statement from dice confirms the delay of battlefield 2042. personally a month delay is worth it if it means a more polished game. my only worry is it now is the before it was coming out before call of duty now its 2 weeks after hope that does not hurt the battlefield gmae at all
3 Likes
It’s no so bad. For me personally, it’s a better release date, especially when Halo Infinite is releasing in december.
1 Like
1 month delay is literally nothing thought it was gone to be 2022
3 Likes
It’s certainly SOMEthing
But yes, definitely better than it could have been
I rather they release it the same day as Vanguard have them duke it out haha
1 Like
Will this affect Halo Infinite launch date?
Of course not lol.
Where else would they go if they want to release in the holidays?
After watching the leaked tech test gameplay I said I thought there would be a delay. Got tore up by some of you guys for saying it, but it’s all good.
This delay ensures that I won’t buy it. I was contemplating it because there wasn’t much else in October for me. But I can’t justify buying this less than 3 weeks before infinite.
Waiting for it to hit GPU. 
People who thought and wanted this to be halo that got delayed in bad faith in shambles, now it’s halo is doomed because it launchers closer to halo.
I might skip BF for a while to be honest, I don’t feel like launch is going to be very good and have a bad feeling about it being buggy. I honestly might just wait till it’s on game pass lol
Same, especially now after the delay. Hazard zone is supposed to be their free mode. So I’ll play that till halo comes out.
1 Like
You were still going off the premise that what you saw in that rough old Alpha footage was where the actual game was at. People do that too often and are almost always incorrect
And seeing how this delay is not very long, it would seem your assumption was still not correct. As you didn’t just say delay. You said…
1 Like
Nah my assumption was at least partially correct hence the delay.
If a game has a test whether public or private and it looks that rough. There’s cause for concern if said test is 2 months before release. You can say well it’s months old build and whatever, but ask yourself why are they using a build that’s months old when they game should be weeks away from going gold. Probably because it’s the most stable build they have currently.
Yea they just did a one month delay. I thought it COULD have been up to 4-5 month delay, not that I expect it too. Also we don’t know what’s happening behind the scenes, the devs could have been asking for more time than that, or have forced extreme crunch. We just don’t know.
Because you have to take a build and do work on it before you release that as your alpha or test or whatever. You don’t just take the latest build at whatever point you are at and say ‘here it is’. So you months ahead of time hive off a build for the technical test and work on developing that branch to do the stuff you need it to do. For example that will be constructing a working UI and adding in functionality required by your console platforms (like guide functionality etc). Its not a question of just taking the game you are developing and turning it into your test. You have months of work with a hived off build.
That’s how all IT development projects work. You offer a test that is hived off from your main project and usually not representative of it in any way as you turn functionality off and of course lose months of development time that is sunk into your live build.
The thing is talking to developers it can literally be a month where a game goes from ‘wow this is a bit rough’ to polished and often the timing as to when you hive off your test build influences how rough or otherwise that is.
People greatly confuse a beta that releases a few weeks pre launch which is in reality a ‘demo’ of the final product with test techs, alphas and real genuine betas. They mix them up and the logic of ‘if this is how it is a few weeks before launch not much will change’ is thrown around without the understanding that a tech test build is very very different to a demo build (which will be more or less the complet and final product with reduced functionality or limited time). And very much confuse the issue on the two. Not all technical tests/alpha/pre-alphas are equal either. For a game like BF its of course mainly a test of server functionality so the game only needs to function well enough to test that server stress test, ensure the basic systems in the game interact with the servers properly etc…
So I assume a beta will start relatively soon, right? Like later this month, otherwise in October. We should finally see some XSX footage then.
Per Tom Henderson, October 6th for early access peeps (those who preordred) and it goes open to everyone October 8th
No mention of an end date, but my guess is Sunday the 10th or Monday the 11th
2 months from release though is the problem. People shouldn’t be playing a game in that state 2 months from release. 5-6 months from release…. That’s fine there’s plenty of time for the game to come together. But 2 months from release is so near gold and in a lot of cases games like these are doing betas 2 months from release. Call of duty does it all the time, previous battlefields have, halo 3 and halo 5 did. Even halo infinites tech test was much more polished and further out.
That’s all I’m saying. Development should have been further along, and it appears I was right hence the delay.
All this being said I’m not looking down on the game. I’m fine with delays to make sure the game works and performs properly. I’m not one of those people who think a delay is doom and gloom.
Good not the same weekend as halo. If it was next weekend I probably wouldn’t have played. Now I should be able to get a good feel of the game, and be able to decide whether I want to buy it or wait for gamepass.
Yeah I’m excited we have Hell Let Loose, Halo and Battlefield betas all lined up, consecutively
Oh and COD’s right before those, for anyone who cares…I.E. not me. Heh heh
Nice! That’s quite soon now!