GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Next Battlefield Game Returns To Modern Setting And Makes Other Key Changes Fans Asked For

The next Battlefield game is ditching some of the things fans didn't like about Battlefield 2042.

7 Comments

Electronic Arts has revealed new details on the next Battlefield game, confirming a modern-day setting and revealing the game will ditch features from Battlefield 2042 that divided fans.

Whereas recent Battlefield games took place in World War I, World War II, and the future, the new Battlefield game takes place in modern times, EA revealed in an IGN report. The first piece of concept art (see below) depicts what appears to be a European city, spanning both land and sea, with a fire ripping through a nearby forest. The scene looks very chaotic in the traditional Battlefield sense.

Additionally, the new Battlefield game will say goodbye to features from Battlefield 2042 that fans quickly and loudly said they did not like. Battlefield 2042 launched with maps that supported up to 128 players, and this was a new level of scale the Battlefield series had never seen. But fans didn't like it, as matches could feel empty, and the developers eventually reverted back to 64-player matches. The next Battlefield will settle on a number that is "more akin" to what past Battlefield games offered.

"Yeah, the 128-player, did it make it more fun? Like...doing the number for the sake of the number doesn't make any sense," Battlefield boss Vince Zampella said. "We're testing everything around what's the most fun. We are designing something that is more akin to previous Battlefields. I'd rather have nice, dense, really nice, well-designed play spaces. Some of them are really good. I can't wait for you to see some of them."

Battlefield fans also voiced their displeasure with Battlefield 2042's "Specialist" characters, which replaced the traditional Class system. Zampella, who didn't come to EA until this decision was already made, applauded DICE for trying something new. But he stressed that Specialists--which were later dumped from Battlefield 2042 in a post-release update--won't come back.

"I wasn't there for 2042. I don't know what the rationale was, but for me, it's like the team tried something new," he said. "You have to applaud that effort. Not everybody liked it, but you got to try things. It didn't work. It didn't fit. Specialist will not be coming back. So classes are kind of at the core of Battlefield, and we're going back to that."

Also in the interview, Zampella stressed that while Call of Duty is a competitor to Battlefield, he sees both franchises as offering something distinct to their fanbases.

"We're not looking to take down Call of Duty. We're making something that's different and we're making something that's us," he said, acknowledging that this new Battlefield game "has the possibility" to outsell Call of Duty.

It's still relatively early days, and there is no word yet on when the new Battlefield game will be released, though a report said it might be here as soon as October 2025. Intriguingly, Zampella said EA is going to announce a testing program for the next Battlefield game in 2025 to invite more fans to try the game before launch.

"That's kind of the core of what we have to do--get the community back on our side, get that trust back," he said. Whether or not this is some kind of open or closed beta, or a different type of test, remains to be seen.

Keep checking back with GameSpot for the latest.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 7 comments about this story
7 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for lokar82
lokar82

498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

As a longtime Battlefield player, this isn't any of what I want. Modern setting has been done to death, gameplay needs reinvgoration through something like integrating weather of different earth climates into the gameplay. e.g. weapons overheat after a certain point if fighting in hot area or you slowly lose health in cold climate.

128 player battles are fine if there are enough players, I think EA is trying to save on infrastructure costs. Specialists do suck though but that's a subtraction, not an addition. Sell me on this game a little better EA! Opinions differ but I thought the WWI game was the best.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for cyrezeraser
CyrezEraser

244

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By CyrezEraser

another modern shooter though. we've had so many modern shooters and it would be nice to explore another time period again like vietnam, korea, something else. the same shit over and over again

2 • 
Avatar image for simonthekid7
Simonthekid7

1389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 5

Battlefield had a sort of strong run in maybe 2005-2018 (even more if you include the Star Wars Battlefront games which were quite similar) but now....it seems like the Battlefield Franchise is fading away a bit.

I think Battlefield 2 was released in 2004 or 2005 and then we had games like BF Bad comppany 1 and 2, BF 3, BF 4, BF 1, BF 5, BF Hardline and the star wars games. A lot of BF games in ten years, almost one each year. But lately there has not been too many of them except for BF 2042- II think BF 5 was out in 2018? It has been six years without a real and proper sequel. 2042 felt like maybe not a proper sequel.

Meanwhile Call of Duty is a kind of industry or machine, they just keep them coming each year, like clockwork.

For a while it seemed almost like BF could rival CoD and go head to head with it but now it is a long time since it felt like they were equals.

EA has not exactly enjoyed huge success otherwise either with fps games except for maybe Apex Legends. Medal of honor did not last long, Titanfall did not turn out to be a big ongoing franchise. the Cysis games are not being made anymore.

EA still has plenty to offer, with star wars jedi games, sports games, role playing games and some smart phone games which are kind of decent (i like Plants vs Zombies and golf clash). And some racing games but maybe mostly to the aquisition of Codemasters.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for wednesdayaddams
WednesdayAddams

75

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@simonthekid7: Not sure I'd appreciate annual battlefield releases. That's one of Call of Duty's weaknesses I think. There's not a whole lot that's different release to release other than a discontinuation of your unlocks/and guns, and a reset of everyone's rank. The graphics, engine, etc. usually isn't different enough to warrant a full price new release. MW1, 2, and 3 (the recent ones) should have been the same game with $40 expansion packs.

For BF itself, I wouldn't say it "faded". During BF5, the fanbase kind of turned on the devs when they introduced customizable soldiers with the option to play a female. I remember seeing posts claiming women "have no place" in their war games, and people began to come up with the weird rationale that Battlefield was a mil sim (it never was, that was always Arma). Then you had the trailer with the woman with a prosthetic arm and people got bent out of shape over something that was never even included in the full release.

Then a few years later 2042 comes out and they try to get onto the "cool kid" bandwagon. Hero shooters were all the rage (only just now starting to calm down in popularity, though some studios havn't quite caught up). There's a big no-no amongst some in the gaming community where they don't want fictitious characters to have a backstory... particularly if it involves pronouns/identity or sexual orientation. Sundance gets listed as non-binary and people freak out. (Overwatch devs also faced backlash when they announced Tracer was lesbian)

Take all of that, and factor in that neither of the most recent BF games were ready at launch because EA has a habit of forcing games into the market early for a quick payday, and a lot of gamers have a first-impression mindset where if they aren't happy day 1 they never give the game a second chance later on, and it is forever the day 1 game. So after about a year both games were in a VERY good state, but rather than go back and take a look, people say "that game is still alive?"

I think BF's problem is a mix of releasing too early and a difficult fanbase.

3 • 
Avatar image for jeffreydavis
JeffreyDavis

54

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@wednesdayaddams: why should people have to wait almost a year or more for a game to be playable?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for moh_sakhaii
moh_sakhaii

867

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@wednesdayaddams: I tried it a couple of months ago, as a huge fan of all battlefield games since BF 1942, BF2042 is still a disgrace. It is not a Battlefield game at all.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ChubbyGomez69
ChubbyGomez69

107

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@wednesdayaddams: The games were just crap

Upvote •