Battlefield 1943 Dead, Also Onslaught

And now for the bad news. Blues reports that Battlefield 1943 has actually been cancelled for PC, despite prior news to the contrary. This forum post has the news: “We know some of you eagerly have been awaiting Battlefield 1943 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Onslaught on PC, ” says Karl Magnus Troedsson. “I’m sad to say that these two titles are now officially cancelled. Instead, our talented teams will focus on delivering the greatest possible gaming experience in our next behemoth release. We’re confident this will lead to an even better experience in Battlefield 3, not only on PC, but on all platforms.”

So yes, the failhorn has also been sounded for Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Onslaught on PC. In other news: not long until the Battlefield 3 unveiling. Fingers crossed, eh?


  1. Premium User Badge

    Eric says:

    “We want people to understand, we still love the PC. Not enough to support it as a platform with our games, of course. But as much as it is possible to love it without doing that.”

  2. strange headache says:

    I’m sorry I have to vent a little, but this feels like a kick in the nuts. I’ve been playing Battlefield since 1942, the first game in a long series that started out on the PC, became a vastly successful franchise on the back of the PC-community and earned EA millions of millions of dollars. And now they can’t even bring themselves to release THIS for PC?!?! WTF?!


    • Premium User Badge

      Eric says:

      I don’t know that I’d pin this on EA. I think it’s at least as likely that DICE is just lying in the bed they made.

      And I’d be fine with that, actually, if they’d just stop the posturing. You guys went to the land of console dollars, and that means PC is now a secondary concern for you. That’s fine, but stop lying to us and saying otherwise.

    • omicron1 says:

      We have decided not to bring the games we already sold you on PC up to parity with the ones we sold on consoles. We will also renege on our promise of bringing a cheap downloadable title to PC long after we gave it to our console buddies – I mean, customers. Now, don’t you want to spend fifty bucks on an all-new game that’s nearly identical to one you already bought? All your friends will be playing it…

      …give us more money now!

    • skinlo says:

      So was COD and look how thats turned out…

    • Rond says:

      There were Battlefield games back in 1942?

    • Sigh says:

      “There were Battlefield games back in 1942?”

      Yes and even back then people were complaining. “DICE has abandoned the vacuum tube computers for the newer more shiny transistor computers…the next Battlefied won’t be ported to the vacuum tubes at all” and blah blah blah. Things never change.

  3. Ricc says:

    I just had this thought… They are going to screw up BF3 on PC, aren’t they?

    • Memphis-Ahn says:

      They sure are!
      When they said “We’re confident this will lead to an even better experience in Battlefield 3, not only on PC, but on all platforms” they also meant “Especially on the other platforms because we’re going to castrate the PC version.”

  4. db1331 says:

    But we’re still supposed to believe them when they promise BF3 won’t be designed for Xbox and then ported to PC, amirite?

    • Njordsk says:

      I’m not sure son, I’m not sure.

      May the gods of videogames hear you.

  5. Duffin says:

    Maybe EA should try to get their grubby fingers on my money not by releasing trash dlc for older games, but by actually releasing some new ones.

  6. Heliocentric says:

    Eh, I was never going to benefit from either release due to being a cynical bsod. Not even convinced i want BF3, will it really topple PR? And if not will it offer mod support so its own mods can do the heavy lifting?

    • Adriaan says:

      BF3 won’t topple PR as they (will) deliver different experiences, and thus cater to (for a large part) different people.

  7. Chesterton says:

    For a minute there, I read that as they were cancelling BF3 for the PC…Scared me!

  8. starclaws says:

    EA please permit a side-project/independent group to continue development on this title.

    Unless BF3 comes with aircraft carriers and planes… Then I could care less for a CoD with vehicles clone.

    • Collic says:

      I could care less about proper grammar, but I choose not to :P

    • Atomosk says:

      I could care less about FPS lineage, like how CoD is based on Counter Strike’s gun handling and how Battlefield is completely different from both of them with smaller bullets that are affected by gravity and air resistance as well as larger maps and different gameplay modes and destructible terrain , but I choose not too. :p

      And yes, BF3 has airplanes.

  9. Jimbo says:

    WW2hat a shame.

  10. Po0py says:

    Don’t care. It would have been too late anyways. The thing I don’t want to see is them making the same mistake again. Delaying a PC title to concentrate on the console version and then never getting around to completing the PC title. It probably will happen again. And well be fed the same old horseshit all over again. And I’ll be posting the same kind of comment here on RPS. Again.

  11. Mark says:

    Honestly, I can see why. I doubt they’d have got anyone buying Onslaught on the PC, and 1943 has been delayed so long that it’s difficult to care.

  12. Shroom says:

    Am I missing something here? Is it really that complicated to port a DLC from console code into something that works on the PC? Is it really that difficult or is EAs market research staffed entirely by idiots because surely relative to the cost to EA of the port the profits the would make would be big?

  13. FRIENDLYUNIT says:

    OK. I really appreciate them finally coming out and putting their cards on the table. As far as I’m concerned there IS no BF3 coming for PC.
    I’m happy with this. As a PC gamer I can move on from EA in general.

  14. kyrieee says:

    So, were they ever even working on this? Or did they just announce that it was coming and then put off doing it?

  15. Jabberslops says:

    I’ve played BF1943 and can tell you from my experience that it is by far an inferior product compared to the unbalanced mess BFBC2 Vietnam is (mostly in terms of the maps being complete shit).

    Also, while I am talking about Battlefield I would like to mention that I at one time loved BF1942, but don’t think you can just go back to it and have the same spark of interested I did before BF2 was released. BF1942 is just not a good game anymore compared to all awesome great fun BC2 can give.

    Don’t get me wrong though, I hate that every “Battlefield” game has fewer game mechanics and content with every new versions. DICE need to release a proper sequel to BF1942 with, at the very least, everything the original has. This includes Naval combat with ships that you can actually walk on while it’s moving…

    *Edit* BTW, why is there no log out button anywhere on the main site?

  16. The Great Wayne says:

    Don’t care. Planetside is coming back, so I’m gonna trash my BFBC2 copy and never look back. Likely, BF3 can just go to hell.

    New conglomerate > russians+us+vietkongs anyway.

  17. rocketman71 says:

    Aaaaaaaaaaaand more proof that nobody at EA and DICE gives a shit about the PC. What will they remove for BF3 PC?. Perhaps the time has come for the mouse to go?.

    Stop giving them your money, people!. Support the companies that care about you (in addition to your money, of course). EA and DICE are clearly not included in those.

  18. Strepto says:

    link to

    “,but check back here and visit the official Battlefield 3 site tomorrow to watch the premiere teaser trailer and glean a few more key details.”

    BF3 is on its way!!

    • Springy says:

      “DICE sets its sights on Call of Duty”? Oh God, no. No no no. Don’t set sights. Steer sights away. Set sights somewhere else. Don’t lower yourself, please. You already did that rubbish for BC2. Don’t do it for an actual, proper BF game.

  19. Adekan says:

    I suppose they don’t want my filthy PC dollars. I shant bother mucking up their wallets with them any time soon.

  20. DoucheMullet says:

    “Hey PC users! You weren’t important enough for us to dedicate enough manpower to port these games to PC at the same time as the consoles got them, so because we love you so much, we’re canceling these games from ever being on PC so we can work on Battlefield 3, which will also be a dumbed down console port, BECAUSE WE LOVE YOU SO MUCH!

  21. Zogtee says:

    Just wait a bit and they’ll cancel the PC version of BF3 too. They will be very sorry to do so, of course, because they really, really like the PC.

    • DoucheMullet says:

      The reason stated is because they wish to make Battlefield 4 ALL IT CAN BE on PC AS WELL as the consoles too.

  22. mda says:

    I don’t care what they cancel so long as BF3 is awesome…

  23. Starky says:

    This was an obvious thing for EA to do, and expected really. I doubt either of those titles/DLC would bring enough revenue in to be worth the hassle – Oh it might have made a profit, but a small one.
    Simply put why have 50 people working on something that will return 2-3 times investment when you can put them on something that will return much higher rates.

    I’d wager £50 that this is less of a budget issue and more of a manpower issue, talented people are hard to find so any smart company wants them working on worthwhile projects.

    Sucks for the PC, but the bottom line is games just don’t sell enough on this platform in general to be worthy of that human resources investment – we PC gamers can bitch and moan all we like, but when platform A brings in 50% of income platform B 35% and platform C 15% – Platform (P)C is clearly going to be the lesser priority.

    A 15% that is by far the most difficult, time consuming and resource heavy of the 3 platforms to develop for too.

    15% of the main release might be a considerable sum worth the investment, worth the extra dedicated staff required, but 15% of DLC and other small income side projects probably isn’t. Which is why so many PC ports get shoved off onto external Dev houses and contracted out.

    Sucks, but that is how it is, in any creative industry talented dedicated people are hard to find, so as a company you can’t waste them on projects that have little overall gain.

    • Plankton says:

      I don’t buy this at all. BC2 must have made A LOT of money for them on the PC. The total player numbers for PC and 360 are pretty close. However, there are people on 360 who only rented the game and ofcourse the profit margins of copies sold on console are generally lower (think about digital distribution!). So how are the console so much more important for Dice? The PC crowd are still their main audience and that crowd would have loved to play BF1943. Just hearing that Wake Island is in there gives them all a warm and fuzzy feeling on the inside.

      For EA in general the PC is still incredibly important … it’s not in the 15% region as you suggest.

      Also, while the PC is certainly more difficult to develop for its not quite as bad as a lot of people seem to suggest, pretending like it’s going to take them a whole army of programmers … yeah right, I guess that’s how all the Indie devs manage to make games for PC.

    • Pathetic Phallacy says:

      I apologize in advance for making you look silly.

      Here you go: link to

      The number one fanbase of Battlefield games is on the PC. Think about it, that article is a year old. With all the insane sale prices of BF recently, I’m sure the number of PC users is much much higher now than on consoles. Also, those figures probably don’t account for digital distribution either!

      So yes, Dice is essentially another company who is turning its back on its primary base to seek a spot in an overly saturated market. You can bet that Battlefield 3 will not be as good as Battlefield 2.

      Sometimes it’s better to produce a niche product to a niche market. Oh well, they will learn eventually.

    • Starky says:

      BFBC2 was a bit of a fluke born by the fact that the PC hadn’t had a decent shooter of that style in ages, that and it enjoyed the benefit of the general PC backlash against Modern Warfare 2.

      That 15 maybe 20% though is true for for the vast majority of multi-platform releases.

      Also, it is my understanding that DLC tends to perform poorly on PC compared to consoles.

      So ask yourself, what if the sales they got on the Xbox weren’t impressive, and they figured that even if the PC equalled it it wouldn’t be worth the human resources?

      I’m a PC gamer through and through, I don’t own a PS3 and my XBox is only used socially, I don’t have Live for example, but reality is reality – of all the platforms, when it comes to big budget games ours is the least profitable in the vast majority of cases.

      As for development difficulty – Indie devs don’t release massively complex games generally, and when they do they tend to be buggy as all hell and take MONTHS to iron out, hell the same is true for medium to large PC only devs (I submit ARMA 2 and Total War as example).
      No the reasons why indie devs choose PC is simply that it has zero barriers to entry – and faster and faster the PC is losing that.
      Android, Iphone and other OSes (maybe even a windows platform :P) which have zero/minimum BOE will soon start (if not have already become) the indie platform of choice – especially if/when all those billions of tablet PCs we saw at CES become more popular.

      Hell, it is shifting that way anyway – many indie games on the PC now are just where developers prototype/beta them with intentions towards eventual Iphone/Ipad/Android release.

      The main problem for development difficulty is probably XP – it’s getting to the point of legacy support now, and even Microsoft have been telling people to abandon it (because they have) – windows 7 made massive massive leaps forward in terms of platform uniformity (that is if it works on one windows 7 PC, it should work on the majority of them, no matter which Graphics card/Mobo/Whatever the user has) – while XP is so drastically shaped by 3rd party drivers that the same cannot be said at all.
      A lot of that though isn’t so much down to windows 7 as it is to ever improving standardization in the industry.

      In the end we’ll never know the true reason why EA/Dice canned it – we can only really speculate, I’d simply give the highest odds on EA figuring that the dev-hours needed to finish the work, test it, then provide post-release support and patches wasn’t worth the estimated income gain.
      Which if the income for them was low on the 360 or they had some difficulties we don’t know about that increased the difficulty of porting it would probably mean it was the correct decision from a business standpoint.
      Which is the only standpoint EA or any other publicly traded company care about.

    • Starky says:

      How is that making me look silly? As I said, BFBC2 was a fluke, one of the rare games these days that manages a more even split across platforms – Which I believe the end was something like 25% PS3, 35% 360 and 40% PC.
      Which was a news worthy feat – and again as I said above, that was for a main game – DLC tends to do poorly on PC – A quick google doesn’t throw up any sources, but I do recall some reports by Bethesda and Gearbox – though I think the Borderlands one included their disk sales for the DLC (as you could buy them on disk for the consoles).

      Though it is my understanding that GOTY editions (with full DLC) do pretty damn well on the PC. I know anecdotally that is how I and most people I know get the DLC eventually – usually in a steam sale.

      Also there is the other issue, EA may fear (perhaps rightfully) that releasing them on the PC so close to the release of BF3 would over saturate their niche market with their own products.
      Hell I think there might actually be some merit to that. If PC is their main focus and main target market for BF3 (and if what they say is true it is – which given that for BFNC2 it wasn’t, yet the PC gained them the most succeeds that would be reasonable), then the release of a BF game expansion DLC, and a DLC game may make gamers less inclined to pay full whack for BF3.

      After all if they are still enjoying a newish BF game, then they may just wait to buy BF3 in a sale.

      Honestly I think “I’ll wait to buy it in a steam sale” is becoming one of the more popular PC gaming phrases, and one developers probably hate, but can’t avoid or resist.

  24. WJonathan says:

    I still want a Battlefield 1945. Update the original maps with better environmental detail, add a few more, more tanks, more weapons, more weird secret weapons, just the original ’42 but with everything. If they don’t give me this, and they won’t, I just can’t get excited about the watered-down ’43 anyway. Oh well.

  25. DOLBYdigital says:

    While I’m upset they are just dropping this, I’ll be honest that I wouldn’t have gotten either of them so its not a big deal for me. However there will be some ‘big’ announcement this Friday that is BF3 related. Apparently many insiders are claiming it will make BF gamers happy.

    So it will probably just be the first trailer which will show 0% gameplay but will play the good old BF music and maybe show the logo and a release date. Its either that or the beta date confirmation. So I’m not getting all that excited but its good that we are getting some news… even though I don’t expect BF3 to be even close to the awesomeness that BF2/1942 were.

    Failhorn…. nice

  26. gwathdring says:

    If you take a peek at the demographics of the industry, it looks a lot less like developers are abandoning the PC and a lot more like gamers new and old are embracing the consoles, with developers quite sensibly following the market. Piracy is a significant fear in the industry with respect of PC games, though I don’t personally know how significantly it effects profit margins. The PC is hard to develop for because games need to work on a wide swath of machines and are expected to have customizable graphics settings etc. Optimization is a time consuming process. On the console … you’re developing for one box per system. On the PC, you’re developing for a large number of graphics cards, processors, drivers, specs, several operating systems each in two varieties … it’s a bloody mess compared to developing on a console. Controls are also a bit more finicky, as they are less standardized and there is a greater expectation for customization options (not a big issue, I don’t think, but I’m sure man-hours have to be sunk into finding a good default control scheme).

    Besides. 1943 has always been a small project, meant to tide over BF fans while waiting for the next big release BF game. The next big release BF game has already happened. I really don’t feel slighted for not being able to play the game, and personally didn’t have much interest in it. BF2 Play For Free is also on it’s way …. which may well be more worth-while. BF2 is still kicking as well, last I checked (admittedly a over this past summer, so not exactly recently).

    I don’t really buy the “consoletards are ruining gaming by making games easier and such” thing. For starters, making games more accessible to more people (and if it’s not done quite right, it can mean nothing more than making them easier) is not a bad idea. It keeps the industry healthy, and the healthier the industry the more it can afford to muck about and try things (there’s a sweet spot in between the extremities of health in the industry, because strength in the industry also implies more incentive to maintain the status quo). I don’t want gaming to be an obscure sub-culture that is impenetrable to the outside. I want my personal niches to remain strong enough to merit the release of new games that fit me, but I neither am not want to be the center of everything. That would make for a rather small everything, which simply doesn’t help keep the industry and thus my hobby, alive. Sure a lot of crappy console games get made, but a hell of a lot of shitty PC games get made too. The primary change I’ve noticed being that a lot of the shitty game niches are shifting to consoles or switching to indie-style development resulting in cheaper, downloadable shitty games that try new things and inspire non-shitty games to spring up in the indie community. I like my gaming PC. I like not needing a TV which I really wouldn’t use for anything other than gaming and movies anyway. But it’s a pretty expensive piece of equipment, and from a developing standpoint it’s less desirable than consoles for a large portion of games currently selling well among customers.

    The bad things that happen in PC games are symptomatic not simply of the existence and prevalence of consoles but of the main-streaming tendencies that large and especially growing industries have. Throw all of the new console gamers onto PCs, and you still have new demographics opening up, and people who aren’t into “hardcore” games willing to buy something a little different, and a wider age range stepping in and a whole lot of changes in the consumer base that would cause similar changes to the sorts of games that get popular and the sorts of games that get made. The change is affordable gaming which easily leads into accessible gaming which is “ruining” our industry. But it’s also the only way for the industry to survive. For PC gaming, and the sorts of gamers that the PC gaming tradition has bred, to regain ground in the industry, gaming rigs need to match the price of consoles … but for similar reasons affordable laptops are killing PC gaming tradition too, if nowhere near as directly. Laptops can’t run a lot of recent games terribly well because weak cooling and integrated audio/graphics cards simply can’t keep up even with the help of the best processors. But laptops are convenient and growing in popularity. Smart phones, netbooks, and tablets like the I-pad are also shrinking the necessity of personal computers, laptop or desktop. Fewer people buying desktops slows the rate at which gaming desktop prices are falling which reduces the ability of the PC market to churn out new players.

    I guess the big thing for me is that I don’t give a crap if gaming revolves around consoles and console gamers. Business is Business. I just want good games to come out on PC and I want to be able to afford them. That still happens. The second one more often now, thanks to digital distribution keeping old games in circulation long after they leave bargain bins at bargain bin prices. I can play games way after release without actually waiting because I have all these old games to keep me happy (thought I guess, just like the rental market, it’s probably a bit of an issue for the industry’s bottom line).

    In the end … good PC games still happen, and are still going to happen for a while. Maybe BF3 won’t be one of them. But that’s ok. Not every good movie needs a sequel … and while this is less true in games due to server closures and availability issues in old games preventing repeat plays of old favorites in multiplayer, I don’t personally need a BF3. I need something that feels as good as 1942 felt to me when I first played it. Or BF2. Or Counter Strike Source. These games aren’t as fun now. The communities change and I’ve changed play styles and tried new things. But they were damn good when I played them. Just give me something else that good, and I don’t give a damn what it is.

  27. Njordsk says:

    Let’s be honest two minutes.

    Who wanted onslaught or a 3 maps 1942? I think it’s better for them to just trash our PC version and concentrate on BF3.

    I’m with you on that one DICE, but don’t screw up, or you’ll lose my faith forever.

    • Dreamhacker says:

      I agree. BF1943 never appealed to me because I’m sick to bits of WW2 games, and especially the pacific theatre… as for another game mode for BC2: Too litte, too late.

      Dice, just give us a BF3 that is a BF2-clone with better graphics, please?

  28. Njordsk says:

    Hey wake up folks, the TEASER TRAILER is up

    link to

    and it sucks yeah, but that’s an other thing

  29. Chizu says:

    I don’t really care about 1943 so much, but I really wanted to be able to play Onslaught with my friends.
    Last I heard the problem was with servers running it, could it not have been p2p or something :/

    I do not wish to have to buy console toy versions to get the “full” experience a game offers.

  30. Napalm Sushi says:

    Oh god, it’s like owning a Sega Saturn all over again.

    I guess this isn’t the first time in it’s history that the PC has been shuffled to the back of the deck, mind.

  31. The Sombrero Kid says:

    PC Gamers can’t trust EA to support their games on PC, they’re not the only ones of course, but increasingly I’m thinking I’ll only buy games that have an appropriate level of focus on my preferred platform.

  32. Jaffo says:

    Most importantly, EA had better give me a store credit for my pre-order of BF1943! :/