The next Battlefield game goes back to basics: After 2042 snafu, new official details are revealed

[Daniel Sims]

Rumor mill: EA's Battlefield franchise has spent three years recovering from the disastrous launch of Battlefield 2042. As Respawn Entertainment confirms the first official details on the next main title – likely arriving in 2025 – an established tipster has shared information on its gameplay and EA's plans for other upcoming Battlefield products.

After the last few entries visited historical and near-future time periods, the next Battlefield game will return to a modern-day setting, aiming to recapture the essence of Battlefield 3 and 4. The follow-up recently entered full production, as EA hopes to move past the generally panned Battlefield 2042.

Vince Zampella, head of Respawn Entertainment and EA Studios general manager, confirmed to IGN that the game will reverse some of 2042's design decisions and attempt to recapture the "core" of the franchise. He described the era of Battlefield 3, released in 2011, and Battlefield 4 (2014), as the series' peak.

Like those games, the next entry will allow a maximum of 64 players per match and return to the old class system. This runs counter to 2042's maximum of 128 players, which some players considered unfocused, and its "specialist" characters which drew negative comparisons to hero shooters. Although Battlefield 2042 improved with time, it was initially one of Steam's worst-reviewed games ever.

EA revealed an official piece of concept art for the next Battlefield, depicting a modern-looking city on fire with helicopters and battleships visible in the distance. The company wouldn't confirm the location pictured, but analysis indicates that it is Gibraltar.

Zampella's comments confirm information that Insider Gaming leaked in February. The outlet's sources recently claimed that the new game will launch with at least 45 weapons – double the initial amount in 2042 – and roughly 10 maps. EA might also dramatically overhaul the destruction system to resemble Rainbow Six Siege. A globetrotting story campaign involving NATO is also planned.

Furthermore, Ripple Effect, one of the studios Zampella confirmed to be working on Battlefield, is reportedly developing a separate title to offer a "new experience" as part of the franchise's "connected universe." This project could be a free-to-play battle royale, aiming to replicate Call of Duty's success with Warzone.

Zampella also confirmed that a community testing initiative for the next Battlefield game, possibly an open beta, will begin next year.

Permalink to story:

The next Battlefield game goes back to basics: After 2042 snafu, new official details are revealed

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Nobody should trust them. Remember, no pre orders, no day 1 purchase, wait at least a month to make sure they dont slip in monetization or game breaking systems.

 

[Homerlovesbeer]

Nobody should trust them. Remember, no pre orders, no day 1 purchase, wait at least a month to make sure they dont slip in monetization or game breaking systems.

100% agree with you

 

[wiak]

Wait there was a battlefield 2042?!

 

[Felusy]

They will get massive competition from Delta Force this time.

Next BF needs to be a hit, or the franchise will be done I think.

 

[toooooot]

They will get massive competition from Delta Force this time.

Next BF needs to be a hit, or the franchise will be done I think.

Ok, totally disagree about delta force.
I watched gameplay. I watched it for over 2 hours.
And entire time I had one thought, when will EA demand
to close this game for being a poorer (or superior) clone of bf2042.
Maps, UI, some smaller aspects, they remind bf. Not any bf; 2042.
Now, I watched infantry maps, and gameplay seems more fun.
It seems to be better balances for epic clashes of entire teams.

But the game nonetheless looks very closely like the last bf.

 

[toooooot]

Say what you like, there are a lot of people who want REAL battlefield. Battlefield 3,4. or 1.
They failed with 5 and 2042, but if Zampela can deliver, they will still make a lot of sales.
There is something cod will never give to a bf fan.

 

[whateversa]

I am hoping it will be bf 2143. BF2142 was by far the best battlefield in my opinion. Titan mode was fantastic.

 

[yRaz]

I want 2142 back

 

[veLa]

It’s definitely about time. There hasn’t been a new Battlefield game since Battlefield V launched in November 2018 to great acclaim. I guess they wanted an extra long development cycle after that hit revisited WW2.

 

[Felusy]

Ok, totally disagree about delta force.
I watched gameplay. I watched it for over 2 hours.
And entire time I had one thought, when will EA demand
to close this game for being a poorer (or superior) clone of bf2042.
Maps, UI, some smaller aspects, they remind bf. Not any bf; 2042.
Now, I watched infantry maps, and gameplay seems more fun.
It seems to be better balances for epic clashes of entire teams.

But the game nonetheless looks very closely like the last bf.

Tons of youtubers are praising it. Gameplay looks solid. BF is in for hard compeition this time.

 

[Felusy]

It’s definitely about time. There hasn’t been a new Battlefield game since Battlefield V launched in November 2018 to great acclaim. I guess they wanted an extra long development cycle after that hit revisited WW2.

BF5 was just as terrible really. Last decent BF was BF1.

BF3 and 4 was peak BF.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

BF5 was just as terrible really. Last decent BF was BF1.

BF3 and 4 was peak BF.

Peak BF was BFBC2. 3 and 4 were downgrades with their less destructible environments and CODifying the gameplay.

 

[R00sT3R]

I liked BF2042 when I tried it, after about a years worth of patches.

Enjoyed it far more than BF1 & BF5.

 

[veLa]

BF5 was just as terrible really. Last decent BF was BF1.

BF3 and 4 was peak BF.

Well, I’m glad you got the joke or something.

 

[Fulvy]

Disappointed with EA, played the early BF games and enjoyed them all, but went downhill after BF V. BF3 and BF4 were very good, modern looking and played well.

All they have to do is release a remastered edition of BF4 and it will sell like hotcakes. I also enjoyed BF2 and there were great maps and game elements in that too (anyone else remember the fun had with the grappling hook?).

 

[MakeMSGreatAgain]

Peak BF was BFBC2. 3 and 4 were downgrades with their less destructible environments and CODifying the gameplay.

The destruction was indeed much better in BC2... but it didn't have many large maps. A lot of BF players appreciate the larger maps, though medium and small maps are fun for those who also like CoD it seems. I prefer the larger maps generally.

That said the good gameplay was still there in 3 and 4, so I don't see it as a big downgrade, only in the environment destruction.

 

[Rivieg]

I may be in the minority here, as it pertains to player count. Other games have no issues running 128 players or more, so EA should be able to accomplish that. Returning to 64 players, IMO is a step back. BF2042 maps were just poorly designed. I agree with many of the comments here: BF3 and BF4 for me were the best. I have played the BF series since the original, BF 1942, so if EA can get the next one right: proper weapon mechanics, stop nerfing and perhaps start buffing the counter, well-rounded map design, etc. they should be able to recover from the last few blunders.

 

[MakeMSGreatAgain]

I may be in the minority here, as it pertains to player count. Other games have no issues running 128 players or more, so EA should be able to accomplish that. Returning to 64 players, IMO is a step back. BF2042 maps were just poorly designed. I agree with many of the comments here: BF3 and BF4 for me were the best. I have played the BF series since the original, BF 1942, so if EA can get the next one right: proper weapon mechanics, stop nerfing and perhaps start buffing the counter, well-rounded map design, etc. they should be able to recover from the last few blunders.

I don't think it was a question of the game and servers being able to handle it, it was more of it wasn't fun for a lot of players. I didn't actually even buy the game but I've read from players saying that it just wasn't fun for whatever reasons. I think it had something to do with the sizing of the maps for 128 players and where players were typically located.

I have no problem if they want to leave the option for 128 in there for those who actually enjoy it, but I myself find 64 players quite comfortable in BF2, 3 and 4.

 

[MakeMSGreatAgain]

I really want to see a lot if not all the old maps from BF3 and 4 in this new game... along with some new ones. Would also be cool to have AI generated maps with a "theme", like color palette, terrain, and objects in the map - but randomize their placements each round. If people can't learn the maps, it is truly a new experience every time.

Also, for me... hardcore mode is a MUST. I cannot stand crosshairs on my screen, and I hate auto-regen health and that it takes so many bullets to kill an enemy player. I also like being taken out quicker... just feels more realistic to me without getting crazy realistic like ARMA. I always felt BF hardcore kind of felt like ARMA but with arcade simplicity with regards to controls and movement - it wasn't jarring or difficult to use where ARMA was.

 

[emmzo]

They went full woke and then they tried to copy every successful shooter on the market. Great strategy and sure, they got new players, but lost their base completely. There are still more players now on private servers of BF3&4 than all other newer iterations. That`s why they probably got the point now. But it`s too late to get anyone excited. Cause then you add EA`s shady practices, the general trend of heavy monetization, cartoonish "diverse" characters and PG7.

 

[Fulvy]

I don't think it was a question of the game and servers being able to handle it, it was more of it wasn't fun for a lot of players. I didn't actually even buy the game but I've read from players saying that it just wasn't fun for whatever reasons. I think it had something to do with the sizing of the maps for 128 players and where players were typically located.

I have no problem if they want to leave the option for 128 in there for those who actually enjoy it, but I myself find 64 players quite comfortable in BF2, 3 and 4.

I'm probably from the oldest generation here and aside from not liking bf2042 in terms of graphics, playability etc. I simply hate all the woke pandering that goes on in recent games. I guess that's most games these days and spoils the immersion for me. My own opinion and accept others may want the all inclusive minorities and self identifying whatever the current flavour of the month is individuals, but I find it unnecessary for the enjoyment of a well thought out game that anyone can play.

 

[BigMeatyClackers]

New game engine or is it still frostbite?

 

[ZedRM]

@ElectronicArts
No one cares. Seriously!

 

[passingposeidon]

The last good BF game was the Battlefield 2 PC demo. One map, dedicated servers, aircraft carrier and urban combat, what more was needed? It was even free.