Official Thread Battlefield 2042

Rate this Game

  • ☆☆☆☆☆

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • ☆☆☆☆

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • ☆☆☆

    Votes: 1 50.0%

  • ☆☆

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • ☆

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • Total voters
    2
u2popmofo said:
Considering the size of the maps, 7 is plenty at launch for me. I imagine I'll still be getting lost in some of the weeks after launch if they're double the size of a standard BF map.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The Quatar map is 5.9 KM square. That is roughly the size of a map in PUBG. Think about that, this game has 7 maps at launch, PUBG has like 5 and it has been out years. Apex Legends has 3 and has been out years.

Given the size, 7 maps at launch is pretty impressive comparativly speaking.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Two Pennys Worth and u2popmofo
Normally I would head out as Webster, but I am thinking Boris.
 
Hedon said:
Seeing some blow back for charging $70 for a game that has no campaign, only 7 maps and charges for seasons.

Dice Thumbs Up GIF by Battlefield
Click to expand...
Charging for seasons or just for battle pass?
 
yankeessuck said:
Charging for seasons or just for battle pass?
Click to expand...

Yeah my guess would be like COD where you buy the pass with cosmetic stuff in it, but the actual content is free.

One thing from the trailer that was obvious was lots and lots of different cosmetic characters.

I could see them selling a ton of those along with weapon skins. COD makes crazy money off that kind of stuff.

BF V content like maps and other things was always free (it just came too slowly).
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Kvally and u2popmofo
Wait, $70 for multiplayer only with microtransactions and paid Seasonal Content. I mean, if this was F2P then I could understand, its no wonder publishers are getting more and more aggressive with monetization for full priced games because gamers seem ok with it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Almighty_bob
I really like that any class can use any gun. That will help with people just picking a class for the gun. Remember when the medic in BF1 had the best gun and everyone was the same class. That should open things up more for people to pick the class they want to play without having to limit their gun selection. It was never fun to run anti tank with some weak SMG and stand no chance in gunfights.
 
I’m shocked games didn’t cost $70 a decade ago. Doesn’t bother me much. But I also only buy a handful of games per year. A lot of these games have absurd dev costs.

If there are predatory micros I avoid it. If it’s cool cosmetics I see no issue. I rarely indulge but when it’s a game I plan to put heavy hours into I’ll pay for some micros here and there if they’re neat enough.
 
The calling in vehicles sounds good but how long do you have to wait? will you call it in and just get killed before it lands and someone else gets to take it?
 
Battlefield 2 had the option to call in vehicles for individual squad members.
 
JinCA said:
The calling in vehicles sounds good but how long do you have to wait? will you call it in and just get killed before it lands and someone else gets to take it?
Click to expand...
Yes that can happen, if it's anything like BF2.
 
  • Yuck
Reactions: TeKPhaN
cmstophe said:
I’m shocked games didn’t cost $70 a decade ago. Doesn’t bother me much. But I also only buy a handful of games per year. A lot of these games have absurd dev costs.

If there are predatory micros I avoid it. If it’s cool cosmetics I see no issue. I rarely indulge but when it’s a game I plan to put heavy hours into I’ll pay for some micros here and there if they’re neat enough.
Click to expand...
They cost $70+ more than a decade ago.
 
Hedon said:
Looks like Series X has the marketing for this.

"With support for 128 players on Xbox Series X|S, Battlefield 2042 brings unprecedented scale on vast battlegrounds across the globe. Players will take on several massive experiences, from updated multiplayer modes like Conquest and Breakthrough to the all-new Hazard Zone."

E3cv_gtVgAEQAmW
Click to expand...
I'm really interested to see how much better the new Gen versions are. I want to see Xbone and PS4 STRUGGLE with this game, damnit! Show me they are using that power!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kvally
Rollins said:
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't find any of these all that interesting. Webster will be most popular by a huge margin just because of Nimble.

The irony here is the Assault and Medic seem very mobile, but the Engineer and recon are very campy. Not sure if all 10 specialists will be in at launch, but Imo, the engineer here should have been given mobile Anti Vehicle perks, and the Recon have more mobile Spec Ops like perks.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DarkPassenger
At least the PC version is $60. If the open beta is good, I'll get it day one.
 
TeKPhaN said:
Even older than that.
Try during the SNES/Genesis era USA bro.
Click to expand...

Every game was $70? I don’t recall this, but okay. I feel like you’re either purposely missing the spirit of my post or just not understanding. Games have been locked in at $60 for what, 4 gens at this point? Besides a couple outliers that are irrelevant to my point that $70 isn’t that much with dev costs for AAA titles skyrocketing.
 
TeKPhaN said:
Even older than that.
Try during the SNES/Genesis era USA bro.
Click to expand...
I think Double Dragon II was like $80 on the NES. Or $70. Can't recall. I do recall when I was a kid and my mom made my dad buy me Double Dragon at Toys R Us. He was pissed.
 
DarkPassenger said:
I think Double Dragon II was like $80 on the NES. Or $70. Can't recall. I do recall when I was a kid and my mom made my dad buy me Double Dragon at Toys R Us. He was pissed.
Click to expand...

I think prices fluctuated drastically during that time period. It was not a $70 standard, but some were that high for sure.

I don’t remember $70 games being a mainstay with N64/PS, but could be wrong. I know for a fact they weren’t during the Xbox, 360, and One eras.
 
  • Really?
Reactions: TeKPhaN
cmstophe said:
Every game was $70? I don’t recall this, but okay. I feel like you’re either purposely missing the spirit of my post or just not understanding. Games have been locked in at $60 for what, 4 gens at this point? Besides a couple outliers that are irrelevant to my point that $70 isn’t that much with dev costs for AAA titles skyrocketing.
Click to expand...
I didn't say every game was.
You said a decade ago and then said Turok but that's older than a decade and my example is even older than that.
So it's nothing new and shouldn't be a issue.
Development costs are much much higher these days than when games first started being $70+
 
cmstophe said:
I think prices fluctuated drastically during that time period. It was not a $70 standard, but some were that high for sure.

I don’t remember $70 games being a mainstay with N64/PS, but could be wrong. I know for a fact they weren’t during the Xbox, 360, and One eras.
Click to expand...
You keep getting examples... $70+ games is nothing new.
Again I ask...Who said anything about $70 being a mainstay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back