The reveal of Battlefield 6 has set the heather alight. For the first time in a long time, there’s excitement surrounding a AAA first-person shooter that isn’t Call of Duty. Change seems to be in the air, but is it all bluster?
I’ve never been much of a Battlefield player. Not for lack of trying, right enough—I just never jived with it. I’m not a fan of massive 32 v 32 battles, although I respect the spectacle. I did spend a summer playing Battlefield Heroes with one of my pals over MSN Messenger, but I’m not sure you’d count that as a mainline title.
Call of Duty, on the other hand, is my bread and butter. When I first played Call of Duty 2 on my Uncle’s PC, I never imagined I’d still be playing the series 20-odd years into the future. Yet here I am, six Black Ops and umpteen Modern Warfare titles later.
While Battlefield and Call of Duty are both first-person shooters, they’ve traditionally aimed to accomplish very different things. Battlefield is all about large-scale warfare with destructible environments, vehicles, and enormous team sizes. Call of Duty delivers fast-paced, boots-on-the-ground action where you’re only seconds away from your next encounter.
The lines have blurred in recent years (the less said about Infinity Ward’s attempts to dismantle the fundamentals of COD, the better), but the consensus remains the same: if you want a tactical shooter, you pick Battlefield; if you’re after a pick-up-and-play arcade experience, you choose Call of Duty.
There’ll be players who enjoy both, and crossover is inevitable, but that difference is why Call of Duty remains on top, regardless of immersion-breaking skins or quality. It’s like telling a diehard Swiftie to switch to a new artist. They’ll give them a go—they might even like them—but ultimately, they’re not Taylor Swift.
All that said, I’m bullish that Battlefield 6 will be a hit in a way that no title in the series has before. It’s a game that keeps its hardcore fan base in mind at all times and scratches an itch that many FPS players haven’t found in modern Call of Duty games for a while.
Beware of the 6!
Speaking to Gaming Interviews, Vince Zampella, co-creator of Call of Duty and now overseer of the Battlefield series, said, “Both [Call of Duty and Battlefield] have existed for so long together, I think they complement each other in different ways. We have things that they don’t… the destruction, the class systems, stuff like that.”
He’s not wrong. Destructible environments are one of Battlefield’s hallmark features, and Battlefield 6 has destruction in spades. One glance at the multiplayer reveal trailer (soundtracked by Limp Bizkit’s Break Stuff—great choice!) makes that clear. The last game before Zampella entered the fray, Battlefield 2042, launched without the traditional class system. There are no worries this time around for Battlefield old heads, as it’s back in all its glory.
Players can also count on all the large-scale modes they’ve come to expect: Conquest, Breakthrough, and Rush are all available at launch. Team Deathmatch and Domination make an appearance too, ensuring there’s enough familiarity for a COD player wanting to dip their toes.
Battlefield Portal returns with additional creation tools, powered by the open-source engine Godot. It’s no coincidence that many live service games are looking at ways to introduce user-generated content. If a studio can keep players engaged without rushing out curated content, it removes the worry that the game will be branded “dead”. I don’t spend much time playing UGC in many games, but I recognise it’s a valuable endeavour.
So, the fans are happy, the public is impressed, and COD players have taken notice. Good times ahead? Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. There’s the small matter of EA and its expectations. According to a report by Ars Technica, the publisher has set a target of 100 million unique users for the game.
For context, Call of Duty: Warzone reached the 100 million player mark in April 2021, a year and a month after its launch, during a period when half the planet was under lockdown.
It’s a gargantuan task for a series that has never had an entry surpass 30 million sales. A free-to-play Battle Royale will help; with no barrier to entry, newcomers are more likely to give it a try. If it can combine the thrill of battle royale with Battlefield’s trademark destruction, it could be a hit, but it’ll need extreme staying power if it has any chance to hit EA’s goal.
At least EA seems to be taking it seriously. The publisher is investing heavily in the game, with a global marketing campaign that included events in London, Paris, Berlin, Los Angeles, and Hong Kong. Prominent Call of Duty players and influencers were invited, and they have been posting Battlefield content nonstop ever since.
The Ars Technica report also sheds light on developmental issues that may threaten the game’s rollout. Battlefield has historically experienced rough launches, and players’ patience is thinner than ever. If Battlefield 6 doesn’t arrive in a stable state, things could fall apart quickly, especially with the bold decision to release ahead of Black Ops 7. The single-player campaign, in particular, seems to be coming in hot. The blink-and-you’ll miss-it teaser during the multiplayer reveal didn’t lend confidence, backing up the report that it isn’t in the best shape.
With Battlefield Studios, EA has essentially engineered its own “Call of Duty Mine”. Four separate studios—DICE, Criterion, Ripple Effect, and Motive—are all working on the same project. Battlefield isn’t an annual series, so it may avoid trapping studios in a relentless cycle like COD; however, I’m not convinced that more publishers merging development studios to create megaprojects is the way forward.
Battlefield Studios has listened to its community, which is more than can be said about the other side of the divide. There’s a growing resentment towards Call of Duty and its blatant cash-grabbing to the point that alienated players will leave for Battlefield. It won’t be enough to dethrone COD, but it might be enough to ding the bottom line and get a few executives sweating. That’s the hope, anyway.
Waiting in the Shadows
We’ve established Battlefield 6 is a game full of potential, and EA only has itself to blame if it falls apart. But what of Call of Duty? Black Ops 7 is fast approaching, yet we have little in the way of official information.
Activision claims this is by design: Black Ops 7 is being marketed “like a Beyonce album dropping; nobody’s going to know about it… nobody’s going to see it coming”.
Hmm. That doesn’t quite pass the sniff test. I think the more realistic explanation is that the game wasn’t ready to show off in June. Launching two Call of Duty titles back-to-back is a massive undertaking for any developer, regardless of how many support studios Activision throws in.
Even if secrecy was always the plan, I imagine contingency plans are being drafted following the overwhelmingly positive reaction to Battlefield 6. The Black Ops 7 reveal at Gamescom needs to land firmly. Fan sentiment is low after a barrage of pop culture crossovers that have ruined Call of Duty’s image. The series has always had a playful side, but Black Ops 6 has pushed it well beyond the limit. The Beavis and Butthead collaboration was the final straw for many.
I’ve been holding my nose at COD’s monetisation practices (and admittedly, wasting my money on occasion) for years. It’s never been quite this bad before, however. The inconsistency in art styles drags down the overall presentation of Black Ops 6.
It’ll be fascinating to see if Battlefield 6 can generate enough microtransaction sales by sticking to its milsim roots. It’s a noble plan, but if there’s more money in flashy skins, I can’t see EA resisting the temptation.
It is refreshing to see a game emerge that could threaten Call of Duty’s throne, if only to chip away at its legs. Competition is healthy; maybe it’s a chance for Call of Duty to concede to fan demands at last. Black Ops 7 is only a handful of months out, but there’s still time for tweaks that would go a long way in reinvigorating the COD faithful.
At this point, I’m not sure why they wouldn’t offer a setting to toggle off store skins. The criticism is deafening, and if someone goes to the effort of disabling cosmetics, they probably weren’t planning to spend extra money anyway. I may be partial to buying a few COD points, but I’ve never once been influenced by seeing another player’s operator in a match.
Most of the damage done by Modern Warfare 2019 and its sequel has been addressed (who can forget the RED DOTS ARE BACK marketing of MWIII), but a stench lingers. It’s time for Tactical Sprint to go. It has no place in traditional Call of Duty multiplayer, and I’m sick of it.
Call of Duty has a rich history. It’d be nice if, instead of constantly looking outward, COD focused more on events and cosmetics set in its own world. By all means, have a promotional crossover from time to time, but make players care about the operators they’re using. I guarantee that the Zombies Crew has some of the best-selling skins in Black Ops 6, because people are invested in them and the world of Zombies.
There’s demand for a Portal-like experience in Call of Duty, but with its annual release cycle, I can’t see it working without COD HQ being further emphasised as a hub for all things COD. Custom Zombies would certainly satisfy the “Zombies has no content” crowd, allowing developers to deliver fully packaged experiences rather than scattering limited-time modes and weaponry across a season. If nothing is already in development, though, I wouldn’t expect to see anything anytime soon. Community tools aren’t made overnight.
“Mein Gott! Everything could change.”
As much as Battlefield’s return could be a wake-up call for Call of Duty decision-makers, I have concerns that they will learn the wrong lessons. That they’ll think “COD should do what Battlefield 6 is doing” instead of “we should listen to our community and honour our franchise the way Battlefield 6 has its own”. The last thing Call of Duty needs is to stray further away from what made it a global phenomenon in the first place.
The Warzone players—who matter more to Activision than Zombies nerds like me—are the ones most likely to leave and never return. If that happens, I fear Activision will stop at nothing to keep the Warzone gravy train moving. I’d wager it attempts to quadruple down on Warzone, no matter the cost to COD’s other pillars. But realistically, what more can be done if Warzone starts haemorrhaging players? Verdansk was the ace in the hole; there are no hands left to play.
Why not invest in Multiplayer, the foundation of the entire franchise, or a mode like Zombies that continues to attract new players despite its age? I’d love to see a year of Call of Duty focused purely on Multiplayer and Zombies. Alas, dreams are for dreaming.
Battlefield’s reemergence has undoubtedly given the AAA FPS market a much-needed shot in the arm. And while I’m someone deep in the Call of Duty weeds, I can admit that it’s boring being the only show in town. I’ll be spending most of my time with Black Ops 7 because, of course, it has Zombies. However, I’m curious to see if Battlefield 6 can earn a place in my rotation.
Battlefield 6 will not kill Call of Duty, nor will it outsell Black Ops 7, and that’s okay! It doesn’t need to. If it can stay true to its vision and its fan base, it can grow organically, offering players an alternative to a series that has (once again) become complacent. If Battlefield can win over even a fraction of COD’s jaded congregation, it might finally apply pressure to the COD executives, who have taken their community for granted for far too long.
The only thing that can kill Call of Duty is Call of Duty, and if the last five years are anything to go by, those in charge seem up for testing that theory. There will be more than one reckoning if they lack the foresight to guide the franchise back towards the players who still stand by it. Your move, Activision.
