We'll Hear About Battlefield 4 This Month. It Better Have Rain In It.

Here's an image hyping Battlefield 4, sent to us by a tipster on the same day that Battlefield publisher EA confirmed that the game will be shown in San Francisco on March 26.

We haven't been able to confirm if the image is real, but it's got the same downpour motif as EA's invitations to the game's press unveiling:

Official teaser invitation.

Official invitation.

Battlefield 4 was shown to GameStop employees last month. People who pre-ordered last year's Medal of Honor are guaranteed to get access to the game's beta, as are some others.

The game will presumably be out later this year. No word on whether it will be bundled with an umbrella.

UPDATE: We stood in front of a monitor displaying this image and decided to enhance it. Saying "enhance" didn't work, so we did it in Photoshop.

(Hey, this first one is Shanghai!)


Comments

    Is it a joke that it looks nigh-on identical to the Battlefield 3 imagery?

    edit: BATTLEFIELD 3 I MEAN BATTLEFIELD 3

    Last edited 16/03/13 11:29 am

      I'd say it's deliberate, they've used similar images for all the recent battlefield stuff.

        goddamn it I mean Battlefield THREE.
        How did I omit the most important character

      That's because it's the new brand recognition aka theme-ing to the name, just like most consecutive game titles out there >_

      Surely it's part of their strategy to entice the fabled "Call of Duty audience".

        I love the idea that the audience is mutually exclusive... how many people buy both games?

    As much as I loved Battlefield I refuse to purchase another EA title. There are countless other non-EA games I would like to play. I won't help fund these publishers while they destroy the gaming industry as we know it.

      Bingo. I really liked BF3 and am interested to see how the next one pans out. I bought Premium, much to my shame, and even tried to convince other people that the game wasn't as bad as they perceived it to be, which I don't think it is. Even so, I'm avoiding this like the plague. EA has proven to me that they don't deserve half a cent of my money. They've literally become more satanically bad than Activision.

      Between their customer abuse, carelessness for communities, and the entire "we like gay people so don't hate on us for being evil otherwise" thing, they are absolutely the worst corporation on the planet in terms of how they treat their customers.

      Last edited 16/03/13 11:36 am

        Can I ask what your issue with Premium was? I personally felt that it was decent value for money compared to other DLC products out there.

        My only realm issue with it was the fact that Back to Karkand was counted as a premium DLC expansion, when a lot of people would have got it with the limited edition version.

        As for EA, yeah they suck, as for Battlefield 3, other than the initial dramas at launch (and it honestly was still a BETA game for some months after launch) it was probably my only satisfactory EA title purchase I was honestly happy with for quite some time.

        I also hope they integrate Battlefield 4 into Battlefield 3's Battlelog so it's all tied in and I don't have to go to a different website to play different maps/mods/dlc.

          I never got Premium because it came so late in the piece that I'd already moved onto other games and BF3 was just an ocassional game by then, so there's no way to justify all that DLC.

          I imagine if BF3 is the only game you ever play (or if you're a teenager with a lot of time to kill) it represents good value for money.

          Well this is probably a problem for me personally rather than everybody else, but the biggest draw for me with the BF3 expansions was that they were not only new maps but also ten new weapons. After the first and second expansions both had ten weapons added it felt safe to assume that there would be with the rest of them. Armored Kill had no new weapons, but everyone assumed that was because there were new vehicles. Fair enough. EA then "confirmed" that there would be new weapons for Aftermath. Then they deleted that tweet at some point, mysteriously, and then Aftermath had no new weapons. Then they "confirmed" that Endgame would have them, and what do you know, it doesn't have any new weapons either.

          That makes these expansions no better than CoD map packs to me. Probably partially my fault for taking the gamble, but still, they lied twice about new weapons. Screw them, screw their business ethic. I care nothing for them and I will regret it eventually if I ever buy another game from them. At the end of the day, I like BF3, still like it, but this is a case of refusing to give EA my money out of principle.

          The ONLY thing I can see myself buying from EA is another Mass Effect. But I doubt I'll be that enthusiastic if they put more effort into gay romances as a substitute for making the game actually work well.

          EDIT: And don't get me started on that whole color grading bullshit either. As soon as I realised how much better the game looked with that mod I felt cheated playing it without some kind of fix. EA seriously lost a lot of respect from me just because of that stupid decision.

          Last edited 16/03/13 11:28 pm

        I agree with you both on this one. The ONLY game I have bought on Origin is Battlefield 3 (I bought the premium pack and didn't even play the last two DLC releases). I will not be buying another EA game, period.

        I don't like decisions they are making, ESPECIALLY this always online DRM crap (and for the record - don't lie and say that SimCity HAD to made that way because of bulls**t excuses like server side calculations for the game, or social aspects which should ALWAYS be a choice).

        Also there is the fact that every time I check the Origin store (which, granted, isn't very often) the games cost the same as the rip off retail stores in this country ... so why the hell am I going to buy the digital versions which are going to take up internet quota and HDD space as backups?

        At some point I got asked to fill in this quick, one question survey which simply asked: on a scale from 0 to 10 (0 being the lowest and meaning 'not at all'), would you recommend Origin to a friend? I was looking looking for the negative numbers scale but there wasn't one, so I guess '0 - not at all' had to suffice.

      Good to see people becoming wise to EA's tricks.

      Battlefield 3 was the last EA release I bought. I skipped it on PC because of Origin, should have just skipped it altogether. I'd like to think there are some conditions that EA could meet in the future that would end my boycott, but that point just keeps getting further and further away.

        yeah, i skipped it on pc for the same reason

    I've gotta be honest, we all knew it was coming... but I'd have preferred Bad Company 3.

      Why do ppl want to see bad company 3??? The multiplayer is just a gimped verion of the main series. Doesnt have 64 player, no jets, so amount of vehicles. The only thing bad company added was mcom and now the main series added that mode, i dont see why bad company ppl are begging for bad company. I you want to beg, beg for bf 2143 or what ever the next 2142 is

        Because the people who are begging for Bad Company are the same people who enjoyed ODST.

        There are those us who enjoy a good single player campaign... and Bad Companies were both good and funny.

        If you were on PC, sure the MP was gimped, but for consoles with half a gig of RAM that can only handle 24 players, those maps were the perfect size. In BF3 on a console match with a full player count you can wander around for ages without running into the enemy!

        Also the single player in Bad Company was interesting which is more than I can say for the po-faced campaign in #3

        Because Bad Company 2 was super fun (attracted a different crowd, not the COD crowd), had no one sitting in jets for an entire game of conquest screwing your team up and the maps were much more fun. The jungle environments were kickass and the games were smaller and tighter.

        Bring back the fun.

      Hell yes. BC2 multiplayer is far more entertaining than BF3 imo. I can't put my finger on it as to why, but the games are completely different imo.

        It was the way the weapons were scaled visually. The game just had a better aesthetic to it IMO.

    Blue/grey background... dude running at us with something that looks like orangey fire... oh wow now its a HUD.... but it COULD be orange fire? Wait no, his body still looks like its on fire...

    Its Bad Company 2! Wait no its BF3! Wait no its MOH2! Wait no its BF4? Seriously? This soon after BF3 which came out in October of 2011? Wow... just wow...

      Dude its 2013, thats pretty good compared to say, COD or many sport titles which come out yearly. Also, there's no release date yet, nor has Beta started, so it might be a good 6 months of still. I think I got a great run out of BF3 and I'm more then ready for BF4.

        You got a year... or two.

        So far I'm hitting six years with BF2 and still going strong, have to admit I still prefer the BF2 gameplay to BF3. Regen health in a multiplayer shooter just sucks, plus the classes are better defined in BF2. BF4 this soon? Nothankyousir. Put more effort into making a game last longer than pumping out sequels I say.

          Regenerating health is a server side option, it's disabled in hardcore mode if that is your preference.
          I quite like the compromise it made with HP, medpacks were still useful, I was still vulnerable after a fight, but I wasn't handicapped in the future.

          As for classes, less definition comes with greater customisation, I do believe the idea is to define a class for yourself, blending roles and styles of play, to which I'm grateful.

          Having said that BF2 is an absolute classic!

          But if nothing else, there are new consoles coming out this year. So a new version is warranted if only to take advantage of new hardware.

            This is a fair point. I'd hate to see a BF2 situation again where it got released as a shoddy game on the new console which can do better... so good point Braaains.

    I was really hoping that Battlefield 4 would be a sequel to BF 2142, we need TItan mode back. As muchy as I enjoy BF3, I really have no desire to play another modern-era BF game, which would make BF4 the very first BF game I might not play since trying out the demo for BF 1942 ten years ago. Hopefully we'll see Bad Company 3: 2143 some time.

    Also my biggest gripe with games has always been waste of potential. BF4 being set in the modern era seems like a waste of potential for the Battlefield series. I love BF3 as it is, but there's huge potential for fun new gameplay that is held back by the modern-era setting.

    You were enhancing wrong
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiqkclCJsZs

    If they can't get more than 12v12 on a console then EA ain't getting a cent...which of course I dont want to give this clusterfcuk of an organisation any of my money, but the BF series are at least some fun...

    Wow people hate this game already with no in-game info or screenshots announced.
    I don't care who's publishing it, I love BF games since 2003 and the genre of the game. I hope they make the SP and Co-Op much better than BF3.

      Well good for you but I DO care who is publishing it and I won't be supporting them.

      I hope they drop the co-op. The multiplayer IS co-op with your team against the other team.

        How about just make BF4 a online only game because I haven't played BF3 SP and Co-Op modes more than a 14 Months.

    Just hoping they implement commander position and voip

    So shanghai, a mountain with a cable car and an AMTRAC with another APC.

    This looks a bit like Battlefield 3: II

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now