Dear DICE / EA - open letter

GAmes evolve and change up to try different things.

Best to lean into the changes instead of demanding the same game you just played.  Because you would cry about that too.  

They actually did that with BF4.  Made a very similar game (probably had the least amount of change between BF games)  and what happened?  Sales were halved compared to BF3.    So people that say they want the same thing ...well that's not what sales told EA. 

This BF game plays like all the others at the end of the day.   They went with scale as a design decision and 20 years into the future as a theme.  So everything is huge and a little over the top.  The scale brought about design decisions like an extra level of sprinting and vehicle call outs and sectors (that contain multiple flags.)  As well as other design decisions to help navigate and play on huge maps.  Something people on the internets seem to completely ignore.  I don't know if they are brain dead or they just like parroting what they read and hear on the internet.

BF had jetpacks 20 years ago.  IT went sci fi 17 years ago.  There was a cartoon BF game.  There was Hardline.  ...None of these things means  they never return to doing modern warfare or ww2 etc.

And every game changes things up a bit.  

And the lack of guns?  Well first 22 is a lot.  And second, it was always obvious they were going to release more guns each season.  If they dropped 44 at launch, that wouldn't stop anyone from complaining about a "lack of content."  People would blow through 44 guns in the same amount of time and have the same complaint.  

7 maps is only  a low number if you ride the short bus.  Because the maps are huge.  We aren't talking 7 small maps.  We are talking 7 huge maps that are at least the equivalent of 14 maps.  You can spend whole rounds in 1 or 2 sectors easily.  And that's always been the way to play big maps. 

Now Specialists aren't something I would have done myself, but at the end of the day,  it's 1 Specialist, 1 gun and 1 gadget.  IT's the same difference as classes.  There are positives to it and probably some negatives to it as far as gameplay goes.  The game still plays like BF.

To say the maps are flat?  I'll give you some of that.  There could be a few more terrain differences on some maps perhaps.  But at the same time time, there are huge structures on maps and skyscrapers and ridges and water canals and structures etc.   And you're supposed to fight in BF.  Not hide out.    And again see above for how to play big maps and the tools given to the player to adapt to 2042.  

Detail on maps?  Well when you go for scale to do something huge and different.   you're going to lose detail.  Especially when combined with 128 players.  It isn't a BR either where the 128 are spread out and half of them die in the first 2 minutes and by the time you get to a small map there are barely any players left.  With Battlefield, especially Breakthrough, you can have 128 players in the same sector.  That's where your detail went.  And in a multiplayer game, where you play the map over and over, that detail is just noise.  I don't notice that stuff at all in BF because I am too busy killing enemies.  

Destruction?  Some destruction is lost in 2042 dueto doing BF on a huge scale.  But there is more destruction in 2042 than it is given credit for.   Also there is less destruction in BF4 And BF3 than people like to think.  And people forget destruction was greater in BC2 than in BF3 and BF4.  Again it was a scale thing and a player count thing.  BC2 had smaller maps and fewer players which  helped them make every building destructible pretty much.  In BF4 on the skyscraper maps for example there isn't that much destruction.  You couldn't bust a wall on almost all skyscraper.  They had some big levolution events but that's another argument as to whether those really added anything to the gameplay or made it worse.  On the water maps?  Not much destruction.  ON the open Chinese maps?  Even on a map like Locker...where was the destruction?  There isn't that much at all.  So this strikes me as more myth than reality especially considering the scale. 

Buggy launch?  Sure but that's par for the course in BF.   I was the first to say  2042 felt  pretty unfinished in the beta and at launch and yep still is.  But the framework was there and it was fun.  I gave that framework a 10/10.  IT's a good start.  Anyone could see it right away that it would need work to get polished and filled in.  I don't getwhy people complain a few months later.  Do they not trust their eyes when they get the game?  Or again do they wait for the internets to give them their marching orders and talking points.  And compared to some other BF launches, 2042 works overall.  

I'll end by saying I don't believe you when you say you won't return.  You will return the moment they drop a big content update and/or big patch.  lol.  Guaranteed!!!

PS  you don't get a refund after 50 hrs, 100 hrs, 200 hrs, 300 hrs and months after launch.  I've never heard  of more ridiculous requests.  Ok maybe I have but I can't think of any off the top of my head.  You don't have to like it.  But you got what you paid for - a working BF game that plays like every other BF game.    And one that will get another year and a half of support yet.  Caveat Emptor.