Wednesday, July 23rd 2025
EA Confirms Battlefield 6, First Trailer Arrives on July 24
EA DICE on Tuesday confirmed the next chapter in the online team-based shooter "Battlefield." The game will be titled "Battlefield 6." The studio teased the game with a hero shot that's very likely made from in-game footage. In a post on X, the official Battlefield handle stated that the first reveal trailer of the game will release on July 24. There is plenty of guesswork to be made from the teaser shot. To begin with, the game will have a contemporary setting, and not near-future (Battlefield 2042), or the past (Battlefield 1, Battlefield V, etc.).
We are shown a squad of four soldiers staring down from the rubble of a building on what looks like New York City. There is an aircraft carrier in the East River, an explosion is seen through the Brooklyn Bridge, and fighter jets resembling Russian Su-57s are seen flying past them, with an F-16 on their tails. There's a lot happening, although there's no confirmation that the game will feature a single-player campaign.
Source:
Battlefield (YouTube)
We are shown a squad of four soldiers staring down from the rubble of a building on what looks like New York City. There is an aircraft carrier in the East River, an explosion is seen through the Brooklyn Bridge, and fighter jets resembling Russian Su-57s are seen flying past them, with an F-16 on their tails. There's a lot happening, although there's no confirmation that the game will feature a single-player campaign.
27 Comments on EA Confirms Battlefield 6, First Trailer Arrives on July 24
BF6 would need to return to BF3 or BF4 style of gameplay, option to join a game without SBMM, and sell the DLC as "premium" instead of a live service drip feed. A server browser would also be nice, I realize it wasn't a popular thing, but viewing a server list without starting the game was a cool feature.
Im expecting the launch to be a terrible one as usual.
- 1942
- Vietnam
- 2*
- 2142
- Bad Company
- Heroes
- 1943
- Bad Company 2*
- 3*
- 4*
- Hardline*
- 1*
- V*
- 2042*
(asterisk denotes a litany of DLC packs or expansions)I stand by not playing multi-player games like this because of the rampant cheating that constantly goes on, no amount of anti-cheat and banning can help these games.
Firestorm was cool it just needed a little cleanup but streamers love to shit on anything and the mindless hordes follow wherever they go.
They REALLY think that they'll get 100 million players, more then the rest of the series combined, after everything they've done to dumb down this franchise.The launch wasnt good for EA, with the game selling well below expectations so they could engage in virtue signaling politics. IIRC the guy who said "dont buy it" ended up getting fired, so that's a positive.The irony is palpable. Perhaps people shit on it because it wasn't very good?I feel they should go back further, I shouldnt need an out of game browser to view servers. Why not just....host it in the game itself?
The OG DICE team were the absolute BEST!
Seriously. I mean I know everybody says it every time and then EA makes you pre-order to play the beta so everybody does it, but I still don't think the pushback on 2042 (which was not a Battlefield game) was enough to make them understand that the franchise was never about hero shooters or battle royale. I have no issue with a battle royale mode that's a side thing, sure, but there are some key things that have been completely lost in 2042 that they really need to be successful on before I give them more money.
I'd say BF:V had some really fun moments...on hardcore servers. The map design was often the biggest let-down, albeit it is the prettiest Battlefield game they ever made. Every game up to that point had been improving the destruction, graphics, and map scale, and then 2042 came out with terrible graphics design, art style, performance, and the worst map design they've ever done. It didn't have a real server browser (in game or otherwise) so you'd end up stuck on the same map no matter what you did as you couldn't choose where to play and they'd just keep matching you into the same one. Portal mode wasn't ready and wasn't supported well, but may have been something that did better if the base game wasn't garbage.
The core of BF was always finding a balance between arcade shooter, realistic gun-play, rag-doll physics, destruction, balanced vehicle play, with a realistic military theme and server browsers with custom servers. It was never a mil-sim, but it's also not Fortnite and shouldn't try to be some kind of Fortnite/Apex hybrid with the heros, sliding wacky movements, slingshots, complete lack of fall damage, and no concept of reality-based physics. Vehicles used to be a little challenging to drive, but the mechanics felt reasonable. 2042 launched with damn hovercrafts that could scale buildings (lol), atvs and trucks that felt like they were constantly sliding around on ice, and physics that...well...there wasn't any. Also, the performance and graphics probably could have been improved if they still had any idea how to use their own engine. The people who made the engine are long gone though...same for those that designed the campaigns, sound, art, maps, etc.
Sorry...I could keep ranting as I was immensely disappointed in 2042 after waiting years for that game (or what it was claimed to be) to finally come out and it was...just awful...but I'm sure nobody really wants to read it and many of us have said all of it before.
Absolute minimum requirements:
Dedicated servers (with good tick-rate and performance as well as being at least somewhat modable)
gunplay and movement dynamics that fit the genre at all (i.e. gunplay similar to BFBC2/BF3/BF4 and movement like BF:V)
Destruction (lots of it)
Graphics quality that can be adjusted in settings to either push boundaries of what games have done before (something all previous BF games have done before 2042) but also can be turned down to run on all hardware
Normal classes. Sure, you can adjust them a bit for the specific game...that's always happened...but to just go "nah, heroes now, money please" means you're not making a BF game.
And it also peaked, due to it being distributed, sold and played, by both digital, and physical media, and it didn't require the additional dumb Origin, or even more horrible EA App running in the background. Just run and play.As usual. EA always put their thoughts into "community" mouthes. They substitute their own and their shareholder's kinks and desires, as the wishes and "call" of the community and long time players. Just to end up calling the playerbase delusional, and "not knowing what they want", and how "disgracefull" the players are, for "fullfilling" their demands.
BF destiny was doomed, the day DICE signed the "slavery" contract to EA. I'm not saying BFBC2 or even BF4, and BF1 were particularly bad. But that was the beginning of the overall decline.Because it seems EA was wanting to rival the wrong competitor- COD. Like someone at EA got triggered/butthurt, after the MOH guys flipped to Activision, and made the COD. So EA decided to revenge at all cost, and chosen DICE as the studio to implement the vendetta. But holy sh*t, it's still wrong game series, and wrong competitor. EA intentionally doubled down on dumping down Battlefield to the state of "rat race" and tunnel-shooter, while ironically completely obliterating the MOH series.
And, it also made BF a disservice, as it only risen the CoD's popularity, and image. And EA seems not stopped there. They've "hired back" the MOH/COD, but their shallow minds didn't, and still don't understand the difference between the genres of MOH/COD and Battlefield.
The addition of other people, from other studios, doesn't add any value, to the dead project. BF now is the game made by salesmen, not the gamers like DICE were, when they made BF2, 2142 and BC 1&2. BEcause they had fun, they wanted to have fun, they made the game for themselves to play. Today, this is the
gamethe number of unlinked features, and tick-boxes, to sell and show at the meeting.I think, the closest competitor to the Battlefield, were Joint Operations, Crysis and the Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising (which BTW now belongs to EA). But the later are too dumb, to make a mix/collaboration between DICE and Codemasters.
And no, they don't want 100 million players (because their servers would crap themselves after only a couple of thousands). They want 100 millions of one-time purchaces/copies sold. Even if it means the customer will never return back.The server browser, statistics, account/player management and other critical stuff, should be in-game. Period!. Not only for the ease of use, but also for the safety reasons. So nobody get hacked, whyle using the web browser, and nobody would be able to hack the stats/server database. Any redirect to the external browser is a risk.
Also, there's no reason, why EA and other companies, to cease the custom online servers (and LAN). Everyone should be able to make a server, be it in-game, or full, dedicated one. After all, EA should just run the master account and stats regitering server. That's all.
Even more, it would lower the demand for the EA, for maintaining cost burden, and increase the amount of servers, according to the actual player base demand. And the ones, who want to play offline with bots, or with friends PVP/PVE, should do so. Keep the "Registered"/"Unregistered" server classification, but let the servers be custom.
Like people can get into UT2004, or even BF2/2142, GRAW (PC), SW JK: JA (or any other older game) and make own server, regardless of GameSpy. As simple as that.
Sorry for a rant/walls of text!
Best regards!It's useless. People don't give a ****. Remember, how 2042 has been trashed by every user review? Know how it's ended up? The best sellling title in the BF history. People been coping, by wishful thinking, that EA would "fix" the game. And most of the players playing Portal mode for BC2 in 2042, din't know/play/eperience the original BC2.
This is hopeless.