14
I'm very curious to see if they've learned their lesson from 2042, or just trust that it'll sell with reputation alone. The development cycle doesn't give me too much hope unfortunately
I'll probably skip it until it's on massive sale, and keep playing Arma.
Same. ArmA, Squad, and eventually 83 will be more than enough until bf6 is dirt cheap.
Have you tried the star wars full mod for squad called galactic contention? It's pretty fun.
Oh yeah, probably my favourite squad mod. A little hard to believe that people will do that kind of quality work for free and consistently update it when any patch can and will invariably fuck mods up.
Online-only too again? Price is not my main issue with this one if that's still the case.
Everything makes me think this one is silly
- the price
- the leaks
- the development cycle
- the way they talk about it
- the publisher
- the previous games
And I'm saying this as a former battlefield fan, they've thoroughly run the series into the ground. It's genuinely impressive, it's not even lucrative anymore I don't think.
another former fan here, could you pls expand a bit on what you're feeling with these points and what it means? i don't know enough about each of them to realise what you meant?
These are the reasons that make me not want to consider buying the new battlefield.
thanks i got that far ;)
but what is it about eg.
- the way they talk about it?
- the price?
- the leaks?
etc that makes you think its bad news?
the previous games i'm 100% with you, 2042 was beyond embarrassing. the publisher, nothing need be said lol. the dev cycle i'm going to assume is suspciously fast?
Well the price is $80+. GAMES with higher prices tend to do poorly a lot of the time. Additionally, this is a multiplayer game, so less people buying for the high price also means lobbies might be more on the empty side, which takes away the fun. And then there is also an argument that high prices cover a lower expectation of sales. Although this one might be my naivity about causality.
They talk about the game in abstract terms, and in a way where the hype seems to be more important than the content of the game. Which to me is always a bad sign. If the game is good, why not talk about specifically what the must fun parts were for you?
And even the leak itself suggests at least one person knows the price is a bad look for the content. So that person who has insight, knows it sounds bad. I will boldly infer, that that's because it's not worth $80. Which makes it also very probable that it's far less than even a "moderate" $60, I can't believe I'm saying this because that's still an unbelievably high sum of money for a game.
And with all these points remember, battlefield does not have the best track record, so only some of these details indicating a fishy smell will sound the alarm and make me reconsider buying. I don't have enough trust to extend towards games published under EA, for obviously reason.
sound logic right here.
that said the gameplay demos today weren't terrible
Yeah they did look kinda cool, but I'm staying cautious for now, especially as long as it's $60+.
agreed, not a single chance i'm pre-ordering
See you in 3 years when youre $20
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
14 points (85.0% liked)
Gaming
23781 readers
27 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS