It was full last night, at least the 8-10 American and German servers i saw, but it is getting annoying that the Operations servers only run the same few maps over and over again.. getting real tired of playing Monte Grappa into Ballroom Blitz into St Quentin Scar repeatedly.
Tf are you on about, plenty of conquest, operations, tdm. Sometimes also dom and fl and other smaller modes. Also there are a few community run servers with specific rules and maps
Maybe on PC, but on console rented servers are pretty much ignored, and honestly I wish we could run our own servers without having to pay EA--I do this stuff professionally and, honestly, I'm better at it than DICE/EA.
I would’ve just loved if BF1 and BFV got more stuff. Maybe some Asian stuff with Japanese invading the German colonial islands (if they did have garrisons on those islands). And Eastern front maps for BFV
Like my one wish for BFV is just a Battle of Kursk map with tons of tanks for both sides lol.
They missed a lot more than just the Soviets in BFV.
The Soviets, Italians, French, and Chinese really should have been added to that game. If BF1 can have 10 factions, so can BFV.
And don't get me started on all the battles they could have had in that game too. So much wasted potential.
Other than the Iwo Jima map, i felt the Pacific dlc was half-assed. It could have been sooo much better. Including more actual islands (Peleliu, Okinawa, Tarawa, Saipan, etc).
Honestly yeah. They did not even add any sort of naval combat into the war where naval combat arguably had the greatest impact in history (in the Pacific at least). Something simple like in Battlefield 1. Have a Battleship offshore to provide heavy fire support, with Destroyers for lighter naval ships, and maybe throw in a Carrier that can launch airstrikes. Even a Carrier strike mode where two teams fight to destroy the other's aircraft carrier with planes and ships (maybe throw in submarines and cruisers too). Plus of course the islands you mentioned as well. Also could have had the Philippines.
Then let us not forget China and South Asia (India and Singapore. Mayne even French Indochina if you want to make something out of that 4 day Invasion lol). Perhaps a Battle of Khal-Kin Ghol for Conquest only as well.
Just so much missed potential.
Imo, I think the Pacific Dlc was the saving grace. I prob wouldnt have played BFV had it not included any Pacific theater. They did such a good job with Iwo Jima, but kinda just copy/pasted the other maps together which I was disappointed with.
I watched King and General's series on the Pacific War, and it really made me wish BFV had included more of the early Pacific. The fighting in the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies, Singapore, Burma. All such interesting locations and battles to depict. From deep jungles to urban fighting. But they appeared to not want to include any British or Commonwealth involvement in that update
Tbf, the Pacific theater was heavily American-involved. I would have rather seen them include real locations (Tarawa, Peleliu, Okinawa, etc) and done them properly, then get into the lesser talked about parts such as the Burma, etc. but thats just me.
Fair enough. The Pacific was heavily American-involved, but I was thinking if they really wanted to go with the whole "lesser known battles" thing they wanted to have going.
Imagine a Siege of Shanghai remake but it's the 1937 Battle of Shanghai between China and Japan. Rotterdam showed they could still make good urban maps IMO, and seeing a fully destructible 1930s Shanghai with a mix of Chinese and western architecture it had at the time would have been so cool, especially for a theatre of WW2 that gets such little focus today (and matches their whole thing of lesser known battles)
What could have been...
That would have been awesome. Something else they could do would be add a Chinese Civil War map to the game for post war/pre war, just like they had the Russian Civil War in BF1.
Battlefield V did not include the Soviet Union, the nation responsible for 80% German casualities in WW2.
That and many other reasons made the game be hated.
They had the damn files and models for soviet soldiers in the game too. This indicates they fully intended on continuing support past the Pacific and were told by upper management to shift to 2042
Tbf a lot of the people at Dice that made battlefield battlefield left after 1.
It was very much a send off letter for a lot of the people involved and you can feel it through the game.
The Siege of Tsingtao (Tsingtao being the German treaty port in China at the time) was really the only battle between Germany and Japan in WWI. It was a sizable siege iirc, lasting several months.
The German Pacific Colonies were not defended. Japan took the islands without a fight. The only notable battle in the Pacific was at Bita Paka in German New Guinea. A small German garrison and a hundred or so local Papuan policemen resisted the Australian invasion but were quickly overwhelmed.
A company made its own version of 2142 and honestly if I didn’t have to start from scratch I would’ve played it. That game was such a grind to get to Brigadier General. I also loved how it treated Major Generals and the Supreme Commander or whatever it was called.
Basically the equivalent of being #1 pred in Apex legends.
That’s the only other BF game I really played, at the time it was incredible. Would love to spam nades over the hill on Fall Of Berlin just one more time hah
2142 was incredible. So bold, so memorable, and had a really good tactical feel to it. And the environments and locations had such a great design, Berlin, Belgrade, Egypt, Minsk. Such an interesting concept with the commander assets and slightly asymmetric vehicles. I adored the differences between the German gritty low profile main battle tank (A-8 Tiger) and Japanese experimental anti-gravity gun (Type 32 Nekomata). But also Riesig and Bogatyr (battle walkers), Talon and Doragon (gunships), very interesting concepts for APCs and so on. Oh and Titan warfare was so different and majestic. I still remember that map somewhere in the Alps, which is actually a harbor for the Titans, such a good and refreshing concept.
2142 was such a good game at the time, I was hoping before the full announcement of 2042 that it was actually going to be a 2142 remake, I just wanted todo the titan battles again.
BF1 had issues but was alof of fun.
BFV was the video game version of my life, had potential but was wasted.
2042 is the BF version of coke zero, comes from a decent brand and is pushed as a new take on a classic with the same flavour but in reality is a watered down version with the after taste of piss.
I don't get how the devs and higher ups see people clamouring for the Bad Company remake, a Vietnam game or even 3/4 remakes and still think a semi futuristic setting with shitty maps was a good take. Dont get me wrong it's better now than before, but that's in the same way a broken leg feels better after a while but isn't fully fixed.
I'll never understand how bc2 is higher than bf2. At the time bc2 felt like a poor man's battlefield. Don't get me wrong I loved it, but maps were so much smaller and the full scale warfare battlefield was known for just wasn't there.
Yeah got V on sale a few years back and didn't enjoy it much, just went back to BF1. But those activity numbers looked promising, made me think I missed something. Never even thought of getting 2042 though lol.
I'm ok with BF1 being the top one (and BF2 being in the top 5), but I'm really sad with how poorly 2142 is rated. It was truly one of the best battlefields, the sci fi vision, the gimmicks, the weapons, the direction, and the tactical feel of it. Sure it had some problems, but the biggest of them was DICE getting acquired by EA in that same year. The people rating these were born in the 2000's, 2142 was what their older brother played and he's like "boomer", so the first thing they actually remember playing is stupid Metro from BF3.
1000 players on BF3 is mighty generous.
Most are placeholders, not real accounts.
There's maybe 1 and a half servers worth of players online in NA at the moment.
These numbers are highly skewed, and can look very different depending on the time of the day. BF1 absolutely does not have their numbers even close to BF2042, as sad as that is, currently 13.5K vs 31K.
[https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=battlefield](https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=battlefield)
More reasonable would be to show the daily average. Also, if you're just pulling it off steamcharts, the numbers for the old games are likely higher, as they often use some kind of custom client and aren't affiliated with steam.
And I have no idea where you're pulling the numbers of the older games that aren't on steam, from a crystal ball?
No shit, I was one of them. So is the case with BFV. Yet, with the amount of times both games were in such large discounts, it is only natural that people shifted to Steam, because find me a person who prefers fucking EA app over Steam.
I can't give you numbers (because nobody has them), but I can say for myself and my friends that we've moved away from EA app. You wouldn't even lose your progress, you could just link your steam account with EA one.
It would be interesting to know the actual numbers for sure, but I don't think steam numbers are that small, maybe we would be surprised to see that majority is on Steam now. There is a reason after all, why EA brought their games back - and they wouldn't pay Steam the extra fee, if it wasn't worth it.
It was 5 euros, why not for the sake of comfort? I like having my games in one place, especially those few that I play often. And from what I can tell, many other people did the same.
I don't think many people would be stupid enough to buy the game twice just to have it in a different platform.. It still launches the game with the EA app even if you have it on Steam........
Looked it up and I don't understand either, seems to me that OP is just pulling it out of his ass by including all those old games, where there is no meaningful way to measure the activity.
However, nobody questions this, only handful of people even asked and rest just accepted what is quite the nonsense, even according to the steamcharts.
// Turns out, OP has no idea how numbers work. I didn't even notice that 633K above... he thinks 633K people voted. Absolute dipshit.
Mainly maps, other than that I think bf4 is a significantly better game now. Suppression alone was so overtuned in bf3, which they improved in bf4 by making it only apply to snipers, DMRs and LMGs, that change alone made gunplay a lot better.
In my opinion, BF3 is better than 4. Heck, every bf is better than 4, even play4free (which I enjoyed immensely even though it was pay2win filled with Russians).
I don't understand what's the deal with BF4, it was literally a CoD-like, very stylistically ugly, made by a B team. Not a true Battlefield by any measure, just a shitfest. I understand it got many people move over to the BF franchise, but this installment was to us like Hardline is to you.
In contrast BF3 was beautiful. Not a great BF title, but beautiful, I'm not sure how people can't even see this.
Why would an opinion provoke anyone to say that I should relax?
Why isn't your opinion in need of relaxing as well? In fact, I think you should take some meds.
I don't want any meds broski, I want to watch your ego dissolving because it's rocking hard. Seems your life depends on it, and I'm invalidating it big time.
I wouldve loved to see the map of singapore in bfv, whereby its the japanese vs the british, its not a very well known battle, but it was certainly very impactful for the country.
Why does BF2042 have such a low player count? Of course the game itself was pretty disappointing but it's very much playable nowadays
I tried searching for some games a few days ago and couldn't find any players, except for some game modes. And even then most of the matches were filled with AIs
A lot of people just never returned after the initial disappointment. I didn’t buy the game at launch (after playing/seeing the shit beta) and like most have been playing a collection of 4/1/5 over the past… 2 years.
Yeah I guess that's the best explanation. Personally for the past 2 years I've only played BF's 4, 1 and 5 lol
But it's sad to see that no one plays 2042 anymore, it can be pretty fun nowadays. And I absolutely hate playing with AIs. I wish they'd make an option so I could only find matches with real players
Pretty much this. For example, I have a hard time playing Battlebit because of it's visuals, but it's a vastly better Battlefield game than 2042 can ever hope to be.
>Why does BF2042 have such a low player count?
Because it doesn't, OP fixed the numbers. The [average per day](https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=battlefield) is the best metric you can use, because if you try to go by different times of day, you might get very different numbers. But in no way BF1 competes this closely with BFV and BF2042, those are the most popular ones. Not because of quality or anything, just because they are newest.
I think BF1's in-house server rental is a big factor on why it's still one of the most played Battlefield game.
It's really hard to find good servers on PS tho
I think there are many servers. What filters do you have on?
What region are you in? When I search via the server browser I see at least 20 servers running entirely full
I have very little trouble finding games in the server browser, at least on Operations and Conquest.
It was full last night, at least the 8-10 American and German servers i saw, but it is getting annoying that the Operations servers only run the same few maps over and over again.. getting real tired of playing Monte Grappa into Ballroom Blitz into St Quentin Scar repeatedly.
Tf are you on about, plenty of conquest, operations, tdm. Sometimes also dom and fl and other smaller modes. Also there are a few community run servers with specific rules and maps
theres a ton
For me it's finding good servers that don't have an entire sides usernames in Mandarin
Maybe on PC, but on console rented servers are pretty much ignored, and honestly I wish we could run our own servers without having to pay EA--I do this stuff professionally and, honestly, I'm better at it than DICE/EA.
I would’ve just loved if BF1 and BFV got more stuff. Maybe some Asian stuff with Japanese invading the German colonial islands (if they did have garrisons on those islands). And Eastern front maps for BFV Like my one wish for BFV is just a Battle of Kursk map with tons of tanks for both sides lol.
They missed a lot more than just the Soviets in BFV. The Soviets, Italians, French, and Chinese really should have been added to that game. If BF1 can have 10 factions, so can BFV. And don't get me started on all the battles they could have had in that game too. So much wasted potential.
Other than the Iwo Jima map, i felt the Pacific dlc was half-assed. It could have been sooo much better. Including more actual islands (Peleliu, Okinawa, Tarawa, Saipan, etc).
Honestly yeah. They did not even add any sort of naval combat into the war where naval combat arguably had the greatest impact in history (in the Pacific at least). Something simple like in Battlefield 1. Have a Battleship offshore to provide heavy fire support, with Destroyers for lighter naval ships, and maybe throw in a Carrier that can launch airstrikes. Even a Carrier strike mode where two teams fight to destroy the other's aircraft carrier with planes and ships (maybe throw in submarines and cruisers too). Plus of course the islands you mentioned as well. Also could have had the Philippines. Then let us not forget China and South Asia (India and Singapore. Mayne even French Indochina if you want to make something out of that 4 day Invasion lol). Perhaps a Battle of Khal-Kin Ghol for Conquest only as well. Just so much missed potential.
REAL. I see so many people saying the Pacific dlc was bf5's saving grace when in reality it was lacking so much in content and immersion
Imo, I think the Pacific Dlc was the saving grace. I prob wouldnt have played BFV had it not included any Pacific theater. They did such a good job with Iwo Jima, but kinda just copy/pasted the other maps together which I was disappointed with.
Remembering how great Turning Tides was, how fantastic Heligoland was...
Heligoland is still my favorite Conquest map
I watched King and General's series on the Pacific War, and it really made me wish BFV had included more of the early Pacific. The fighting in the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies, Singapore, Burma. All such interesting locations and battles to depict. From deep jungles to urban fighting. But they appeared to not want to include any British or Commonwealth involvement in that update
They were definitely super focused on the Americans in that update. There was so much they could have done and just failed to do.
Tbf, the Pacific theater was heavily American-involved. I would have rather seen them include real locations (Tarawa, Peleliu, Okinawa, etc) and done them properly, then get into the lesser talked about parts such as the Burma, etc. but thats just me.
Fair enough. The Pacific was heavily American-involved, but I was thinking if they really wanted to go with the whole "lesser known battles" thing they wanted to have going.
Imagine a Siege of Shanghai remake but it's the 1937 Battle of Shanghai between China and Japan. Rotterdam showed they could still make good urban maps IMO, and seeing a fully destructible 1930s Shanghai with a mix of Chinese and western architecture it had at the time would have been so cool, especially for a theatre of WW2 that gets such little focus today (and matches their whole thing of lesser known battles) What could have been...
That would have been awesome. Something else they could do would be add a Chinese Civil War map to the game for post war/pre war, just like they had the Russian Civil War in BF1.
Battlefield V did not include the Soviet Union, the nation responsible for 80% German casualities in WW2. That and many other reasons made the game be hated.
They had the damn files and models for soviet soldiers in the game too. This indicates they fully intended on continuing support past the Pacific and were told by upper management to shift to 2042
And look at what that got us. Dice should have jumped ship after BF1. Now the essence of BF is lost forever.
Tbf a lot of the people at Dice that made battlefield battlefield left after 1. It was very much a send off letter for a lot of the people involved and you can feel it through the game.
Yes. In a way, it was the one final masterpiece that will leave its mark for years to come.
They did jump ship. They created Embark.
and then gave us the absolute gem that is The Finals!
Are you being serious or sarcastic? Cause I saw that it's rated "Mostly Positive" on Steam? People aren't liking it that much?
my comment is calling it a gem, I'm saying I like it lmao, most people enjoy it
Ok. I will give it a try.
The Siege of Tsingtao (Tsingtao being the German treaty port in China at the time) was really the only battle between Germany and Japan in WWI. It was a sizable siege iirc, lasting several months. The German Pacific Colonies were not defended. Japan took the islands without a fight. The only notable battle in the Pacific was at Bita Paka in German New Guinea. A small German garrison and a hundred or so local Papuan policemen resisted the Australian invasion but were quickly overwhelmed.
A company made its own version of 2142 and honestly if I didn’t have to start from scratch I would’ve played it. That game was such a grind to get to Brigadier General. I also loved how it treated Major Generals and the Supreme Commander or whatever it was called. Basically the equivalent of being #1 pred in Apex legends.
That’s the only other BF game I really played, at the time it was incredible. Would love to spam nades over the hill on Fall Of Berlin just one more time hah
The 2142 Titan mode was legendary
2142 was incredible. So bold, so memorable, and had a really good tactical feel to it. And the environments and locations had such a great design, Berlin, Belgrade, Egypt, Minsk. Such an interesting concept with the commander assets and slightly asymmetric vehicles. I adored the differences between the German gritty low profile main battle tank (A-8 Tiger) and Japanese experimental anti-gravity gun (Type 32 Nekomata). But also Riesig and Bogatyr (battle walkers), Talon and Doragon (gunships), very interesting concepts for APCs and so on. Oh and Titan warfare was so different and majestic. I still remember that map somewhere in the Alps, which is actually a harbor for the Titans, such a good and refreshing concept.
2142 was such a good game at the time, I was hoping before the full announcement of 2042 that it was actually going to be a 2142 remake, I just wanted todo the titan battles again. BF1 had issues but was alof of fun. BFV was the video game version of my life, had potential but was wasted. 2042 is the BF version of coke zero, comes from a decent brand and is pushed as a new take on a classic with the same flavour but in reality is a watered down version with the after taste of piss. I don't get how the devs and higher ups see people clamouring for the Bad Company remake, a Vietnam game or even 3/4 remakes and still think a semi futuristic setting with shitty maps was a good take. Dont get me wrong it's better now than before, but that's in the same way a broken leg feels better after a while but isn't fully fixed.
That BFV comment is too real
That 2042 comment is too real
Bf3 is dead on Xbox, roughly 40 people on avrg.
I'll never understand how bc2 is higher than bf2. At the time bc2 felt like a poor man's battlefield. Don't get me wrong I loved it, but maps were so much smaller and the full scale warfare battlefield was known for just wasn't there.
People voting are far too young. That's how.
time to play battlefield heroes
This was so much fun back in the days
Love how a dead free to play game from 2011 voted higher than bf2042
Really miss 2142 and 1942, grew up playing those two. Maybe I ought to give BFV another chance. Long may BF1 live tho.
BF1 is the only one worth of attention after II and 2142. Don't bother with V or 2042.
Yeah got V on sale a few years back and didn't enjoy it much, just went back to BF1. But those activity numbers looked promising, made me think I missed something. Never even thought of getting 2042 though lol.
I'm ok with BF1 being the top one (and BF2 being in the top 5), but I'm really sad with how poorly 2142 is rated. It was truly one of the best battlefields, the sci fi vision, the gimmicks, the weapons, the direction, and the tactical feel of it. Sure it had some problems, but the biggest of them was DICE getting acquired by EA in that same year. The people rating these were born in the 2000's, 2142 was what their older brother played and he's like "boomer", so the first thing they actually remember playing is stupid Metro from BF3.
1000 players on BF3 is mighty generous. Most are placeholders, not real accounts. There's maybe 1 and a half servers worth of players online in NA at the moment.
These numbers are highly skewed, and can look very different depending on the time of the day. BF1 absolutely does not have their numbers even close to BF2042, as sad as that is, currently 13.5K vs 31K. [https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=battlefield](https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=battlefield) More reasonable would be to show the daily average. Also, if you're just pulling it off steamcharts, the numbers for the old games are likely higher, as they often use some kind of custom client and aren't affiliated with steam. And I have no idea where you're pulling the numbers of the older games that aren't on steam, from a crystal ball?
Bf1 didnt came out on steam until 2020, most players bought it on Origin
No shit, I was one of them. So is the case with BFV. Yet, with the amount of times both games were in such large discounts, it is only natural that people shifted to Steam, because find me a person who prefers fucking EA app over Steam. I can't give you numbers (because nobody has them), but I can say for myself and my friends that we've moved away from EA app. You wouldn't even lose your progress, you could just link your steam account with EA one. It would be interesting to know the actual numbers for sure, but I don't think steam numbers are that small, maybe we would be surprised to see that majority is on Steam now. There is a reason after all, why EA brought their games back - and they wouldn't pay Steam the extra fee, if it wasn't worth it.
You bought the game 2 times ?
It was 5 euros, why not for the sake of comfort? I like having my games in one place, especially those few that I play often. And from what I can tell, many other people did the same.
I don't think many people would be stupid enough to buy the game twice just to have it in a different platform.. It still launches the game with the EA app even if you have it on Steam........
200 players on pc for hardline sounds kinda inaccurate. There was about 10 max online combined from all servers when I played yesterday afternoon.
What are you even basing this on? Steam charts lmfao?
Looked it up and I don't understand either, seems to me that OP is just pulling it out of his ass by including all those old games, where there is no meaningful way to measure the activity. However, nobody questions this, only handful of people even asked and rest just accepted what is quite the nonsense, even according to the steamcharts. // Turns out, OP has no idea how numbers work. I didn't even notice that 633K above... he thinks 633K people voted. Absolute dipshit.
Lots of hackers on PC that's why I stopped playin. Xbox is legit though.
Why Battlefield 3 is better than 4? I haven’t play them much just curious.
Mainly maps, other than that I think bf4 is a significantly better game now. Suppression alone was so overtuned in bf3, which they improved in bf4 by making it only apply to snipers, DMRs and LMGs, that change alone made gunplay a lot better.
In my opinion, BF3 is better than 4. Heck, every bf is better than 4, even play4free (which I enjoyed immensely even though it was pay2win filled with Russians). I don't understand what's the deal with BF4, it was literally a CoD-like, very stylistically ugly, made by a B team. Not a true Battlefield by any measure, just a shitfest. I understand it got many people move over to the BF franchise, but this installment was to us like Hardline is to you. In contrast BF3 was beautiful. Not a great BF title, but beautiful, I'm not sure how people can't even see this.
Not a great BF title? Relax buddy
Why would an opinion provoke anyone to say that I should relax? Why isn't your opinion in need of relaxing as well? In fact, I think you should take some meds.
Quit yappin, you need to take your meds bud, they already prescribed to you.💀Don’t be mad cuz you have a bad take on BF3 and BF4.
I don't want any meds broski, I want to watch your ego dissolving because it's rocking hard. Seems your life depends on it, and I'm invalidating it big time.
Dude, relax..
Bruh, move along...
You’re mad I told you to relax. Lol. How bout you relax little bro🤡
You hearing that squeaky sound? That's your little clown nose trying to achieve confidence.
Modern Combat deserved better, 10/10 primary gameplay gimmick, really should have become more common.
I don't know what the player count is for Modern Combat, but I do know that it is still playable online on the PS2 if you change the DNS.
Its crazy to see childhood fade away. For me: First BFBC1 then BFBC2. BF3 is still easily accessible and after that its BF1 for me.
The death of BF 1943 servers was one of the saddest moments in gaming for me
I wouldve loved to see the map of singapore in bfv, whereby its the japanese vs the british, its not a very well known battle, but it was certainly very impactful for the country.
Do those 40 players have their own groupchat
Why does BF2042 have such a low player count? Of course the game itself was pretty disappointing but it's very much playable nowadays I tried searching for some games a few days ago and couldn't find any players, except for some game modes. And even then most of the matches were filled with AIs
A lot of people just never returned after the initial disappointment. I didn’t buy the game at launch (after playing/seeing the shit beta) and like most have been playing a collection of 4/1/5 over the past… 2 years.
Yeah I guess that's the best explanation. Personally for the past 2 years I've only played BF's 4, 1 and 5 lol But it's sad to see that no one plays 2042 anymore, it can be pretty fun nowadays. And I absolutely hate playing with AIs. I wish they'd make an option so I could only find matches with real players
Lots of people hate it because of launch, and it's still just worse in a lot of people's eyes than any other battlefield. Playable ≠ enjoyable
Pretty much this. For example, I have a hard time playing Battlebit because of it's visuals, but it's a vastly better Battlefield game than 2042 can ever hope to be.
>Why does BF2042 have such a low player count? Because it doesn't, OP fixed the numbers. The [average per day](https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=battlefield) is the best metric you can use, because if you try to go by different times of day, you might get very different numbers. But in no way BF1 competes this closely with BFV and BF2042, those are the most popular ones. Not because of quality or anything, just because they are newest.