MoH: Warfighter listing outs Battlefield 4 on Origin

Saturday, 14th July 2012 13:14 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

Let’s start the morning off with something interesting: a listing on Origin for Medal of Honor: Warfighter states those who pre-order the game will gain access to the Battlefield 4 beta.

EA has yet to announced the game, but has previously said it’s working on a new entry in the series.

We’ve checked Origin ourselves and it appears EA has removed its blunder, replacing it with a banner for Battlefield 3 Premium.

The official Battlefield Twitter account had this to say on the matter: “Battlefield 4? If it isn’t on, it isn’t official!”.

Someone is probably in trouble over this, we imagine.

Thanks, Digital Spy.



  1. xino

    basically that’s the only way to get into the BETA, by ordering from Origin:/

    #1 2 years ago
  2. DSB

    Looks like EA has established their Infinity Ward/Treyarch setup.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. Fin

    Hmm, wonder if this gen or next gen?

    #3 2 years ago
  4. roadkill

    @1 That is not true! They did something similar with Medal of Honor. We (the ones who pre-ordered it) were suppose to participate in the Battlefield 3 beta. And we did, along with everyone else in the world who didn’t pre-ordered the game. :)

    @2 What? Oh you mean.. Yeah but the quality bar is at a completely different level.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. Maximum Payne

    I am really hoping for Bad Company 3.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. DSB

    @4 The real criticism against CoD has rarely been “It’s a bad game”. It’s always been “It’s a mass produced, assembly line cash cow”.

    Which is a model that was really invented by EA, so why the double standard all of the sudden?

    Wild subjectivity is often going to end up in hypocrisy.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Talkar

    Actually Atari did it before EA. Way back in the 80′s.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. AHA-Lambda

    Too damn soon, we need BC3 first. You can’t just jump into a 4th main installment like that, it’ll only be the 4th game in name only then. Fuck you EA, again.

    #8 2 years ago
  9. Lewis247

    This pretty much confirms they are hard at work on battlefield 4 allready. *sigh* Not that I’m too fussed, I know it’s going to be a great game but I feel sort of disspointed that it’s not bad company 3. I mean if they can jump the gun so quick on another main entry title I just presumed they would break up the cicle with BC3… Something I was really looking forward to with updated graphics.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. Ireland Michael

    Why wouldn’t they be hard at work on Battlefield 4? Why are people acting surprised about this?

    If it happens it isn’t going to be releasing until 2013 anyway. And I’m perfectly happy to see BF3 get a two year lifecycle and not a 1 year one, seeing as Medal of Honour is crap.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. DSB

    @7 True that, but back then you could code a game in a week or less without bother. The fact that they’ve continued to make games in 365 days going into the next milennium is worthy of a special mention I think :P

    @8 It’s worth noting that they put out four core games and five expansions from 2002 to 2006.

    I don’t think that hurt the quality of those games. DICE are obviously used to the assembly line.

    #11 2 years ago
  12. Erthazus

    I think it is too soon for Battlefield 4, but i want game from DICE. Will it be Bad company, BF4 or Mirrors Edge?
    Instant buy no matter what game they make.

    At least these developers know how to make good games bringing something new to the table and not forgetting to upgrade their engines, sounds and other stuff, while others can’t make even decent game.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. Lewis247

    @10 What makes you so sure of a 2013 release? If the beta is immenant and bf3 was released in October they could pull a fast one with 4 releasing this winter to compete with halo and call of duty. The main reason I’m surprised is, a beta, this soon? I know pretty much after bf3 release they mentioned 4 was happening a MONTH after 3 dropped. But how the hell did they whip up a beta this quick for a core title? It’s complete call of duty style at it’s finest…

    #13 2 years ago
  14. Lahanas

    lol @ anyone who thinks bf4 is coming soon, winter etc. It will be released fall 2013 for both the current and next gen systems

    #14 2 years ago
  15. Ireland Michael


    1) Medal of Honour is their war based shooter for the year. No point in competing with yourself.

    2) If they were planning to release it by the end of the year, they would have already started revealing it and building hype by now. It’s pretty obvious that they have a “MoH one year, Battlefield the next” plan in place.

    3) The beta that came with the last Medal of Honour didn’t even start until months after the game came out. We probably won’t even see the beta until mid 2013.

    4) Battlefiled 3 DLC is set to continue until March 2013. It would be bad business to release a new game in the franchise while they are still releasing DLC for the current game – it would undercut profits.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. M. K.

    Were’s the problem? It’s always MoH -> BF -> MoH -> BF… It’s the same with CoD from IW and TA, but now it’s going to be better for BF because DICE doesn’t have to work on MoH anymore, so it’s good news for you BF players then.

    #16 2 years ago

    Can’t be bothered to search, but I’m pretty sure that EA have already admitted that they are going for an alternate year BF/MOH cycle.

    Old news…

    #17 2 years ago
  18. Stephany Nunneley

    The official Battlefield Twitter account had this to say on the matter: “Battlefield 4? If it isn’t on, it isn’t official!”.


    And @17 is correct -they have said it.

    #18 2 years ago
  19. Gekidami

    I think whats surprising people if thats its BF4 rather than Bad Company 3 or another spin off. Seems people were expecting BF3 to last a bit, just like BF2.

    #19 2 years ago
  20. AHA-Lambda

    @11 – oh yeah I know that and I’m sure it will be as well made as allthe other battlefields but we waited what 10 years between BF2 and BF3? It makes a new numbered entry a big deal, until they just plop them out every 2 years that is, I can smell the milk from here -_-

    Also yeah I’d rather have BC3 personally.

    @13 – are you having a laugh? BF4 for release this year? I won’t even bother listing why on so many levels that is wrong.

    #20 2 years ago
  21. HighWindXIX

    I don’t think I care unless it’s Bad Company 3 honestly.

    #21 2 years ago
  22. DSB

    Yeah, a lot of people seem to want another Bad Company. I don’t get that at all. I guess it could be a console/PC thing.

    BC2 was buggy, the controls were wonky, and the matches tended to feel like Team Fortress 2 with all the rockets and underslung ‘nades being tossed around left and right (Because woo, cardboard buildings!).

    I’m not gonna miss that. I think Battlefield 3 got it right on most counts, except for the last bit of polish.

    #22 2 years ago
  23. OrbitMonkey

    Well it sure is nice to see them innovating… By copying the CoD formula…

    Ok I’m trolling a bit, sorry. I mean that that Close Quarters dlc was very innovative… Well if it hadn’t been a carbon copy of Gun Game from MW3…

    What next I wonder… Zombies… No not innovative enough… The Flood? No already done… Pod People?

    #23 2 years ago
  24. GwynbleiddiuM

    forget that, $69.99? I mean SERIOUSLY?!

    #24 2 years ago
  25. Ireland Michael

    @23 “Ok I’m trolling a bit, sorry. I mean that that Close Quarters dlc was very innovative… Well if it hadn’t been a carbon copy of GunGame from Counter Strike…”

    Fixed for accuracy.

    #25 2 years ago
  26. DSB

    @24 That should really be called the Origin welcome.

    “Thank you for your patronage, we’ll be there to rip you off in a minute”.

    #26 2 years ago
  27. OrbitMonkey

    @25, Lolwhut? Counter-strike have ripped of MW3 too!? I swear it’s like CoD invented the modern military shooter :-/

    #27 2 years ago
  28. Ireland Michael

    @27 I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking. Hahahaha.

    #28 2 years ago
  29. DSB

    I just don’t get why a 40mm grenade or an AT4 is able to take out a wall in a lot of these games.

    They’re basically unloading a clip of 40MM grenades on a crappy old watchtower. In videogame destruction, that would be blown clean off.

    And again, that’s an AT4 used against what’s apparently a mud, or mudbrick building. It’s gonna damage it, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to disintegrate any time soon.

    It looks to me like some game designers mistake lethality for destructive ability. In reality, you’ll likely kill or injure whatever is on the other side of the wall, but you’re not going to level a city using grenades and rocket launchers.

    Demolition charges, artillery and 500lb bombs sure, but not small arms or AT weapons.

    Maybe it’s because it’s easier. It’s probably easier to just take out a wall on a map, than to actually simulate penetration, (more limited) destruction and subsequently damage from blast pressure and frag.

    Not that Bad Company isn’t allowed to make it’s own reality, but they obviously played a lot on the realism in the PR.

    That’s just another reason why I think Battlefield 3 is more interesting.

    #29 2 years ago
  30. Da Man

    See, it’s way more important who reads Wikipedia on the subject than who plays it the most, let alone who’s good at it, obv.

    Internet. The only place where people don’t play video games but rather ‘discuss’ the ‘artistic medium’ based on what they found in their googling agenda.

    #30 2 years ago
  31. OrbitMonkey

    What was that 360 only game that’s main mechanic was using breach charges to blow holes in walls, to create entry points? Was it called Breach?

    Anyone play it? I think it was download only…

    #31 2 years ago
  32. DSB

    It was on PC too. Never did play it, but that’s because I never saw anyone who actually liked it.

    Apparently Atomic Games shut down and didn’t tell anybody, so it’s no longer playable.

    #32 2 years ago
  33. OrbitMonkey

    ^ oh… I really liked the idea behind that too…

    #33 2 years ago
  34. freedoms_stain

    @31, I played the demo, it was poor. The graphics and sound were both terrible and the foot speed of characters was an unbearable crawl.

    I mean the graphics were so bad it was actually hard to pick out targets in the mush of bad textures and the gun sounds were worse than CoD.

    @29, tbh, the over-the-top-destruction in BC2 is way preferable to me than the inconsistent situational bullshit in BF3.

    And to be fair it took more to down concrete and brick structures than wood and plaster structures.

    #34 2 years ago
  35. DSB

    @34 Yeah, it would be less of a conflict in my mind if they hadn’t marketed it the way they did. There was a lot of random grenade spam in BC2, and it just wasn’t a very realistic game. I think it’s pretty obvious that it wasn’t the object to make it realistic in the first place, so the PR probably just got tainted by Ricitiello’s Kotick-boner.

    BF3 is a lot better at making me feel like I’m in a modern battlefield though, even if there are a lot of those small shortcomings that just end up annoying you more and more in the long term.

    For me it managed to fix a lot of the major problems I had with BC2, and I think they went above and beyond on the visuals, the sound and the optimization.

    #35 2 years ago
  36. Patrick Garratt

    I, for one, am extremely surprised that this game is being made.

    #36 2 years ago
  37. xxJPRACERxx

    I, for one, am extremely surprised that you’re surprised this game is being made.

    #37 2 years ago
  38. mathare92

    Well if Bad Company 3 is not on the horizon, then I just hope they get the art team to tone down on the grey palette and drab, homogeneous environments. Bring back the colour. Bring back the more contrasting and fantastical map environments. Bring back some soul.

    #38 2 years ago
  39. Ireland Michael

    @38 “Bring back the colour. Bring back the more contrasting and fantastical map environments. Bring back some soul.”

    I needed an excuse to post this again:

    #39 2 years ago
  40. Gekidami

    I just hope they have you see the game through the eyes of a human being rather then a camera this time. Humans dont get lens flare on their eye balls, DICE.

    #40 2 years ago
  41. mathare92

    @39 Har-har :D

    #41 2 years ago
  42. freedoms_stain

    @38, the colour is there… sadly they fucked a hideous blue filter over the top of it. Seriously, the blue tinge is on top of everything. There’s an image sequence out there from Damavand Peak that shows all the sequential layers that make up BF3, the blue tint is the last step in a sequence of about 30.

    If you look on Youtube for Alpha footage the game looks so much better. A lot of people are using FXAA injectors on PC to try and reduce the blueness.

    #42 2 years ago
  43. mathare92

    @42 Right you are. More of a bluish tint than grey. Still miffed about why they thought it was a good stylistic choice; I mean it couldn’t have possibly been a technical compromise (or could it?).

    #43 2 years ago
  44. freedoms_stain

    @43, well as I said the blue filter is actually added on top of everything else (at least on PC) so I can’t see how it would help them make anything technically less tasking on the hardware or anything like that.

    I have yet to hear any explanation from Dice as to why they went with the blue filter, and they have remained silent with regards to players requesting an option to turn it off.

    #44 2 years ago
  45. Levester

    70 bucks?????????????
    ur not getting a free beta key ur paying 20$ for it. FUCK THAT.

    #45 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.