The WORST Take On What Battlefield Needs.. ► Please Don't Do This DICE

Full Article - gamerant.com/b...
Twitch: / ghostgaminggg
Twitter: / ghostgamingg
Discord: / discord
TikTok: / ghostgaming_battlefield
RTS Channel: / @stormgate_central
Thumbnail Image - x.com/Shadow6ix
Become a Member: www.youtube.co...
Support me directly: streamelements...
Business Enquiries: [e-mail]

[@RoiDeCoeurs]

The "if there's only 64 players per server, we don't need as much guns" made me laugh so hard

[@BringBack2Center]

These people live in another world while thinking they live in the world

[@drakehoward8416]

We need more guns it would be totally obsolete if you did that players are more experimental when it comes to their gameplay accuracy and etc like adding new modern guns such as MCX MDR VHX new attachments but in the style of BF3 and BF4

[@cjerp]

@@drakehoward8416 especially if they go back to the 4 class system 3/4 guns per class is just stupid.

[@drakehoward8416]

@@cjerp i agree that's totally stupid i am a SCAR and MCX Guy hell no way 3 guns per operator

[@NAVYPROUD34]

10/10 rage bait.

[@chrisuuu393]

Personally, I'm bothered by all the praise for Delta Force. Sponsored videos praise how it is like Battlefield, but better. NO. We dont want many things from DF. No more specialists and their strange abilities, we dont want simplified vehicles, we dont want only 5 maps, we dont want pink skins, we dont want SBMM.

[@tropixx8143]

they literally confirmed specialists aren't gonna be a thing anymore

[@chrisuuu393]

​@@tropixx8143 I know but video is about bad and harmful opinions and for me, excessive praise of DF is one of them

[@LD-sx9pr]

DF is literally a 2042 clone, but because no bAtTlEfIelD name it somehow passes as a good game Work of the Redditards

[@Il_panda]

idk, specialist are fun, i dont really see an issue with the 2042 approce, its not an hero shooter and its not arma

[@Turned2Ice]

@@chrisuuu393 who "we" ? you and your echo chamber?

[@soggycheeseburger2494]

If I remember correctly, GamerRant also released an article last year about how Battlefield would massively benefit from being turned into a Milsim. Just shows that they have absolutely no clue what they're talking about.

[@Turned2Ice]

milsim bros are most clueless among gamers, considering the urge they feel to express their delusional fantasies and theories

[@TheLizardKing752]

Didn't they also do an article about how it should have dinosaurs?

[@kebabit0]

@@Turned2Ice There are more MilSim FPS games that are thriving than actual "casual FPS" like Battlefield and yet, MilSim bros WON'T ever never touch one of these games lol - they prefer to play Portal 2000% damage servers rather than Squad/HLL/Arma and beg every possible opportunities to turn BF into a milsim shooter. The community is cooked. We can blame DICE/EA for most of it, trying to cater to everyone but their own playerbase. This is what you get when you chase trends rather than doing what you are known for. Community is diluded between actual BF players (even here its divided), COD zoomies, MilSim hoes, Extraction and Battle royal idiots. When do we win ? When do we get an actual Battlefield game ? You know : Campaign/Multiplayer (maybe throw some COOP in there idk) and call it a day. We don't need any of the bullshit like Portal / BR / Extraction / MilSim. Yet we already know they want to have "a connected universe" ...good lord... Battlefield worked best when it tried to do...Battlefield. Just look upon what games people are remembering fondly. Imo, every BF should aspire to build upon BF3. It was a great foundation. Even BF4 fucked it up (a bit). BF2/BC2/BF3 were the peak. It all downhill from there...

[@nickysimi9866]

​@kebabit0 I am glad you mentioned bf2, too often bf3 and bf4 are considered the peak, but bf2 was peak teamwork. Bf3 and bf4 were good when it came to the sandbox and variety, but teamplay wasnt as prevalent as it was in bf2. Bf2 was the pinnacle of teamwork, commander, squads where the sl was the only spawn, players who actually used transport vehicles as intended and all that good stuff

[@TheLizardKing752]

@@kebabit0 It's not coming back.

[@zenthien6731]

15 weapons on launch would be so damn insulting for a battlefield launch in any setting but the revolutionary war or ww1 eras. They're a big boy company, if they can't figure out how to give a decent sized quality selection, that's on them. No way I'd trust the devs to get other things right if they can't even manage the guns.

[@gunmasterx1164]

Ironic how they say the next game should have fewer guns yet BF2042 came out with 22 guns

[@PrasathMGM]

Remember, BF4 has 80+ weapons

[@desubokudawanano]

~40 weapons with others being copypaste

[@zephr147]

@@desubokudawanano Is that necessarily bad tho ?

[@sonbang_fps]

Tech industry is a cost cutting industry now compared to then, you won't see that level of content from a western developer

[@CasvalSVER]

@@zephr147 No not at all, just people like to complain about anything these days. I maxed out every weapon in BF4 and had a lot of fun doing it.

[@mat_max]

So many of them suck

[@cefasvaneck6440]

4 different classes and each class has atleast 1 Special Gun category and more universal categories.... how can you spread 15 guns over this??? Guy needs to go back to kindergarten 😒

[@TheBrick534]

This is also factoring sidearms counting as guns too. It'd basically only be 3-4 weapons per class + sidearms which would be abysmally boring.

[@HQ_Legomeme]

​@@TheBrick534😂

[@Colfax98]

​@@TheBrick534One starting side arm and one extra side arm. But don't worry, I'm pretty sure we're gonna have a store filled to the brim with skin bundles for those incredible TWO guns

[@Lexxal_]

Here are the things i need next bf game to have for me to pay even 1 Dollar for it: 1) Server Browser 2) At least 8 maps 3) More than 25 weapons 4) Class system 5) No COD like movement 6) No sense of Super hero gadgets 7) Realistic and gritty vibes. I'm not playing Fortnite, I'm playing Battlefield. 8) DESTRUCTION!! I have not seen proper destruction in a battlefield game since BF 1 (BFV had very limited destruction) 9) Post launch content that delivers more than 1 map per season. I know for sure they're not gonna add server browser, even Delta force doesn't have that, idk why. And for sure they're not gonna deliver on the content. Not at launch, not at post launch. The whole realistic gritty vibes of it is also not gonna happen because they will eventually sell garbage skins that ruins immersion.

[@Jester747]

Server browsers are never ever coming back, its all about the matchmaking.

[@Swecan76]

15 guns would be terrible. It needs to be how BF4 started. With tons of guns from the very start. I won't buy this BF if it comes out with 7 maps and 15 guns. Maybe 1-2 years later when it has added up to a normal "launch" amount of maps and guns. At a bare minimum I'd say 35+ guns and 10 maps or more at launch.

[@Cramblit]

Why the F do you need that many guns?

[@TheBrick534]

@@Cramblit Ever heard of "variety"?

[@caydenph2741]

24 - 28 guns actually.

[@caydenph2741]

​@@TheBrick534 Quantity and variety are not really the same, often you get too many of the same gun but a different model.

[@Cramblit]

@@TheBrick534 yes I have, but that completely ignores my question.. why do you need so many? Because you've been conditioned by the corporate game industry to want it for skins? stop being a sheep.

[@theweppe27official]

EA/DICE: "less is more" Players: "that's literally definition of brain rot"

[@wagfpsbr]

dumb take. If the next BF launchs with 15 weapons people will just not buy the game and wait for the seasons to add content and probably some discount to buy later

[@eskalation1871]

It sounds like it was written by chatGPT if you ask me

[@timkey87]

People keep talking about bf3 and 4 and completely forget that devs who made these games don't work for Dice anymore, it's a completely different team .I don't think it's realistic for today's Dice to deliver tons of unique guns. I keep my expectations super low for next game and not gonna preorder it no matter how good trailers gonna be.

[@Turned2Ice]

But truly unique and interesting guns were presented in bf5 which was not so long ago

[@CasvalSVER]

Of course they don't work there, a lot of them went to other studios, made their own studios/games, some just outright retired. Realistically, expecting Dice to match 10+ year old games IS low expectations wouldn't you say? BF3 had to be made with idea of running on Xbox 360/PS3 as well. If they can't match those old legacy games in 2025/26 with bigger studios, bigger budget, better computers, better programs, formally educated devsm AI tools, and not being handicapped anymore by consoles that can't even compare to midrange gaming PC like BITD then the series is a lost cause.

[@CrispyMuffin2]

that doesnt stop them from doing their best to replicate that gameplay experience. only issue is they tried to make 2042 something different, rather than doing what Battlefield did best

[@DTheWhiteWolfD]

I swear they always try to just get rage bait at this point for engagement payments, honestly bewilders me if this is a serious take

[@TheLizardKing752]

100% rage bait.

[@TheKupko]

Gamerant is run by AI, I blocked them from my browser and you all should too.

[@andrewblong481]

15 weapons per weapon category would be good start. But 15 total just doesn't make sense. And I swear if they let every class have every weapon I'm going to flip FTO

[@da_plug13]

In our battlefield idea, my buddies and I came up with a total of 176 weapons including sidearms and launchers. However, this is split evenly among 2 factions with the faction specific weapon system like bf3. It includes 34 assault rifles, 14 battle rifles, 14 PDWs, 18 SMGs, 14 LMGS, 12 GPMGs, 16 sniper rifles, 10 DMRs, 10 shotguns, 20 sidearms, and 14 launchers. Now, we may have gotten a little carried away and put way too many weapons but the next battlefield game should at least have a similar amount of weapons as BF4 did more than a decade ago. With all the irl variety of weapons in a modern/near future setting, there's really no excuse to not feature a substantial amount of weapons.

[@The_Post-It-Note]

What a load of bollocks This is totally rage bait. I can’t believe that someone actually sat down and thought, yeah that’s okie dokie. Edit: pfffft “fewer qualms” my arse

[@alexmost166]

I think people miss 3 huge functions of gun variety. 1. UNLOCKING THEM! Achievements, medals, tags, cosmetics etc suck- who gives a sh*t. Guns are playable content, you want to at least try each for a little. Unlocking all the guns forced you to try them all, play different styles and complete challenges. When ever new guns come out, you go back and spend a few more hours. Keeps the player base alive longer 2. They become a matter of individuality. People choose to play with certain guns for all kind of reasons. It feels good, its a gun they like in real life, its a gun from their country, its lame but getting kills with it is trolling everyone else, it looks cool, it has better attachments etc etc. Think about the times you run around in HL with the mammoth gun or spear gun owning people. Or the Martini Henry in BF1.. imagine this would be deprived from you because in no possible scenario those are balanced guns that stand a chance against the usuals. 3. They often do play different which is great because we are all not the same. Peoples reaction time is different, people handle the recoil different, how smooth it gets to target how much space it takes of the screen, how accurate hip fire is, what attachments work best for it etc. We are different people, these don't have to be super unique, just enough so there's a difference and people will appreciate having someone optimal for their play style, as suppose to people running around with the same 5 guns.

[@kevinj834]

As an old-school gamer, this guy that wrote that article is everything that’s wrong with new gaming. He’s actually advocating for less content upfront and more drip feeding. I’m from the arrow where we had to pay unfortunately $10-$15 for DLC‘s which if your friends didn’t get, they couldn’t play with you, but that would come every threeish months with 3 to 4 new maps and a few new guns and here we are now in 2025 where the gaming Market is the biggest it’s ever been. It makes the most money it’s ever made and companies make the most and yet we’re getting drip, fed much less content at a similar pace. I don’t think that’s how it’s supposed to work. I say the same thing about call of duty as well. These franchisees call of duty and battlefield used to give us lots of content post launch. Yes we had to pay for it and I’m not advocating for that to come back, but I don’t see how they’re making more money now and can’t give us the same amount of content or more like they used to.

[@mat_max]

7 ars, 6 carbines, 6 lmgs, 4 dmrs, 4 snipers, 4 shotguns, 5 smgs, 3 regular pistols, 1 burst pistol, 1 full auto pistol, 1 hand canon, 1 revolver. That's +43 guns for a minimum. Bf3 had other 20 guns with the dlcs. Somewhere between bf3s and bf4s guns should be the sweet spot, Bf4 had so many guns that so many of them were worthless, like the chinese ones

[@OPTIMUMELITE]

40+ guns at least at launch 10 ARs, 7SMGS/PDW 6 SNIPERS 5 MARKSMEN RIFLES 7LMGs 5shotguns 6 or 7 sidearm Then regular launchers grenades. And of course the full suite of attachments to go with it. I honestly don't want them to hold back on attach customisation. Do what other games in that genre do as far as attachments go. 4 attachments is good but it should be like real life. Where there's no limit. Maybe small drawbacks.

[@DeadSpacedOut]

The next battlefield is gonna fail, unless it launches with only 2 maps, 9 weapons and 1 gamemode. Anything more and we're just asking for too much, guys...

[@jordanbuhler9442]

I remember reading EA said they want 45 guns at launch for the next BF game

[@gkammy]

do not trust these critic companies, these are the same people that rated battlefield 2042 on launch 90/100 4.5/5 80/100 5/5 and 100/100

[@JorgeTorrespluspage]

Having a bazillion guns is one of the reasons why I keep playing BF4, I'm still trying to obtain the Mastery dogtag for each. Who gives a crap if some weapons "act" the same, they look and sound different enough, it becomes a positive point on personalizing our experience. Also, remember guys, the standard with each DLC (I guess now we call them "Seasons") was about 4 maps each!! Please don't accept anything else gently.

[@birgir3399]

"people are praising bf1 for the amount of guns". this isnt really true... Battlefield 1 on release had a very low gun count, because usually 1 gun would have 3 variants of itself that would change the performance slightly, so it doesnt make sense to count that as 3 guns, its more like 1 gun with 3 different attachments. I also remember reading and hearing a sizeable amount of criticism from the community about the gun count. battlefield 4 however did have an appropriate amount of weapons on release. Personally what made Battlefield 2042 so forgettable and surprisingly frustrating was the dogshit weapon balancing... weapons like the VHX-D3 (like the one you use in the video) completely breaks the game. you cannot beat it. Unless theyve now nerfed it, havent played 2042 in like a year. Another thing that made the game boring and forgettable for me was the fact that so many guns were just lasers, straight up lasers. Almost exclusively vertical recoil and little of it. Making it so that if you use a gun that actually has some recoil in Battlefield 2042 you better land all of your fkn shots because little Timmy with his VHX will most definitely not miss a single shot.

[@bang3371]

Battlefield 3 & 4 are constantly being praised as great battlefields and they both have weapons that are complete lasers. BF3 was 99% m16a3 and bf4 also has braindead laser weapons. BF2042 was just lackluster at launch like most battelfields and became better over the years sadly the maps make it forgettable.

[@birgir3399]

@@bang3371 BF3 and 4 does have weapons that are lasers in the sense that they have no recoil, this is true. However alot of the weapons in these games werent laser accurate like some are in BF 2042. In BF3 and 4, if u wanted to be accurate at range you had to tapfire or shoot in short bursts, this increases the skill expression. That is completely lacking in BF 2042. And in BF3 and 4 id say there werent weapons that were just blatantly better than pretty much everything else in almost all scenarios like the VHX. GENERALLY speaking BF3 and 4's guns had more recoil for sure. While its true that the M16A3 was the meta it wasnt absolutely broken... It mightve been the most effective in most scenarios but if you are a better player that can land their shots, potentially headshot someone using an M16A3 you can win the gunfight, this isnt possible against the VHX, youre just dead. Like... you do not have to play BF 2042 for long to see how obviously lacking the weapon variety is compared to BF3 and 4 and also BF1. BF4 on launch was terrible, absolutely horrendous but saying that BF2042's launch was "lackluster" is just... with respect, absolutely laughable. Side note: Battlefield 3 and 4 WERE great battlefields years ago now. If you play them now its not the same experience, now its just virgin veterans trying to beat their PB score in their attack chopper.

[@joe564338]

​@@bang3371just played bf4 pkp definitely isn't a lazer most of the lmgs aren't lazers. There's definitely some recoil in the ars including the m16a4.

[@alexmost166]

BF1 came out with smaller variety was definitely noticeable BUT new content was coming out fast and it kept on coming. In addition you had guns you can pick up in the streets, you had vehicles and aircraft that didn't feel overpowered and disconnected from the infantry fights, there were new mechanics to the game and the setting was meticulously planned more than ever before or since... so I think its kind of an outlier.

[@alexmost166]

​@bang3371 That wasn't my experience at all.

[@CasvalSVER]

Every class should have at least 6-8 primary weapons on launch day, so 24-32 primaries minimum which falls in the ball park of the peak BF games. There should also be at least 8 maps that can be used with all game modes, which BF3 had 9 and BF4 had 10 at launch. DF launched with like 5 maps I think? That just isn't enough, I'm already bored of that game's maps and I've only played like 29 hours? They have a decent weapon selection in DF, but they copied CoD and all everyone does (including myself) is use the gun smith to make zero recoil AR/SMG builds. What's even the point of the gunsmith if it makes most the content impractical/useless? So the only "less is more" point of view I could agree with is tone down on the weaponsmith stuff that's become trendy in FPS games. Weapons don't have strengths or weaknesses anymore in FPS because you can use over powered tuning to make the AR class weapons a zero recoil laser gun. Remember when every weapon was a tool in FPS that served a purpose and required different skill sets to use effectively? When DMRs weren't made pointless by AR zero recoil with zoom optic builds? When 60 rd drum mags on a zero recoil AR didn't make LMGs pointless? When SMGs didn't struggle at close range against stockless ADS AR builds? I 'member. I miss those days, it offered gameplay variety and kept games fresh.

[@theweppe27official]

DICE: "What weapons we can add to our new game? There's plenty of them. Just think from 1960s onwards..." EA: "Only 15 will do fine" DICE: "Are you sure about that?" EA: "Don't you think about our beloved developers?! They need to make atleast 150 pink and shiny skins to those 15 weapons!! They will be extremely exhausted!!"

[@theweppe27official]

EA: "players will be confused if there's plenty of weapons to choose from" DICE: "just as there's two or three Batman running around in the movies? And they're separated films but same character?" EA: "Correct"

[@ElMatatan184]

DICE should just make a Battlefield 4 remastered, with more maps, more destructions, radio comms, commander mode, 64 Players and 60fps plus 5 player squads

[@alexmost166]

No, thank you.

[@MikePrivalis]

I think that the new Battlefield game should have AT LEAST five different guns for each of the major categories at launch (for comparison, Bad Company 2 had 7 primary weapons for each class and Battlefield 3 had around 8-9 I believe...maybe a bit less not including DLC) with each season of content adding one new weapon for each of the major categories, with occasional extra drops of these weird or less relevant weapons (like the crossbow, pistols etc) added in top of it. It would be the fairest approach to satisfy everybody, as everyone prefers playing a different class/weapon type and old battlefields always had pretty even number of options available for each class. Edit: Maybe some of the more popular categories, like the assault rifles, could be getting new weapons somewhat more often than the more niche ones, but the point still stands - if we are getting the class system back, each class should have a similar level of variety available to it.

[@Spartan001b]

BF3 was too perfect. More frostbite strategy.. hardcore team based play. Squad rush

[@LordBritishTTV]

No heroes. No "operators." No bundles. Stick to Battlefield 3/Battlefield 4 play mechanics. No "lobby" (EOMM/SBMM); stick to rented servers and human admins. Cheating problem goes "poof" overnight. From there, 20 million guns couldn't ruin the game. Simple formula. Revolutionize gaming by going back to our simple roots. EA can make billions. Rant over.

[@GraphicJ]

To be fair many players are realizing that places like Gamerant, Kotaku, PCGamer, the Verge and their like are utterly idiots with their rage-bait articles. They know it makes no sense, but they are desperate for relevancy since their faux "gaming journalism" industry is dying real fast.

[@anthcesana]

Bad Company 2 did not have an insane amount of weapons, very few attachments for said guns, and a limited amount of gadgets that helped to actually make each class feel unique and worth using. I don't need to mention how beloved that title is compared to some of the more modern titles. Sometimes, simplicity is a great thing. However, just removing stuff for the sake of it, without getting that balance right that BFBC2 did is not the answer.

[@Tialian]

Honestly less is more is a valid argument, the best shooter I've ever played (PlanetSide 1) had a limited number of weapons to choose from. Beyond this point, consider the older modern BF games (BF2/BC2) that had a more limited selection of firearns each class could choose from, which makes sense considering most militaries have standard issue gear; you aren't going to find them decked out with varying weapon attachments and skins. So in that sense you get a more authentic feel. That's not to say you can't have a large variety of weapons that are well balanced, but it does have the subtle impact of diluting the immersion. For a game like BF1 it made more sense because there was a lot of experimentation happening during WW1(and WW2), which was actually one of the things that made that game so interesting (the best BF of them all IMO).

[@rainmanmainplan4421]

I think dice and EA are gonna play it safe with the new title. Back to basics back to what made battlefield great.

[@ChillFactor727]

There is nothing wrong with having 107 guns like BF4 had!!!! The issue is there not being any kind of incentive or reason to use 90% of them or all the 57 scopes and lasers and attachments. I always said if they just randomized the time so games started in morning, noon, dusk, and midnight, it would give players a reason to attach different things ie: lasters and night vision if its foggy in the am as an example or night time fire fights.

[@hachosk]

15 guns is great to start for me… honestly I only use 2 o 3 guns mainly.

[@davechin5639]

Why do we even need guns? We need no more than 2 sticks and 2 stones. And then 50 different premium skins in the store (granite, gypsum, marble, sandstone, oak, pine, redwood, sandalwood, etc.)

[@TROY2048]

I would rather have 5 ARs that are distinctive than 40 ARs that all blend together and then get nerfed into oblivion

[@Kolossus_]

Less guns was one of the biggest issues with 2042, saying less guns is better is the most bafflingly stupid thing i think I've heard in a long time. 2042 launched with like... 20 guns? And only like half of them were actually usable.

[@JesusChrist-qs8sx]

I don't care what they do with guns, I don't care how many. Just please. No goddamn gunsmith. I hate it so much

[@joshgrimm8443]

Loads of weapons was literally something that people played for. Learning the gun, unlocking attachments, gaining dogtags, and even grinding to unlock unique weapons. This guy is a bot.😅

[@dhmhtrhsantwnoloukas4492]

Battlefield didn't need to launch with 15 weapons in the past to have great gunplay. So why do it now?

[@33up24]

Meanwhile you have a free to play game that's still in beta that launched with a fuck ton of guns and shit. What fucking Joke EA is.

[@Merty1388]

Real reason why guns feel samey on new games isn't the amount of weapons. Real culprit is gunsmith. BO6 has like 35 weapons. DF has like 50 weapons. Everyone uses the same 3 weapons because you can spec them to be no recoil, max hipfire, low TTK, max mag. Not saying BF3-4-1-V had perfect balance in terms of weapon uniqueness, there were many copy paste weapons, but less customization led to more unique weapons. You couldn't just take a high damage, high recoil weapon and slap on attachments to make it no recoil with a 50 round drum mag. If you wanted to have a high damage weapon you had to learn the recoil.

[@victorlucena988]

My hope was the next battlefield game should start from where 2042 stopped. Guns are something standard. You need a great sort of weapons for mid, close and long range with high rate of fire to supression or low cadency for more precision. 15 for four class systems isnt right. What they need to do is give us tools to make the match more balanced as possible. More AA guns. No matter the game, a skilled pilot can shit the ground forces with a gunner. And more places to cover. Game design. Look the time was taken from developers to almost remake the game. A year. A FUCKING ENTIRE YEAR TO REMAKE THE GAME INSTEAD OF GIVE US CONTENT. THAT WAS THE AMAZING LIVE SERVICE THEY HAD.

[@HueyGTO]

That’s literally why these so called web journalists are afraid of being replaced by AI.

[@lohtupottu]

How game journalism counts as journalism is wild to me. It's just out of touch people saying ridiculous things about games they propably don't even play.

[@USA_Specialist]

GameRant always off their rocker 😂 Purposely letting AAA devs off the hook and asking for "less content" is wild.

[@MrZhaw]

They need to focus more on the FUNDAMENTALS such as guns and maps and focus less on BS like gadgets and different grenade types.

[@marktopman1487]

Dude 15 weapons is only 1 more than monster hunter has, if they have that few I'd expect each one to have the complexity and number of variants of a monster hunter weapon

[@jonny-b4954]

7:35 Well that sucks big time. I love the 128 players. I like Battlebit's 256 player even more. You JUST have to design a map properly for it and it's wayyyy better. You truly get a sense finally of being in a real battle.The maps are way too big even for 128 players, in my view. They could shrink them a lot and still have that chaotic feel.

[@ArtzieFPS]

Nah game will not balance 64 is a sweet spot

[@loicthiant7448]

Yep they fuckd up the maps design and the netcode was trash but the 64 players formula got to evolved at some point . Battlebit has some top quality designed map for sure . They just have to properly execute that stuff like really think abt it . And clearly 2042 was not thought like at all they just threw shit at the wall and see what's stick pretty much

[@JoshuaDay0550]

@@ArtzieFPS 32 is the sweet spot. 64 is dumb, especially on modes like rush. 16v16 has always been the best, idk why the fuck they ever increased it

[@user-me2gy5km6q]

128 player count was a major eff up, that they never managed to balance well, and will likely never be repeated.

[@loicthiant7448]

@@user-me2gy5km6q But why was it a major effed up cause the netcode was made for 64 players and was trash and the maps were poorly or trashly designed . 128 players work battlebit is the proof of that if u don't go that route and i can really understand it just up the numbers of players like 80 or 100 but do it accordingly and the smart way .

[@TheStaticTarget]

Sadly this is exactly what Dice is going to do. EA will want you to pay more for extra content after launch. You will have to buy seasons and premium to get more weapons and maps.

[@paulpx23]

I found a dusty gun guide on the book shelf and there's 300 pages of modern guns in there. BATTLEFIELD 2025 should have 300 weapons at launch. 🤩

[@vfxswagg1337]

15 guns when there are 8 weapon classes isn't even a 2 guns per class -1. 😂 Sidearms/handguns, shotties, SMGs, carbines, ARs, LMGs, DMRs, & snipers.

[@jaxxguevara7804]

I saw this and immediately thought "has this guy ever played battlefield before" I'm gonna guess not because every player knows more guns are needed at launch

[@michaelrichardson9626]

Just need these items to make a hit Classes Weapons locked and gear locked to classes which would encourage more team work Movement like bfv Better destruction as that is the battlefield selling point 64 player Maps that feel more alive and real rather than cookie cutter containers everywhere Land air and sea vehicles Stationary weapons along with build fortifications. Weapons balance as it feels like there like 2 that are just too and everyone just uses that weapon No one shot snipers unless your bring in a 50 cal sniper rifle. I still think the weather should be there rain makes vehicles move slower slide. Wind kicks up sand or snow Live day and night cycle so if u play the same map during day maybe next time you load it it's dawn or night. Vehicles can only be healed with a on board repair kit once after that only the repair tool can heal it. Vehicles damage move slower turn slower or if track hits vehicles disabled. Turret hit turns slower maybe the main gun can't fire. Just my thoughts how I feel battlefield would hit a homerun

[@lindsay9697]

Having only 15 guns would be a catastrophic mistake and almost certain career suicide

[@aramac]

Ok! hear me out, I understand and somewhat share his logic but those values are totally insufficient. The idea would be to ensure a good launch, not as the one we had with bf2042, and get more content after so that it felt alive and fresh every single week. On top of that, avoiding allocating resources into the mess that it was during the first months and creating more content in the long term. The concept of "because there are fewer players then we could have less variety of guns" is just a joke. If I went to a restaurant I would not have a reduced menu just because I was in a smaller group. 15 starting weapons for a full price game is very low. However, I do agree that we could have a launch with "few" weapons (TBD how many are few). If that was the strategy, they would have to start with season 1 INMEDIATELLY and introduce every single week a new gun/map for a couple of years. For BF2042 felt that for ages it was the same exact broken game and afterwards not much content came. The map content was a disaster. Few maps during launch and after they put so much focus into adjusting them that we missed having new ones. And the ones they refurbished were not good in my humble opinion. I would have prefered to have the original ones left as they were and having real new ones. It feels that someone from EA has contacted him to test the waters. To summarize, some logic can be shared but the proposal from his part is ridiculous.

[@walker8846]

When it comes to games journalism, I believe less is more too! The less “influence” they have, the more I enjoy the game. Dead take, DICE DO NOT LISTEN THIS PERSON!

[@Jinkuzu]

BF4 has like 100 weapons to be used had lots of them at launch so alot of guns to look forward to unlocking if to try out or returning favorites. My favorite weapons in BF4 is fairly odd ones compared to others most used ones. It being L96 for sniper and Famas being my go to assault rifle which not alot of people used.

[@TheBaierClan]

Not only does the game need to come out with a healthy number of gums, but they need to keep the plus system… if they take it out it would be a big step backward.

[@Brookssteff]

2 many guns is a disaster in battlefield. go back to a few guns a focus on skill.

[@halajake3242]

we really need 128 Players Maps done right . Because people means more chaos .

[@RNeeko]

To be fair, at least in the case of BF4 there is too much weapon overlap. There are many options in every rate of fire category. They might not all necessarily feel exactly the same through the use of different recoil numbers and some being bullpups, but they effectively end up being the same gun with a different coat of paint and a different reload animation. BF4 could've done with fewer guns. That's not to say it's necessarily a bad thing to have more options, but as far as each gun being unique goes BF4 definitely does suffer from weapon bloat.

[@amosreginaldjr.4200]

I do think EA|DICE worked with this journalist about this topic and they are just gauging the feedback for the next game IF they do this

[@seth3978]

A good start would be BF4 amounts of guns/gadgets and the Finals level destruction imo. Better maps would go a long way too

[@albanskigangster]

15 guns per class would be nice but in general.....has that guy ever played any game?

[@Ash3s_97]

I wish paid games would go back to the DLC models instead of game pass/seasons. The DLCs were way better

[@aesemon5392]

15 starting weapons and season drop weapon pool increase is a free to play/ early access microtransactions model.

[@tiffanymooney986]

If they just gave us battlefield 3 remastered with some new maps and weapons id be as happy as can be. Thats literally all I want. And im sure thats what the vast majority of the community would settle with...

[@Swaguley]

EA really needs to tread carefully with the next title. They've got to really cater to the players this time around. They have a playerbase starving for a good Battlefield game. I think they've gotta do a lot of repairing when it comes to the relationship they have with the players. Like you said, they need to rebuild trust, because they're on thin ice. I'm talking not doing $100 "deluxe" or "ultimate" editions, keeping goofy skins out of the game, and delivering plenty of content out of the gate.

[@sheepkashur3308]

This is the worst possible take i have seen in the new year so far, i want a bf4 launch amount of guns, not a 2042 drought of guns

[@battlemaster2203]

Doesn't matter how many new weapons you have per season if no one is playing the game after it launches with only 15 weapons. As a side note, if I see they have no goofy operators/specialists and have gone back to bf4 style classes I'll pre order the highest edition available

[@Moon_Light_Dev]

I think that person should never do another article again.

[@Codysage98]

Why is it so hard to understand what is needed to make a great battlefield game.....they have done it 2x with bf3/4. Id even include bf1 too. I just dont understand why its so hard to make a good game when the formula is proven.....I have zero hope for the next BF because frankly....it seems the last 10+ years, AAA studio games are just hot garbage

[@doomzday2162]

It’s better to let them stop, at least not to make things worse.

[@R3dBubbleButNerfed]

One might wonder who this press article is intended for? EA or the players? Does he think he has something to contribute to the game? Like he's trying to get hired, but not at DICE, please. Tom Dumb Anderson, a "mastermind" of FPS....

[@duality9400]

if this next can't Battlefield cant provide a large scope of weapon's plus top tier customizations plus make the guns actually feel good and not all identical the franchise for battlefield is basically cooked

[@samuelbaker8724]

You know, everyone is talking about guns and less content, but I'm more worried about the input. It may be much better now, but 2042 always had the crappiest input I've ever seen in a Battlefield game.

[@CarelessBF]

Journalists find the most creative ways to become the most out-of-touch individuals for their choosen topic. How can you possibly be a Battlefield player and still come to these conclusions/opinions? Clearly that person does not play Battlefield. Honestly, the statements in this article are so far out-of-touch, they have do be satirical. There's no way they're being 100% serious. The initial number of available weapons at launch is so far from the most pressing issues the Battlefield franchise is facing, and thinking that reducing the number to 15 will fix ANYTHING is just putting your head in the sand. Wake up.

[@nastytechniquez9685]

This guy is so out of touch with what BF players want that you’d think he works at EA…

[@TheBrick534]

This "journalist" is clearly a live service shill. The dude genuinely believes launching a game and purposely withholding content for later seasonal releases is a good idea for devs. These people are so out of touch with regular gamers, it's crazy. Let's just ditch live service and go back to base game + paid DLC.

[@ldarionjackson315]

Did someone who made that article ever thought about reading it bc 15 weapons at launch is stupid bf4 or any bf game beside 2042 had over than 15 or 22 guns on release for every loadout/classes

[@ldarionjackson315]

And I even said with 2042 life cycle I wish dice look at how cod did with how many new weapons for every new battlepass (2 weapons in the bp and maybe 3 or 4 weapons in mid-season) to give the players more weapons to choose from

[@paulinapeak]

Basically like what SWBF2 did. Everything got really boring quick.

[@younameit_GG]

Did they not talk about a large scale play test early this year? If so, we are probably gonna learn about the game soon then, not in the summer

[@Colfax98]

"15 guns seems fine... In the future we can extract more money from players, that's a sacrifice we're willing to make" That's it guys, battlefield is dead, it's going to be another dead on arrival game, with yet another dead on arrival absolutely terrible take on warzone

[@emp437]

Lets also get less maps while were at it. 2042 got 3-4 maps a year. BF6 needs a max 2 new maps every year 👍

[@paulyost6849]

I hope they get rid of the 2 sec squad respawn. Its like here shoot the same people until you run out of ammo but dont worry come right back.

[@Jamesthechef0311]

I'm just going to throw out a number but there should be 15 of every gun in every category minimum

[@BNSKLages]

If they ship with fewer guns than the free to play Delta Force that ripped off 2042, it will blow up in there face. Lets all agree that if "more guns" is to much work and they need to put resources else where then the game is dead already.

[@infinitsai]

Ah yeah, less is more, that's why 2042 with 22 launch weapons, 1 map per season is the best video game of 2021

[@KB-ox7gm]

Levelling all the weapons is the only thing you can do after a while

[@Br3tti]

Look at Counter-Strike. A Game with very few guns to choose from in todays Shooter Game Standards. And this Game has 32 Guns to choose from. On 2 different Sides, yes. But still 30+ in total. 15 Guns for a Battlefield Game, with a completely different focus and a far bigger scale, are not enough !

[@jamesnyers1721]

I don't know....i used only 5-6 weapons in 3 years of playing. To me, there are lot of weapons that feel very similar to each other. You just got fooled by the different sound and the way they look on screen maybe? Me personally I would not be disappointed with 15 weapons only but I don't care. I want large maps and I don't want cross play. I basically want Arma Reforger with Battlefield mechanics🙂

[@MrDelgado559]

Believing a Gamerant article is like believing something that comes out of CNN for news