale aspects more. I would have loved to have seen the franchise focus on bigger maps with more tanks and aircrafts for players to fight each other with rather than just maintaining some vehicle mechanics while focusing on COD crap. The fact that 2042 doubled the payer count without doubling the number of vehicles of maps is obsurd.

In addition to large scale maps, they need to go back to interactivity. Battlefield bad company 2 had perhaps the best multiplayer maps ever, fully destructible buildings ece. BF4 with its terrain hanging events was also really cool.

They should also aim for more controlled chaos. Maps with hot sections where the action is, and cooler sections where teams can regroup. And knock off the competitive balancing, all the greatest multiplayer hits had unbalanced weapons that were FUN to use.

Really just make BC2 again, with the scale of 2042 maps. And lots of destructible buildings and interactive world items.

 

[RudyBob]

Never played it. Online gaming much beyond Doom or Duke was beyond my reaction time

 

[Jarenien]

It's funny, $400 million and the game isn't even worth it if you paid me $60 to play it let alone buy this pile of piss... lmao

 

[king cleanass]

2042 was the first BF I skipped entirely. It was clear they wanted some kind of shitty hero shooter and changed course in development to try and squeeze a battlefield game out of it.

Does anyone left at DICE even know how to make a good battlefield game anymore?

 

[amghwk]

Sigh...another game dependent on online gameplay... suckers will be paying full price, and once the player counts dwindle, and the impending server closure following that, and there's nothing left. At least, single player games, you can play it at another date when you feel like going back to it. Even if paying after a sale, when the server goes off, so does the game. The price we pay for taking away IPX network gaming and moving to online-only deveoper's server based gaming.

Reiterating the case of Diablo 2 original version, you don't need to depend on Battle.net server. You can host your own TCP/IP game or even local IPX LAN game. Gone are the days.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

2042 was the first BF I skipped entirely. It was clear they wanted some kind of shitty hero shooter and changed course in development to try and squeeze a battlefield game out of it.

Does anyone left at DICE even know how to make a good battlefield game anymore?

No, because the vast majority of the talent that built DICE has long since left the company. Like most of these legacy developers; bioware, bungie, infinity ward, ece; they are all Homers, bereft of the talent that earned their prestige.

 

[Axeia]

$400 million must equal success right? Not like there has been a failure that big before

 

[techstrike]

What a game, so many hours of playing the old versions.of BF... never liked COD btw.

 

[3volv3d]

Battlefield BC2 was the nuts. The game has nothing to offer since then.. remaster it. 8k

 

[yRaz]

100 million. ROFLMAO. Yeah right, EA. It's fascinating to em watching these companies learn all the wrong lessons from previous series entries. Battlefield has never sold CoD numbers, and CoD has never hit anywhere close to 100 million players. There are a grand total of TWO games that have sold over 100 million copies, Minecraft (350 million, jesus) and GTA V (215 millon, jesus deux). Incidentally, these games were both published by companies crying that they need to raise game prices because of "muh inflation", in case you needed more reasons to hate publishers.

The best selling battlefield game has been BF1, which had quite a long lifespan and hit 25 million copies, IMO, because of the novelty of the WW1 setting. BF2042 was a wet fart of Dice removing features to "protect" players with sensitive tushies and utterly failing to produce a functional game.

There is no chance in hell of this game selling 100 million copies. These companies NEED to get their spending under control. A FPS game has no right costing $400 million to make.



In addition to large scale maps, they need to go back to interactivity. Battlefield bad company 2 had perhaps the best multiplayer maps ever, fully destructible buildings ece. BF4 with its terrain hanging events was also really cool.

They should also aim for more controlled chaos. Maps with hot sections where the action is, and cooler sections where teams can regroup. And knock off the competitive balancing, all the greatest multiplayer hits had unbalanced weapons that were FUN to use.

Really just make BC2 again, with the scale of 2042 maps. And lots of destructible buildings and interactive world items.

BC2 was amazing, I miss that game.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Battlefield BC2 was the nuts. The game has nothing to offer since then.. remaster it. 8k

BC2 was amazing, I miss that game.

BFBC2 was peak Battlefield, I'll never forget the fun of bringing a house down on camping snipers heads via running a tank through it, or the jungle map where the whole team was high level snipers, and completely missed me driving the long way around the map in a jeep, only to knife all 8 of them in the back before hiding, waiting for them to respawn, then doing it AGAIN, winning the match. An oh, the shenanigans on that narrow frozen ice town map.......

Between BFBC2 and BF1943, they really had some magic going on, then blew it trying to go bigger and more CoD like with higher speed gameplay.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Sigh...another game dependent on online gameplay... suckers will be paying full price, and once the player counts dwindle, and the impending server closure following that, and there's nothing left. At least, single player games, you can play it at another date when you feel like going back to it. Even if paying after a sale, when the server goes off, so does the game. The price we pay for taking away IPX network gaming and moving to online-only deveoper's server based gaming.

Reiterating the case of Diablo 2 original version, you don't need to depend on Battle.net server. You can host your own TCP/IP game or even local IPX LAN game. Gone are the days.

I have no idea what you just said.

 

[toooooot]

The one thing about 2042 that I liked was offline mode with bots. It is much easier to learn vehicles without stress and being killed countless times.
I hope they keep it.

 

[hahahanoobs]

$400 million must equal success right? Not like there has been a failure that big before

Weak.
Many games with that budget did well, but nothing is guaranteed especially when it's based solely on cost. That's just silly and lazy thinking.

 

[hahahanoobs]

"...but EA apparently believes the next installment in the popular series will outperform all of its predecessors."

We're against confidence now? They should say it's gonna be meh? Are we against anything with a history doing well? Crazy click world we live in.

 

[Liranan]

They will fail utterly and lose a lot of money on this. One of the most successful online games of the past few years is Helldivers because it's not an FPS game and people feel invested in the very loose story. The team do their best to fix bugs and there's constant development and the battlefield isn't static.

 

[Porkous]

Battlefield fans should try Delta Force warfare. For me the mobile version is pretty impressive in its large-scale chaotic battles.

I'm pretty proud I can have a battlefield game right in my pocket. That shows how far technology has gone. I mean, nothing limited this Devs ambition to bring such a large scale game on mere pocket devices.

The graphics are good, the battle is pretty well balanced at this stage, the maps are huge.

Many gamers wonder why EA hasn't brought BF games to mobiles so far.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

"...but EA apparently believes the next installment in the popular series will outperform all of its predecessors."

We're against confidence now? They should say it's gonna be meh? Are we against anything with a history doing well? Crazy click world we live in.

-Against undeserved confidence, yes.

If a man is training hard to fight a tiger with his bare hands, talking smack, you wouldn't be "against confidence" for telling him his *** is going to get eaten alive.

EA wants to say "This is going to be the best and most successful battlefield yet!" Ok.

EA says "We're going to hit 100 million players!" No, you're not going to do that with the Battlefield franchise, don't kill DICE because of your ridiculous expectations.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Weak.
Many games with that budget did well, but nothing is guaranteed especially when it's based solely on cost. That's just silly and lazy thinking.

"Many"?

Bruh games that cost this much are incredibly rare. Most games cost nowhere near $400 million to make. That's why it's failure was such a big deal.

Battlefield fans should try Delta Force warfare. For me the mobile version is pretty impressive in its large-scale chaotic battles.

I'm pretty proud I can have a battlefield game right in my pocket. That shows how far technology has gone. I mean, nothing limited this Devs ambition to bring such a large scale game on mere pocket devices.

The graphics are good, the battle is pretty well balanced at this stage, the maps are huge.

Many gamers wonder why EA hasn't brought BF games to mobiles so far.

Many more wonder why people think a mobile FPS is competition for a PC/console title.

"...but EA apparently believes the next installment in the popular series will outperform all of its predecessors."

We're against confidence now? They should say it's gonna be meh? Are we against anything with a history doing well? Crazy click world we live in.

There's a huge difference between "confidence" and "delusion". EA is squarely on the wrong side of that isle.

They REALLY think this next title is going to 4x the sales of the best selling game in the franchise? After all the shenanigans EA has been pulling, in this current market environment?