Shot Shot: Battlefield Play4Free Announced

EA has announced Battlefield Play4Free, which will be released in Spring 2011 and will offer you guys Battlefield… for free! It’s from the makers of Battlefield Heroes (which you can also play for free), will feature 32 player action and will combine “the most popular maps from Battlefield 2 with the familiar classes and powerful weapons of Battlefield: Bad Company™ 2.”

Fighting will “earn in-game currency to spend on a massive array of devastating weapons and equipment.” Are you ready for my guess? Here’s my guess: You will be able to buy in-game currency with real money. Pow. A teaser trailer lies in the grubby foxhole below.

I burst out laughing at 0:10, so right now I’m just glad I wasn’t watching this for the first time at a press event. Bullet: dodged.


  1. Alexander Norris says:

    Sadly, this will probably be plagued by the same design miss-steps that make BC2 rubbish and the microtransaction issues that made Heroes shit. :(

    • TotalBiscuit says:

      Psst, BC2 was really good, it’s a secret, keep it under ya hat.

    • Tei says:

      BF2 is a game that goes beyond infantry combat. Is ok, in a BF2 game, for a tank to own infantry, to a jet to own tanks, for a AA to own jets, to infantry to own AA stations and other infantry, for the antitank class to own tanks, and so on. Is a interesting, pretty, and fragile structure.

      BC2 don’t even have jets, so whats the point of a AA station?, and anything can hurt tanks,… theres not enough diversity in maps, strategies options, etc.. Is a simplified version of battlefield made for consoles, centered on infantry.

    • mrmud says:

      AA stations kill helis pretty bad.
      Also BC2 was pretty great, but since this comes from the guys who made heroes, my hopes are somewhat diminished.

    • the wiseass says:

      @TotalBiscuit: If your hat is a flea ridden rag, maybe.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      @Total Biscuit — no, it really wasn’t. It was a pretty good game laid low by some really bad design, notably of the Engineer’s rocket launcher, and an engine in which moving around as infantry is about as responsive as driving a tractor in Men of War.

    • phertiker says:

      People sure do cry a lot about the Gustav and too many snipers and baddies in the uncaps; but it is still an incredibly fun game. My biggest problem is the dedicated server “support”, no mod tools, and no maps. What? We can buy Vietnam? Super, thanks Dice.

      I haven’t played heroes but I guess I’ll check it out now. Here’s hoping this is swell!

    • mrmud says:

      @phertiker Dont bother, heroes is terrible

    • Koozer says:

      People can’t seem to grasp the idea that BC2 isn’t BF3. Sure, the overall design isn’t as lovely as BF2, but the engine and implementation is a hell of a lot better. Oh, and for Carl Gustav complainers: Jets. That is all.

    • TotalBiscuit says:

      Crying about the Gustav is so fucking launch-date…

      I’ve come to the conclusion that PC gamers hate everything, based on the comments on RPS, including really good games like BC2.

    • President Weasel says:

      I enjoyed BC2, clocked all the classes, and still play occasionally.
      Doubt I’ll bother with a “free to play, pay to win” version though.

    • The Hammer says:

      “I’ve come to the conclusion that PC gamers hate everything, based on the comments on RPS, including really good games like BC2.”

      Or perhaps they just don’t like BC2? That’s not such a terrible thing. And it’s certainly not as angry and hate-filled as the “WOW IS TOO EASY IT’S ALL FACEROLL NOW” crowd.

      Myself, I’ve enjoyed it the many times I’ve played it, but I will say it’s definitely a pared-down game compared to Battlefield 2. Yes, yes, yes, I know that it’s not the same game as the main series, but as mentioned it does have design flaws. Some of the maps are pretty enjoyable, but none really reach the heights of the Battlefield 2 maps, one of which is shown in the trailer.

      I’m hella interested in playing this. I was thinking about reinstalling BF2 again, but maybe I’ll just wait until the release of Play4Free. From the slight bits of FPS footage available there, it looked competent.

    • Minecrafter says:

      I remember the BC2 launch so well. The anticipation of it being a decent game. The purchase. The download. The horrifically bugged launch that left most people unable to play for a week. The first time I got on a server. The discovery that the game is abysmal – a ModWarlike with some abysmal maps.

      This isn’t PC gamers hating on everything, this is PC gamers looking at an opportunity for a decent game and seeing a simplified, boring, unbalanced mess, when the PC is flooded with decent shooters including much of DICE’s back catalogue. We’re not console gamers – we don’t need to wipe our memories of games more than three years old.

      Let’s not even go into Heroes. It’s like they tried to pin down what made TF2 great, got as far as the cartoony style and then applied the generic DICE veneer over the top, rather than any semblence of interesting content. Three classes that all fill the same role of “guy wot kills the other team”. Same problem DICE has had over and over recently.

      MOH was really the last straw. DICE haven’t released a game I’d be willing to do more than mock since 1943, and even that was poor in comparison to the sheer fun of 1942.

      TL;DR: DICE are cranking out generic FPS’s based on a flawed formula that lends nothing to a PC gaming crowd that is already aware of far better games.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Looks like Battlefield 2’s engine so there is no reason that the infantry should be running around in custard. As for the microstransations, if they follow League of Legends example then it could be excellent and not pay to win, as they say, at all.

    • DiamondDog says:

      Something something console something something.

      I enjoy BC2. I have no trouble moving my player. It is not simplified. I enjoy destructible enviroments. It has flaws.

      I enjoyed playing BF2 and 2142. They were not perfect. They were not released on a console. They are perfect in every way.

      I play console games. I can remember things.

    • Arthur Barnhouse says:

      I’ve never really understood people’s complaints about snipers in BC2. The number of times I’ve gotten killed by a sniper is dwarfed by Assault. I’ve had a bigger problem with All medic squads, which will turtle up in an indestructible space and just keep reviving each other, and Assault, which when combined with the explosives perks can fire infinite grenades.

    • Mad Hamish says:

      Well people do winge and moan a lot about BC2 like it was a personal attack on them, a lot of bile spewing about everywhere. But at the centre of their argument is a definite truth. As much as I like BC2, it’s a shit load of fun, it’s just ain’t like the great BF games and the console versions are the reason. Man I really hope BF3 is not a dissapointment.

    • subedii says:

      I really enjoyed BFBC2 (and yes, it IS distinct from BF3 and ought to be considered as such).

      The sound design alone was phenomenal, probably some of the best soundwork I’ve ever heard in an FPS.

    • Nick says:

      People sure do love to accuse anyone with perfectly reasonable issues about certain poorly designed elements of games as whiners. Lets all just never talk about anything bad in games even if we like the game overall eh?

    • Can-O-Kickass says:

      Honestly, whats with all the whining about BC2.

      The sniper problem is easily solvable. Don’t stand still. Honestly, compared to BF2, snipers on this game are no problem. I am probably killed by a sniper maybe 10% of the time?
      As for the Gustav, it used to be a big problem, but have you played the game since launch? Like at all?
      Almost no one uses the Gustav anymore. I haven’t been killed by the Gustav as infantry for a very long time.

      BC2 is just a FUN, mindless game where you go on for a few hours to forget about everything and just have fun. It is NOT a sequel to BF2, or in the battlefield series at all. If you want to enjoy this game, stop comparing it to BF2. This game is better compared against something like MW2, and in that comparison BC2 wins, hands down.

    • Nick says:

      and for the record there is nothing wrong with snipers in BC2 its just a bit frustrating when half your team is recon sittin in a bush on rush attack.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      BC2 = first time DICE has gotten the Battlefield formula right.

    • Mattressi says:

      I don’t get where all this “anyone who doesn’t like BC2 is a whiner” stuff is coming from. The only ‘whining’ I’ve done is said that it’s crap. I’m not demanding anything or calling people names, just stating that I’ve played it and it’s a complete load of crap.

      For people wondering why I might say that the oh-so-amazing BC2 is crap; I still have BF1942 plus mods and BF2 plus mods installed. You know, those games that are inferior because you can play with more than 32 people, play on a map bigger than your backyard, hop into an aircraft and fly around and install mods that have been made for it. What’s the advantage of BC2? It adds a more in depth levelling system than BF2 (the same system MW had for a long time) and it has slightly better graphics. And it removes most of the features that made Battlefield so popular. Yes, BC is a different series. Glad people admit that. It’s the CONSOLE version of Battlefield (BC1 was only released on console and was made with consoles in mind). Frankly, I see no reason to move onto a ‘different’ Battlefield game if it adds nothing substantial and takes away most of the fun of the original series.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      BC2’s chief advantage is destructible scenery. Destructible scenery and rush mode. Rush mode and destructible scenery. BC2’s two advantages are destructible scenery and rush mode. And a simplified class system. BC2’s three advantages are destructible scenery, rush, mode and a simplified class system. And no prone diving. BC2’s four…no. Amongst BC2’s advantages, are destructible scenery, rush mo…I’ll come in again.

    • DiamondDog says:

      Yeah, it’s the CONSOLE version. We all know consoles are bad, mkay.

      Just say no, kids.

    • Nick says:

      They had already simplified the class system perfectly in 2142. Also BC2 lacked things like select fire and conquest maps that weren’t mostly a small linear 3 point waste of time, lots more little niggles too, but it is a fun game, just certainly NOT the only time they got it right.

    • Alegis says:

      BC2 is a good game, although you’re wrong on one 1 thing – crying about Gustav is not launch date.

      Every class has its cheap tricks though and usually those who cry are using one of them so you shouldn’t give a damn about them. But the Gustav makes me feel like a terrible, horrible person when I ‘snipe’ people from a million miles away by blowing away their cover.

  2. frags says:

    Lamest video game title ever.

  3. Batolemaeus says:

    Combining the worst of both worlds. Wow.

    This abomination needs to die.

    • FluffyM says:

      Thanks for putting it much more coherently than I would have.
      In my very humble opinion BF2 already wasn’t very good at all, BC2 was awful, and this…f this.

  4. Nick says:

    Hmm, I quite like that arrangement of the BF theme. Its a shame what Alexander said above will most likely be true. Especially as they’ve made the maps smaller from what I have read already.

  5. mavvvy says:

    Hmmm, while I find the whole lets release an old game for free and throw in micro transactions thing a bit annoying, these FTP games of late have provided my mates and I a good deal of entertainment, on those ideal days on Teamspeak when we dont know what to do.

  6. Serph says:

    Hate to break it to you, but BF2 is practically free now anyway, and it has double the player limit. If you’re not going for map size, BFBC2 is so much better that I really don’t see any point in playing a BF2 clone even if it’s free…

  7. cncplyr says:

    So it’s a stripped down version of battlefield 2, with only the city maps. I think I’ll stick with my normal copy of bf2 :)

  8. Heliocentric says:

    After pay-for jetpacks and pay for overpowered guns? I have no faith this game won’t be ruined by pay for items.

    Now, i’m not against the model, i’m really enjoying company of heroes online and thats not even balanced yet, but i don’t trust ea after heroes.

    • DrGonzo says:

      I agree. And it’s really sad, I quite enjoyed Heroes for a half hour casual game with my girlfriend, but as you said it’s been ruined by microtransactions that give one an advantage.

  9. Isometric says:

    This is so pointless.

  10. dragon_hunter21 says:

    Wait a sec. Wasn’t it Battlefield Heroes where you didn’t actually buy, but rented the guns? As in, you only got access to them for a little while?

    Heroes was a mediocre game crippled by a bad store mechanic. If they let me buy which weapons I wanted and let me keep them, TF2 style, I wouldn’t really care. But if they stick with the renting, no thank you.

  11. cliffski says:

    I’m sick of this play for freee!!!!!oneoneoneoneone nonsense, when the game is not free. Part of the game is free, the rest you will have to pay for. That’s just a demo. lets stop pretending it’s anything less cynical than a marketing stunt.
    I think in general, advertising standards people need to clamp down on this bullshit where the word ‘free’ is used, even though something generally isn’t free, but comes with enough caveats and restrictions and exclusions to sink a battleship.

    • stahlwerk says:

      It’s shareware, really. Except nobody will want to actually share this stuff.

    • mavvvy says:

      At somepoint its up to the consumer to be discerning enough about his/her purchases. In a free market you cannot blame a company for trying to make some revenue, but I will mock the consumers for making the demand.

      In the meantime i’ll play my league of legends, COH online and world of tanks without investing anything other then my free time.

    • mrmud says:

      Or you could spend some money on those 3 games to show your support to the developers and thank them for the great games they have made, you know like a moral human being.

    • Heliocentric says:

      I own all 3 coh titles 2 times (local lan, not just obsessive behaviour), i don’t feel like i owe relic anything for coho, but if i could buy hats for my men? Or just unlock the british army (not the british units, in terms of balance just appearance and voices) then that would get money off me.

      I would actually pay a one time fee to upgrade a hero to need less supply.

    • mavvvy says:

      Im sorry Mrmud with due respect I dont think you know me well enough to discuss my morality. Besides these games are offered as free to play, how am I or anyone morally obligated to give money to the developers?

      Did I miss the point altogether of free to play?

      If you have the spare cash go for it, maybe you could drop some extra cash for less fortunate people like myself.

    • mrmud says:

      One of the benefits of microtransactions is that you can often tailor your contribution to your income.
      As a free to play game there is no financial or legislative obligation to pay money for the product but that has nothing to do with what is moral or not. If you really enjoy a game it seems prudent to somehow support whoever is making it.

    • mavvvy says:

      I agree with you on that completely, I may have rev’d up the point defence a little bit high in my last post and I’M sorry my words were A bit harsh. The word “moral” just tiggled something.

      I would like to and when I can will support. I want to help issue in a new era of gaming in which the skys the limit once more.

    • Thermal Ions says:

      There’s quite a big difference (in my mind anyway) between “morally obligated” and “prudent to support” quality free to play developers.

    • Veeskers says:

      It’s very funny that anyone should feel a moral obligation to pay the people who make games that are meant to lure you in (for “free”), get you grinding and pining for shortcuts, and get you to pay for those shortcuts for real money.
      They are not your friends, and they did not make their game “free” out of charitable motivations. Might want to keep that in mind if you’re feeling moral and deciding between paying for ammunition in a shooter game or donating to something like amnesty international.

    • ScubaMonster says:

      @mrmud: Moral? What’s immoral about it? They made the games free to play. It’s not his fault he’s using the very pay model that the devs created. If the devs didn’t want people playing for free, maybe they shouldn’t have made it free to play. Fine, support them if you like the game well enough, but to bash someone who doesn’t is absurd. You act like he pirated a game or something.

    • the wiseass says:

      @Cliffski: League of Legends is free to play and I never felt compelled to buy something at their ingame store to keep being competitive. So in essence this game is free for me. Battlefield:Heroes was also fun for a little while. Never payed a cent tough so I’m not complaining.

  12. Mattressi says:

    Heroes was good up until the point that they went completely back on their word. It was stated by the devs that you would never be able to buy an advantage in Heroes. Eventually, they made it literally impossible to earn enough in game points to own a weapon other than the starter weapon (many people did calculations on how many hours would take and it was more than were available in a week), so you had to buy them with real money. This basically killed the game, as people that wouldn’t pay had no chance of winning and some of the people who could pay decided they didn’t like being forced to pay. This left a few players, but killed off enough of the player base that they soon left as well. At least, this is what happened in the Australian servers.

  13. IDDQD says:

    This looks like a viable business model if nothing else. Serve the smaller segment of PC gamers with capable PC’s first with a graphically intense game, then re-release the game a couple of years later to try to serve a wider audience. I welcome this approach to offsetting the ever increasing development budgets.

  14. poop says:

    bf2 sized maps + planes with bc2 style everything else sounds pretty good, shame about the cash shop model cuz i would probably fork out $15 for it but i will never spend money in a cashshop

  15. SirWhat says:

    what? not jumping for joy? why so negative?

    im looking forward to this… looks a lot like BF2 Karkand. and it will be free. sure graphics have aged alot (and the old “this piece of rock is indestructible” oh boy). sure it will have some total noobs there. sure grenade spam. sure vehicle whoring. maybe even some cheaters thrown in (and they can kill any franchise if given enough space). but anything that promotes Battlefield seems fine to me. if its not Dice doing it, why not allow some other developers use familiar setting? Dice can concentrate on BF3.

  16. Po0py says:

    This is kinda what we all were hoping Battlefield Heroes would be.

  17. DMJ says:

    Okay. I’ve had it up to here. Who do I have to kill and dismember and leave on EA’s steps to get through to them that they really need to make a sequel to 2142?

  18. P3RF3CT D3ATH says:

    So DICE got rid of big maps, got rid of planes, made the classes less diverse. So why are they releasing this game for PCs?

  19. Scroll says:

    I don’t mind if I get to play an updated BF2. They got rid of bunny hopping and swan diving right?

    I would have preferred the model they used for 1943 though as that seemed to be successful for them, I’m quite surprised that they didn’t go that route.

  20. noobnob says:

    The hell was with the flickering at the beginning of the trailer? No, it doesn’t make it look more dramatic. Please stop doing that.

    I’m more interested on the f2p model here, and how they will deal with the microtransactions. What will you be able to buy: armor, guns, vehicles, helmets, HATS on top of the helmets…

  21. Tommo says:

    I frink they should just call it BattleField Free!

  22. trooperdx3117 says:

    Wow how long was I asleep, since when has Bad company 2 been a bad game?

    • Zombat says:

      The class setup was bad and it took far too many shots to kill someone.

      Which resulted in you never being able to get ammo because no one played assault

    • Batolemaeus says:

      BC2 has been a generic console fps since release. Nothing special about it, that’s the problem.
      Battlefield at least had something nobody else has. Huge maps, vehicles, class balance, believable weapons.

    • Mattressi says:

      I agree Batolemaeus; BC2 is part of the plague of generic console crap.

    • Warth0g says:

      You know what, BC2 is a game that divides opinion – but a lot of us absolutely love it. I liked BF2 as well, but just because BC2 is slightly different doesn’t make it bad. The graphics and sound plus the streamlining of the controls are all significant upgrades.

    • trooperdx3117 says:

      I find it a little difficult to believe in this whole consolified stuff, i’ll admit its been simplified since Battlefield 2 (which I loved by the way) but I do think that things like the sqaud system, the weapon adjustments and other features like that make it a great game, and aboe all its fun!

  23. Tangy says:

    They should’ve called it Battlefreeld :(

  24. Jimmy Z says:

    Oh gods, that name. It’s just HORRID. Why not go all the way and call it B4ttl3f13lD or some stupid shit like that. Seriously, the person who came up with that name needs to be sacked and shot in the head, preferably in that order.

    Being a huge Battlefield fan, I’m naturally somewhat intrigued about this, though micro payments are a categorically a huge turnoff for me.

    I didn’t even laugh at the music, though started smiling when I recognized it as the classic BF theme song.

  25. Surgeon says:

    Looks like it might serve as a good feeder and introduction to the Battlefield series in preparation for BF3.

    Not too fussed personally, but that’s mainly because I’m happy enough playing Bad Company 2.
    Which is totally mint.
    I really don’t understand the problem with it.

  26. x25killa says:

    I am kinda looking forward to this. There, I said it.

  27. mondomau says:

    That trailer was hilariously bad. Over the top metal, piss poor editing and over use of slo-mo. Mmmm, Cliché….

    I like the idea of free to play games when there’s no genuine in-game advantage to buying things, but as pointed out, the newer Heroes model will likely be adopted. Therefore, this game can sit in it’s room and cut itself to that terrible soundtrack.

  28. Ted says:

    hey, it is free to play, might aswell try it out, If just to play BF2 karkland with different guns

  29. Shazbut says:


  30. Ricc says:

    This doesn’t run on Unity, does it? It looks like the Unity 3 tech demo.

  31. Bascule42 says:

    Wet soggy smelly pants.

  32. JJJJ says:

    I’m hoping that this is one of those cases where everything about it seems so terrible but it is actually really good.

  33. A-Scale says:

    Uhh… this isn’t the BIG BATTLEFIELD announcement we were supposed to get today, is it? You were predicting BF3, were you not?

    • DrGonzo says:

      No their previous posts specifically stated that it wouldn’t be. How can you announce a game that’s already been announced any way?

  34. Alaric says:

    I never got into the Battlefield series. Not sure why, but the games didn’t appeal to me all that much, I prefer MW and MW2 instead. The only Battlefield title I played for any length of time was Heroes, and even that for a mere few months. So I’ll be sure to check this one out, but don’t really anticipate becoming a regular player.

  35. Man Raised By Puffins says:

    Lummy, that’s the worst BF theme remix I’ve ever had the misfortune to wrap my ears around.

    Ah, much better.

    And lest we forget…

    Not particularly holding out much hpe for the game in question either given that this is the team behind the terminally un-fun Heroes.

    • sudogamer says:

      Tubedubber, I’d never heard of that site before. I had to have a go, this tune from Battlefield Vietnam works perfectly with any BF footage:
      link to

    • Poindexter says:

      I actually rather liked the metal mix of that theme.

    • The Hammer says:

      Oh nooooooo, now you guys have given me the craving to play Battlefield: Vietnam again!

      I just know its age is going to disappoint me!

  36. Kid A says:

    So, I can play 32-player games against people with disposable income who will, therefore, have better guns/more options than me, OR I can play 64-player, with everything unlockable without anyone being able to pay to get ahead of me, on non-gimped maps that still have jets and shit?
    No sale, EA.

    • DrGonzo says:

      No one said that at all. One would assume they would learn from their past mistakes. But nooooo. Lets just all be cynical arseholes in this comments thread.

      Also, they don’t want a sale and the trailer clearly showed jets in it. Did you watch the trailer at all?

    • tommilator says:

      I actually welcome the chance to skip the massive investment of time needed for higher tier unlocks in BF2.

      Looks like I’ll be able the exchange some of the time invested in my actual job, for quick access to the desired content.

      Forget about game balance issues. My lack of true skill is the great equalizer

  37. SquareWheel says:

    If there’s micro-transactions, count me out.

  38. Lobotomist says:

    BFBC2 was(is) the best multiplayer shooter on PC at the moment. But it owns all to destructible environment.

    This as i see from trailer has static environment. Which is step backwards. And PC gamers dont like that :P

  39. Lord_Mordja says:

    Dammit that is a 4 not a 3!

    And as I already own and greatly enjoy both BF2 and BC2, I see little reason to play this. Especially since it’s on the old engine. Now if they were offering Karkand on Frostbite…


  40. Axel McFly says:

    @totalbiscuit BC2 was a great game. People need to learn to enjoy the new, and not cling to the old.

  41. westyfield says:

    Ugh. So it’s BF2: 2: Heroes: With A Shitty Title, then.

    No thanks.

  42. CJohnson03 says:

    They made shitloads of money off Heroes, relative to the size of the game and fanbase and all that, so obviously they are going to make shitloads of money even more off this game, even if it isn’t that great. We probably won’t enjoy it, but somebody will, and a small percentage of them will pay enough to make it viable. These games are not for us ‘hardcore’ gamers, they are for casual gamers.

  43. Lucas says:

    It’s official, EA dearly wants to be the #1 evil empire of gaming again, and I no longer have any hope whatsoever for the Battlefield franchise.

  44. Nick says:

    medics with LMGs is the biggest class design fail in BF history.

    • Starky says:

      Yet from a gameplay/fun standpoint it makes perfect sense – almost no one wants to play a medic with a shitty gun.
      Medic/healer has always been one of the least played classes in any class based game – because it takes a special kind of person to find watching/helping other people have fun, fun.

    • Nick says:

      Um, medics in both BF2 and BF2142 did not have shitty guns.

    • Starky says:

      never played 2142 but in BF2 they got a plain AR, which was boring. Personally I’m glad they rolled medic and support into one class, and gave ammo to assault.

    • Nick says:

      Yes, nade spammers with infinite ammo is a superb design choice. And you said shitty not “boring”, their assault rifles were excellent weapons and more suited for a mobile role than an LMG. Mobility being somewhat key to a medics job in game rather than standing back giving supporting fire, they need to be on the move in the action.

  45. Mark says:

    I played 1400 hours of BF2, it was a bug-riddled gem. This looks like a stripped-down BF2 with fancier gun models. To be fair, that’s still a lot better than a lot of games, but it’s nothing to get me too excited.

  46. Kevbo says:

    I’ll admit a smile came to my face as I noticed it was Karkland and saw the classic vehicle/air craft designs. I can’t say I’ll play it a lot but I will surely setup an account and play it a bit. Maybe it will become my laptop game of choice for the rare times I game on the go.

    I love BF2 and liked BC2 although have much higher hopes for BF3. I just want it to be on a larger scale with much more options to fighting. Not holding my breath though since DICE is just too busy lately. It will either be very delayed or will come out rushed and/or simplified for mass appeal.

  47. Varcynal says:

    Oh no… Strike at Karkland….


  48. Count Elmdor says:

    I thought it was free2play, not play4free.

  49. beta key says:

    Hey, look–it’s that Battlefield 2 game I bought like… 5 years ago. Only it supports fewer players.

  50. apa says:

    registering now.