Damn, they're putting a fork in it. I'm conflicted. On one hand, the launch has been garbage, with a drip feed of content after almost a year so it might be in their interest to cut their losses here since trying to work on issues that should have been in the base game post launch is like trying to change a car tire while going 80 on the highway.
Outside of net code issues and poor hit registration, most of BF2042's issues can be resolved with more content. No one's asking them to re-invent the wheel. BF2042 didnt launch with a respectable amount of content compared to previous titles. And the content it did release with, was clearly unfinished - specifically the launch maps. This is the key issue with the game, and they've done very little to fix it by only releasing 2 new maps. I remember after the first year for BF3 and BF4, they nearly doubled the amount of maps and guns in the game with the post launch expansions.
On the other hand, I'm afraid this will set the precedent for the future, when a product needs work. EA will just cut the project loose and go on to the next thing. BFV and Battlefront 2 were on their way to being decent, only to be aborted. I'm afraid EA might be taking a b*stardized strategy akin to Activision, whereas the latter has been using a planned yearly cycle for releases, the former will now make ad-hoc decisions based on community feedback and sales performance to determine if support after 12 months will be continued.
You can't compare these guys to Activision. Yeah, the 1-year life cycle for COD games is very short, but they also aren't releasing unfinished games with tons of issues and a lack of content. There's no "on the way to be decent" for COD games, they always launch extremely polished, while DICE has been releasing broken games for over a generation now.
COD is one of the only shooters still following that traditional format of having very polished campaign, multiplayer, and coop modes, and tons of content at launch on the disc. They're also the ones who drop the most amount of free content with every season of the game out of all their competitors, and have the shortest seasons, so there's more content coming in more frequently than competing shooters. COD is also way more popular, and you can go back to any old COD and there's still a really active community.
At a certain point in time BF was a competitor to COD, but COD is so far ahead of the competition, especially with Warzone now, that you just can't compare the two.
If they're going to cut the cord on this, in order for me to buy another title, they'll have to:
-They're willing to let the product cook for 2 years like how support was done from BF3-BF1. I'm not trying buy a $60 game every year when I don't have time to play every day.
The number of years of support is irrelevant to me if they're spent like year 1 of BF2042 where they only drop 1 new map every season and spend most of their time fixing issues.
What's more important is the actual amount of content at launch, and what's promised for post launch support in terms of new content.
-Make whatever secondary mode they have F2P. Warzone is such a hit due to the fact that you don't have to pay for the game outright. Firestorm and Hazard Zone could have been lit if EA didn't get greedy.
Firestorm and Hazard Zone weren't bad because of EA being greedy, they were bad because they were bad lol. You cant even compare those modes to its competitors.
At a certain point in time I thought a BR mode would work in BF, but honestly, I dont think its a good idea. BF games have never had tight gameplay like Apex, COD/Warzone, Halo, etc. BFV had great movement, but it still wasn't close to the competing games, and I think its because they literally cant do more with how these games are a giant sandbox. I think thats why these games have always had an issue with collisions. You just cant make a hardcore experience with this kind of gameplay, itll be way too frustrating.
And, dying is a part of BF lol. There's not much you can do if youre up against a tank without any C5/mines/launchers.
- I see they are bringing new studios into the fold. That's good. Let Dice handle multiplayer, that's always been their strength. I'm not a big campaign dude, and Battlefield's in particular have always been ass imo (BF4, having to replay the same glitchy mission thrice to unlock guns for multi
), if they separate studios working on campaign and BF Battle Royale, that's help free up bandwidth.
DICE has almost been completely turned over since BF4 lol. I wouldn't say multiplayer has been their strength after a generation of bad BF games.
But I agree, BF campaigns have always been trash. shyts just a waste of resources. If you asked most legacy BF players, would you take 5 more maps for multiplayer or a campaign mode, most people are choosing the maps.
- Give us a fukking complete game. Delay if you have to, but don't insult the gamer base by serving up a pre-alpha build as a launch build.
This should be their priority first and foremost. The only thing people want is BF4 multiplayer brought to current gen, with BFV movement and BC2 destruction. Focus on delivering a polished game with all of this first, before adding all of these unnecessary innovations or things most BF players dont even want. Operations/Grand Operations, Specialists, Firestorm, Haha Zone, Levolution, all this shyt is a waste of resources if you cant deliver a good core experience.