Battlefield 4 Is Really Real, Beta Next Year


Just in case you thought I was pulling your leg/was a gullible tool when we posted about the apparent leak of Battlefield 4, EA have stopped pretending it didn’t happen and officially ‘fessed up. They’ve confirmed that, yes, people who pre-order Medal of Honor: Man Who Fights Wars will get priority access to the beta of the next Battlefield, and that’s scheduled for ‘Fall 2013.’ Which I’d be willing to guess suggests a release date of October or November 2013, as has been EA and Activision manshoot tradition for many years now. But I might be wrong. I often am. Why, I was wrong about something only yesterday.

DICE have tried to allay fears this could mean BF3 gets dropped like a hot starchy vegetable product by taking to Reddit and declaring that ” “There are several teams at DICE. Starting work on Battlefield 4 does not mean that we will be abandoning Battlefield 3 or working any less hard to bring you the best expansions we can.” They (by which I mean BF3 community manager Ian Tornay) also addresses the issue of BF4 seeming to be uncomfortably hot on the heels of BF3 in the eyes of some.

“I think it’s worth noting that DICE has released a Battlefield game every two years or sooner AND Mirror’s Edge at least every two years. I truly believe that we’re in one of the best positions to be creating our next title – Frostbite 2 has matured, we’ve been gathering fan feedback like crazy, Battlefield 3 continues to expand with features which we can learn from, and we’ve got more data about how people play than ever.”

Well, that’s true, but the core, numbered Battlefield series has been much further apart than that – here have been Bad Companies of 2142s and Vietnams and all sorts in between. The question is whether the 4 denotes a true move up to new tech and new ideas, as has been the case for 1942, 2 and 3, or an interation a la the CODs. We shall see. In about 18 months. I really would prefer only hearing about videogames a couple of weeks before they’re released, I think.

Oh yes, and apparently Warfighting won’t be the only way to get on the beta. That’ll be a big old ‘phew’ for some, perhaps.


  1. Fincher says:

    We’ll never get a decent sequel to BF2142 without DICE giving it the BF3 treatment.

    It’s enough to make a grown man cry.

    • westyfield says:

      Bam, right in the good mood.

    • liquidsoap89 says:

      I’d even settle for a 2142 pack like Bad Company: Vietnam.

      • Smashbox says:

        Without the option of an $80 digital deluxe edition and a $50 DLC subscription that includes server priority? I think not, friend.

  2. LazyLemming says:

    That better be a collectors edition. 70 freaking bucks….

    • Lev Astov says:

      No, it’ll be the “digital deluxe” version, in which you get content they stripped out of the normal version. It’s all a test to see just how far they can push consumers, I say. It is too far for this one.

      • Smashbox says:

        The Fuck You, Full-Price Day-One Fans™ edition.

        • corbie says:

          ..with the free FUCKYOOOUSE Scottish martial arts DLC featuring shell-suit fatigues, a tartan tammy and a wee dug.

          • amidcnb says:

            Today’s deals! HD waterproof sports watch (8G memory, movement activated, hidden cameras, digital video recorders) price reduction of 20% 59,99 $! link to

  3. Hug_dealer says:

    I’m looking forward to it. BF3 was fantastic.

    Contrary to the vocal minority, BF3 was a massive success.

    Yes it was buggy, but every battlefield game ever has been buggy.

    • codename_bloodfist says:

      Every single MADDEN game is a major success as was DA2. That statement alone doesn’t mean jack from the quality point of view.

    • neonordnance says:

      I totally agree. Plus it’s actually gotten some (admittedly poorly communicated and intermittent) post-release support, and a lot of the big problems have been patched.

      I’m a premium player, and so far it has been money well spent. It’s so sad to see the hateful comments the game always gets when it gets discussed here.

      • BobbyDylan says:

        Well, now that EA has your money, I’m willing to bet they invest the bare minimum into the last 2 expansions (endgame & Aftermath). I bet 90% of the team at dice will be working on BF4 by then.
        I hope EA proves me wrong, but I’m just going by their track record.

        • neonordnance says:

          My theory is that, yes, the majority of the team is working on BF4, but that’s because they blitzed the expansions once the base game shipped (hence the intermittent post-shipping patch support). I also wouldn’t be surprised if they had some cut content from the base game they could put in.

          So basically, my theory is that the content is already 90% done, and it was delayed to maximize profits. And that’s ok with me. As for the dlc being rushed/poor quality, I doubt it. DICE has a good track record on dlc (minus the cash for weapons scandal in BC, and they backed away from that). Close quarters was solid and B2K was fantastic, so I’m quite hopeful.

    • PoulWrist says:

      Me too. I am looking forward to getting all the coming premium content and the expansion packs yet to come. BF3 has been great fun so far, way more fun than I ever had with any previous BF game, bar perhaps BFBC2, but that was probably mainly because that was my first foray back into online shooters in years. But then, that was also the only evolutionary FPS title to come out since hitboxes were invented…

    • Discopanda says:

      I bought Battlefield 3 after it was 50% off on Origin for some sale or another. I managed to not have fun with it, as bug-free as it was! Getting sniped by some level 42 guy from across the map is just lame as hell. I mean, of course I could play for a few dozen hours to get to the “fun” bits once I have some decent kit, or just shell out 40 bucks to unlock everything, but I like at least SOME fun at the start of the game.

      And also the single player was godawful terribletastic.

      • Hug_dealer says:

        Another thing that Pisses me off.

        People claim they dont have the unlocks to compete. TOTAL BULL.

        The initial guns for the game are in fact the best weapons in the game. The other weapons tend to specialize into certain roles, long range, short range, good hipfire etc. The starting guns are all very good.

        • Phantoon says:

          Have you considered your opinion isn’t listened to/valued as much when you come right out at the beginning and say you’re a fanboy?

          • neonordnance says:

            I have unlocked nearly every weapon in the game, and i still sometimes use the starter weapons. The ak-74m and ak74s are both excellent. Ditto the rpk. The sv98, the first sniper rifle you unlock, is one of the best sniper rifles and i used it a lot. The 870mcs, the first shotgun you get, is arguably the best shotgun at close to medium ranges against a single enemy.

            If snipers are really being a big problem, i suggest you change tactis. Use vehicles to close the distance quickly, counter-snipe from base, hide in buildings, or worst case scenario, change servers. I actually think that the addition of barrel glint means snipers are less of a problem than wookies were in bc2.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            Its not opinion,

            go to

            look at the stats of all the weapons.

            The starter weapons are all basically the best in the game overall. There are weapons that you unlock that excel in other areas.

          • Aedrill says:

            So we can’t discuss the matter with him, because he likes the game? Only opinion that matters is the opinion of people hating it, right? He gave you an argument in discussion, it’s either valid, or not, do something about it. “You like this game therefore all you say is bollocks” is not the right reaction.

          • Brun says:

            He’s just a hater – the other side of the fanboy coin. Same irrational feelings about the game but in the opposite direction. Like fanboys, every game has haters, especially on RPS (unless you’re an indie Mario clone).

  4. Stochastic says:

    At least it hasn’t turned into an annual franchise.

    Also, why is Warfighter $69.99? Seems a tad pricey.

    • Drink says:


    • riku0116 says:

      Actually, if the release date is actually October 2013, the length of the development cycle will be exactly the same as that of Call of Duty. It just seems longer because Call of Duty has 2 studios working on it on alternating schedules.

      Fun fact: The development cycle from Bad Company 2 to Battlefield 3 was an even shorter 1.5 years.
      Explains quite a bit, doesn’t it.

      • DrGonzo says:

        They were working on BF3 before Bad Company 2 was released however.

      • D3xter says:

        EA also has two studios working on it for yearly releases, they just call the one “Medal of Honor” (despite being Frostbite 2 now too and being almost identical in style) and the other “Battlefield”.

        I hope it blows up in their faces.

    • ulix says:

      It (almost?) was an annual franchise before… 2 years is actually quite long for a new BF game.
      2002 – BF 1942
      2004 – BF Vietnam
      2005 – BF 2
      2006 – BF 2142
      2008 – BF Bad Company
      2009 – BF 1943
      2010 – BF Bad Company 2
      2011 – BF 3

      Just saying. Quit bitching.

  5. db1331 says:


    It would only be proper of them to let their loyal BF3 players into the beta. With the BF3 beta they gave out 1 free game for playing the beta, and another for pre-ordering the game. I got Dead Space 2 and MoH (it sucked, but I already had Mass Effect 2, which was the only other game to choose). I’d want to get in on the BF4 beta just for the freebies.

  6. povu says:

    Mirror’s Edge 2 please, thanks.

  7. Drink says:

    RIP Battlefield 2002 – 2012. Personally, I think it is headed to become EA’s Call of Duty. They went too far with BF3: Premium, but a sequel so soon? I would rather have new IPs or a Mirrors Edge sequel than BF4.

    • PoulWrist says:

      Too far, eh? OK… And a sequel so soon? Did you READ the article? Beta in autumn 2013, that’s 1 year and 2 months from now, at the earliest. Means we get a potential christmas 2013 launch. That’s 2 years after BF3 launched and over 6 months after the last planned BF3 expansion. How, pray tell, is that too early for a sequel?

      • Vorphalack says:

        Here’s something to consider. This is the first Battlefield game with a ”premium” payment option. Anyone buying into that, and then being asked to move on to BF4 as a standard purchaser sometime next year might well feel like they had been downgraded. On top of that, just after someone gets done paying off their DLC package, a whole new game comes along and asks them to do it all over again. That’s gonna add up to a lot of cash in one franchise. I can well understand someone wanting their BF3 investment to last longer than this. It’s not like the BF3 tech will be that dated in 18 months. TF2 is ancient by comparison and still has a huge player base.

        • grundus says:

          I didn’t read your whole post but the first part is why I won’t be buying BF4 unless it’s a step up in every way from BF3 + Premium, which is unlikely but we’ll see.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      Its ignorance like this that really PISSES me off.

      A new battlefield game is released every 2 years.

      Battlefield release timeline
      2002 Battlefield 1942
      2003 Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome
      2003 Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII
      2004 Battlefield Vietnam
      2005 Battlefield 2
      2005 Battlefield 2: Special Forces
      2005 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
      2006 Battlefield 2: Euro Forces
      2006 Battlefield 2: Armored Fury
      2006 Battlefield 2142
      2007 Battlefield 2142: Northern Strike
      2008 Battlefield: Bad Company
      2009 Battlefield Heroes
      2009 Battlefield 1943
      2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
      2010 Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam
      2010 Battlefield Online
      2011 Battlefield Play4Free
      2011 Battlefield 3
      2011 Battlefield 3: Back to Karkand
      2012 Battlefield 3: Close Quarters
      2013 Battlefield 4 (Beta)

      Also battlefield premium is a bundle of the DLC, which are identical to the Booster packs from bf2 and bf2142, actually not identical, the new DLC provide more content than the bf2 and 2142 booster packs added.

      lets not forget that people did not complain bout the 1942 expansions, or the bf2 expansions, or the bfbc2 expansions. We welcomed the additional content, but apparently DLC is no longer fashionable, and all DLC is suddenly content stripped from the original game.

      • D3xter says:

        2002 Battlefield 1942
        2005 Battlefield 2
        2011 Battlefield 3

        Are really the only ones that matter from your list, they’re not calling it “Battlefield 4” for no reason and there’s all kinds of different expectations… That’s a lot more than 2 years.
        No, “Mini-Expansions” don’t count and after Battlefield 2142, which was a major failure sales-wise they turned to the consoles and didn’t even develop any game for the PC till Bad Company 2.
        Last time I looked this was a PC Gaming site…

        I was a Battlefield “fanboy” till Battlefield 3 like most of you and Pre-Ordered the game without much question, I don’t even think it was a *bad* game, just disappointing and haven’t bothered with it in a long while, but this type of apologist behaviour is always pissing me off :/

    • neonordnance says:

      This is exactly what I’m talking about. The game is made by a developer with a strong, proven track record, you haven’t seen a single screenshot and you have no details whatsoever, and you’re declaring the franchise dead. Regardless of how you feel about Premium (I think of it as a hyper season pass, and i’m happy with what it’s getting me, but this debate has been had), you simply have no evidence whatsoever to back up this claim.

      Every single time Battlefield 3 gets brought up on this site, there is inevitably a string of baseless accusations like this in the comments page. Why? Is Activision paying you? Do you just really, really hate EA? Did DICE run over your dog?

      Tl:dr why does RPS hate BF3?

      • liquidsoap89 says:

        Because a lot of people hate EA, so by that extension they HAVE to hate DICE.

        • Fincher says:


          Because DICE have bent their knee to EA.


          If you’re so blind to the issues that have alienated a lot of DICE’s existing audience then there’s no use trying to convince you.

          • tehsorrow says:

            I think if you didn’t like BF3 then not being excited for BF4 is a no brainer but if we’re speaking of being blind to things, don’t you think you’re being blind to the many people who do enjoy this game?

            There are many reasons to dislike the newer Battlefield games. 2 year turn around isn’t one of them, because that’s business as usual. Unless of course you’ve always hated that, in which case carry on your decade long vendetta

          • Fincher says:

            I recognise why some people like BF3. I also recognise why some people like CoD, because it’s mindless fun which anyone can enjoy. Y’see, it’s possible to recognise a game for it’s strengths AND weaknesses. Most long time Battlefield players are attuned to the weaknesses. Battlefield 3 is just another departure from the original scope of the franchise however.

            I didn’t have to put up with all the DLC when I was playing BF2 and waiting for their next installment.

          • neonordnance says:

            I’ve been with the series since the beginning. I own every single battlefield game for the pc, save 2142.

            Yes, some of EA’s business decisions piss me off. For instance, the high price of Mass Effect DLC, the pulling of their games from steam, and the rushed development of DA2.

            However, I really, really like BF3. It’s quite simply a next-gen multiplayer game. It blows everything else out of the water. It has incredible depth in terms of class customization, a bewildering array of unique and interesting weapons, many solid maps that get added to regularly, great vehicles that are easy and fun to drive, and tight gameplay that rewards team play and offers plenty of interesting battlefield roles.

            The involvement of EA big money is not a curse, but a mixed blessing. Yes, origin and battlelog suck, but battlelog has some genuinely interesting features (i love the stats, for instance), is free, and it supports the community. It also makes it extremely easy to jump into a game with my friend and to use voice chat. Yes, EA’s greed meant the game was expensive when it came out. But that greed also meant a substantial investment which DICE used to make the game look stunningly good, and to provide solid, if intermittent, post-release support that has fixed many problems. And yes, premium is a cash-grab. But as a hardcore fan, I was more than happy to pay. I get all of the dlc’s for cheaper, early, and the extra perks are substantial and interesting. Not to mention that, in total, premium is going to deliver substantially more content for my $50 than most full games.

            I’m not blind, I’m realistic. The blind people are the ones who see EA’s name attached and immediately start shouting, often without having even given the game a chance. Come on, people.

          • Mockdot says:

            @neonordnance Thank you, I needed that.

          • Tasloi says:

            For more you can check out EA press releases or most BF3 reviews/articles on game sites.

          • Tams80 says:

            If your going to complain about Battlefield and EA, then complain about Battlefield Play4Free and Battlefield Heroes. Heroes isn’t too bad, but Play4Free is quite a rip-off monetary wise and Easy, the developers were more than happy to significantly alter bought content. They make Battlefield 3’s already quite reasonable base price and reasonably priced DLC look like an absolute bargain.

        • Shooop says:

          What is this DICE you speak of?

          There’s only EA.

      • derbefrier says:

        they hate it cause of Mob mentality. I think its pretty obvious this is just drone behavior, monkey see monkey do and all that crap. Its fine if you didn’t like the changes they made in BF3 that’s completely understandable but badmouthing a game because a sequel is coming out in 2 years is just blind hate with no rhyme or reason, well i guess its to make them feel part of the clique, or to be one of the cool kids. nonetheless its a sure sign that a lot of commenters here are not really thinking about what they are saying and just jumping on the EA hate bandwagon to try and impress their peers.

        • Phantoon says:

          By the same argument, you enjoyed it because of mob mentality.


          • neonordnance says:

            Not true. The overwhelming feeling of this community, at least those who care enough to post, is anti-bf3. By speaking in defense of the game he is actually going against the prevailing notion.

          • melchett says:

            By the same argument, you enjoyed it because of mob mentality.


            This was a joke, right?

        • sophof says:

          How DARE these people not like your favorite game amiright?
          Where does all this insecurity about something you like come from? A bunch of people complaining about it in this thread has exactly zero impact in how you enjoy your game, yet you feel the need to insult every single one of them.

      • D3xter says:

        It’s obvious to everyone but the blindest that EA is copying Activisions Call of Duty model 1:1, they have bi-yearly releases by two development studios using the same engine, one called “Battlefield” and the other “Medal of Honor”. And they’re also copying their DLC model of 5+ DLCs and what they basically want to turn into a “Subscription” for it.

        It’s not about quality or the integrity of the series or the IP, it’s about yearly exploitation of it.
        Riccitiello even in not so many words stated that “Battlefield is aimed at competing with the Call of Duty series”.

        Battlefield 3 was talked up as the “saviour” from the Call of Duty franchise pumping out the same game every year and DLC exploitation, yet here it is set to do the exactly same thing even worse in some ways by allowing paying for unlocks and loudly thinking about microtransactions for bullets, but you all have probably seen that video by now: link to

        DICE was saying that they were “waiting for the technology to catch up so they can produce a title worthy of the name Battlefield 3” and things akin to that, well apparently if it is up to EA there’s a game “worthy” to be called that every two years now with a “Medal of Honor” in between…

        It’s just sad and a pathetic state of affairs…

        • Hug_dealer says:

          The gameplay of bf and moh are completely different. Moh competes with cod. Battlefield does its own thing.

          That is the unique thing about battlefield. Get a dozen people and ask them what makes battlefield, battlefield. You will get mostly different answers. Some say huge maps with vehicles. Some say large scale infantry warfare. Some says the squad based teamwork. Some say conquest mode. The truth is it is all those and more. Battlefield has always aimed to give all kinds of gameplay. From huge maps with all kinds of vehicles. To smaller infantry focused maps llike karkand, which was the most popular bf2 map.

          With so many different ideas on what battlefield is, you cannot please them all. People get offended when the devs cater to other aspects of the game that they dont care about, and feel that anything they dont like isnt “battlefield”.

          Personally i hate most of the smaller maps, i like the huge 64 player maps like dragon valley, but i know that as many if not more play the smaller 32 player maps and infantry focused maps.

  8. PoulWrist says:

    I hope Premium gets ytou into the beta.

    Other than that, the beta is schedueled for autumn 2013, that means launch in early 2014… I don’t think that’s early.

    • Stochastic says:

      It’ll probably be a Fall 2013 launch. The BF3 beta was made available September 29, 2011 and the full game released October 25th. These aren’t really “betas” so much as marketing demos that lack some polish.

  9. Gap Gen says:

    I hope you get to press Q to stab a rat this time round, too. Or maybe a chinchilla. That’d be OK.

  10. Tasloi says:

    Battlefield 3 was a decent shooter but a pretty bad Battlefield game. So Battlefield 4? First one in the series i’ll pass on.

  11. nasenbluten says:

    The last Medal of Honor was crap and the new one will be $70 or 70 freaking € !?

    Waaay out of hand. It’s not like they are selling some super scarce luxury item, it’s a digital product that you can sell infinitely with minimal distribution costs. At this rate games will be $100/€ in 5 years even on console without possibility of second hand reselling.

    • phelix says:

      Welcome to the wonderful world of corporate greed, where you don’t make profit to support a game but make a game to support profit.

  12. Beelzebud says:

    Why is it that just 2 years ago it was controversial to charge 59.99 for a PC game, and now no one even seems to notice that they’ve bumped it up to 69.99?

    • Brun says:

      Likely because it’s unclear whether that price is a result of it being a pre-order (with additional bonus content) or just the price of the base game.

      • Misnomer says:

        It isn’t unclear, my post with the links is awaiting moderation…but it says this:

        The original image was of a digital deluxe edition. That collector type edition is $70. You can go to Origin right now and see the base game “Limited Edition” pre-order available with the beta tied to it for $60.

        Pricing has not changed. No need to rage.

        Reusing this image without explanation was just another odd RPS move.

  13. BlackeyeVuk says:

    The Milking of an IP , has begun . I care less about Battlefield, I only give fcuks enough to spare me sum power to comment about it.

    On this one, Hippie me peace one more time.

    • tehsorrow says:

      Look, if you said “I don’t like battlefield because of what they’ve done to the map design” or “I don’t like battlefield because the sun is too bright” or “I don’t like battlefield because there are too many unlocks” that’s ok. However, you have decided that since a new game is coming out after 2 years, which if you look at the post by Hug_dealer you’ll see is nothing new, the franchise is now being milked.

      I really don’t understand your thinking here

    • Shooop says:

      Begun? It began with Bad Company, the first one.

  14. caddyB says:

    I don’t like Battlefield because I didn’t pick it up on release and now I’ll be so far behind everyone that I won’t do anything well, and everyone will hate me and abuse me for it ( online community, heh ). My heart will break and I’ll stop playing it after a few hours.

    Oh and the unlocks, man. Why do we have to have unlocks to make people keep playing? Why must I win 1000 times to unlock some gun I like or learn how to use rockets on my fighter jet? ( I don’t actually know what unlocks what, but I hate level based weapon and class and skill unlocks. Should just be aesthetic unlocks like different camos and stuff. )

    So yeah, I’ll pass on this as well, I think.

  15. McDan says:


  16. buzzmong says:

    I really would just like DICE to throw BF3 on the scrapheap and go off and fully make BF4 as awesome as it can be by taking the good improvements that BF3 added (not a lot tbh) and fully remaking and upgrading BF2.

    I’d like to see such things as bigger maps which make use of the space and the destructability and don’t turn into corridor shooters or focus solely on one chokepoint (DICE probably need to hire a new team of map designers as BF3’s were terrible), a small but tightly balanced set of guns with proper decent sidegrades (not upgrades), a full set of classes as BF3 proved multi-classing doesn’t work well, decent squad systems, less focus on unlocks and K/D ratios, maps which load *while* the scoreboard/rewards screens are showing at the end of the round ala BC2, a proper main menu and importantly, no bloody Battlelog.

    It’s odd, but I’d rate Bad Company 2 as being better than BF3 as a manshooterygame, even if BC2 wasn’t a patch on BF2.

    • jimbobjunior says:

      You should win some sort of prize for being the only person in this thread to articulate what you didn’t like about BF3. Everyone else is busy spouting crap about the sanctity of the BF IP and white-knighting adult consumers as if they aren’t responsible enough to make buying decisions on their own.

  17. Dances to Podcasts says:

    “I really would prefer only hearing about videogames a couple of weeks before they’re released, I think.”

    I blame the people who keep posting about it. ;)

  18. Dudeist says:

    LOL $70
    They are crazy. EA.

  19. mrmalodor says:

    Whep, re-visited BF3 after a 3-month break. Bought CQ. Horrible maps. Never playing again.

    Found out that they actually split the community into 2 groups by giving premium users their own separate premium servers. Now there’s the normal players and the smug, elitist morons who love to attack anyone who criticizes the game or business model. And premium players seem to have about 20% more health too. Hooray for balance!

    Now my only choice pretty much is to go back to RO2 again, but that game makes me rage because of the camping-oriented gameplay, the lack of servers, the cheaters, the neo-nazis (there’s actually a server called Arische Kämpfer that has a “no jews” rule and TWI is doing nothing) and the even more elitist and misguided community. What a dilemma :S.

    • Misnomer says:

      I think you let the psychological effect of a person having a different color nametag get you a bit there. Premium players get no health benefit. What you are likely noticing is the horrible hit reg that has plagued the game since a patch earlier this year (not that it was perfect before, but it is horrendous now).

      The CQ maps are actually quite nice in appearance and size, the extra destruction is fun. The maps are just very limited as to their gametypes (Gun game or super fast conquest) and designed to only have the optimum number of players playing…no less and no more. I hope DICE opens up more game modes on them though.

      • mrmalodor says:

        What extra destruction? I still can’t see what “HD” destruction they were talking about, there’s just the ordinary Frostbite destruction.

        • GamerOS says:

          The maps feature more ‘detailed’ destruction compared to earlier maps.
          Most maps just have entire swats of wall disappear while in CQ you can slowly chip of parts of a concrete pillar instead of the entire thing just exploding.

          It’s the little details really and most people won’t pay attention to notice it seeing as you are busy getting shot all the time and blurry vission doesn’t help.

          Personally I like CQ and in my personal opinion does small arena based FPS better then CoD.

          Anyway, don’t really have to high hopes for BF4, many problems in BF3 can be lead back to being partially designed for console limitations and unless new consoles get released I’m afraid many of the problems will stay.

  20. BoBSoB says:

    I just want to say that this article voices my exact opinion on the matter. “but the core, numbered Battlefield series has been much further apart”.

    • Misnomer says:

      I don’t get this at all. You mean the distance between 1942 and BF2 ? Or is 1942 not numbered because you don’t count 2142 as a number so we only count BF1942, BF2, and BF3 and ignore everything that occurred in the series in between, that is a shame because you missed a lot unique battlefield experiences with as much content as the “core numbered games.”

      I actually feel sorry for 2142 and Vietnam, they were very good games in their own rights and the core BF community sort of got mad at them until they could declare them great games later (see BC2).

      The problem here might be that EA and DICE are too terrified not to call it BF4 because we have seen what the community will do to anything that isn’t “core numbered.”

      I just don’t get this logic.

      • BoBSoB says:

        The thing is Vietnam and 2142 felt like expansions. They did not push Battlefield forward in tech and game play like 1942 and BF2 did. And do not get me wrong Vietnam and 2142 were good games. I actually like 2142 better than BF2.

  21. jellydonut says:

    On the same engine? Running on the same silly consoles?


    • Skhalt says:

      The Call of Money, my good sir. Stronger and more terrifying than the Call of Cthulhu these days.

  22. lexoneir says:

    Too bad it’ll be Origin only.

  23. Meldreth says:

    I sincerely hope that this time, they won’t bother making a single-player campaign.

  24. Abbykins says:

    LOL $70?! There’s certainly the question of value, something most consumers really do care about. For gamers used to traditions like the Steam Summer Sale, it seems difficult for EA to justify such a price.

    Considering there is a near zero cost for digital distribution, the only rationale to charge $70 is to exploit the loyal fanboy. For all others, there are plenty of viable competitors available for a small fraction of the price. BF4 is competing in a VERY crowded genre, and brand loyalty isn’t worth the premium they seem to think it is.

    Also, I’m sure I’m not the only one to have more games to play than free time. I’ve added another 17 titles in the last few days and I can’t think of an incentive to plop down full price for ANY game when you can pick it up at a huge discount in six months or a year.

    EA is biting the hand that feeds it, but is a hand willingly offered up. I guess what they say about a fool and his money is true.

  25. TwwIX says:

    I could not care less. Battlefield 3 killed what little interest i had left in the series.

    Planetside 2 looks like the team oriented and tactical experience i expected Battlefield 3 to be. Not to mention that it will be free.

  26. SanguineAngel says:

    Well I am glad they say they’re not dropping BF3 – that’s great. But with a new core product that is very similar to the current core product they will be splitting the player base … again. Brill! I am currently LOVING getting booted off a server once they decide to use new maps so now I can look forward to having half the number of populated servers to choose from in the first place.

    I actually loved BF3 when it came out.

  27. NightShift says:

    Oh, the irony if Black ops 2 actually turns out to be decent and this turns out horrible.

  28. pcgamerpro says:

    BF3 Armored kill premier gameplay is out guys check it out.
    link to