Forum Discussion
The game is still pretty stable across all platform 24/7 so if you hate the game so much why are you even bothering on its forums every single day ?
I dont like fornite and you wont find a single post from me on fortnite forums !
This was is 100X times more stable and in a better state than BF4 or BF3 or BFV at release regardless of Opinions on design or whatever .. the game is highly functional on Any PC that are mid end PC of the last 5 years or so ..
Anything below that will indeed run the game at barely 30 to 45 fps wich is to be expected .. Also many peoples dont even understand what is a XMP profile or how important it is to have low latency fast ram especially with games like this having a 2133 Mhz ram versus having 3200mhz CL16 ram will get you from minus 50 fps to over 80 fps with a 3600 AMD processor wich were 160$ processor lol
So yeah we can say whatever but the reality is millions of players still play this game across all platform .. wich would never translate to millions players in concurents across 24 hours ..
I played about 2 hours today so i was in the concurent players for about 2 hours not more and most players on any battlefield games 50% + plays around 20 to 40 hours total then never played the game after that ..then 35 % + plays 40 to 80 hours before they stop and a fringe minority play more than 100 hours in any BF tittle ever .. If we had steam version numbers for BF4 when it came out youd see i am right lol
BFBC2 was on steam but we have no data from 2010 era but i can garante just by looking at the stats that most peoples didnt played much .. I am still ranked 600 ish in the world in Bad company 1 and i have stopped playing it compleatly after 780hours about 1 year after launch
Ive stopped playing BF3 after few hundreads hours , BF4 ive stopped playing for 1 years directly after launch because it was unplayable so i played planetside 2 and firefall instead wich was much better . and then retried it for few weeks after the august patch the next year ...
Most peoples buy games play for 2 weeks or so then stop playing that game and go to another its the way things work ..
Exeption being MMOs , Uber competitive established fps with wishes to become " pro " or else .. Or live services games like destiny , or even BR like Apex legends , Warzone etc.. wich drop contents that draw back quitters to come back play the game again . Generating Hype all the time
BF 2042 cannot be that game yet but might be .. Yet BF2042 remain the best ever BF combine arms game ever made and 128 players conquest was long due 256 would be even better .. But the main problems is DICE did not manage to create a proper Team structure with Commander , Platoon leaders , Squad leaders , Proximity VOIP , Command VOIP , etc.. wich make 128 players match feel unorganised , chaotics and cooperation is very hard to pull off whithin the team .. They maintained thew Bad company 1 12 vs 12s 4 man squad centric structure . Wich only create squad individualism and does not make anyones feel like they belong in a team
I am here to try and prevent BF from becoming the Hero-Shooter / BR DICE/EA are forcing. My hope is that another company picks up what EA/DICE dropped and runs with it but as of right now it is better to try and salvage BF than wait for someone to try and break into the market (WW3 might be able to turn a corner, but it's dodgy at best right now).
I really doubt millions of players are playing this game, but seeing that we don't get direct access to analytics (I wonder why DICE/EA haven't put that narrative to bed by showing their numbers) we are going to have to just agree to disagree on the player count. I also highly disagree that games like battlefield have a 2 week lifespan...that just sounds like justifying 2042's drop-off rate.
The 128 player choice was also a terrible one. Let this sink in....they, did, not, test for 128 players. How could they properly design a map, check for flow, and ensure proper performance when they didn't even bother to try it themselves? 256 would be even worse (both in performance and combat experience for the players). If you thought dying randomly, almost instantly as you try to cover 80 acres of open land to the next objective was annoying...you're only doubling that experience.
The best part is you just showed exactly WHY EA/DICE want BF2042 to be their hero-shooter live service. They want that return player $$$$ and Battlefield was their avenue.
- 4 years ago
@-DFA-ThumpWell , i dont need to agree with what they consider stable .. Stable mean its sufficiently stable and bugfree to be played .. I have dozens of RAW video on my youtube chanel and i would love for anyones who pretend the game is in a terrible state to point out what is wrong in the RAW undedited games i played and recorded ... Anyones watching my experience on my PC build cannot pretend this game was or is in a terrible state .. the worst part of near launch was AR spread or bloom wich was done like this to respond to so call " community feedback " of peoples spamming the forums that ARs in the Beta were " to accurate " wich wasnt true yet DICE listened just like they did with BFV ttk and had to roll it back because the peoples they listen to were and are wrong ..And the OP hovercraft non sens
The BEta accuracy was just fine ..Here beta gameplay footage on my PC
Beta here was a bit " rough " on hit reg and some stability aspect
Here was Prelaunch build
Here is the release build
And here is 2 days ago or so
Please point out what is so broken about it ? Also you can see my FPS in 1440p in the top right corner