Report: Battlefield 5 Is Testing Their Own Battle Royale Prototype

Report: Battlefield 5 Is Testing Their Own Battle Royale Prototype
Image: Berdu

The Battlefield series has been known for their gargantuan maps, large-scale battles and variety of conflicts between tanks, planes, infantry and even ships. But that doesn’t mean DICE isn’t immune to the charms of the battle royale genre, according to a new report.

Venturebeat is reporting this morning that DICE, EA’s Sweden studio that is responsible for the Battlefield series, is working on a prototype battle royale mode of their own. EA declined to comment, but the report adds that DICE are very much in the testing stages:

The studio has not yet approved its battle royale for release, and it is still in the prototype phase. If DICE does decide that it’s happy with what it has, it won’t have it ready in time for the initial release.

The kicker is that the mode wouldn’t be ready for Battlefield 5‘s release, which is due out this autumn. And it’d be interesting to see how DICE would make what is, on the surface, a style of gameplay that is completely at odds with Battlefield‘s core identity.

Battlefield players have always flocked to the series because of its size and scope, and it’ll be hard to sell any change in gameplay that narrows that down. I’m reminded of how Bad Company 2 was a smaller, faster take on the traditional Battlefield formula, but that’s a far cry from the forced movement and enclosed arenas that battle royale mode games tend to force.

But battle royale games are huge, and if EA and DICE can jump on that train, they will. We’ll probably hear more when E3 rolls around, and if we catch wind that anything has changed before then we’ll let you know.


  • Or just bring the gameplay back to BF3 style and don’t spread the content super thin with garbage once off modes.

  • I wonder if they might break it off into a standalone F2P game that EA would then be free to microtransaction the shit out of without getting the backlash they got for doing it in a full price retail product?

    • You jest? BF is casual as hell.
      It might prevent PUBG for ever gaining traction on console… but PUBG is here to stay on PC friendo 🙂

      • Not a chance, the moment someone with a competent development team brings out a military/realistic battle royale game, PUBG will be where H1Z1 is now.

        • But BF isn’t realistic. It’s just arcade nonsense.

          Not saying it isn’t fun… but it’ll take someone like Bohemia to have a real shot at dethroning PUBG on PC.

          Not to mention PUBG has been on the market for years and already has 3 maps.

        • PUBG will be where H1Z1 is now.

          Except PUBG has well over a billion dollars in sales. They’ve already had ridiculous success with the game at this point. They obviously want to continue sales, but nobody is going broke tomorrow.

          Not a chance, the moment someone with a competent development team brings out a military/realistic battle royale game

          I think the battlefield guys might be the only AAA ones who are close to the scale and complexity of PUBG. You need to be able to deal with very large player numbers and long draw distances which tax servers, bandwidth, and client hardware. BF games commonly support 64 players on PC, with heavy action.

          And PUBG is in massive flux. They are probably deep in a months long program of expanding teams. We haven’t really seen what this new company with massive bank is going to produce. We have only seen the game that created that company, which was mostly developed by a much smaller team.

  • I don’t care if they add a BR mode. But for the love of god they need to give up on the DLC packs and monetise the game some other way, like R6: Siege. Having bought the season pass for BF1, the only matches I could ever get were for the original maps. It must be frustrating for both users and the artists/devs that put work into these amazing looking maps for barely anyone to see them.

    • Bf1 was not the WW1 game i wanted, The lootboxes sucked ass & i wasn’t going to reward the new direction in the series by purchasing the Dlc, Since the next game is WW2, I don’t want to play another fictional game where all the allies are left out for the USA dude bros.. Did you know it was Australian anti air gunners that shot down the Red Barron? Battlefield’s multyplayer is wafer thin & the campaign story despite EA/ Dice saying how great they’re as storytellers are really stupid set pieces with nothing to really grasp, Just like a shit action movie, I might give the series a miss from now on.

    • I agree with you. But “live service” games are god awful in their own way.

      The difference is that R6:Siege is a top quality, hardcore focused game. Ubisoft looked at CS:GO and thought “how can we add more to this”.

      BF1 went the other direction from BF4.. more arcadey/casual.
      I have zero faith in EA/DICE delivering anything new with real staying power.

  • This would be a bad move by DICE. Personally I have found that the more I have played Battle Royale games(mainly PUBG) the less inclined I have felt to play BF1. For me once I got into the PUBG or fortnight sensibility going back to bf1 the stakes just didn’t seem as high. They would have to be really careful with how they implemented it. If they did it half arsed people could just get a taste of it and then go elsewhere if it wasn’t up to par. Im not sure if they should do this, it could dilute their brand considerably. Either way interesting times. I love BF1 but ive barely played BF1 compared to PUBG in the last 5 months. The first Battle Royale game that implements a meaningful progression system will come out as a market leader so I would suggest a possible god forbid RIP Battlefield.

  • There’s nothing wrong with them trying out, but as you can see from Fortnite, people don’t just want the standard run and gun. My mates and I all got over PUBG.

    Maybe DICE can innovate and find a nice middle ground between battlefield and a BR. Or just do something with much more players.

    If they were going to do something, they’d have been better off doing a small and cheap BR release using BF4 as the base. If people were paying 20 or 30 bucks, they won’t care if it’s all reused assets in new game modes with bigger maps in BR. That way they wouldn’t have had to fold it into the bigger Battlefield releases.

    • Agreed, nothing wrong with having a go. There’s a chance it will fail if they try, absolute certainty if they don’t.
      If they balance it, such as the vehicles having very limited ammo/fuel, it could be a lot of fun. Though I’d like to see a more novel approach to pushing players to a final zone, rather than the wall-of-death.

      • They key to Battlefield is teamwork. Maybe they could do some kind of conquest/frontlines modes where after a certain point it becomes squad vs squad.

        Maybe 144 players on a big BR style map. You get points by holding points, these also give you benefits such as buying weapons and health for your squad. Build up enough points and you can respawn dead teammates. Each point only has a limited number of points that can be earned. So you’re encouraged to move to the uncapped points.

  • What I don’t get is how they are going to frame it from a narrative point of view. Battlefield to me has always been about large scale conflict, allies vs third reich, country vs country that sort of thing. If it’s a 100 person free for all how will that make sense?
    It will have to be a standalone title I think.

  • Would rather they make the game good than try and stuff it full of game modes that will spread the player base out…. FFS…

  • What worries me is if this so called battle royal mode is added and is popular enough EA will probably just drop most of the new battlefield’s content and focus on it.

Log in to comment on this story!