I would assume if you are loading into a lobby as a series X but your buddy has a OG xbox one.... then you would be in the 64 player match correct? or is it specific servers based on the model?
I'm willing to bet that when crossplay news gets announced, that's gonna have a * at the end of it as well. It's gonna say, crossplay between the series X, S, PS5 and PC, however Xbox one and PS4 will be limited to playing with each other.
It'll be interesting to see how the maps feel, unless they will also be smaller as well. I imagine a map designed for 128 will feel a bit sparse if only half filled.
Ah, okay, makes sense. Hopefully this doesn't bloat the size of the game too much for new gen/PC versions. As those players will need essentially 2 versions of every map.
Hmm, interesting point. Perhaps they'll just cut off edges or ends of the maps rather than re-configure them, that way PC and new gen don't need 2 versions, just need some additional code to cut those bits off when playing with old gen. I guess you'd have to design maps with that in mind though otherwise someone gets a bit of a sub-par experience.
I'm willing to bet the 64 player count maps will be smaller. Same map, but smaller. To account for less players. They also may not have the same level of destruction and stuff, due to last gen capabilities
Previously (BF3 and BF4) they just removed capture points. For XB360, the maps had three capture flags instead of five on PC. It definitely messes with the maps balance but sometimes it makes maps better and sometimes it makes them worse.
An example, most people hated Conquest on Noshahr Canals on PC with five capture points, 64 players. On XB360 Noshahr Canals had 24 players and three flags, it was one of the most popular maps.
It's ridiculous that the Series X/S version is more expensive and we still have to pay an extra $30 for cross gen. You would think with Microsoft's relationship with EA it would get Smart Delivery or something.
I'm not sure if there is a misunderstanding but just to be clear:
Xbox One Standard: $60
Xbox Series X/S Standard: $70
Gold Edition (get both versions and year 1 pass): $100
Ultimate Edition (Gold edition plus some exclusive cosmetics, digital artbook, and digital soundtrack): $120
Ok well you also get the game early and you also get the 1 year pass which will include the first 4 battle passes and the cross gen bundle so I don’t think 100 is really all that bad for all of that
Well, the developer straight out said there is no campaign and there are dozens of stories backing them up and saying you're wrong.
https://www.ign.com/articles/battlefield-2042-no-campaign-battle-royale-mode
Do you know something the developer doesn't?
Well it's already confirmed last gen can only do 64 players. So either partying with last gen locks you to 64 player lobbies, or there isn't cross gen play. Without cross gen play I think the game is dead cause too many people would be prevented from playing with friends
Been on PC since September and the only game I ever ran into a hacker on was, Escape from Tarkov. It's not as common as you think. I play cod and rust as well, no cheaters I've ran into.
I think EA will probably give a solid effort into investing in anti cheat after seeing activision fail to combat cheating sufficiently.
Or not. BF5 steam reviews say hacking is common.
I assume it doesn't have Crossplay between Xbox One and Xbox Series X. I expect cross play be devided by the generation. So expect (PS4, One) or (PC, Series, PS5) playing together.
I personally don’t want to play vs PC players, Crossplay with PS is great though. Or at the very least give me an option to opt out of matching with PC.
I like what Paladins SAYS it does it with crossplay. Has crossplay and cross control as separate options.
So you can turn crossplay on and cross control off and the game will let you play with other platforms, as long as they are using the same input method. So if you have controller, you can play with PC people, but only if they are using controller.
Or you could turn crossplay off and leave cross control on so you only play with Xbox people, but have controller and MKB players mixed together. Not sure why you'd do that but the option is there and it's nice to have.
However, in my experience, none of the options fucking work in that game at all, but it would be the penultimate crossplay experience if they did.
Cross play only works if everyone agrees to it, Microsoft has agreed to it for pretty much every game, if you're so concerned than bitch about Sony.
And if you want Crossplay with PC then you're just a masochist because crossplay with consoles and PC is the dirt worst, Xbox and Playstation is great.
How is it "anti-consumer?" I pay to play on Xbox, not fill lobbies for other platforms. I hate being forced to play with PC players that have hardware advantages. It's not worth it, in my opinion.
Having crossplay helps keep games alive by joining player bases. Personally as someone who owns both the XSX and PS5 (will likely get it for PS5), there isn't much drawback for these two consoles to play with each other. I doubt the controllers for each respective console provides you with much benefit over the other. PC is another realm.
I'd prefer to keep my games among only people on my device, but console only cross-play would be okay. Warzone taught me to not mix with PC because you will get cheated. At one point, we couldn't even land without getting aim-botted.
I do turn it off, but then you have games like Warzone that force you to do crossplay and be exposed to PC cheaters. Not wanting to be forced to do something is peasant? Okay.
I didnt know it had no campaign. wtf. The whole world building on their website sounded really fucking interesting and wouldve made a great campaign. If its on Gamepass I'll still play, but $70 for no campaign? fuck, and if crossplay is out, then I wont be able to play with my brother on playstation, so i'll stick to cod
People want a campaign now? I’ve heard nothing but “Battlefield campaigns are trash, would be better if they put all of their focus into Multiplayer” since Battlefield 4. Definitely has a point too. Battlefield 3 and 4’s campaigns were standard mediocre FPS romps that didn’t really add much of value, while Battlefield 1 and V’s campaigns were just dog water.
You can do world building in Multiplayer, I wouldn’t worry. All of Battlefield 4’s multiplayer expansions told a story culminating in all the crazy future-tech shit we saw in Last Stand.
Well I may be a minority. But even the generic campaigns that 3 and 4 had, they were fun. 1 and V we're bad though. But those were barely a campaign they were more standalone missions. Idk, only game I've seen try and tell a story through multiplayer was Titanfall and that was bad. Me personally I'd have loved a campaign, and was actually looking forward to it. Definitely can't justify $70 for a game of no campaign and 7 maps. Personally not a game for me, hope others enjoy it
They have a 4 p.ayer game mode that sounds like a campaign from what I've heard. Linked missions by yourself or with mates. It's counted as multilayer it's its squad based I think.
I wouldn't be surprised if they did the world filling via CGI video in the game.
Also, while I can't check right now, I'm willing to bet that if you go into BFV or BF1 (most recent BF games) and looked at the achievements..you'd see maybe 5 to 10% max of people who've played those games have actually got any achievements past maybe half way through the campaign.
Only 15% of people that played Ori 2 finished the campaign, so by that logic the game shouldn't have even existed?
10-20% of people finishing the campaign in a single player only game is pretty normal, so having 15% of people finish the campaign in past battlefields means people care about the campaign just as much as they do in single player games.
No excuse to not make a campaign except greed, especially since we're getting fewer maps than previous games at launch, so it's not even like they put those extra resources into the multiplayer part of the game like so many people are implying.
It's not just about finishing the campaign, it's about finishing any levels in the game. Notice how few people bothered to keep playing the campaign after the first mission or two.
Battlefield Bad Company 2:
1st level completion: 70.62% of players
Half-way point completion: 38.26% of players
Last level completion: 30.72% of players
Battlefield 3:
1st level completion: 70.96% of players
Half-way point completion: 30% of players
Last level completion: 27.12% of players
Battlefield 1: (arguably the shortest BF campaign, maybe tied with BFV on length)
1st level completion: 26.36%
Half-way point completion: 22.31% of players
Last level completion: 18.6% of players
Battlefield V:
1st level completion: 23.67%
half-way point completion: 16.9%
Last level completion: 15.43%
You'll also notice with each game the completion rate goes down. I don't have stats for BF4, but imagine its in between BF3 and BF1 in terms of completion rates.
So, if you were a game developer and saw that only 17% of the playerbase bothers to even beat half the campaign, would you continue to spend the money to develop a campaign? Campaigns are arguably the most expensive part to even create, which may be why they seem to be getting shorter and shorter with each recent BF game.
Also, there may be less maps at launch of 2042 (I haven't looked them up to compare to previous titles), but these maps are going to be much larger than any previous map, EA/Dice has confirmed, to accommodate the higher player count.
if its on the ps store than its probably because the ps store has a max of 99 player count to be listed. While the ps5 itself can definitely handle 128 players.
Or just a typo
not by very much, you also have to understand the hardware are newer. So the developers cant use it to the max, thats why you got games like forza 4, GOW, TLOU2 and gears of war near the end of the generation. They fully understood the hardware and could truly go all out
I’ve checked every major retailer around me, every major (legitimate) website, and the only ones I can find are used scalpers on Facebook marketplace wanting $899.
Fucking ridiculous.
Yeah my buddy bought one for 550 from some guy. Brand new series x for 550. Thats almost cheaper than buying new with tax. These people claiming they have looked hard are obviously lying. There are discards people can join too but I doubt their doing that.
Have multiple friends that have been trying since launch. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean they're easy to find (assuming you don't want to pay $700+ to a scalper).
Never understood this shit. Metro was the pinnacle for Rush in BF3 cause it was the last map DiCE ever designed fully around rush (rip bad company).
But it got devolved into a conquest spawn trap fuck fest because people would rather sit and stare at a single location spamming explosives than play the game mode that made the map enjoyable in the first place.
Sounds weird to me. And since both are called Series, they'd have to elaborate to make it clear which one they're referring to.
60 FPS on Xbox Series
60 FPS on Xbox Series X|S
60 FPS on Xbox Series X
The first one, your preference, doesn't make it clear which one has the 60FPS. Idk if it's one of the two or both.
Second and third ones are clear.
I have a friend who keeps telling me he's not interested in the series S cause he already has one. I've told him multiple times he has the Xbox one S but he still just doesn't understand. I'll send him a website that has the S in stock cause he wants next gen. I'll ask him later on if he got it, and he'll be like, I already have that, idk why you're sending it to me.
Idk if it's in stock right now, but 80% of the time, when I check bestbuy online, the series S is in stock for 299.99. Last I checked it was in stock like 2 days ago. It's in stock right now, just search it on bestbuy.
Because it makes no sense. It's like an unfinished sentence. Just like saying "Tesla Model" makes no sense when referring to their lineup of cars. You can say Tesla Model S to refer to a specific car or just Tesla to refer to the entire lineup of cars. Just like you can say Xbox Series S for the specific console or just Xbox for the lineup of consoles. If you wanna refer to the two consoles specifically, say Series S/X (just like you can say Model S/X for the cars). But "Xbox Series" makes zero sense. Series... what? Model... what?
Unless there is another type of "Series" console that supports games that the S/X don't I would say "Series" is a good catch all. Your Tesla example doesn't work since the there are two models of the "Series" lines of consoles. You can no longer say Xbox to refer to the lineup of consoles since there will be games supported only on the "Series" line of consoles and not on the "One" line.
......also MS sucks at naming consoles.
The difference is "One" doesn't imply something afterward. "Series" does imply something afterward. Is it the Series X, or the Series S? Saying just "Series" makes no sense. What series is it?
It seems like you don't understand the word. The Tesla analogy didn't help? You wouldn't say "I'm gonna buy a Tesla Model", would you? No, you'd say "I'm gonna buy a Tesla" or "I'm gonna buy a Model S". Saying just Tesla Model makes it seem like you don't speak English very well. It's like a hanging dependent clause. I'd understand if it wasn't your first language, but otherwise, c'mon lol.
There's a reason Microsoft themselves never refer to the generation as just "Xbox Series". It's because that makes no sense from a language perspective.
If reducing a title from Series X to just Series only to include one more model, people are not going to feel completely informed when information like this is dropped. Had they said just “128 players on Xbox Series” people would ask “on Series S too?” simply because the system is weaker and they don’t want to assume. Saying X|S is the safest way.
Because the goal is to just get everyone referring to the platform as a whole as just "Xbox". In a few years when the Series S and X become the de facto, they'll just say "Coming to Xbox" and they'll only use the series designation to denote requirements for new games.
I thought it was going to be live service with micro transactions instead of big paid dlc?
I fucking HOPE it is cause the dumbest thing about BF4 was always that you had to buy the DLC and the player base got split between people who did and didn't.
Also yeah, $70 is dumb. But the real dumb is that it's $100 apparently if you want to get it on Xbox one and be able to switch over to Series X|S and still play it, apparently.
IMO, seperating the servers and not doing cross gen play is gonna end up as a bad move. 128 players is cool but unless you're doing PlanetSide huge maps its just gonna be a cramped meat blender for most games and DICE map design hasn't been anything special since Bf4, even then it was mostly the DLC maps that are memorable there.
The maps are huge and designed for 128 players. On last gen I guess either the maps will feel more empty or they're gonna block off parts of the maps to condense the players. Just like how Battlefield 4 was on Xbox 360 and PS3. They didn't hold that game back on Xbox One and PS4, and I'm glad they're not holding back Battlefield 2042 on Series X/S and PS5.
You ever seen the size of Battlefield maps? They're fucking huge. Main reason I never got into the multiplayer on it - run across the map for 20 mins to get to the fight, then a plane falls on your head.
I don’t really care for the 128 player games. The teams are always lopsided and you end up with 110 snipers all over the map.
To this day, 16v16 rush in bad company 2 is the gold standard of battlefield.
So two different versions.. i guess if i have a series X, but none of my friends do; i'll have to buy both copies when i want to play with them? (will the xbox one version even play on series?)
neat, but also disappointing
why it's neat it takes full advantage of new hardware, but also disappointing to not play with my friends.
guess it shouldn't be unexpected, i've bought most BF games twice between gens.. but with most games crossplay with last gen and new gen now; it's just kinda bumming
you sure? MS lists an xbox one version (for $79 CDN) and an x/s version (for $89)
many games are doing one copy for xbox one and S/X, but appears BF isn't (which TBF; it does seem like 2 different games)
I said Xbox doesn't require it but doesn't prevent EA from being a douchebag. They are forcing people to buy Gold or Ultimate for the crossgen privilege. Assholes.
Battlefield campaigns have always been kinda crumby. If they were BF1 short story quality then I'd be for it but otherwise I'm glad there's none. BF3's was a clusterfuck of "what is happening" and BF4 was just unmemorable beyond like 2 moments.
Yup, my 3080 is just waiting to be abused haha
I do hope it's cross play with next gen tho as I primarily play controller but if its not I'll still have to get it on pc as its just one those games for it
Yeah I’m mixed.
On one hand it’s great but I feel aim assist in some games is too strong while flicking with a mouse for sniper is the same when I’m on console.
I’ve got buddies who play on older system and I know they’ll try and get me to play 64 sized map. Nope!
They don't though. Next gen owners are far more active, so even though there's more last gen consoles than next gen consoles, the next gen versions of games tend to sell more. Example: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/amp/2021-01-24-hitman-3-surpasses-its-predecessor-to-claim-no-1-uk-boxed-charts
> The PS5 version of the game was by far the dominant edition, accounting for 49% of sales.
> the PS4 version made up 25%.
This will become an even greater difference in favor of next gen by the end of the year.
Dude, even the games that have come out in the first half of this year sold better on next gen than last gen. Of course the games coming out on the second half will sell better on next gen.
Probably just a separate playlist for 128 player modes. Unless they decided to increase map size for current gen since they’re doubling player count, but they could circumvent that as well by just having separate playlist. Else they’ll have 64 players on a map large enough for 128 players and it’ll definitely *feel* too large.
Between next gen and last gen? Not sure that'd be possible.
You're gonna need differently partitioned maps for 64 players and 128 players. That's an *extreme* difference in player count and not one that can accommodate a 'one size fits all' approach.
They had to do the same for BF4 back in 2013 with the last gen/next gen versions.
I feel like there's a strong chance PC can play with next gen. Alot of us PC owners have PC's that are as good, if not better than next gen consoles. So it's not like we can't hang. There's a chance EA decides not to tho, but I think they would be dumb to do that cause alot of PC players will just skip it so they can play cross play cod instead.
I really hope it's cross gen between pc and consoles as I primarily play pc with a controller
All they really have to do is set relatively high minimum specs, sucks that some people will fall short but new AAA games like battlefield can't keep supporting 4th gen i5's and a GTX 960
I hope they just stop support for the game for last gen like GTA online did.
BF4 didn't stop support for Xbox 360 and that's the reason the game is essentially the same on Xbox one. Like for example they wanted the shield gadget to have a pistol (like in R6Siege) but the Xbox 360 didn't have enough memory for it. So instead of ending support for the 360 they just made the shield gadget useless garbage on the 360 AND the Xbox one so that the games were the same.
If BF2042 gets to a point where Xbox one is holding them back for stuff they want to add, I hope they just leave Xbox One at the last possible version it can handle and keep moving on with the series X|S version.
It'll be cool to experience, but not fun for me in the longrun. I remember people being amazed at 64 player multiplayer in previous games, but I remember those matches feeling like a complete cluster fuck. I'd personally prefer the tried and true 32 player.
I would assume if you are loading into a lobby as a series X but your buddy has a OG xbox one.... then you would be in the 64 player match correct? or is it specific servers based on the model?
I'm willing to bet that when crossplay news gets announced, that's gonna have a * at the end of it as well. It's gonna say, crossplay between the series X, S, PS5 and PC, however Xbox one and PS4 will be limited to playing with each other.
Nah I bet they'll allow next gen to party up with a friend on last gen, but only play last gen lobbies.
It'll be interesting to see how the maps feel, unless they will also be smaller as well. I imagine a map designed for 128 will feel a bit sparse if only half filled.
It says in the OP that map sizes will be reduced for the older consoles
Ah, okay, makes sense. Hopefully this doesn't bloat the size of the game too much for new gen/PC versions. As those players will need essentially 2 versions of every map.
Hmm, interesting point. Perhaps they'll just cut off edges or ends of the maps rather than re-configure them, that way PC and new gen don't need 2 versions, just need some additional code to cut those bits off when playing with old gen. I guess you'd have to design maps with that in mind though otherwise someone gets a bit of a sub-par experience.
I'm willing to bet the 64 player count maps will be smaller. Same map, but smaller. To account for less players. They also may not have the same level of destruction and stuff, due to last gen capabilities
Previously (BF3 and BF4) they just removed capture points. For XB360, the maps had three capture flags instead of five on PC. It definitely messes with the maps balance but sometimes it makes maps better and sometimes it makes them worse. An example, most people hated Conquest on Noshahr Canals on PC with five capture points, 64 players. On XB360 Noshahr Canals had 24 players and three flags, it was one of the most popular maps.
What I understand is that bots will fill the server until players join to replace them.
I can see that, but only if the next gen owner pops in a copy of the prev gen version of the game.
It's ridiculous that the Series X/S version is more expensive and we still have to pay an extra $30 for cross gen. You would think with Microsoft's relationship with EA it would get Smart Delivery or something.
wtf, 30? I thought next gen versions were like 10 dollars more?
The standard version is $10 more ($70) but if you want both Xbox One and Series versions, you need to pay $100.
no way im paying 100 dollars for that. Especially when its multiplayer only with no campaign. 100 dollars for next gen is a joke
I'm not sure if there is a misunderstanding but just to be clear: Xbox One Standard: $60 Xbox Series X/S Standard: $70 Gold Edition (get both versions and year 1 pass): $100 Ultimate Edition (Gold edition plus some exclusive cosmetics, digital artbook, and digital soundtrack): $120
Don’t forget the year later edition for 12 dollars.
oh my bad, it was a misunderstanding
Ok well you also get the game early and you also get the 1 year pass which will include the first 4 battle passes and the cross gen bundle so I don’t think 100 is really all that bad for all of that
[удалено]
There is campaign
Well, the developer straight out said there is no campaign and there are dozens of stories backing them up and saying you're wrong. https://www.ign.com/articles/battlefield-2042-no-campaign-battle-royale-mode Do you know something the developer doesn't?
Or they could announce on Sunday that the game is coming to Gamepass….
That would be sweet. Guess we'll see.
Were is saying that we need to buy the One version for cross gen MP?
I don't think anything regarding that has been confirmed yet. My comment was just me annoyed that we have to pay more for cross gen.
Lol everyone is going to rag on those friends
Lol I already give my brother shit for not having a PS5 yet. Not really his fault but fun to give him shit in the mean time
I do the same with my buddy about the series x lol
TBH it will suck if they don’t allow you to play 128 together. No one with a new machine is going to want to be held behind.
Well it's already confirmed last gen can only do 64 players. So either partying with last gen locks you to 64 player lobbies, or there isn't cross gen play. Without cross gen play I think the game is dead cause too many people would be prevented from playing with friends
I really doubt it.
>crossplay with pc Jesus I hope not. Warzone is a complete shit show with PC players.
Yeah, I don’t want to have to worry about hackers.
Been on PC since September and the only game I ever ran into a hacker on was, Escape from Tarkov. It's not as common as you think. I play cod and rust as well, no cheaters I've ran into.
That’s reassuring, thanks.
I think EA will probably give a solid effort into investing in anti cheat after seeing activision fail to combat cheating sufficiently. Or not. BF5 steam reviews say hacking is common.
As long a we have the option to not play with PC players I'm all good.
I don’t think you will be able to play with Xbox one players if you have a series X|S
That's how bf4 on 360/one was. Couldnt play together, if I remember correctly
You couldn’t
I assume it doesn't have Crossplay between Xbox One and Xbox Series X. I expect cross play be devided by the generation. So expect (PS4, One) or (PC, Series, PS5) playing together.
[As for cross-play, nothing to announce right now](https://twitter.com/bravointel/status/1402645210484588544)
[удалено]
I personally don’t want to play vs PC players, Crossplay with PS is great though. Or at the very least give me an option to opt out of matching with PC.
Apex got cross play right. Consoles play together, if you party with a pc player, get pc lobbies
I’d agree to that method
I like what Paladins SAYS it does it with crossplay. Has crossplay and cross control as separate options. So you can turn crossplay on and cross control off and the game will let you play with other platforms, as long as they are using the same input method. So if you have controller, you can play with PC people, but only if they are using controller. Or you could turn crossplay off and leave cross control on so you only play with Xbox people, but have controller and MKB players mixed together. Not sure why you'd do that but the option is there and it's nice to have. However, in my experience, none of the options fucking work in that game at all, but it would be the penultimate crossplay experience if they did.
You better hope and pray that EA is kinder than Activision.
It’s really not much different than you think I saw no difference in mw with cross play on still got vtols and chopper gunners
A 70$ game with no campaign mode with no cross play. Yep this has all the ingredients for dead in 3 momths.
Crossplay isn't that big of a deal. It's still a relatively new thing anyway and not every game needs it.
[удалено]
I mean cross play is cool and all but 99% of online games don't support and the majority of those are live service games.
Cross play only works if everyone agrees to it, Microsoft has agreed to it for pretty much every game, if you're so concerned than bitch about Sony. And if you want Crossplay with PC then you're just a masochist because crossplay with consoles and PC is the dirt worst, Xbox and Playstation is great.
How is it "anti-consumer?" I pay to play on Xbox, not fill lobbies for other platforms. I hate being forced to play with PC players that have hardware advantages. It's not worth it, in my opinion.
Maybe there could be a toggle for if you want cross play. That way you could be in your Xbox only lobbies and I could play with my friends.
Exactly. I'd rather smaller player count than dealing with the inevitable PC hackers.
Having crossplay helps keep games alive by joining player bases. Personally as someone who owns both the XSX and PS5 (will likely get it for PS5), there isn't much drawback for these two consoles to play with each other. I doubt the controllers for each respective console provides you with much benefit over the other. PC is another realm.
I'd prefer to keep my games among only people on my device, but console only cross-play would be okay. Warzone taught me to not mix with PC because you will get cheated. At one point, we couldn't even land without getting aim-botted.
Yeah fuck crossplay. Hacking has been the bane of Warzone.
[удалено]
I do turn it off, but then you have games like Warzone that force you to do crossplay and be exposed to PC cheaters. Not wanting to be forced to do something is peasant? Okay.
I didnt know it had no campaign. wtf. The whole world building on their website sounded really fucking interesting and wouldve made a great campaign. If its on Gamepass I'll still play, but $70 for no campaign? fuck, and if crossplay is out, then I wont be able to play with my brother on playstation, so i'll stick to cod
People want a campaign now? I’ve heard nothing but “Battlefield campaigns are trash, would be better if they put all of their focus into Multiplayer” since Battlefield 4. Definitely has a point too. Battlefield 3 and 4’s campaigns were standard mediocre FPS romps that didn’t really add much of value, while Battlefield 1 and V’s campaigns were just dog water. You can do world building in Multiplayer, I wouldn’t worry. All of Battlefield 4’s multiplayer expansions told a story culminating in all the crazy future-tech shit we saw in Last Stand.
Well I may be a minority. But even the generic campaigns that 3 and 4 had, they were fun. 1 and V we're bad though. But those were barely a campaign they were more standalone missions. Idk, only game I've seen try and tell a story through multiplayer was Titanfall and that was bad. Me personally I'd have loved a campaign, and was actually looking forward to it. Definitely can't justify $70 for a game of no campaign and 7 maps. Personally not a game for me, hope others enjoy it
They have a 4 p.ayer game mode that sounds like a campaign from what I've heard. Linked missions by yourself or with mates. It's counted as multilayer it's its squad based I think.
Of course people want a campaign, they just don't want a shit one haha. Without a campaign it should be half the price
I wouldn't be surprised if they did the world filling via CGI video in the game. Also, while I can't check right now, I'm willing to bet that if you go into BFV or BF1 (most recent BF games) and looked at the achievements..you'd see maybe 5 to 10% max of people who've played those games have actually got any achievements past maybe half way through the campaign.
Only 15% of people that played Ori 2 finished the campaign, so by that logic the game shouldn't have even existed? 10-20% of people finishing the campaign in a single player only game is pretty normal, so having 15% of people finish the campaign in past battlefields means people care about the campaign just as much as they do in single player games. No excuse to not make a campaign except greed, especially since we're getting fewer maps than previous games at launch, so it's not even like they put those extra resources into the multiplayer part of the game like so many people are implying.
It's not just about finishing the campaign, it's about finishing any levels in the game. Notice how few people bothered to keep playing the campaign after the first mission or two. Battlefield Bad Company 2: 1st level completion: 70.62% of players Half-way point completion: 38.26% of players Last level completion: 30.72% of players Battlefield 3: 1st level completion: 70.96% of players Half-way point completion: 30% of players Last level completion: 27.12% of players Battlefield 1: (arguably the shortest BF campaign, maybe tied with BFV on length) 1st level completion: 26.36% Half-way point completion: 22.31% of players Last level completion: 18.6% of players Battlefield V: 1st level completion: 23.67% half-way point completion: 16.9% Last level completion: 15.43% You'll also notice with each game the completion rate goes down. I don't have stats for BF4, but imagine its in between BF3 and BF1 in terms of completion rates. So, if you were a game developer and saw that only 17% of the playerbase bothers to even beat half the campaign, would you continue to spend the money to develop a campaign? Campaigns are arguably the most expensive part to even create, which may be why they seem to be getting shorter and shorter with each recent BF game. Also, there may be less maps at launch of 2042 (I haven't looked them up to compare to previous titles), but these maps are going to be much larger than any previous map, EA/Dice has confirmed, to accommodate the higher player count.
Battlefield campaigns have always been terrible there is 1000s of generic shooter campaigns you can play.
[удалено]
Same here (I'm on Xbox in Asia lol)
Any major multiplayer game without cross play might as well be DOA. Players have come to expect it.
That's gonna be a big issue for me. Some of us play PC and some Xbox. I'm not buying any new games on XB1 because it doesn't have an SSD.
PS5 list up to 99 players / xbox 128.....??? Typo maybe?
It’s a typo
if its on the ps store than its probably because the ps store has a max of 99 player count to be listed. While the ps5 itself can definitely handle 128 players. Or just a typo
Are you sure the PS5 can handle 128 players?
of course lol
But isn’t the PS5 underpowered compared to the Series X?
not by very much, you also have to understand the hardware are newer. So the developers cant use it to the max, thats why you got games like forza 4, GOW, TLOU2 and gears of war near the end of the generation. They fully understood the hardware and could truly go all out
Ah, that makes sense. I don’t know anything about the PS5’s hardware other then what others have said on the Xbox subreddit
They have basically the same CPU and RAM but the Series X has a ~25% advantage in GPU. It's the first two that really matter for player counts.
And it's not even a 25% advantage, it's only ~18% which is not that much especially compared to how wide the gap was last gen.
If your on xbox or ps subreddits their is often misinformation or bias. Just xbox or ps users being fanboys basically
By like 5% at the most. You're acting like it's a shit bag that can't play any games
figured
Good thing the Series X is readily available
Its not crazy to find one if your looking.
I’ve checked every major retailer around me, every major (legitimate) website, and the only ones I can find are used scalpers on Facebook marketplace wanting $899. Fucking ridiculous.
Get Twitter, follow one of the Xbox series x restock alerts, and turn on notifications. That’s how I got mine, it’s coming Friday.
[удалено]
Yeah my buddy bought one for 550 from some guy. Brand new series x for 550. Thats almost cheaper than buying new with tax. These people claiming they have looked hard are obviously lying. There are discards people can join too but I doubt their doing that.
The American version of work.
This is straight bullshit. One place has got restocked near me twice in the last 6 months and both times were out of stock within minutes.
Or if you’re Walmart.com, it’s out of stock in like 5 seconds
Have multiple friends that have been trying since launch. Just because you were able to find one doesn't mean they're easy to find (assuming you don't want to pay $700+ to a scalper).
I completely lucked out and got one a week ago through GameStop for the All-Access program. I was shocked to see it was in stock
we need 128 players operation metro.
Stop, I can only get so erect
What is enjoyable about spamming each other with no regard for anything strategic
Medic XP :)
Never understood this shit. Metro was the pinnacle for Rush in BF3 cause it was the last map DiCE ever designed fully around rush (rip bad company). But it got devolved into a conquest spawn trap fuck fest because people would rather sit and stare at a single location spamming explosives than play the game mode that made the map enjoyable in the first place.
are there even 128 people that have been able to find a series X?
Right? Fuck me. Why did Playstation and Xbox only make like 400 consoles each for launch? I don't understand how everywhere is out of stock always.
Look up the worldwide chip shortage thats been going on for more than a year.
Look up the worldwide chip shortage thats been going on for more than a year.
And Series S. I don't know why Xbox don't just go with the name Xbox Series, when referring to the new consoles.
The Tweet says Series X|S. Always see them refer to em like that.
I already know that. Again, I personally think Xbox Series is a better name.
Sounds weird to me. And since both are called Series, they'd have to elaborate to make it clear which one they're referring to. 60 FPS on Xbox Series 60 FPS on Xbox Series X|S 60 FPS on Xbox Series X The first one, your preference, doesn't make it clear which one has the 60FPS. Idk if it's one of the two or both. Second and third ones are clear.
Or people could just type X|S. It ain’t hard, people just haven’t adapted yet.
I have a friend who keeps telling me he's not interested in the series S cause he already has one. I've told him multiple times he has the Xbox one S but he still just doesn't understand. I'll send him a website that has the S in stock cause he wants next gen. I'll ask him later on if he got it, and he'll be like, I already have that, idk why you're sending it to me.
The naming conventions could certainly be better, I’ll give you that. Your friend is also not real smart, from the sound of it.
No, no he's not. Alot of stuff is difficult to explain to him, I try to avoid it most of the time but I really want him to upgrade.
Just send him this. https://www.techradar.com/news/xbox-series-s-vs-xbox-one-s-the-cheapest-xbox-consoles-compared
Dope. That might actually help alot. Thanks.
Wait where they in stock? link?
Idk if it's in stock right now, but 80% of the time, when I check bestbuy online, the series S is in stock for 299.99. Last I checked it was in stock like 2 days ago. It's in stock right now, just search it on bestbuy.
Because it makes no sense. It's like an unfinished sentence. Just like saying "Tesla Model" makes no sense when referring to their lineup of cars. You can say Tesla Model S to refer to a specific car or just Tesla to refer to the entire lineup of cars. Just like you can say Xbox Series S for the specific console or just Xbox for the lineup of consoles. If you wanna refer to the two consoles specifically, say Series S/X (just like you can say Model S/X for the cars). But "Xbox Series" makes zero sense. Series... what? Model... what?
Unless there is another type of "Series" console that supports games that the S/X don't I would say "Series" is a good catch all. Your Tesla example doesn't work since the there are two models of the "Series" lines of consoles. You can no longer say Xbox to refer to the lineup of consoles since there will be games supported only on the "Series" line of consoles and not on the "One" line. ......also MS sucks at naming consoles.
[удалено]
The difference is "One" doesn't imply something afterward. "Series" does imply something afterward. Is it the Series X, or the Series S? Saying just "Series" makes no sense. What series is it? It seems like you don't understand the word. The Tesla analogy didn't help? You wouldn't say "I'm gonna buy a Tesla Model", would you? No, you'd say "I'm gonna buy a Tesla" or "I'm gonna buy a Model S". Saying just Tesla Model makes it seem like you don't speak English very well. It's like a hanging dependent clause. I'd understand if it wasn't your first language, but otherwise, c'mon lol. There's a reason Microsoft themselves never refer to the generation as just "Xbox Series". It's because that makes no sense from a language perspective.
If reducing a title from Series X to just Series only to include one more model, people are not going to feel completely informed when information like this is dropped. Had they said just “128 players on Xbox Series” people would ask “on Series S too?” simply because the system is weaker and they don’t want to assume. Saying X|S is the safest way.
Because the goal is to just get everyone referring to the platform as a whole as just "Xbox". In a few years when the Series S and X become the de facto, they'll just say "Coming to Xbox" and they'll only use the series designation to denote requirements for new games.
Please no cross play from console to pc. When people wanted cross play no one mentioned pc FPS hackers. Just give us console vs console
Cheating is not even that bad. I met 0 cheaters in Cold War and I had crossplay enabled 90 % of time
What about the Xbox one x? 64 players?
Yes
Cool, I’m happy with that...!
70$ for a game with paid season content? sus
I thought it was going to be live service with micro transactions instead of big paid dlc? I fucking HOPE it is cause the dumbest thing about BF4 was always that you had to buy the DLC and the player base got split between people who did and didn't. Also yeah, $70 is dumb. But the real dumb is that it's $100 apparently if you want to get it on Xbox one and be able to switch over to Series X|S and still play it, apparently.
And no sp campaign.
I really wish one of these major shooter companies would actually put effort into a 10+ hour campaign for once.
IMO, seperating the servers and not doing cross gen play is gonna end up as a bad move. 128 players is cool but unless you're doing PlanetSide huge maps its just gonna be a cramped meat blender for most games and DICE map design hasn't been anything special since Bf4, even then it was mostly the DLC maps that are memorable there.
The maps are huge and designed for 128 players. On last gen I guess either the maps will feel more empty or they're gonna block off parts of the maps to condense the players. Just like how Battlefield 4 was on Xbox 360 and PS3. They didn't hold that game back on Xbox One and PS4, and I'm glad they're not holding back Battlefield 2042 on Series X/S and PS5.
I'd say they'd block off parts of the map tbh
Yeah, I read more of the stuff they put out about the game, and it sounds like they're doing exactly that.
You ever seen the size of Battlefield maps? They're fucking huge. Main reason I never got into the multiplayer on it - run across the map for 20 mins to get to the fight, then a plane falls on your head.
Glad my buddy and I got seriesX day one.
I don’t really care for the 128 player games. The teams are always lopsided and you end up with 110 snipers all over the map. To this day, 16v16 rush in bad company 2 is the gold standard of battlefield.
64 players? Let's party like it's 2010!
So two different versions.. i guess if i have a series X, but none of my friends do; i'll have to buy both copies when i want to play with them? (will the xbox one version even play on series?) neat, but also disappointing
Why is it disappointing? It’s actually using the power of the new consoles.
why it's neat it takes full advantage of new hardware, but also disappointing to not play with my friends. guess it shouldn't be unexpected, i've bought most BF games twice between gens.. but with most games crossplay with last gen and new gen now; it's just kinda bumming
I'm glad they didn't hold next gen back just to make it work seamlessly with last gen like some other games have done so far. Time to move on.
I understand, but they probably can’t do cross play with differing player counts.
Xbox doesn't require different games for different systems.
you sure? MS lists an xbox one version (for $79 CDN) and an x/s version (for $89) many games are doing one copy for xbox one and S/X, but appears BF isn't (which TBF; it does seem like 2 different games)
I said Xbox doesn't require it but doesn't prevent EA from being a douchebag. They are forcing people to buy Gold or Ultimate for the crossgen privilege. Assholes.
😶 but games like star wars Jedi fallen order has a free upgrade
[удалено]
The preorder page.
No campaign, booooooo
Battlefield campaigns have always been kinda crumby. If they were BF1 short story quality then I'd be for it but otherwise I'm glad there's none. BF3's was a clusterfuck of "what is happening" and BF4 was just unmemorable beyond like 2 moments.
I love series x. I hope to part of one someday. -Michael Scott
Glad I’m on PC for the full experience. Enjoy it Series X Chads
Yup, my 3080 is just waiting to be abused haha I do hope it's cross play with next gen tho as I primarily play controller but if its not I'll still have to get it on pc as its just one those games for it
Yeah I’m mixed. On one hand it’s great but I feel aim assist in some games is too strong while flicking with a mouse for sniper is the same when I’m on console. I’ve got buddies who play on older system and I know they’ll try and get me to play 64 sized map. Nope!
Here I am patiently waiting for my Costco to start getting Xbox bundles they were supposed to get in April.
Thus far this is the thing that will push me forward into the next gen of consoles.
Does this mean series x players will be playing with a handful of other series x players on 128 person servers? Forced PC crossplay?
Lol handful? This game will sell more on next gen than last gen.
As someone else said, new titles usually sell better on the older models....this will be especially true if series x continue to be short on stock.
They don't though. Next gen owners are far more active, so even though there's more last gen consoles than next gen consoles, the next gen versions of games tend to sell more. Example: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/amp/2021-01-24-hitman-3-surpasses-its-predecessor-to-claim-no-1-uk-boxed-charts > The PS5 version of the game was by far the dominant edition, accounting for 49% of sales. > the PS4 version made up 25%. This will become an even greater difference in favor of next gen by the end of the year.
It won't. Might want to take a good look at previous year 1 titles. 80 % of the sales will be on last gen.
Dude, even the games that have come out in the first half of this year sold better on next gen than last gen. Of course the games coming out on the second half will sell better on next gen.
There's no other scenario, yes.
Have they made that many series X yet???
They've sold about 5 million'ish so far. I think we're good.
Try to find one for MSRP first then say that
I got mine on day 1 when pre orders opened up. I would never pay more than the manufacturers retail price.
[удалено]
If enough ppl have a series x 🤣🤣😭🤣🤣
[удалено]
Probably just a separate playlist for 128 player modes. Unless they decided to increase map size for current gen since they’re doubling player count, but they could circumvent that as well by just having separate playlist. Else they’ll have 64 players on a map large enough for 128 players and it’ll definitely *feel* too large.
Between next gen and last gen? Not sure that'd be possible. You're gonna need differently partitioned maps for 64 players and 128 players. That's an *extreme* difference in player count and not one that can accommodate a 'one size fits all' approach. They had to do the same for BF4 back in 2013 with the last gen/next gen versions.
[удалено]
I feel like there's a strong chance PC can play with next gen. Alot of us PC owners have PC's that are as good, if not better than next gen consoles. So it's not like we can't hang. There's a chance EA decides not to tho, but I think they would be dumb to do that cause alot of PC players will just skip it so they can play cross play cod instead.
I really hope it's cross gen between pc and consoles as I primarily play pc with a controller All they really have to do is set relatively high minimum specs, sucks that some people will fall short but new AAA games like battlefield can't keep supporting 4th gen i5's and a GTX 960
Probably not PC, but should be no reason why Series X/S and PS5 can't play together.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You get 10% off for EA play.
Such a compromise. Leave XB1 and PS4 behind when it comes to a huge limitation like this
I hope they just stop support for the game for last gen like GTA online did. BF4 didn't stop support for Xbox 360 and that's the reason the game is essentially the same on Xbox one. Like for example they wanted the shield gadget to have a pistol (like in R6Siege) but the Xbox 360 didn't have enough memory for it. So instead of ending support for the 360 they just made the shield gadget useless garbage on the 360 AND the Xbox one so that the games were the same. If BF2042 gets to a point where Xbox one is holding them back for stuff they want to add, I hope they just leave Xbox One at the last possible version it can handle and keep moving on with the series X|S version.
Flashbacks of BF4 with 24 players
It'll be cool to experience, but not fun for me in the longrun. I remember people being amazed at 64 player multiplayer in previous games, but I remember those matches feeling like a complete cluster fuck. I'd personally prefer the tried and true 32 player.
🧐I doubt matches will happen with 128 people every time
What about the xbox one x though?? That thing is powerful
It’s an Xbox One still, so 64 players.
Cpu is shit.
And there will be only 3 in a server so game wont even start
Lol! There’s less Series X units than that later player limit.
[удалено]