Supplémentaire: France Heading To Battlefield 1 As DLC

Battlefield 1 [official site] may have wowed us mid-week with its 64-player Conquest mode, but its multiplayer is still missing two key WWI players: France and Russia. As it stands, the game’s multiplayer includes the British, Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Italians, Ottomans, and Americans, however, given that France were part of the First World War from the outset, it seems a bit odd for them to miss out.

DLC? DICE’s Julien Wera appears to have confirmed so in an interview.

Speaking to IGN France, Wera suggests that France haven’t been forgotten about (they are included in the single-player campaign) and that they’ll get their own devoted “premium” expansion in multiplayer.

“For Battlefield 1, DICE seek to focus on the little-known stories of the Great War, to take players where they do not expect,” Wera said, according to Alice’s shaky translation [de rien! -ed.]. He added that “of course the studio does not ignore the importance of the French army in the war, and [players] will meet them in the the game’s campaign.”

Then, “To truly honour the French army in multiplayer and, once again, to show a side that we’re not used to seeing, we have decided to dedicate an entire premium add-on to them with a special treatment after the launch of the game.” [Oh no, I definitely don’t know the most natural translation of some of these phrases, why didn’t I leave the Google Translate version? -ed.]

Still no word on Russia, but I wouldn’t bet against their DLC deployment at a later date.

In the meantime, why not discover why history professor Robert Whitaker feels Battlefield 1 could be the best WWI game? Or the five reasons why John reckons it’ll be better than Dark Souls 3? Both are great reads in, ahem, very different ways.

Cheers, PCG.

From this site

78 Comments

  1. DarkLiberator says:

    Kind of sad that the French are merely playing a DLC faction role. There are French vehicles in the game. They’re presumably playing on French maps. French designed weapons. But no faction itself in the base game.

    But American faction is more important right? I’m an American and I find this idiotic.

    • darkath says:

      And how ironic that the black american soldiers, such as the one on the game’s cover, were fighting under French command during WW1 because white american soldiers were too racist to fight alongside them. They had french issued weapons and equipment and only kept their american uniforms. While in america they were subject to intense discrimination and were looked down upon, but in france they were welcomed as any good soldiers, and were known to boost morale wherever they went thanks to their band.

      • Emeraude says:

        Let’s be honest here, French racism was definitely a thing, it’s just that the paternalistic casual racism was a lot less visible, and easier to stomach, than the aggressive militant one that existed in the US.

        • darkath says:

          This might be true about the french society as whole, but less true in the military, from the onset of the war in 1914 the french troops and officers were used to fight alongside troops from the colonies and their division got praised by all for their feats and valour in combat and recieved many honours. As the war progressed, troops from all over the world came to fight. By 1918 when those americans soldiers came in, the french fighting in the trenches certainly couldn’t care less about their skin color.

          • socrate says:

            you do know that american actually almost didn’t fight in WW1?…people from several country actually need to get a lesson in how this war ended up being…the whole propaganda by game dev and dumb american “historian” is getting silly…i know the whole “history is written by the victors” but seriously there is alots of false fact in this game and alots of people are just trolling and spewing out tons of silly lies.

            Its even more sad to the Canadian army which contributed insane amount from the start and did gain a reputation of changing hopeless fight and doing the impossible often time turning the side of a battle.

            When american came in,the battle was almost done and the opposition were running out of resource quickly,the new arrival did make it impossible for them to turn thing around though,but most of the heavy fighting had already happened.

            And this whole “black” thing need to stop its just getting sooo silly just because of that dumb movie which as been overhyped for political and racial purpose in american further splitting american apart it seems with a part of history not well documented and full of hole and wierdly it only happened to them somehow and not to other american who fought in the war well…fought is a big word here for WW1..the harlem hellfighter are overhyped because of the current and recent situation in america the fact is afro american were a really small % of the american culture even smaller then today and saying they made a big part of their army is just ridiculous…not to mention that they seem to be always the only minority to get these special treatement when hispanic and asian contributed an insane amount to the united state yet you don’t see them being mentioned as much,if not at all.

            That said american history book tend to mention and create thing out of thin air and dismiss total failure of their army that tend to be extremely common so i guess its no surprise that history is being massacred like that in a video game from that generation conflicted with white guilt or what is left of their personal integrity.

  2. shiptonator says:

    Am I the only one who finds the idea of World War One games hugely distasteful? Especially given the 100 year commemorations? I’ve never encountered a World War One game of this ilk that worked.

    For some reason any other conflict, or delving into hell or anything else one can suspend disbelief for. But WWI stuff just feels wrong, and this game in particular looks like a cash in on millions of peoples horrific deaths.

    • Premium User Badge

      Cross says:

      Two problems there: You haven’t encountered a good WWI game, because very few have been made and you obviously haven’t played Verdun.
      And how exactly is treating WWI in popular culture any more tasteless than the legions of WWII games?

      • Holysheep says:

        I was gonna say that, too. Basically any game about any war, current or past, virtual or real, is distasteful if it gets the Hollywood treatment.
        Medal of honor or company of heroes is complete garbage for instance (I’m not gonna be this guy who yells “huurr CoD”, I mean it fits in there but we all know already), but red orchestra, verdun, or Men of war (for instance) do a pretty nice job at not being distasteful – simply because they’re realistic and documented, even though it means they’re basically much more brutal than this BS’d WWI game here.

      • Rich says:

        I would argue that games set in World War 2 are more distasteful, given the horrible bits of history that have to be glossed over to appeal/be acceptable to a wide market. You only ever see some of the nastier bits when a dev. decides they specifically want to make their game gritty, e.g. CoD: World at War.
        On the other hand, World War 1 was an imperial war, quite a long time ago, in which far fewer people died.

        • ohminus says:

          I’ve criticised whitewashes in WW2 games repeatedly, but the worst offenders seem to get the greatest accolades. The Red Orchestra series is utterly nauseating in that effect. But as for casualties, whether WW1 or WW2 had more losses depends largely on what nation you look at.

          • Rich says:

            The total number for WW2 is definitely larger. If you factor in civilians, then there’s no question at all.

          • klops says:

            What Rich said. Also: how are Red Orchestras whitewashing WW2? Not that I would be disagreeing (although I might), I’m more curious what’s your reasoning there.

          • ohminus says:

            Yes, the total number, but as I said, for any one single nation, it is quite less definitive.

            And as for Red Orchestra does whitewashing, I have yet to hear of systematic mass rape or civilians being herded like cattle, forced to dig up a ditch and then be all machine-gunned into it in the game. Nor have I heard of a mission where you go into a hospital or asylum to systematically gun down the patients there. Is there a way to first throw patients out of the window and then douse them in cold water until they die of hypothermia? Was there any case of soldiers being first taken prisoner, then forced to strip only to be stabbed with bayonets, shot and/or killed by tossing hand grenades at them? Can you cut off ears, noses and genitals of your victims and stuff them into their mouth? Can you cut the breasts off female victims?

            Basically, Red Orchestra was your average WW2 European Theater game replacing Americans with Russians, without any concept of the Kommissarbefehl or the consideration of Russians as “subhumans” unworthy of life, nor the massive thirst for revenge among the Red Army.

          • Haborym says:

            It’s a videogame, not a horror film dude.

          • klops says:

            That’s how the amount of fallen in a war is counted.

            Sure, ROs don’t address those sides of war. Perhaps that’s because they’re about the combat in WW2 with computer and internet limitations considered. Perhaps a multiplayer FPS that included those things would be a very poor game gameplay wise? Perhaps the game is framed to the combat side of the Eastern Front because the developera had tough time keeping even the multiplayer FPS together? It was buggy as hell for the first six months.

            Not that those things you mentioned should not be considered ans remembered, but not putting them in a relatively small budjet FPS is not in any way whitewashing.

          • Emeraude says:

            @Haborym:

            Surely you mean, “not a documentary”?

          • ohminus says:

            @Haborym
            Sorry if you have trouble stomaching the realities of the Eastern Front, but that’s precisely why I say Red Orchestra is a whitewash. And a seriously problematic one at that, because despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, the legend of the honorable Wehrmacht vs. the despicable Waffen-SS is still very much alive among some people. And that’s not even mentioning the fact of the Russians not liking to talk about their atrocities at all. Excluding them only helps such efforts to swipe them under the carpet.

          • ohminus says:

            It is whitewashing, since it buys into and supports the efforts to wilfully ignore these aspects. It supports a narrative that this was just like any other conflict when the goal was in fact not just victory but annihilation.

          • hotmaildidntwork says:

            I’m made curious as to how you would change the game to address this issue, ohminus?

          • ohminus says:

            Honestly? I’d stay the heck away from the Eastern Front, at least with an FPS, because more than likely, nothing good can come out of it. It’s a bit like making a “sim city” for extermination camps… or publishing an Auschwitz DLC for Prison Architect.

            If you want to make an FPS in Eastern Europe in WW2, if you absolutely must, I’d suggest having a resistance fighter in the Warsaw Ghetto as a protagonist, all the while structuring the game in such a fashion that the only “good” outcome is getting away with your life, possibly rescuing a few others, not mowing down thousands of Nazis and saving the day, as anything else would belittle the efforts of the actual resistance fighters.

            I don’t know enough about the Winter War and the Continuation War to decide if it might be a viable alternative – it certainly seems to me not to be dominated by a wish for utter annihilation of the opponent.

            Other than that, I believe that this is a theater best left to games in the vein of “This war of mine”. Allowing people to feel like a hero in either of the armies involved is very dicey business.

          • ohminus says:

            re: Warsaw Ghetto FPS: Or, of course, for a multiplayer game, several resistance fighters.

      • ohminus says:

        From what I’ve seen and played of Verdun, I don’t find it particularly convincing.

      • syndrome says:

        Frankly I’m amused by how appalled you all seem to be when it’s your ancestors’ war. How about being critical about it when you technicaly should not care? And only recently, in the last two decades?

        That being said, I don’t find BF tasteless. It’s not a museum of history and anthropology neither, but hey… It’s a shooting game of war, thematically positioned as such to evoke a strange but familiar feeling with all the vistas, towns, vehicles, and uniforms from the period.

    • Ross Angus says:

      I completely sympathise with your point of view. But a distinction should be made between what subjects are covered, and how they are depicted.

      It’s often said of a subject “you shouldn’t make jokes about x”. The assumption is that comedy is always trivialising a subject. On the contrary, comedy can often point towards an aspect of something which is often ignored. Or make light of an oppressor.

      Likewise, games will attempt to gamify a subject, to some extent. But this does not necessarily mean that the subject is trivialised or mocked. Whether Battlefield 1 does this or not, we are yet to see. Let’s not judge it on the elements the marketing department have seen fit to highlight.

      Your discomfort is understandable, however. I recently replayed Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault and also watched The Pacific. The contrast between the depiction of the same conflict was stark and threw into relief how often the games industry ignores aspects of warfare which are surely due more attention.

      • Alfius says:

        Very much this, that we’ll never see a resurgence of the sort of early 20th Century fascism that took a hold in Germany and Italy is due in part to the fact that the sort of jackbooted goosestepping machismo that so defined those movements is now an object of fun. When someone like John Cleese marches around like a buffoon imitating Hitler he isn’t trivialising war or Nazism, he’s ridiculing it. One day something equally horrific may well emerge, but when it does it will have to come under a different guise or it will simply be laughed at.

    • klops says:

      You’re not. This has been addressed in RPS in previous BF1 announcements and very much in the forum. Many people agree with you.

      I belong in the group that is confused why WWI game seems wrong but a game about WW2 or any other war is ok.

      • Emeraude says:

        Two things I think:

        a) There’s still a form of reverence for that war in a Europe.

        b) WW2 can be trivialized a lot more because the popular narrative can point at supposedly indisputable, consubstantial evil enemy – or as Blood Raine I seem to remember would resume things “kill vampires, mummies and nazies!”.

        The popular narrative for WWI is lot more messy. It’s more about Government vs its own people and utter senselessness. Every foot-soldier, whatever the side, is considered as a victim first and foremost in that war, before being a perpetrator, if at all. Sacrificed for nothing.
        It’s a lot more difficult to make a game about killing people in that context, as it goes against the narrative.

    • socrate says:

      its is cashing in on death really with people making said game not really caring at all…but then again movie do the same and the game industry do it all the time if not WW1 its WW2…and its horribly depicted all the time and wrong on so many level be it morally or historically…american were part of the conflict when the conflict ended for an example yet the american are seen as been in a huge part of the war wich is totally false and not to mention the overhype on the non stop harlem hellfighter…that said other option would be CoD and overwatch at this point so…im sure it will be entertaining to play but…at what price…i think human need another war sadly to make them realise how terrible these moment in history were and how we shouldnt praise them and have fun with them…but creating a dumb retard who goes around thinking its gonna be like CoD or battlefield i think is better then someone who will understand the impact of war.

  3. Holysheep says:

    Wow that’s stupid. Anyway the trailer looked more like some kinda holywood fairytale than anything else, sooo…

  4. Rich says:

    Michael Bay Presents: All Quiet on the Western Front.

    • Blowfeld81 says:

      Thanks,

      now that the coffee I tried to enjoy abruptedly exited my body again through my nose I have to go and clean up my desk.

      You are a monster!

    • Premium User Badge

      gritz says:

      That pretty much sums it up right there.

    • GenBanks says:

      Haha perfectly summarised (based on the trailer at least).

      Hopefully the experience of playing the game itself will feel more ‘ brutal war’ than ‘action movie.’

      • socrate says:

        it won’t Dice as a tendency to Michael Bay everything…battlefield 4 worked to some degree but it can get boring fast if everything is “epic” and quite frankly i think a tank not blowing up like a gaz station as its charm and is more fun since it gives infantry cover and feel more realistic…after their cops expansion that was totally silly and the really bad star wars battlefront i don’t know if id like more micheal bay in my game at this point.

        battlefield 1942 still is as a nice place in my heart and didn’t have to feel “epic” and all micheal bay to be fun and realistic it felt fun and educative.

        But this seem to depict WW1 as it was not at all

  5. TentSalesman says:

    I very much look forward to getting trenchfoot, becoming entangled in barbed wire and drowning in a shell crater. Should be a fun time.

  6. ohminus says:

    It’s hugely disgusting that they would relegate the French to DLC status. A nation that sacrificed a substantial part of their population to the war and fought for its home soil reduced to an “also ran”.

    • Rich says:

      If anyone, the USA should be DLC. That would never happen for obvious publishing reasons, but still.

    • socrate says:

      thats one of the reason i stopped playing BF4 the community ended up so split appart it just wasn’t fun anymore in the end…but EA being EA they somehow don’t realise/care about that…personnaly i don’t care if im playing a french person i loved playing something else then american in fps or german who at that point could pretty much be impersonated by demon being from the X dimension since apparently they weren’t human.

  7. manny says:

    Simulated warfare serves as training for real warfare, but it also increases effectiveness of said warfare, increasing the opportunity cost of actually going to war.

    ie guy who plays battlefield 1 is “hell no I’m not gonna sign up given biological and chemical weapons, plus ptsd brain concussive injury, I’ll stick to video games”

    And so the elite is forced to bring in mercs, which are much more expensive, less easily controlled, which reduces the attractiveness of going to war to make money.

    • socrate says:

      that just silly..these game are actually embelishing war.

      They usually don’t show the horrible part of it…in this case disease,starvation,mental and physical aftershock,mutilation,etc..

      Also virtual simulation is way to limited to have an impact on tactic and real warfare even today if you train your troop with video game then there is a big problem in your army and mentality

      can it push idiot to enrolling sure…but actually thinking that it will have an impact on real life performance compared to a tactical warfare simulation training…that is just absurd.

  8. Hunchback says:

    Damn the thing isn’t even out yet and they already have their fucking DLCs lined up. Because there’s NO WAY France can in the base game, no sir, it will take SUBSTENTIAL amount of work and will be released in a separate, 10-bucks, DLC… 2 weeks after the official launch.

    Jesus this is pissing me off so hard!

    • ZippyLemon says:

      How is 2005 going for you so far?

      • Emeraude says:

        If your point happens to be that because the practice is old, one shouldn’t be outraged by it, I must that I utterly despise you.

        • Major Seventy Six says:

          I understood that as “There was no DLC in 2005, you should’ve stayed there”

          I do not share the opinion stated that way but I have come to accept the sad reality that developers really want to sell their games for 120$ but can only do so by breaking them into smaller chunks, each at a price.

          • socrate says:

            and it often lead to a broken apart community that slowly die out which apparently some gamer think of as a good thing nowaday

  9. Meneldil says:

    This is a fucking disgrace. France, Russia and Germany paid the highest toll to that stupid war. Yet two of those main belligerents are left out. Because you know, playing a french would be so disgraceful to Ryan, that 14 year old from Texas who only know of France through the whole “lol surrendering monkeys” retarded meme.

    The ‘Muricans, who barely did anything (and had french training and used french equipement) are in from the get go? That’s a big slap in the face of the millions of people who died for nothing.

    Fuck Dice, fuck EA and fuck their “Michael-Bay’s-take-on-WWI” (and probably crappy) game.

    • ZippyLemon says:

      Would it make you not buy the game?

    • skeletortoise says:

      I’m an American and I’m aware of the role America played in WW1. You’re certainly right that many Americans have a ridiculously skewed perspective of the war and that America suffered a tiny fraction of the tragedy that the European nations did, but there were still thousands killed. This is a matter of tasteless marketing by the makers of a video game and no reason to treat any country’s sacrifice with casual disdain.

  10. cauldron says:

    Combat deaths during First World War for the allied side :

    Russian Empire : 1 700 000
    France : 1 150 000
    UK : 744 000
    Italy : 460 000
    United States : 53 400

    (source : wikipedia : link to en.wikipedia.org)

    Of course, no reason why France and Russia should be in a game about WWI, this war barely concerned them, and a lot least than the USA.

    I suggest than in the next BF about the Pacific War the USA are in a DLC, to ‘honor’ them.

    • Jigoku says:

      Well, that’s because 1 american death is worth 1000 french deaths. It is known.

    • socrate says:

      american also ended up coming in at the very last moment of the war when the big fighting was done and somehow ended up losing tons of people…canadian were a big part of that from the start btw also you missed that out

  11. sunkillmoon says:

    This could be very smart. One of the silliest things imo were DLC maps. Hopefully this then is how their DLC will come out?

  12. Laurentius says:

    Games are generally stupid and quite often unintentionally offensive but this game…just its premise, it’s so stupid and offenisve to me that I hate this game with strange and probably passion…

  13. James says:

    Reducing the French, who lost a total of 1.7 million people (civilians included) in the war, to DLC is cynical marketing at best and outright disgraceful at worst. From the livestream that showed the game to just be Battlefield 4 in a WW1 skin, I am increasingly thinking that this game is just cashing in on the centenary of the First World War and cynically exploiting the public interest for profit.

    Where Verdun teaches the player about the tactics of the war, and shows like Blackadder have their moments of extreme poignancy, BF1 has the French as DLC. I had hopes for this game, but it’s just a cash grab on on a human tragedy.

  14. Napalm Sushi says:

    Coming soon: Battlefield Anglo-Zulu War: British Forces DLC.

  15. Blastaz says:

    “The only thing you Anericans have charged so far this war is interest on your loans.”

  16. manny says:

    Dat was a sweet trailer doh

  17. int says:

    *Throws baguettes and matryoshka dolls at Dice*

  18. Hunchback says:

    Reading through the comments here (and i can only guess that’s the general mood on reddit and all places that mater), i get a feeling that EA will soon “rectify” on this saying that France will actually not be a DLC but a free patch and this was always the plan but there was a misunderstanding in their previous statement.

  19. stoner says:

    To prepare for the game and DLC, I suggest you head over to the YouTube channel, TheGreatWar. This is not my channel. The channel author does a great job explaining all aspects of WWI, both large topics and small. IT’s fascinating stuff. Many of us FPSers here know a lot about WW2; this YT channel is excellemt for learning about WWI.

  20. onodera says:

    What are these airplanes made of, nitrocellulose?

  21. OmNomNom says:

    I don’t quite get why so many people here are so upset about the portrayal of a war that NONE of you were in, in a video game that is not intended to be in any way realistic.
    Who cares what factions / maps etc make it into the base game or not? They have to draw the line somewhere, there will always be DLCs and sequels… How is this surprising to so many?

    • manny says:

      Cause we are overdue for a world war and this game is fanning those flames.

    • ohminus says:

      Well, how should I explain it? I live under three hours away from Verdun, it’s the Centenary of WW1, these things happen to be quite important in certain parts of the world.

      Yes, they have to draw the line somewhere. Like, for example, not introducing nations that didn’t have a major part in the war until very late?

      But the Triple Entente of Britain, France and Russia was the core of one side of the war. To leave out those two among these upon whose soil the war was fought and who had the greatest losses suggests not quite having an idea where that line should be drawn.

    • socrate says:

      Wow…and this is why i would send little arrogant **** to war right away…having literally no respect for what sacrifice and horror your ancestor went through or the ancestor of your neightbors or friend in your case probably…love to think that sacrifice for is current life style and privilege means nothing to this kid.

      FFs people need to start making children learn respect these days that as to be the most insulting thing ive seen yet toward people who fought for what they though a better future for their own and to make the horror stop,only to have people react like that to history…human race will indeed never learn

  22. Major Seventy Six says:

    Like Bordeaux wine, French soldiers come with a premium price.

    Sacrebleu. Espérons qu’il y aura un œuf de Pâques en hommage au film de Christian Carion “Joyeux Noël!”

  23. cutechao999 says:

    The inclusion of the Americans over france screams executive meddling.

  24. JFS says:

    Someone at Dice must’ve confused World War 1 with their usual hurr-durr-Murica-against-Nazis WW2 fare.

    I mean, they even have the Ottoman Empire. But who needs French and Russians. Why not introduce ANZAC beforehand? The Ottomans will need an opponent.

  25. Ham Solo says:

    How? How in the world is it that the french are only in some DLC? What the hell? Do these people actually know anything about WW1? I think I might just not bother with that game.

  26. ThornEel says:

    Dev comments on the next Battlefield WWII about their controversial choice of factions:
    “[…]of course the studio does not ignore the importance of the German army in the war, and [players] will meet them in the the game’s campaign.”
    “To truly honour the German army in multiplayer and, once again, to show a side that we’re not used to seeing, we have decided to dedicate an entire premium add-on to them with a special treatment after the launch of the game.”

  27. pigchicken says:

    Am I the only one who thinks it’s shameful that they are already announcing DLC when the games not even released? A few skins and some extra guns and this is how they charge £90 for a full game nowadays. EA are crooks.

  28. shiptonator says:

    Am I the only one that thinks whining about DLC from a computer game series that sets the gold standard for rip off DLC by virtue of the fact that the faction in question suffered a million plus soldier deaths in the horrific meat grinder of World War One utterly distasteful?