EA sets Battlefield 6 reveal for next week
Our first look at the next Battlefield game is coming in a little over a week.
We’ve known for a while now that EA and DICE will be releasing the latest installment in the Battlefield series this year. Tentatively referred to as Battlefield 6, little to no information is known about the upcoming FPS, but that is set to change soon. Electronic Arts has announced that Battlefield 6 will get its official reveal during a broadcast next week.
EA took to Twitter to announce that the Battlefield 6 reveal will go down on June 9. The stream will begin at 7 a.m. PT/10 a.m. ET. The Battlefield reveal will be its own separate event from the upcoming EA Play Live in July. The event will likely be tied into the Summer Game Fest, as previously teased by Geoff Keighley.
#Battlefield Reveal
— Battlefield (@Battlefield) June 1, 2021
June 9 pic.twitter.com/DvNEcCDtPg
EA and DICE have been very quiet about details on Battlefield 6. Some rumors and apparent leaks suggest a return to a modern setting, following the historical settings of Battlefield 1 and Battlefield V. The use of digital lettering in the teaser video for the stream could further support these rumors. It’s likely that we will get an official title, as well as our first look at gameplay in the new Battlefield game.
Battlefield 6 is set to release later this year. The game was first announced by EA CEO Andrew Wilson during a call with investors back in November of last year. With both Summer Game Fest and E3 just days away, expect to read all of the Battlefield 6 news - plus everything else - right here on Shacknews.
-
Shacknews
replyDonovan Erskine posted a new article, EA sets Battlefield 6 reveal for next week
-
The next Battlefield - seemingly called just Battlefield - will be revealed on the 9th!
https://twitter.com/Battlefield/status/1399742535942258691?s=19-
After the last couple titles. I will be waiting awhile to purchase this. If i even do.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
I could see them making this a DLC conversion for the next game if they really wanted to bring it back.
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
I'm highly biased, one of my top game experiences was flying attack helis in BF2 with friend as gunner, a feeling we could not replicate in BF3 and on. Sure we could do ok, but it wasn't the sustained platform with interesting dogfights from BF2.
It's highly likely helis were unbalanced and overpowered in BF2 but since I wasn't on the receiving end, I wouldn't know!
-
-
-
-
BF1942
BF2
BF2142
BFBC
BFBC2
BF2143
BF3
BF4
BFHL
BF1
BFV
BF -
-
BF 1942 is about 20 years old so it makes sense to start cranking out the remasters and remakes...
-
Man, I enjoyed Battlefield 1, but BFV just hasn't grabbed me, I also feel like it's the most difficult BF game for me to see people in so far which is super frustrating.
Hope the next one feels more like 3/4, peak BF for me. -
All the producers who made 4 and 1 good have left Dice either before 5 released or right after.
I'm predicting this Battlefield will be just as much of a mess as 5 -
Reminder of how good BF3 was (BF4 was my favorite though)
https://youtu.be/A3P9TpoTV50
-
-
what is Battlefield's differentiator today? The brand was built on doing shooters with scale and vehicles in ways that few others were doing at the time. Now 100 player games on a giant map filled with vehicles are the biggest, most popular FPS genre. Seems like the fundamental problem they've had over the years is that what made Battlefield great is no longer unique and they can't find a new hook.
-
Some people just prefer BF to CoD? I'm one of them, never played any of the CoD games, only BF.
-
sure but that's not how Battlefield built the brand. You didn't play BF1942 because you preferred how it felt to Call of Duty. It was a completely different game offering completely different styles of gameplay. But now it's just another flavor of Call of Duty? So it predictably flounders regularly without any real hook?
-
Eh, for me BF just always seemed more realistic than CoD without being too much of a military simulator, a really good balance of gunplay, map design, and variety of gadgets/vehicles, etc.
-
-
-
Slightly more simmy big map games like Squad and Hell Let Loose are really the direction I had hoped that BF games would have gone after BF2. I keep playing BF mostly because of brand loyalty (i'm a sucker for an iconic soundtrack) and sometimes I want to play a 30 minute game instead of a 60 minute one.
-
it's still gonna be modes. campaign, rush, behemoths that appear when one side is getting shit on, etc.
CoD absolutely crushed the battle royale game mode, which is great, and warzone is great. Battlefield still avoids that, with large scale team based combat with sequential OBJECTIVES.
but then again, that's the problem isn't it? people don't want to do a thing then defend a thing. they want to rack up kills. -
-
Do you mean effective CoD competitors? Rainbow 6 Siege strikes me as a newer, successful military sim style shooter that is sufficiently different from CoD to attract its own dedicated fanbase. And then obviously PUBG and the battle royale genre as a whole was sufficiently big to force CoD to adapt to that.
-
-
I guess I'm confused because my entire question was what exactly does BF do that no one else does?
-
It does large scale multiplayer gameplay with up to 64 players on a single team, and using vehicles like tanks, planes, which no one really does.
That's the major thing, it also does large scale destruction, but I don't think it's a big differentiator, probably good as a marketing blurb for that initial sale, but most people remember the FPS and vehicles thing.-
I mean, PUBG and Fortnite both have very similar player counts and vehicles. Obviously 64 vs 64 is different from 100 player FFA but it's not nearly as different as the early Battlefield days when it was more like games with 5-10 players per side vs 24-32 per side.
I guess the flipside of the question is why has Battlefield struggled so much in the past few iterations? Its influence seems to be as low as ever in the industry while numerous other upstarts have made a name for themselves in the FPS space. Is it really just poor execution over and over?-
I don't think you can compare a battle royale to battlefield. IMO it's a completely different experience. I'm personally obsessed with battlefield and I can't stand BR games.
I completely agree with how much BF has struggled with the last few games. It's strange to watch a company with a pretty unique product just whiff it time after time. They're still enjoyable to me, but I definitely expected more innovation over the years.-
yeah they're definitely not 1:1 replacements but I can imagine a lot of folks whose BF experience was mostly just to get a couple friends together and pilot vehicles on a massive map get a similar enough experience with something like PUBG which is delivering innovative modes/gameplay
-
-
I mean I guess the question is do you really think it's niche per se? It seems to me that huge maps with high player counts and vehicles, while once niche and pioneered by BF (among some others like Tribes), is actually the dominant form of multiplayer shooters now since PUBG to Fortnite. But Battlefield's particular version of that has repeatedly failed to penetrate the zeitgeist like many others.
Obviously if you literally want the very specific union of features of big map, high player counts, 2 teams, control points, high realism, etc then you play Battlefield. But most players aren't that hyper specific in their desires if you execute on an adjacent concept well (hence PUBG suddenly stealing huge amounts of players from traditional team deathmatch shooters even while full of jank). It seems like Battlefield has been failing to do that and only managing to draw a very specific subset of people (many of whom still seems dissatisfied with recent entries) which while some might say is fine/good I doubt is the actual goal of the BF dev team given their budget/goals for the series.
-
-
-
-
I have no evidence, but I think it failed for moving away from class/squad dependency and letting solo play be more successful - reducing teamplay, complexity and strategy. For myself and pals, we fell off of BF5 and 1 much faster than previous iterations, there wasn't great reasons to stick together - especially with strangers. Felt shallow.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I agree with you, raised a brow at the post. Rising Storm and Hell Let Loose are the only two I can think of that compete with Battlefield. Neither are on console and they're both pretty tactical controls. I don't think BF has a modern competitor, so I think everything you listed, derelect515, is what differentiates BF from the rest.
-
-
-
Plus fucking amazing sound
-
-
Trying to appeal to too many different consumer preferences and playstyles with various game modes and player amounts and infantry only + vehicular warfare at once, and failing to do any of them really well, on maps that aren't designed and balanced for anything specific, is now apparently what makes a Battlefield game.
-
id assume its the fact that its two really large teams duking it out instead of a multitude of tiny teams. a more pure combat? I say this only in the sense theres no need to scrounge for materials/loot etc because I absolutely think that battlefields gunplay is surpassed by every other dominant title out there.
-
-
-
Eagerly waiting for this to drop so I can jump ship on Warzone
-
