Origin listing briefly mentions Battlefield 4 beta

Perhaps the next Battlefield game isn’t too far off. On Friday, folks visiting EA’s Origin website were greeted with an unexpected offer: free access to the Battlefield 4 beta, provided they coughed up $69.99 to pre-order Medal of Honor Warfighter Limited Edition.

Sounds… expensive. I’m sure some players eagerly mashed that pre-order button, though.

Problem is, EA still hasn’t officially announced Battlefield 4, and the beta offer appears to have been a mistakeโ€”it’s been unceremoniously pulled from the pre-order page with no explanation. IGN managed to catch a screenshot in the nick of time, and I also saw it first-hand on Friday evening, but there are no traces left.

Meanwhile, EA still charges $69.99 for Medal of Honor Warfighter Limited Edition pre-orders. I guess they don’t call it a Limited Edition for nothing.

There’s little doubt that Battlefield 4 is in the works. IGN says EA President Frank Gibeau confirmed last November that “there is going to be a Battlefield 4,” and I’m sure EA is eager to cash in on its predecessor’s success. Battlefield 3 came out in October 2011, so perhaps EA will roll out a sequel some time around its one-year anniversary. That’s been the tradition with Call of Duty games.

Comments closed
    • Aphasia
    • 7 years ago

    FRANKIEonPC seems to have some good things to say about the new Warfighter though.
    [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz9J_dAv85w[/url<] While I liked the SP in the new MOH; the MP suffered from trying to be EA's CoD, which for all its rights and wrongs, do some things very right, others very wrong. But the new Warfighter seems like a whole other different deal. As for BF4, well, if they move on development to a cycle and introduce new content as a new game instead of a full conversion pack to the older, it might not be so bad. But considering the last DLC for this year is called End Game, there might not be any more after that, but they might still want to release new maps and continue to upgrade the experience, which is not neccessaraily a bad thing. While many people speak so fondly bout BF2, it had its fair share of bugs on release, as did 2142, etc. But nostalgia has it way of getting people to forgot. And while there is still people playing, a whole lot of us moved over to BC2 because of the updated graphics and destruction, then moved on to BF3 for the same reason. Because the experience is more then good enough, with a whole lot of extra stuff on top. And as long as that continue, I guess alot of people will do the same for the next instillment. Although at this point, I do hope they integrate it with the current battlelog and dont redo that part, because despite what speculation was before, Battlelog has established itself as a viable and very good alternative to the traditional launch game before you can see jack, kind of thing. Also, as for people complainging about $70, guess the're spoiled with not getting shafted by bad conversion rates. PC games here has been $65 for ages, with Xbox and PS3 stuff being $85. Oh well, guess we'll see when it comes out.

    • Fighterpilot
    • 7 years ago

    Hopefully the next BF installment will be the long awaited BF1943.
    EA has promised the next chapter will feature air battles with Zeros V Corsairs as the Yanks retake the South Pacific from Guadalcanal onwards.
    Yes please ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    I’d be more incline to think this is going to be BF 3142 then BF 4.

    Although given how heavily EA is trying to CoDize the BF series, they may have decided to go the release route of MW.

    • JohnC
    • 7 years ago

    Hopefully BF4 will be even more innovative… Like have a Flash-based server browser or require people to log in with their Facebook accounts to use “friends list” or something…
    /sarcasm

    • Chrispy_
    • 7 years ago

    Battlefield 3 will be ‘out of beta soon’, I hear the servers are stable enough to call “reliable” now in regions other than the US.

    Rather than celebrate that with a thankyou gift to the loyal, paying ‘beta-testers’, they’re just going to rename it and demand more money? I remember when taking the same game, with the same weapons, the same game modes, and the same engine was called a “downloadable map pack”. Man, those were the days….

    Is there anything EA [i<]doesn't[/i<] ruin?

      • Airmantharp
      • 7 years ago

      Battlefield 3 has been stable from a client and server perspective for over six months- and it was far from bad before that.

      As for servers outside the US, why would they be any different than servers within the US? My community is global, and I frequently find myself playing on foreign servers with our international members, and I see the same rock-solid stability outside the US, just with a little added latency.

    • Great_Big_Abyss
    • 7 years ago

    What made BF3 so special for me was the long wait time between BF2 and BF3. I didn’t play any of the BFBC games because I so enjoyed the formula that made BF2 so special, and was essentially waiting for a visually upgraded version of BF2. Which is what BF3 is. I can play BF3 for a few more years before wanting/needing an upgraded version of it, i.e. BF4. BF3 was a quantum leap ahead of BF2, in no small way because the time between releases allowed graphics technology to surge ahead by leaps and bounds. BF3 is currently so cutting edge that there is no possible way for a potential BF4 to be so much better. I think they’re much better off just releasing more expansions and maps, just like they’re currently doing.

      • ULYXX
      • 7 years ago

      BF4 could be better…. like traditional squad spawning and numbers for starters. Yep, im one of those guys who liked Bf2 and Bf2142 formula better. Negative votes, hello. ๐Ÿ˜›

        • moose17145
        • 7 years ago

        I was gonna say… I could think of a great many things that could make BF3 not a POS… having a true in game VOIP exactly like BF2 had (that was part of what made is so revolutionary for its time) and traditional squads is a good place to start. I loved BF2 and spent many, many hours playing it… I pre-ordered bf3 because of how much I loved BF2… I had never been so disappointed in a game…

          • Airmantharp
          • 7 years ago

          VOIP worked (or appeared to) in BF:BC2, but no one used it. Ventrilo and Teamspeak have a lock on that capability, and most open servers announce their VOIP server settings to players. It’s not nearly as clean as built-in VOIP, but I’d much rather them focus on other things first.

          Also, if you pre-ordered BF3 expecting it to be BF2 + better graphics while ignoring everything that came in between, your disappointment is your own damn fault :).

      • Airmantharp
      • 7 years ago

      BF3 is like BF2 in scale and diversity, but much more like BF:BC2 in game mechanics. In most ways it’s an expanded BC2 more than a sequel to BF2.

      That doesn’t make it bad, of course. It is very different but it is also very fun, and Battlelog has proven to be more innovative and useful than most thought it would be- it’s even extensible with add-ons like Better Battlelog.

      Perhaps the biggest problem with BF4 would be the demanding state of BF3. It takes real effort to build a machine that can handle BF3 well in full detail multi-player guise.

        • Washer
        • 7 years ago

        I have to give EA/DICE credit on Battelog. The concept and their execution overall are better than I would have expected. Being able to open the various parts of it in different tabs is awesome.

        My biggest issue is the actual server browser portion. It doesn’t seem to catch the full list of servers that fit my criteria. Well sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t. A bit random. Doesn’t matter much now, I’ve got a handful of favorites that fit my desires.

        The biggest issue with BF4 is there’s no point. BF3 is a solid enough base. I’m fine with the map packs/Premium. For all of that money, I’d also love to see improvements to the engine. Not just better graphics but fixes for flickering textures (a very annoying issue), making environment interactions more consistent, etc. Just small details like that.

      • Bensam123
      • 7 years ago

      BF3 was quite a bit more then a visual upgrade to BF2. It was made to be like CoD quite a bit more, which was the general direction if you followed the latest BF games (BC series).

      If you’re just talking about visual upgrades, you may be right. If you’re talking about gameplay and mechanics, there is plenty they could add to the game. There is plenty they took away.

      They could start with good Anti-Cheat technology.

    • Gazelleboy
    • 7 years ago

    Meanwhile, SOE is gearing up to release Planetside 2 as F2P(Not P2W) with a roadmap of major updates planned for the next 5 years. I know where my money is going, and it’s not EA.

    • yogibbear
    • 7 years ago

    I’ll just keep playing Tribes: Ascend TYVM. Unless this is BF2342 or something…

      • superjawes
      • 7 years ago

      I remember when we were suffering from WWII era saturation…I think we’ve been saturated with modern shooters for some time, and a different type of shooter (done well) could probably shift the market.

      Just saying that a 2142/2342 game might do well, EA.

        • tanker27
        • 7 years ago

        A WWII FPS with todays tech would be awesome. Think of Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, The audio would be awesome.

        That being said, I like BF3 for the auditory experience they have the sounds almost down pat. I can tell you from experience the M1A2 SEP sounds just like the real thing.

          • Airmantharp
          • 7 years ago

          Whether I’m using the HD555’s through an X-Fi or DD-Live through a Yamaha/Klipsch setup, the sound never ceases to amaze. You can place accurate return fire just based on audio, and having full-range outputs can be deafening without being loud.

          • superjawes
          • 7 years ago

          Oh no doubt. My main point was that a futuristic breakthrough title could shake the industry out of it’s current obsession with modern settings. Seeing as EA already has IP that fits that bill and some hype from BF3, it might be a very good time to roll out a 2142 sequel.

          But in the end, it is EA, and I find it more likely that they will stick with re-releasing titles until someone else pops the bubble.

        • Bensam123
        • 7 years ago

        Yeah, but big game companies follow around the money trail and right now that’s CoD.

        Thats what makes some of the indie games exciting though. Check out Blacklight Retribution. It’s not WW2, but it’s definitely different.

        • Krogoth
        • 7 years ago

        You realize that COD franchise and BF2-BF3 are just still WWII-era shooters reskined with “modern equipment”.

          • Airmantharp
          • 7 years ago

          You realize that modern militaries are just WWII-era organizations that have upgraded equipment? The tactics haven’t changed much, only modified slightly to account for technological advances.

            • Krogoth
            • 7 years ago

            Battle tactics in the modern era are completely different from WWII.

            You can write a novel on the differences alone.

            Believe me, if some developer try to accurately depict “modern warfare” in a FPS game. It will be too frustrating and difficult for the COD-kiddies.

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            (I think Airman was being sarcastic :P)

            But to the point of “reskinning,” I must disagree. Even if the engines are different, the game stakes are different as well. Sure, Nazis can be scary, but the idea of a whackjob with a pocket nuke is a serious concern to real modern folk.

            Not to mention the new goodies that you can get that were not present in WII CoDs, like claymores, C4, red dot…

            And that’s what I’m talking about when breaking out of the MW rut. The engines on the first few games will surely be the same, as will the general mechanics (as they are pretty typical across FPSs), but the stakes would be whatever you want and the weapons and tactics would be different.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            “if some developer try to accurately depict “modern warfare” in a FPS game. It will be too frustrating and difficult for the COD-kiddies.”

            This statement would be equally true for WW2.

            • Airmantharp
            • 7 years ago

            I understand you wanting to back up your comment, but the main tactics really haven’t changed much. When the goals are the same, the tactics are quite comparable, making the real differences evident largely when the goals are different. Changes in technology have also allowed us to make changes in our tactics to take advantage of new capabilities, but it’s not like we wouldn’t have done so 70 years ago; the advantages our adversaries had were used against in the same way.

      • sli
      • 7 years ago

      Woot Woot Tribes Ascend! I will PUG till I can’t PUG no more!

      Screw these yearly rehash releases that are catering to the casual zombie crowd.

      As sad as Tribes Ascend is, nothing else comes close to how much of a 90s game this game feels. It has a true sense of skill and it’s a game where every player makes a true difference. You must work as a team or else, which makes It very satisfying. BF3/MW3 just continue to collect dust. I have no real interest in BF4 as long as Tribes Ascend still has a community. I just wish comp was 10v10 rather than 7v7. T1/T2 was all about big comp matches.

      Tribes 2 Comp. Check out the intensity!
      [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igjM6KOm8ZE[/url<] Tribes Ascend still isn't that bad ๐Ÿ˜› [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuNy9v16uYE[/url<]

      • Grigory
      • 7 years ago

      I loved T:A at first but the chain weapons turned me off big time. Is the chain situation still as bad as 2 or 3 month ago or did they change something?

        • Forge
        • 7 years ago

        The Devs have made some changes to the Chaingun and Chain Cannon already, and are actively working on it.

        They want to rebalance without nerfing, and personally, I’m OK with that. Over and over the TA community has braced and whined about something needing nerf, and 9/10 times so far, the devs have managed something that’s less than one side wanted, more than the other side wanted, but acceptable to all. I have faith they’ll do it again if we give them time.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 7 years ago

    I would challenge EA to try and structure the releases in a different way than how COD works if they plan bi-annual releases. Perhaps they’ll stack maps or something. It will all come down to how they upkeep or alter the game engine I guess. I think they could just build a better MP community without breaking up the party every year like COD.

      • superjawes
      • 7 years ago

      Seeing as it’s EA, I find it very unlikely for them to do anything less…they did release Bad Company 1&2 and BF3 in similar fashion.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 7 years ago

        yeah, just hoping though

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 7 years ago

      I have a firm believe that both are planning on going to a subscription type model in the near future. COD is only a baby-step away with their “elite” club or whatever it is called (as well as remarks from the Kotick scumbag himself); and EA just loves the idea of guaranteed $$, despite using ad campaigns that show them as “the better alternative to CoD’s restrictive ways”.

      So yeah…IMO just another part of the downfall of gaming. I’ve got my eyes on Arma 3.

    • Tristan
    • 7 years ago

    We do not need BF4. Let they fix BF3, because it has many errors. Flickering bulidings and walls, primitive smoke trails, huge delasys in soldiers / vehicles synchronization.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 7 years ago

      Agreed, at this point I’m not ready for or hungry to drop coin on BF anything. BF3 is good but not great and was launched as a mess. Even at this point I can’t get behind how poorly the whole experience of playing the game without premium pretty much slaps you in the face.

        • Airmantharp
        • 7 years ago

        The only reason any of us bought premium was for the discount on map packs- not that any of us liked the idea on the face, but we all knew that we’d be getting the map packs anyway, so it made financial sense.

        Nothing outside of the map packs makes the game any more or less playable though! Even the basic guns when kitted through leveling are incredibly effective. Having more guns is nice and keeps the game going, but it’s not an advantage.

    • Arclight
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Battlefield 3 came out in October 2011, so perhaps EA will roll out a sequel some time around its one-year anniversary. That's been the tradition with Call of Duty games.[/quote<] I'm all for new games, but in one year i doubt there is anything revolutionary to the new installment. Bet they will use the same engine as well. I'd rather they cater to BF3 for another 2 or 3 years and then ask the community to move to a new game that will trully offer something new. At this pace BF will also become a washed up franchise. Edit: If this was a BF 2142 successor, i'd have no objection though.

    • lilbuddhaman
    • 7 years ago

    -The last MoH game was a total money-grab, and also offered a beta offer to BF3, which amounted to an extra weekend over everyone else, IF your code wasn’t bugged and flagged as “in use”.

    -I stopped playing BF3 when cheating became incredibly rampant, and EA’s response was near denial; combined with -yet again- weapon balance being a crap shoot.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah they’ve balance certain weapons into irrelevancy. Not to mention how they gated much of the vehicle unlocks in a rather detrimental way.

    • tanker27
    • 7 years ago

    I enjoy the BF games, a lot. If EA goes through with charging $70 bucks for it I will have to pass. And if others follow suit and charging the same for their games they will get a pass too.

    That price point is really ridiculous. Its already hard to swallow some of the games at 59.99. :/

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      your period after “a lot” made me read this 3 times.

        • tanker27
        • 7 years ago

        meh…..Need more coffee.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          it was just funny.

    • Mystic-G
    • 7 years ago

    I’m sure BF4 will be “what BF3 should have been”. Hopefully everyone will be getting out of the identity crisis in FPS games that is the Call of Duty-effect.

      • Airmantharp
      • 7 years ago

      I have no idea what you mean. BF3 is BF3. DICE has committed to releasing quality map packs that highlight the strengths of the game and it’s engine; the Close Quarters pack added some amazing CoD-like locales but with incredible amounts of destruction, and they’re next pack will focus on tanks, which CoD can’t even hope to do.

      I don’t think BF3 is anything like CoD outside of the FPS perspective and the use of a ‘modern-day’ setting. It’s worlds better outside of the brand recognition.

      • Bensam123
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah, I doubt that’s the case though. My guess is the next iteration will merge it more into the CoD style gameplay. Given the success of BF3 and how they CoDified it compared to their last variants, I’m pretty they’re going to draw a correlation between the two.

      • Firestarter
      • 7 years ago

      Just like BF3 is what BF2 should have been right? Don’t get me wrong, Battlefield3 is an awesome game (with awesome graphics, sounds and everything), but the game itself is most definitely different for better or worse. For one, I really liked the BF2 commander/squads gameplay: on a good day it definitely allowed some genuine teamplay even in a public server. In BF3, that is pretty much a lost cause.

      I hope that with BF4 they focus 100% on getting the most awesome gameplay for players of all levels, whether they play in a clan or just play rather casually on public servers. That is, I hope they focus on making all the game modes and maps work, rather than just adding more. At least they got the engine pretty much done for this generation.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 7 years ago

    One problem with this offer: it uses EA’s Origin.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 7 years ago

      oh god origin!

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      i don’t mind it that much. it’s not as easy as steam, but it’s not horrible.

        • Airmantharp
        • 7 years ago

        You sure living on the top of the world hasn’t affected your critical thinking skills?

        Origin is simple, was usable on release, and has remained fairly stable if not a little inflexible. Steam is still far, far better though.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This