Once again, a Battlefield game is being saved. Shooter expert Kevin wonders: Why are we back at this point again?
What Battlefield 6 has planned for Seasons 3, 4, and 5 sounds like music to my ears. Finally, we’re getting really big maps with tons of vehicles, finally there’s naval warfare (with takeoffs and landings from aircraft carriers!), and finally, DICE is introducing a real server browser for multiplayer.
These are scenes that are cause for celebration:
“They finally listened,” is the headline used by major shooter YouTubersin effusively positive videos. BF6 is back. Battlefield has reached the “we’ve-heard-your-feedback” phase of post-launch development. And yes, that’s basically phenomenal news.
But it also shows that, after many years, Battlefield still fails to be a good live-service game.
Patience is running out
Battlefield 6 is a great shooter, but one thing has become very clear in the months since launch: there is still a lot of work for the developers to do. With content updates. With map quality. With how well vehicles are integrated into battles. With pacing.
I can only manage a weary smile at this point. Don’t get me wrong, I’m absolutely thrilled about the return of Wake Island, the massive naval battles, the announcement of Platoons, and so on. But why do we have to get to the point again where Battlefield needs to be saved in the first place? BF veterans are experiencing déjà vu.
Battlefield’s Never-Ending Catch-Up
Battlefield 2042 crashed and burned right at launch, had to completely overhaul the Specialists system, scale back the 128-player formula, and generally take a lot of heat for poor level destruction and lousy map quality. Things didn’t really start running smoothly until after many patches (and, ironically, just before BF6 came around the corner and buried all hopes for new 2042 content).
Before that, Battlefield 5 struggled with countless problems—most notably the sluggish content updates. In some cases, we had to wait up to six months for a new map to finally be released. Additionally, the back-and-forth regarding TTK caused enormous frustration. It wasn’t until the major Pacific update that BF5 slowly began to feel truly polished and complete (and then the content tap was turned off here as well).
And the same story can be told about the detour to a galaxy far, far away: Battlefront 2 also had to be rescued.
Yes, even the legendary titles from the series’ early days sometimes had serious launch issues. BF4 was derided as “Betafield” upon release and had to be patched back to health with emergency updates.
There has never been a perfect Battlefield, and I don’t expect one. But the fact that a server browser, large maps, and massive battles involving ships, jets, and tanks are high on BF fans’ wish lists is really no surprise!
Battlefield is back. Again.
It’s bizarre that fans have to beg for something that’s part of the series’ DNA. It’s as if the developers learn one or two really good new lessons with every installment, but in return suddenly forget 20 things that fans take for granted.
And then a familiar cycle repeats itself: players get angry, player numbers drop, and feedback piles up. DICE and EA respond with “We hear you” and promise major changes. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief. Battlefield is back.
Then it takes several months again, and Battlefield is steered back in the right direction with major updates. And everyone looks at each other and wonders: Was that so hard? It just doesn’t make sense why we’re discussing absolute basics in a shooter series that’s been established on the market for over 20 years.
And when it comes to live service, there have long been more than enough positive examples of how it’s done right (Helldivers 2, Marvel Rivals, Rainbow Six Siege, Apex Legends).
Yes, I’m happy about the roadmap for Battlefield 6. But I’m also really sick of having to celebrate this U-turn as a major comeback. Just like with the Battlefield before it. And the one before that.
