Battlefield 5 Is Coming Next Year

Battlefield 5 Is Coming Next Year

After the slightly disappointing release of Star Wars: Battlefront this year, people have been curious as to what DICE’s main studio will be doing in the coming 12 months.

EA already confirmed that another Battlefield title would be shipped next year when the corporation’s chief financial officer, Blake Jorgenson, spoke about it on an earnings call. Jorgenson, however, never mentioned whether it would be a core Battlefield release or a follow-up to the Bad Company spin-off series.

DICE’s development director Dan Vaderlind, however, recently announced publicly that he would be moving off Battlefront to work on the new project, which would be a core Battlefield release.

The announcement will be welcomed by fans disappointed by the lack of depth and complexity in Battlefront’s mechanics, particularly those who missed the larger maps, player counts, array of vehicles, non-matchmaking services and more single-player content.

What would you be looking forward to most in Battlefield 5? Personally, I’m really pining for a return to *mammoth 64 player battles and the ability to pick a server of my choice. Being matched onto servers in the US isn’t my idea of a good time, and it’ll be nice to have the control back in my hands.

Update: Thanks to Joab for pointing out that Battlefield’s never actually done 64 vs 64 player battles. DICE has tested 128 and 256 players in internal builds, but found that those modes weren’t fun enough to release to the public. It’d be nice to have the option, though.


  • Seriously…….

    Headline – “Battlefield 5 Is Coming Next Year”
    Article – “Blake Jorgenson, spoke about it on an earnings call. Jorgenson, however, never mentioned whether it would be a core Battlefield release or a follow-up to the Bad Company spin-off series.”

    I don’t know what’s worse, if this is done on purpose or by accident.

  • Don’t be fooled people, Dice are just Peter Molyneux’esque nowadays. They’re a non-entity in gaming development who dont deserve anymore of your money.

        • I had never seen soldiers move so accurately in a game, until I saw BF3 footage for the first time. I was blown away, most games don’t yet have that level of quality in animation. So, Animation as well.
          They also brought a whole new level of quality to previous gen games with BF3.
          They just haven’t delivered a great narrative and have never had the ambition to win a GOTY.

    • They only need to make a handful of classes and two maps max for release, then the rest will be sold as 6 DLC packs over 2 years.

    • Depending how you mark the iterations you would be completely wrong about Battlefield as there are typically 2+ years between battlefield games. If you’re looking at the other spinoffs you still typically have around 2+ years with it maybe being around 1 1/2 in some cases.

    • The sad thing is you’re right, and I will – despite the fact that overall I hated Battlefield 4 and skipped Hardline because it has no place in a BF title. However I will still complain about how shit it is and how EA/DICE sold their souls trying to cater to the CoD crowd.

      • The sheep will flock to it like they always have… bf4 is the best modern multiplayer console shooter and its been like 3 years, hard line doesnt count neither does battlefront what do you play? Counter strike? Fucking prophet of gaming right here ruler of the sheep


    Some things just don’t need to be reported.

  • Uhhh, literally right under the bit you quoted (unless edited in after your post):

    “DICE’s development director Dan Vaderlind, however, recently announced publicly that he would be moving off Battlefront to work on the new project, which would be a core Battlefield release.”

      • Rough crowd on this one!

        Id like destructible environments and a good mix of large and close quarters maps
        And a new setting would be nice, ww2 europe maybe? Or even asian somewhere
        Imagine the architecture, then blowing it up!

  • What I’d like:

    1) Large player count. The original games in the series were known for their huge, chaotic battles with over 100 players. I’d like to see this amount return (or even be increased to 256)

    2) A return to ww2 settings or maybe even ww1. Battlefield 1916 has a certain ring to it. And while there was a time when BF and CoD were immediately equated with ww2, I think the modern / futuristic setting has been too overplayed. A current gen rendition of europe early 20th century would look stunning.

    3) Vehicles so impossibly complex that you can’t hope to pilot them with anything less than a joystick.

    4)Lots of flying, and vehicles with many passenger slots.

    5) Proper server browser and ability to host dedicated servers.

    6) The game on steam. The last bf game I played religiously was bc2. Origin means no dice for me.

    What we’ll get:

    1) a lower player count for a more “optimal” experience.

    2) a single player campaign. Because when we think of dice, we think of epic single player content.

    3) half the game at release, the other half via 5 dlc packs.

    4) a pre-order bonus that pretty much unlocks everything, negating the need to actually play the game.

    5) Battlefield 6 in 2018

    • I’d love it to be on Steam as well, but EA’s not giving up support for Origin any time soon. It’ll undoubtedly be the Origin/Battlelog system all over again.

      • Honestly Origin isn’t as bad as people make it out to be. I honestly find Steam to be a shittier experience overall.

        • Exactly – also I don’t see anyone suggesting Blizzard should put Diablo or Warcraft on Steam, people need to get over their hatred for EA – they have every right to promote their own ecosystem, at least (unlike Valve) they appear to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    • id be fucking happy if it just had fucking botmatch like 42, vietnam, 2142 and 2 had. you the ability to play the damn game offline with AI opponents so that you actually get to use the fucking vehicles that are in the game and learn to fly without screwing over your team with noobishness

    • Origin is not bad. Steam is heaps better, but not sure why origin is bad. BF4 is fine through Origin.

      Apart from what you wish, which I totally agree with, especially a WW2 setting (not so much WW1 – sounds a lot like trench warfare and armour/vehicles that are a bit too primitive)….

      More destructive environments. This is limited but currently works well, all be it a bit “novelty” for it’s limitations. This should get MUCH better.

      Return of ‘close quarters’ kinds of maps. Germany WW2 setting could provide for this kind of game play.

      Multi role bombers (4 players) with gunners/bomber/pilot.

      Return to Pacific theatre like BF2 (I think it was) with planes armed with torpedo’s and battleships that could be piloted around the map and defensive guns on them.

      Maybe a “Sink/Defend the battleship” mode where there are 32 slots for AA of varying sorts on a big-ass battleship and 32 slots for pilots and some planes with the pilot/bomber combo.

      That Normandy map from the past – yeah, redo that please!

  • That’s great and all, but where’s the next Pinball Dreams/Fantasies/Illusions game? C’mon DICE, remember your roots!

  • Remake Battlefield 2042 please. Some of my favourite multiplayer memories ever spring from that game.

    I got insanely good at flying the mobile spawn-point/minigun-stafing monster helos in that title. Nothing quite like the feeling of hauling ass at a sustained metre off the ground over mountainous terrain to avoid AA then dumping an entire squad of guys at a capture point, then moving on to pick up the last squad you did that for and relocating them to another point before the enemy can even figure out where you are.

  • Hey. Remember when increasing a number next to a videogames title gave us the impression of big changes? Now it’s like, just routine for their yearly releases.

    Maybe today it’s too much to ask for a change as big as BF1 to BF2 and instead give in to the ‘basically a patch update’ changes from BF3 to BF4.

  • Man, I’m psyched. Love my Battlefields. Both 3 and 4 provided hundreds and hundreds of hours each. Will be a day one buy for me. Hoping it might be a new Bad Company, but I’d be fine with BF5.

    • That would be hilarious actually.
      Instead of tanks you could have battle elephants! Da-Vinci glider catapults! War chariots!

  • I can’t consume any more shooters. There’s a reason the indie scene is blooming and it’s not because people have suddenly become tea-sipping, top-knot wearing hipsters. It’s likely because we want to experience games again… games that challenge you, games that make you think, games that aren’t sequels.

    So (too) many sequels! And I say this as a BF fan with literally 3500+ hours in the series since BF2.

  • I actually wish BF moved to the F2P model as it would mean less franchise installments and a greater determination to get a “good” release that would be supported for years to come. That said it is EA and they would still probably push the constant sequel releases even on a F2P model.

    I’ll be doing what I did with BF: Hardline and BF:SW – vote with my wallet and not buy them. If people are serious about making a statement then that and convincing others to do the same is your only option.

  • I still play a bit of BF4 and am definitely interested in BF5 (assuming that’s what this is). I won’t be getting sucked into buying one of their season passes (or any DLC). Waste of money in BF4… People play the new maps for a week or two and then just go back to the defaults. Locking maps up in DLC just fragments the player base.

    • I wish they’d lock the campaign behind the season pass that way they’d get a good idea about who actually wanted to play it

  • The short development time is saddening, but can be understood when you think and realize that they’ll most likely be re-using BF3 assets which they did for 4 and Hardline. (They probably made new assets but I’m willing to bet that the ratio of re-used to new is incredibly different to a game from a different series for example.) The same engine will be used also, one that they’re used to, minimizing development time.

    However, at this point, you need to start bringing up a very good point. What are we paying for? “What are we paying for?”
    When you buy a game, it’s essentially to cover development or “wages”, because you can’t quantify what’s being made overall, at least in regards to what you’re buying. This whole sort of thing builds into my personal issue with gaming in that we pay the same price for games whether they’ve taken 1 year or 5.

    This sort of situation works in the favour of games that re-use, re-use and re-use. Shorter dev cycles as well means they can increase their profit margin and have more titles in the field, especially in this day and age where the community is more likely to move on from a title after a very short period instead of play a single game for a longer period, at least for FPS titles.

    • All in all, look forward to a boring, empty and vapid single player with a mostly carbon-copy multiplayer re-using a lot of resources and a season pass that’s seppuku-worthy.

  • Battlefield 4 – Bug ridden, took over a year to make decent.
    Battlefield Hardline – Little community interest after being burned by BF4
    Star Wars Battlefront – Boring with match making issues
    Battlefield 5 – Battlefield 4 DLC

    Gone are the days where DICE use to produce good fucking games. They seriously need to take a hard look at the quality of work they are producing and where it all went wrong!

  • Meh, another FPS is nothing to be excited about. I haven’t bothered touching one in years, played the hell out of Halo on Xbox, got into the earlier COD games, stopped around number 4, played a lot of Battlefield 1942/1943, also some arena shooters like Unreal. Last FPS I bought was Homefront because I thought the campaign story sounded a bit different and interesting – I was wrong.

    Since those I’ve had no interest in playing another FPS game, they’re all just the same thing being rehashed to hell and don’t offer any new ideas to change and improve on the experience I’ve already had with FPS.

    If anyone knows of a FPS that’s pushing the boundaries let me know cos it’d be great to play it. Be nice to see FPS introduce more ideas from other genres, they have an experience system now but why not bring in some rogue-like elements. Game modes where you start out with bare basics, kill enemies to get their loot, level up special skills to give you an edge etc. Hell even procedurally generated maps so people can’t just memorize them and use that map advantage to win over everyone else.

  • the ability to pick a server of my choice

    I’m confused here. You’ve been able to pick the server of your choice in the last two renditions of Battlefield (3 and 4). Are you thinking of COD’s horrendous matchmaking system?

    BF4 wasn’t a bad game, just that it wasn’t complete at release and took so long to get right. I still got my monies worth out of it. Bad Company 2 was excellent, and I think BF3 was the best release in the past 5 years. Personal opinion though!

  • BF4 was shit, Hardline was shit. BF2+3 excellent, BF:BC1+ 2 excellent. Even 1942 + 1943 were good. Also All I can find is that’s it’s the next battlefield. I cant find any thing that suggests it’s BF5. Personally hoping for BF:BC3 and that it’s done right. PLEASE NO more spin-offs DICE.

  • I enjoyed 3, but it died far too quickly. I never touched 4 because it was a mess. Hardline was fun, but I never bothered buying it after the beta.

    I’ll probably pick up 5 as long as it isn’t ludicrously overpriced. Which means I’ll never play 5.

Show more comments

Comments are closed.

Log in to comment on this story!