Battlefield 4 shown behind closed doors

Wednesday, 20th February 2013 05:00 GMT By Brenna Hillier

Battlefield 4 doesn’t officially exist, but that hasn’t stopped EA touring it behind closed doors.

“Got to see Battlefield 4 today and all I can say is wow. Thanks EA for the sneak peek. Can’t wait for you all to see it,” GameStop CEO J Paul Raines commented via the retail chain’s official Twitter account.

The tweet has not been deleted and EA’s own Twitter account retweeted it, suggesting both companies were comfortable dropping the information.

Battlefield 4 – or at least, a new Battlefield game of some kind – is kind of an open secret, as EA has been clear about its plans to release a new shooter every year, with Battlefield taking its turn biennually.

The really interesting question is what hardware the DICE effort will launch on; EA flat out admitted it has next-generation FIFA and Battlefield titles in the works during its recent financial report.

There is some confusion as to when the new Battlefield game will surface as EA mentioned in its financial call that it expects the launch”next year”. If that means fiscal 2014, it could be any time from March 2013 onwards, as EA’s financial year runs out of sync with the calendar.

If a new Battlefield turns up in the 2013 holidays, as EA’s regular shooter release pattern would suggest, it’s going to have quite a short PR cycle; I wonder what might have caused that? Just kidding – it’s because the hardware hasn’t been announced yet. Thanks for kicking that off, Sony.



  1. TD_Monstrous69

    Keeping my eyes peeled to see if this makes an appearance at the Playstation meeting. Wouldn’t suprise me all that much, considering Sony and EA’s content deals they’ve had with the Battlefield franchise this generation, though most likely reveal spot would be GDC, considering this is where Battlefield 3 was first shown off. Just picked up a new copy of Battlefield 3 after trading in my original copy about a few months back, started to miss it after playing BLOPS II for awhile. Hope 4 has a better single player campaign than 3 does. But considering EA’s track record with single player stories as of recently, my hopes aren’t high, to put it mildly.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. Erthazus

    “content deals they’ve had with the Battlefield franchise ”

    Like shitty graphics and performance? No 64 players? 2 freakin weeks of DLC?

    Battlefield 3 on consoles. True story.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. CyberMarco

    ^ Please kill yourself, sincerely!

    #3 2 years ago
  4. Erthazus

    @3, You too mate.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. manamana

    Teasertrailer imminent …

    #5 2 years ago
  6. stevenhiggster

    Its not a feckin secret at all anyway! They [EA] made it pretty loud and clear that PC buyers of MOH got access to the BF4 beta!

    #6 2 years ago
  7. TheBlackHole


    The graphics were fine, the performance was fine, not everyone wants to play 64 player multiplayer, and DLC can go suck a fuck.

    85% metascore on PS3 says you’re talking out of your ass.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. Samoan Spider

    @7 +1 but then I dont play multiplayer shooters these days so the dlc is/was entirely irrelevant for me

    #8 2 years ago
  9. wickedcricket

    I’m thinking that Battlefield 4 would (and I’m really hoping for) be “Battlefield 4284″ – Can you see what I did there? :)

    #9 2 years ago
  10. Erthazus

    “The graphics were fine, the performance was fine, not everyone wants to play 64 player multiplayer, and DLC can go suck a fuck.”

    Keep believing yourself as much as possible. Performance and graphics were not just horrible on consoles, they were mediocre.

    Want to see Battlefield 3 how it looks?

    “not everyone wants to play 64 player multiplayer”

    Oh yeah. Battlefield is about 64 PLAYERS since Battlefield 1942.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. TD_Monstrous69

    Oh get off your high PC dildo Erthazus. I was talking about content like dlc, or how about back before Battlefield Bad Company 2 released, there was a multiplayer beta exclusive to PS3, that’s what I meant by content, not how the game plays u fucking troll. Yea, I get the PC version ran better than consoles, but to me, the game ran fine on the PS3. I still do want to get a PC, so I can enjoy games like BF3 and Crysis 3 in their full visual glory, but running into complete fucking dick-headed trolls like you makes me think twice on even bothering with a gaming PC.

    #11 2 years ago
  12. kadu

    This guy, Erthazus, is definitely the worst troll of this news site. Man, nobody wants to listen to your crap any more, go troll somewhere else.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. Mike W


    Was it on the PS4? ;)

    #13 2 years ago
  14. Samoan Spider

    @11 Don’t let that put you off pc’s or their players mate, I’m one. But I played BF3 on my 360 without any concerns over fidelity or playability

    #14 2 years ago
  15. TheBlackHole

    Erth, I didn’t say PC version didn’t look better, but I found the console version just fine. I’m not a graphics whore.

    And, surprisingly enough, most people who bought battlefield 3 haven’t even played 1942, so again, you’re talking out of your backside.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. Erthazus

    “most people who bought battlefield 3 haven’t even played 1942″

    yup. They bought it because of EA hype and marketing campaign. Obviously.

    #16 2 years ago
  17. roadkill

    @Erthazus Mediocre graphics? Wait! They have graphics on consoles? Lol!!

    #17 2 years ago
  18. powerbuoy

    Here’s hoping for a decent SP story, much more customization in MP (design your own soldier as well as gun customizations) and I’d love it if they put a Far Cry 3 type animation from jumping in and out of vehicles rather than just teleporting.

    Edit: Oh, and much better physics! Proper destruction ala Red Faction, better car handling (a 60 ton tank shouldn’t get stuck on rocks) as well as body deformations (shooting and blowing off limbs).

    #18 2 years ago
  19. MadFingerz

    @18 I disagree about the vehicle entering animation, teleporting is the only way to go when it comes to multiplayer, else you’re going to have issues, not to mention that it would annoy most players.

    And sure, the destruction could look better but it already looks great considering the scope of the maps and what not. Imagining how destruction will look like a couple of generations from now…*drool*

    And I don’t know about anyone else but for me a WW2 shooter with such destruction elements would be awesomesauce on a glorysamwich.

    #19 2 years ago
  20. powerbuoy

    @19 – Yea I could see that as well (people getting annoyed). But right now it’s never a risk to get into a vehicle because the second you see a C4 dude you can just magically teleport out in no time. Perhaps it could be a server option like 3D spotting.

    The destruction is good, don’t get me wrong, but Red Faction’s is entirely different in that it’s actually physics based. Anything can break in any way possible. In BF3 I can’t shoot an RPG through the ceiling if I know there are guys above me – that’s a bit unrealistic if you ask me. Also, the ability to break a concrete wall by throwing a medpack on it is a bit ridiculous :P

    #20 2 years ago
  21. MadFingerz

    “Also, the ability to break a concrete wall by throwing a medpack on it is a bit ridiculous :P”

    haha, what? I didn’t know about that! lol, oh lord xD But yeah, if they could incorporate a physics system alá RF without major performance slips, it would be great.

    Back to the vehicle entering thing, I know what you mean, as a C4 fan I really hate when that happens but such animations on multiplayer can create issues like shooting an enemy that’s exiting a vehicle and him not taking any damage. It seems like something devs really struggle with to fix so might be best if it remains as is.

    #21 2 years ago
  22. Azyral

    “Like shitty graphics and performance? No 64 players? 2 freakin weeks of DLC?”

    @10 – Are you a retard or what? Have you even played Battelfield 3 on the PC? Shitty graphics? You must be one hell of a blind person. It’s a hard cold fact, Frostbite 2 engine, the Cryengine 3 and the Unreal Engine 3 are currently the best graphics engine that gaming has to offer. Shitty graphics? Really? Shitty graphics? Please explain to me what other games has better graphics than Battlefield 3? Because I can show you proof of how Battlefield 3′s graphics is one of the best. I bet you played the console version, either that, or you’re a fucking moron who hates EA. What a little piece of shit, who is clearly blind. I bet you think Mario has awesome graphics. Mediocre graphics? Let’s be honest here mother-fucker, that launch trailer of Armored Kill showed how amazing the graphics looks like. Believe it or not, ass-hole. Battlefield 3 graphics is amazing and one of the best! Read it! ONE OF THE BEST. Keep bull-shitting yourself, because it won’t help. If you think Battlefield 3 has mediocre graphics? Then 99.9% off ALL video games have shitty graphics, so that’s what you’re saying right? I swear to god you are one fucked up kid.

    #22 2 years ago
  23. CyberMarco

    ^ Where did you come out from? You got the wrong idea regarding Erth… Anyhow, next time read the content more carefully and try to be more polite. Cheers! :)

    #23 2 years ago
  24. manamana

    Azyral fighting his bloodbrother. Now that is something :-D

    #24 2 years ago
  25. Rosseu

    lol. Erth did say “BF3 on consoles”

    #25 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.