Battlefield 2042 |OT| Back to the Future Part I

[Will The Thrill]

So i finally reinstalled the game after quitting in Jan when the game randomly had a new bug for me with my controller (on PC) where my aim just randomly either instantly shoots up at the sky or at my feet/ground. Heard some good stuff about the 4.0 patch and while they finally fixed it so I don't have to unplug my keyboard to get the game to recognize my controller on bootup, the aiming bug I had is STILL there. I'm using a different controller than in Jan and I even reset to defaults and nothing works (Even turned off my keyboard and mouse).

It legitmately continues to feel like this game does not want me to play it lol...... I hate to shit on it like this but I'm at a loss. Would anyone here know how to fix this?

 

[Kotze282]

They could fix so much of the issues by just making servers persistent. No waiting for players, no joining matches that are half done. Just join a full server and stay there.

It boggles my mind the decisions they make. Like I would genuinely like to just speak to the people who thought this, or other obviously bad design decisions, were a good idea or what the reasoning for them is. Because in my head there literally isn't any reason other than it would be what people want so we can't do it.

 

[PeskyToaster]

They could fix so much of the issues by just making servers persistent. No waiting for players, no joining matches that are half done. Just join a full server and stay there.

It boggles my mind the decisions they make. Like I would genuinely like to just speak to the people who thought this, or other obviously bad design decisions, were a good idea or what the reasoning for them is. Because in my head there literally isn't any reason other than it would be what people want so we can't do it.

Click to shrink...

Yeah it's very weird that they went in this direction and I find myself thinking this about a lot of the decisions. Like why do it differently than what was done before? What was the issue that was being resolved by this change? There has to be a reason, right?

 

[bitcloudrzr]

They could fix so much of the issues by just making servers persistent. No waiting for players, no joining matches that are half done. Just join a full server and stay there.

It boggles my mind the decisions they make. Like I would genuinely like to just speak to the people who thought this, or other obviously bad design decisions, were a good idea or what the reasoning for them is. Because in my head there literally isn't any reason other than it would be what people want so we can't do it.

Click to shrink...

Keeping in mind that custom Portal games have a server browser, so they did the work of adding it into the game just to make official servers work differently. We also do not have match history in stats due to this change apparently.

 

[Coolluck]

Were they going to do another update before Season 1?

 

[bitcloudrzr]

Were they going to do another update before Season 1?

Click to shrink...

Supposed to be one this month.

 

[Coolluck]

Supposed to be one this month.

Click to shrink...

Thanks. That's what I thought too. Worried the last delay pushed this one out to the end of the month or worse. The last patch was definitely an improvement but it's tough to get excited to play when the content is mostly the same still. That's not a problem for things like BF1 where there's enough to rotate through but the stuff here feels a little stale without the map changes.

 

[ev0]

They could fix so much of the issues by just making servers persistent. No waiting for players, no joining matches that are half done. Just join a full server and stay there.

It boggles my mind the decisions they make. Like I would genuinely like to just speak to the people who thought this, or other obviously bad design decisions, were a good idea or what the reasoning for them is. Because in my head there literally isn't any reason other than it would be what people want so we can't do it.

Click to shrink...

This is another one of those weird decisions that makes me believe the theory that this game was quickly transitioned from a Battle Royale to regular MP FPS. It makes sense for a BR to kick you out after its done.

The other is I finally played some Hazard Zone and boy do the maps feel like Battle Royale maps. All that empty space to run makes way more sense in that kind of game than shoving it into a competitive shooter

 

[bitcloudrzr]

This is another one of those weird decisions that makes me believe the theory that this game was quickly transitioned from a Battle Royale to regular MP FPS. It makes sense for a BR to kick you out after its done.

The other is I finally played some Hazard Zone and boy do the maps feel like Battle Royale maps. All that empty space to run makes way more sense in that kind of game than shoving it into a competitive shooter

Click to shrink...

A BR is not really the right comparison depending on how loosely you are using the term. Hazard Zone seems to have played a large part in why the game is the way it is though, especially when it comes to map design.

 

[Stoney Mason]

A BR is not really the right comparison depending on how loosely you are using the term. Hazard Zone seems to have played a large part in why the game is the way it is though, especially when it comes to map design.

Click to shrink...

I'm skeptical of this theory in the sense that despite rumours from people like Tom Henderson, I just kinda doubt Hazard Zone was ever envisioned as the main or defining mode of this game. They barely even advertised Hazard Zone before the game came out which wouldn't make sense if you were counting on it being a big deal.

Although I do agree the maps play way better in the context of Hazard Zone. Not saying that initial theory couldn't be right though. One day in the far future, I'm sure we will get the full story.

 

[ev0]

A BR is not really the right comparison depending on how loosely you are using the term. Hazard Zone seems to have played a large part in why the game is the way it is though, especially when it comes to map design.

Click to shrink...

I was being very loose heh. Just mainly the "feeling" reminded me of when I play Apex Legends with my friends. And how map and downtime and empty space is used

 

[bitcloudrzr]

I'm skeptical of this theory in the sense that despite rumours from people like Tom Henderson, I just kinda doubt Hazard Zone was ever envisioned as the main or defining mode of this game. They barely even advertised Hazard Zone before the game came out which wouldn't make sense if you were counting on it being a big deal.

Although I do agree the maps play way better in the context of Hazard Zone. Not saying that initial theory couldn't be right though. One day in the far future, I'm sure we will get the full story.

Click to shrink...

I only bring up the comparison due to the same effect Breakthrough had on maps for BF1, like how they had a linear aspect to the objectives and landmarks. Hazard Zone was supposed to be the third big mode for the game so it makes sense that it would happen again.

 

[bitcloudrzr]

 

[Will The Thrill]

My issues with the game are even worse than I thought. There is an inherent stutter whenever I ADS BUT only when I use my controller (I've been using a Series X/S and even tried a PS5 controller and both have the same issues). So not only does my aim randomly shoot up into the sky or at the ground but it's also just giving me random stutters for no reason. I was messing with every setting I could today and nothing fixed anything.

I cannot believe the game is worse for me to play than it was 4+ months ago...... I'm just gonna uninstall again. Maybe when S1 is out I'l actually be able to play the game I bought.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Click to shrink...

It's honestly hard to know what any of this means outside of sort of trying to get out some good PR. I think they can effect the dev process of a new game but outside of continuing to clean up 2042 this just sounds like something to try to appease investors. But I guess any news is better than no news even if its impossible to legitimately parse.

I hope the next patch nerfs the k30 somewhat. That gun is out of control.

 

[bitcloudrzr]

It's honestly hard to know what any of this means outside of sort of trying to get out some good PR. I think they can effect the dev process of a new game but outside of continuing to clean up 2042 this just sounds like something to try to appease investors. But I guess any news is better than no news even if its impossible to legitimately parse.

I hope the next patch nerfs the k30 somewhat. That gun is out of control.

Click to shrink...

Seems like that gun got a stealth nerf already last patch relating to damage or spread, it could do with a recoil increase though.

 

[darkwing]

Click to shrink...

wait, so wait for 4th Quarter 2022? lol

 

[Steelyuhas]

wait, so wait for 4th Quarter 2022? lol

Click to shrink...

That's the earnings call it was from, they just did earnings release for EA's fiscal Q422

For reference: https://www.ea.com/news/electronic-arts-reports-q4-fy22-financial-results

 

[Arklite]

Did they kill they crazy/creepy BF theme that used to play at the start of each round? I've started playing again and haven't heard it.

 

[AnotherNils]

Finished mastery on all SMGs, ARs, LMGs, and all specialists that aren't Dozer and I'm suddenly kind of adrift in the game.

my biggest problem is a got really used to using only the K30 and Sundance as those were my last two masteries and now I feel like I just sucks using anything else. It's kind of pathetic.

 

[Newlove]

Every time I'm on Twitter it's in anticipation of seeing this new Specialist rework blog post that they said would be in a couple of weeks, back on March 31st. I guess they changed their plans for original proposals.

 

[Pois0n]

Every time I'm on Twitter it's in anticipation of seeing this new Specialist rework blog post that they said would be in a couple of weeks, back on March 31st. I guess they changed their plans for original proposals.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, they're really taking their time with that, hopefully it is a sign that they're considering some larger changes to the specialists than most are anticipating. This game has crushed any optimism I might have though, so it probably just means that they're behind schedule or something.

 

[Strikerrr]

Yeah it's very weird that they went in this direction and I find myself thinking this about a lot of the decisions. Like why do it differently than what was done before? What was the issue that was being resolved by this change? There has to be a reason, right?

Click to shrink...

I believe they wanted it to be easier for players to join as a pre-assembled party/squad.
Previously it would be harder to get a party of 4 to join a server on the same team at the same time unless that team had a lot of quitters to make room for it which would usually mean that you're joining a team that is losing badly.

 

[Theorry]

Kinda crazy this game havent had a thing for 6 months. No new maps, no weapons, no new specialists.
When is this season 1 even planned? Its crazy.

I am so sad about BF in general now. Its my favorite online shooter. But atm there is just nothing. No content for 2042 and i enjoyed BFV. But i am playing that for 4 years now and dont do support on it also anymore. So kinda in limbo with two games with no support at all.

 

[Gero]

Kinda crazy this game havent had a thing for 6 months. No new maps, no weapons, no new specialists.
When is this season 1 even planned? Its crazy.

I am so sad about BF in general now. Its my favorite online shooter. But atm there is just nothing. No content for 2042 and i enjoyed BFV. But i am playing that for 4 years now and dont do support on it also anymore. So kinda in limbo with two games with no support at all.

Click to shrink...

the amount of weapons in this game in the main mode is laughable too.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Just a couple of random thoughts as I've been playing a lot recently.

Paik is now clearly my favorite specialist. Such a fun playstyle. Rewards super aggression. Helps me route out campers or players who hide in bushes. Helps me with the sort of questionable visibility that often occurs in modern shooters that no longer favor bright clear day maps. I think she's actually fairly well balanced with her appearing on the map when using her ability. Good players will immediately be on you while bad players just kind of hide and you can roast them.

On a second note, I'm finally sure about preferring 64 over 128. Maybe you can bump that up to 80 or something or if you really designed great maps that were smaller and more dense, maybe you could get away with a high number but going up to that higher player limit just adds a level of chaos that makes the game feel random rather than engaging imo.

I have a lot of fun in the 64 player playlists. The 128 stuff often just makes me end up feeling like I'm in a meat grinder.

 

[VariantX]

Yep. The weapon selection is anemic. All the weapons including the ones in portal would probably be what you would have at launch, but you only get access to a handful of them in the main game. The adjustments to thes attachments were desperately needed because most of them were superficial.

 

[AnotherNils]

I'm glad I already mastered the LCMG because as far as I can tell it as absolutely useless compared to release. It may be rust, however, because I'm getting roasted trying out non K30 weapons now, with the exception to the AC 42, of course

 

[Stoney Mason]

I'm glad I already mastered the LCMG because as far as I can tell it as absolutely useless compared to release. It may be rust, however, because I'm getting roasted trying out non K30 weapons now, with the exception to the AC 42, of course

Click to shrink...

Honestly I don't get killed by the AC 42 that much. Not sure what they changed on it since patch but it's definitely not used as much by people like pre-patch.

The k30 is silly though imo and heavily needs a nerf. I feel like half my deaths are to it.

 

[AnotherNils]

Honestly I don't get killed by the AC 42 that much. Not sure what they changed on it since patch but it's definitely not used as much by people like pre-patch.

The k30 is silly though imo and heavily needs a nerf. I feel like half my deaths are to it.

Click to shrink...

I agree it usage has fallen, but I still find it quite usable (Because it was that good at all ranges before)
I hear the SCAR is one of the better ones now, but I don't think I've used it in the right context yet.

 

[bitcloudrzr]

Honestly I don't get killed by the AC 42 that much. Not sure what they changed on it since patch but it's definitely not used as much by people like pre-patch.

The k30 is silly though imo and heavily needs a nerf. I feel like half my deaths are to it.

Click to shrink...

I agree it usage has fallen, but I still find it quite usable (Because it was that good at all ranges before)
I hear the SCAR is one of the better ones now, but I don't think I've used it in the right context yet.

Click to shrink...

The AC-42 and K30 got stealth nerfs last patch, the former had its damage range cut by quite a bit and the latter must of had the spread nerfed I believe.

 

[elyetis]

I still remember having to argue pre release that no, less weapon in bf2042 wasn't a good thing which would somehow lead to a better weapon balance and certainly not more weapon variety.

I personnaly don't see how it would particularily lead to a better balance or more variety. The easy answer for balance purpose is to make weapons samey, sure, so having 4 very diffent AR isn't really much different than having 8 AR with "only" 4 different archetype.

And arguably there is 2 things which has a very high chance to either lead to very few weapons played by people anyway, or most weapon ending up being very similar.
The first one is the freedom of weapon selection regardless of gadget/tools, meaning that now people are even more likely to go toward the best ( or at least perceived as such ) weapon available. So you either let that happen or try to make every weapon as desirable, and the easiest way to do that is to make them somewhat similar regardless of how many of them there is.
And the whole attachment system which ultimatly is likely to be used to homogenize weapon performance to a place where they all perform best in most common scenario.

[...]

Click to shrink...

I'm not objective.. but I would say I was pretty much spot on.

 

[Coolluck]

I still remember having to argue pre release that no, less weapon in bf2042 wasn't a good thing which would somehow lead to a better weapon balance and certainly not more weapon variety.
I'm not objective.. but I would say I was pretty much spot on.

Click to shrink...

I remember your comment and still don't agree with it. Yeah, most are using the same meta weapons. What would flooding the pool have done to the initial release except let them nerf and buff different models if they couldn't get balance right on the few guns that are out there?

I also don't think anyone expected summer 2022 to be lurking with no new content as we were gearing up for release. So I'm on board with just drop some weapons at this point to pretend to give us something new. Halo folks complain about the 6 month seasons but they've had a spot of content.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Battlefield 4 ended with 16 ARs, 14 PDWs/SMGs, 13 LMGs, 13 Sniper Rifles, 13 carbines, 9 shotguns, 8 DMRs, 17 handguns. We lost a lot of weapon variety in the subsequent years and this one is just laughable with 4 ARs, 2 LMGs, etc. etc. We're missing a ton of major archetypes of modern war. Like no G36 lookin thing, no weird F2000 types, no Tavors, no HK416 type weapons, or FAMAS or the MCX announced to replace the M4. And I don't think the expectation is that all of these have to be realistically used by a future military force in 2042 but there should be a gun that looks like the MP5 and does the whole reload thing properly even if it's called the MPV or something.

 

[bitcloudrzr]

Battlefield 4 ended with 16 ARs, 14 PDWs/SMGs, 13 LMGs, 13 Sniper Rifles, 13 carbines, 9 shotguns, 8 DMRs, 17 handguns. We lost a lot of weapon variety in the subsequent years and this one is just laughable with 4 ARs, 2 LMGs, etc. etc. We're missing a ton of major archetypes of modern war. Like no G36 lookin thing, no weird F2000 types, no Tavors, no HK416 type weapons, or FAMAS or the MCX announced to replace the M4. And I don't think the expectation is that all of these have to be realistically used by a future military force in 2042 but there should be a gun that looks like the MP5 and does the whole reload thing properly even if it's called the MPV or something.

Click to shrink...

They have the AM-17 data mined so an intermediate cartridge AK is coming, something like the M433 would be nice as a replacement for the M416. Besides the latter, a future MP7 or P90 is needed considering 3/4 smgs are based of models that are being phased out today.

 

[elyetis]

I remember your comment and still don't agree with it. Yeah, most are using the same meta weapons. What would flooding the pool have done to the initial release except let them nerf and buff different models if they couldn't get balance right on the few guns that are out there?

I also don't think anyone expected summer 2022 to be lurking with no new content as we were gearing up for release. So I'm on board with just drop some weapons at this point to pretend to give us something new. Halo folks complain about the 6 month seasons but they've had a spot of content.

Click to shrink...

My point was that there was no upside for us to the fact the game would be released with so few weapons, it wouldn't lead to more uniques weapon, and we wouldn't end up with a more varied meta.
I feel confident in saying that we did end up with less unique weapon than battlefield V, the AR/SMG/LMG felt much closer to each other. Similarily, we didn't end up with a more varied meta. Again it's not inherently the fault of the number of weapons released, I expected both those result mostly because of the lack of class limitation on weapons, I'm just saying that less weapon didn't lead to any kind of improvement.

The only thing which would be accomplished by having more weapon at release would have been.. to have more weapon at release. Just like now most of them wouldn't be meta, nor would it accomplish more unique weapons, but it's still more visual variety ( yes it matter, otherwise games wouldn't monetize weapon skins ), and more completionist content for people leveling up weapons.
That's not much, it's not a game changer, but not much is better than the nothingness accomplished by having less weapon.

 

[PeskyToaster]

They have the AM-17 data mined so an intermediate cartridge AK is coming, something like the M433 would be nice as a replacement for the M416. Besides the latter, a future MP7 or P90 is needed considering 3/4 smgs are based of models that are being phased out today.

Click to shrink...

I guess the M5A3 is supposed to be the MCX SPEAR that is replacing the M4 so they have that covered. And I think the AC-42 is supposed to be somewhat TAR-like. The guns they do have are great, I just want more!

 

[bitcloudrzr]

I guess the M5A3 is supposed to be the MCX SPEAR that is replacing the M4 so they have that covered. And I think the AC-42 is supposed to be somewhat TAR-like. The guns they do have are great, I just want more!

Click to shrink...

The AC-42 replaces the AN-94 so TAR equivalents are still open.

 

[Qudi]

Kinda crazy this game havent had a thing for 6 months. No new maps, no weapons, no new specialists.
When is this season 1 even planned? Its crazy.

I am so sad about BF in general now. Its my favorite online shooter. But atm there is just nothing. No content for 2042 and i enjoyed BFV. But i am playing that for 4 years now and dont do support on it also anymore. So kinda in limbo with two games with no support at all.

Click to shrink...

Update 4.0 is basically 1.0.
This game needed at least 1 additional year for the bug fixes / content pipeline to be ready.

And im not even sure if they can launch S1 in time for june. Wouldnt be suprised for another delay.

Im still enjoying the game to some degree, but im kinda sick playing the same 7 maps.

 

[finchy]

Just had an email asking what i thought about BF 2042 from EA, I hope they listen to the community and update 2042 to a better game.

 

[Theorry]

Update 4.0 is basically 1.0.
This game needed at least 1 additional year for the bug fixes / content pipeline to be ready.

And im not even sure if they can launch S1 in time for june. Wouldnt be suprised for another delay.

Im still enjoying the game to some degree, but im kinda sick playing the same 7 maps.

Click to shrink...

Even if it's June. Game is beyond saving already.
This isn't like BF4 where the core was good and people stuck with it through the rough launch. This game doesn't have this and fps landscape is huge. People have moved on already.

 

[AndyD]

Just had an email asking what i thought about BF 2042 from EA, I hope they listen to the community and update 2042 to a better game.

Click to shrink...

Yea, quite a thorough survey asking for feedback.

Then I got to the "future plans" part and it was a lot of weird stuff for their vision so I got more pessimistic.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Yeah it was a decent survey. I answered truthfully what I liked or didn't like. I don't insanely hate certain aspects like other people do and have played quite a bit since the 4.0 patch but there is way more than enough to bitch about which I did. I never know how good any of this stuff does though because I bitched plenty in the last survey and nothing was done at that time so.

I'm very realistic about what the future of the game is. I'll keep playing especially with new content but its unrealistic to expect a mass resurgence outside of price drops or gamepass/EA Play/ etc.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Yea, quite a thorough survey asking for feedback.

Then I got to the "future plans" part and it was a lot of weird stuff for their vision so I got more pessimistic.

Click to shrink...

The thing is surveys are just kind of about doing due diligence and confirming or denying certain assumptions. I didn't necessarily take those questions as future plans but more as are people very interested in X or Y when you ask them just to see. And you have to ask questions to get those answers.

Although it was phrased slightly oddly in the survey, the best questions were asking more about future direction. Like do you want more portal stuff or more all out warfare stuff. Stuff like that is an actual real question about how you divide up the resources although asking such questions at this stage is kinda silly because they must have chosen a direction at this point for this kind of stuff.

That stuff about the future modes struck me as either portal questions or seeing if there is some burning desire for a new mode they don't have currently.

But we all know including them, that the only way to actually increase audience is increase the quality of the base mode experience already in the game. There is no secret trick to get people to play the game other than a series of coordinated decisions to improve the core gameplay concepts that any battlefield game has.

Those questions are especially important prelaunch. So I wish they would send out these surveys when they are choosing the direction of the next title. Not 6 months after a game has shipped where you are trying to nimbly steer a big ass ship. Ask for feedback when it matters and can easily be addressed early on. Not that having a survey to see what the people are saying hurts anything.

 

[Coolluck]

Guess I haven't played enough for this round of surveys. I hope at least the concept of Portal is kept for the next Battlefield like some folks were talking about in the early days. I've probably had more fun in that than in the main game at this point. I just really wish it was more robust.

 

[Pois0n]

I didn't receive the survey from EA, but I saw on reddit that they were asking about interest in a rental server program and also enabling map modification in portal, both of which seem awesome and like absolute no-brainers. The rental server program is definitely something I've seen people practically beg for for the last couple of releases already. For those of you that received the survey, were there any other interesting questions that they asked that stood out to y'all?

Battlefield 4 ended with 16 ARs, 14 PDWs/SMGs, 13 LMGs, 13 Sniper Rifles, 13 carbines, 9 shotguns, 8 DMRs, 17 handguns. We lost a lot of weapon variety in the subsequent years and this one is just laughable with 4 ARs, 2 LMGs, etc. etc. We're missing a ton of major archetypes of modern war. Like no G36 lookin thing, no weird F2000 types, no Tavors, no HK416 type weapons, or FAMAS or the MCX announced to replace the M4. And I don't think the expectation is that all of these have to be realistically used by a future military force in 2042 but there should be a gun that looks like the MP5 and does the whole reload thing properly even if it's called the MPV or something.

Click to shrink...

I mean, literally any gun could be included in this game from a lore stand point since we're playing as mercenaries and mercenaries are going to use whatever they can get their hands on. M1 Garand in 2042? sure why not, maybe McKay's great grandfather fought in the war or something lol. The most bizarre thing to me is that they already have a whole slew of weapons modeled and animated within Portal, why not add some/all of those while we wait for actual new content?

I was actually doing a quick look at BF4 and BF1 to see what kind of map release cadence they had, and it really drove home how bad DICE has become at pot launch support for their games. BF4 was releasing 4 new maps like every 3 months for an entire year, along with new guns and stuff. BF1 had a slow start to it's post launch support, but once they finally dropped that first bunch of new maps, it was like 6 new maps. I thought BFV's post support was about as bad as it could get, and was honestly one of the weakest aspect of the game for me besides the TTK debacles, but 2042 isn't set to receive a new map for like 8 months post launch, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just drop one All-Out-Warfare map and like, one or two Portal maps.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I didn't receive the survey from EA, but I saw on reddit that they were asking about interest in a rental server program and also enabling map modification in portal, both of which seem awesome and like absolute no-brainers. The rental server program is definitely something I've seen people practically beg for for the last couple of releases already. For those of you that received the survey, were there any other interesting questions that they asked that stood out to y'all?



I mean, literally any gun could be included in this game from a lore stand point since we're playing as mercenaries and mercenaries are going to use whatever they can get their hands on. M1 Garand in 2042? sure why not, maybe McKay's great grandfather fought in the war or something lol. The most bizarre thing to me is that they already have a whole slew of weapons modeled and animated within Portal, why not add some/all of those while we wait for actual new content?

I was actually doing a quick look at BF4 and BF1 to see what kind of map release cadence they had, and it really drove home how bad DICE has become at pot launch support for their games. BF4 was releasing 4 new maps like every 3 months for an entire year, along with new guns and stuff. BF1 had a slow start to it's post launch support, but once they finally dropped that first bunch of new maps, it was like 6 new maps. I thought BFV's post support was about as bad as it could get, and was honestly one of the weakest aspect of the game for me besides the TTK debacles, but 2042 isn't set to receive a new map for like 8 months post launch, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just drop one All-Out-Warfare map and like, one or two Portal maps.

Click to shrink...

I didn't see anything about the rental server program but perhaps I just missed that question as I honestly don't really care about that specific issue/topic. I think rental server program bring as many problems as they bring solutions but that's just my opinion.

On the other topic as far as it comes to new map content, I mean we haven't gotten any because the game was in shambles until very recently. So its a little unfair to do a direct comparison both because of that and because old games used a DLC model. We will never receive maps at that cadence and at those quantities ever again. That's just the reality of the new world and how this content is launched in live service games and the fact that it's "free". I'm okay with that tradeoff.

This is not to defend DICE on the delay of the first Season. They had to delay the first season to fix a catastrophically broken game that shouldn't have launched when it did. That is definitely on them. Just saying there are reasons why the schedule is so delayed in comparison to even Battlefield V which is probably the real comparison point going forward for how new content will be pushed out.

 

[Pois0n]

I didn't see anything about the rental server program but perhaps I just missed that question as I honestly don't really care about that specific issue/topic. I think rental server program bring as many problems as they bring solutions but that's just my opinion.

On the other topic as far as it comes to new map content, I mean we haven't gotten any because the game was in shambles until very recently. So its a little unfair to do a direct comparison both because of that and because old games used a DLC model. We will never receive maps at that cadence and at those quantities ever again. That's just the reality of the new world and how this content is launched in live service games and the fact that it's "free". I'm okay with that tradeoff.

This is not to defend DICE on the delay of the first Season. They had to delay the first season to fix a catastrophically broken game that shouldn't have launched when it did. That is definitely on them. Just saying there are reasons why the schedule is so delayed in comparison to even Battlefield V which is probably the real comparison point going forward for how new content will be pushed out.

Click to shrink...

I think they might have multiple versions of the survey, so you may have just gotten one that didn't have that question.

And yeah, I get that 2042 is a special case cause they have to un-fuck the game first, but it still is disappointing that when they do drop maps, its so little compared to before. I do wonder why live-service has to result in less maps than what was offered with the premium pass model. Like, I get that it's free to us to play those maps, which is great and I wouldn't want to go back to the premium model again, but I was under the impression that the real reason that studios have made the switch to a battlepass/live-service model is because it brings in way more revenue. Why is it that they can't provide a similar amount of maps if they're making more money than before? Did they downsize the level design teams?

 

[Stoney Mason]

I think they might have multiple versions of the survey, so you may have just gotten one that didn't have that question.

And yeah, I get that 2042 is a special case cause they have to un-fuck the game first, but it still is disappointing that when they do drop maps, its so little compared to before. I do wonder why live-service has to result in less maps than what was offered with the premium pass model. Like, I get that it's free to us to play those maps, which is great and I wouldn't want to go back to the premium model again, but I was under the impression that the real reason that studios have made the switch to a battlepass/live-service model is because it brings in way more revenue. Why is it that they can't provide a similar amount of maps if they're making more money than before? Did they downsize the level design teams?

Click to shrink...

I'll be cynical in this case and say that game makers realize they don't have to release the same amount of content to get positive response from their audience. In an ideal modern pipeline, you can spread that content across a wider timer period and that will satisfy audiences and create positive spending habits from your consumers. COD is the same way. They never produce the same amount of maps they did with a dlc model. I think that's just kind of a casualty of the live service model. I don't necessarily need the total amount of maps and guns from the past, but I do want a steady diet of new content if you have a steady consumer base.

 

[Strikerrr]

Battlefield 4 ended with 16 ARs, 14 PDWs/SMGs, 13 LMGs, 13 Sniper Rifles, 13 carbines, 9 shotguns, 8 DMRs, 17 handguns. We lost a lot of weapon variety in the subsequent years and this one is just laughable with 4 ARs, 2 LMGs, etc. etc. We're missing a ton of major archetypes of modern war. Like no G36 lookin thing, no weird F2000 types, no Tavors, no HK416 type weapons, or FAMAS or the MCX announced to replace the M4. And I don't think the expectation is that all of these have to be realistically used by a future military force in 2042 but there should be a gun that looks like the MP5 and does the whole reload thing properly even if it's called the MPV or something.

Click to shrink...

THe MCX SPEAR is already in the game as the M5A3 and they may have accurately predicted the "M5" designation. It already fills the role of a HK416-type weapon since it starts off as a 5.56 NATO variant.

Battlefield 2042 - Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games

www.imfdb.org