Skip to main content

Battlefield V Won't Have Battle Royale Until March 2019

(Image credit: Electronic Arts)

People can be allergic to the strangest things. There are typical food allergies, of course, but some unfortunate souls can't even handle things like grass or sunlight. It seems like Electronic Arts (EA) might actually be allergic to success, because the company announced that Battlefield V's battle royale mode won't arrive until March 2019. That's four months after the game itself launches and five months after Call of Duty's battle royale mode went live.

EA being allergic to success is an obvious hyperbole. Star Wars: Battlefront II and its loot box debacle proved that isn't true. But it's still odd to hear that even after pushing Battlefield V's release date from October to November that the Firestorm game mode won't be available at launch. It's being developed by a different studio, sure, but it's also one of the primary selling points for the next installment in a major franchise.

Battlefield also seemed likely to be the first AAA series to do battle royale correctly. Call of Duty seemed like a long shot--how's a franchise where 10 players competed in a single match supposed to adapt to an expansive map with up to 100 players at a time? Battlefield had the experience with large player counts, expansive maps and weapon systems balanced for tactical combat instead of the arcade-like game modes present in Call of Duty: Black Ops 4.

Yet, here we are. EA previously announced that Firestorm would be limited to squad-based gameplay featuring 16 groups of four players a piece, bringing the player count to the same 64-person cap as Battlefield's other game modes. At that point the biggest difference between Firestorm and Battlefield V's other game modes is the lack of respawns and the ring of fire engulfing the map, but one could get the same effect with basic custom game settings.
Battlefield V
has more than just Firestorm going for it. We played the game when EA held an open beta and came away from the experience optimistic about its potential. DICE has created a beautiful game that feels good to play, despite a few balance problems (which can easily be addressed) and basic UI downfalls. Series faithfuls might still be content with the core game, but Firestorm's delay could also limit the title's appeal to non-believers.

There's also the question of people who pre-ordered Battlefield V under the impression that Firestorm would debut alongside the core game. Are those people willing to wait several months for the mode to debut—assuming it's actually introduced in March—or are they going to get their battle royale kicks elsewhere? EA might not be allergic to success, but its audience could prove intolerant of the constant uncertainty surrounding Battlefield V.

  • mgallo848
    Not the least bit surprised coming from EA/DICE. This (along many other reasons) is why BF 1 was my last game from them. The new "World War 3" game looks promising. I'm keeping my eye on this one instead.

    https://store.steampowered.com/app/674020/World_War_3/
    Reply
  • WildCard999
    Meh, I'll take my 64 player Conquest over Battle Royal any day.
    Reply
  • mgallo848
    21434935 said:
    Meh, I'll take my 64 player Conquest over Battle Royal any day.

    I completely agree. I just think it's funny that once again they release an incomplete video game.
    Reply
  • WildCard999
    21435069 said:
    21434935 said:
    Meh, I'll take my 64 player Conquest over Battle Royal any day.

    I completely agree. I just think it's funny that once again they release an incomplete video game.

    It's not just them but other major companies, I'd almost want to go back to the days before patches were games actually needed to be %100 before release.
    Reply
  • SkyBill40
    I'd be happier had they not bothered with this mode at all, but I guess it's the flavor of the minute and they'd be remiss to not take a bite of that pie.
    Reply
  • DotNetMaster777
    I would like to test it !
    Reply
  • Jim90
    21435198 said:
    21435069 said:
    21434935 said:
    Meh, I'll take my 64 player Conquest over Battle Royal any day.

    I completely agree. I just think it's funny that once again they release an incomplete video game.

    It's not just them but other major companies, I'd almost want to go back to the days before patches were games actually needed to be %100 before release.

    Way too many idiots out there accepting (conditioned? e.g. mobile/tablet norms) into buying incomplete games then agreeing to purchase the rest of the game via so-called DLC's (sometimes as 'patches'). Maybe ban the developers from releasing games via the internet...force them to release on physical media?...might be too much of an inconvenience for the conditioned group?
    Reply
  • mgallo848
    21438522 said:
    21435198 said:
    21435069 said:
    21434935 said:
    Meh, I'll take my 64 player Conquest over Battle Royal any day.

    I completely agree. I just think it's funny that once again they release an incomplete video game.

    It's not just them but other major companies, I'd almost want to go back to the days before patches were games actually needed to be %100 before release.

    Way too many idiots out there accepting (conditioned? e.g. mobile/tablet norms) into buying incomplete games then agreeing to purchase the rest of the game via so-called DLC's (sometimes as 'patches'). Maybe ban the developers from releasing games via the internet...force them to release on physical media?...might be too much of an inconvenience for the conditioned group?
    I believe that's a new law in Europe now. Companies aren't allowed to accept pre-orders for games that are not complete at time of launch. Might be one (of the many) reasons why DLC is gone.
    Reply
  • drivinfast247
    I can't believe (insert name of any video game
    company) would release an incomplete/buggy game.
    Reply
  • anthonyinsd
    when fornite is taking a major down turn, why they are too late. no to mention the other problems of the title already.
    Reply