Battlefield 4 is officially a thing that exists, and you can pay £50 for beta access right now

So, after popping out a bit too early yesterday, EA has quickly zipped back up, composed itself, and slapped down an official, proper, full-sized reveal of Battlefield 4 today.

Well, a reveal of the game's existence anyway. And the fact that you can sign up to play it right now. Kind of.

While it's highly doubtful that EA always planned to reveal BF4 today - it's much more likely that yesterday's slip-up simply prompted a large bout of "F*ck it, whatever", leading to today's announcement - EA is now being rather up-front about the game's existence. Addressing the erroneous advertisement of the game's beta on Battlefield, the publisher has now stated:

"The team at DICE is hard at work on the next entry in the Battlefield series, and to ensure access to the exclusive Battlefield 4 beta, shooter fans can pre-order Medal of Honor Warfighter today." 

EA goes on - after a bit of brief arse-covering regarding having nothing more to say about BF4 and any further reporting being naught but lies and deceit - to repeatedly emphasise that Battlefield 3 still has plenty of life left in it, with three more expansion packs to come. In fact the rest of the chunky PR nugget seems to go out of its way to scream "Battlefield 3 isn't obsolete! We promise! Now keep enjoying your Battlefield 3 Premium subscriptions and stop asking us about BF4" 

Which would be kind of an understandable standpoint to take I suppose, were one to have just let slip word of the successor to the game it had just started scoring loads of extra money from, and were that game part of a series whose fanbase traditionally enjoys each entry for many, many years indeed.

But hey, Battlefield 4. Definitely a thing, and coming out who knows when (but probably 2013). Drop £50 at the Origin store and get yourself signed up to the beta today. If you like.

We Recommend By ZergNet


  • antiAntag0nist - July 17, 2012 8:22 a.m.

    I might be alone in this, but I would much rather see a Bad Company 3 than Battlefield 4. BC 2's ending was a bit of a cliffhanger and I would like to see how DICE will conclude the story. I know multiplayer is the central focus for Battlefield titles but I have enjoyed the campaigns for the BC 1 & 2. Also, it seems a bit early for news of BF 4. After all, there is still DLC coming, and MoH: Warfighter is coming out this year.
  • lewis-barclay - July 17, 2012 9:04 a.m.

    I haven't played bc1 or 2 but I agree when you say its too early. I have bf3 premium and dlc is still coming out for it for a whole nother damn year. Lolz these game companies need to chill out sometimes. Let us enjoy the damn product we spent so much on.
  • ThatGamerDude - July 17, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    I really wished this was Bad Company 3 too and not Battlefield 4 mainly because I loved Bad Company 2 more than I do Battlefield 3. Though I still believe Bad Company 3 is still on the horizon. Maybe once Danger Close finishes up with MoH Warfighter, DICCE could hand the development of Bad Company 3 over to them while they work on Battlefield 4.
  • aberkromby - July 17, 2012 11:21 a.m.

    Battlefield 3 is basically Bad Company 3. It's far too watered-down to be considered a true sequel to Battlefield 2.
  • larkan - July 17, 2012 9:03 a.m.

    Welcome to the future, where sequels are released every year, they leave out half the content so you can buy the rest as DLC, and you can pay a premium to unlock all items/weapons and "reserve" spots on your favorite servers. Oh, and lazy developers that have "Day 0" patches and a "we'll patch that problem later" attitude. AND in the case of any new Blizzard game "play it our way or suck it, the only thing you bought from us is permission to play OUR game". Hate to say it, but interwebs killed the gaming industry.
  • ParagonT - July 17, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    Last time didn't the "Beta bonus" only give you two days ahead of the open beta? On another note, there was this big guessing game on how much development time went into Battlefield 3 just last year, so this seems pretty horrendous. A year of development? Or is Dice's branch really just that big? Because even CoD games get at least around a year and a half to two years of development. Warfighter comes out on October 23rd this year I believe, but if you tag that with the 12-18 month of content statement, and then average the release of DLC in 2-3 month increments, that means that the beta could be around April to March. Since they pretty much have the players money that are Premium members, that means they really don't have to wait to announce the Beta that much later than the DLC, because in all honesty, people sorta already bought it. . . . Which is why (on a seperate note) I'm sort of against it to be honest. You may pay what? Ten dollars less, but its guaranteed money in case you get tired of the game, Console breaks, run out of Live, hate the DLC pack, and if the DLC pack (Armored Kill for example) will not be as great as if it were on the PC counter part. Once they have your money, they no longer need to impress you with awe inspiring DLC. Spend the extra ten dollars to keep consumer control for goodness sake, it helps the industry. - End rant. I understand that they probably released BF3 along beside the Frostbite 2 engine so there are bound to be things that they missed, didn't develop correctly, or pushed out, but it's a bit ridiculous to think that there is going to be that much more added and changed in one year. I know that EA always wanted Battlefield to become their cash cow, but this seems more like a deliberate attempt to destroy consumer faith and the IP. Same could be said for many games although (not pointing fingers).
  • Tronto13 - July 17, 2012 9:24 a.m.

    What happened to the we don't want to be like other games with a yearly or even bi-yearly releases...
  • gazzc - July 17, 2012 10:15 a.m.

    So what can it offer new at this point? In 2013 graphics would not have moved on massively, you are hardly likely to see the same difference in visuals as can be seen between BF2 and BF3. What else can they offer apart from new weapons and maps? They could take it to the future like BF2142 but by next year it will just become the same thing CoD did a year earlier.
  • aberkromby - July 17, 2012 11:17 a.m.

    So basically, the hype ball is going to get rolling, they're going to milk Battlefield 3 for all it's worth, then release BF4 prematurely for milking of more cash. Let's all go ahead and admit it: The Battlefield franchise is absolutely fucked.
  • xx_CaPTiiN_SpAiiN_zz - July 17, 2012 11:18 a.m.

    And we still get people complaining about call of duty even though it isnt as shameless and this pile of rubbish. while call of duty has kind of split up into two companies and games the people at ea completely fucked medal of honor to have the same gameplay as battlefield now its worse than both. the difference between black ops and mw2 is bigger than that of bad company 2 and bf3. and again before you knock activision LOOK AT EA FIRST.
  • KnowYourPokemon - July 17, 2012 11:38 a.m.

    Spoken like a true apologist. Call of Duty is shit. Activision is shit. Battlefield 3 is shit. EA is shit. Done and done.
  • ObliqueZombie - July 17, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    But... why's Battlefield 3 shit? Maybe on consoles, yeah.
  • xx_CaPTiiN_SpAiiN_zz - July 17, 2012 1:13 p.m.

    its just another clone and bfbc2 is better anyway.
  • ObliqueZombie - July 19, 2012 10:24 a.m.

    Just another clone of what? Itself?
  • xx_CaPTiiN_SpAiiN_zz - July 19, 2012 2:06 p.m.

    of the battlefield series its basically the same especially compared to bad company 2. like i said before people like to hate on cod but black ops was revolutionary where as battlefield 3 was exactly the same but with jets. elementary dear watson.
  • KnowYourPokemon - July 19, 2012 3:48 p.m.

    What exactly was "revolutionary" about Black ops? Seriously now, the extremely linear campaign? The multiplayer? lol The only thing black Ops did that was an improvement was having some actual choice in what you unlocked in the multiplayer.
  • xx_CaPTiiN_SpAiiN_zz - July 19, 2012 6:01 p.m.

    exactly as well as all the camos reticules guns and maps they were all revolutionary. even the selcet fire on weapons was really cool. i have high hopes for black ops 2 as well it should have all that and more.
  • ObliqueZombie - July 21, 2012 12:58 a.m.

    If that's "revolutionary," then adding numbers to bullet damage makes Borderlands the goddamned second coming of Jesus Christ.
  • xx_CaPTiiN_SpAiiN_zz - July 21, 2012 12:47 p.m.

    i dont think you understand me so ill leave it there. I tried to explain it simply
  • xx_CaPTiiN_SpAiiN_zz - July 17, 2012 1:15 p.m.

    treyarch a good company at least they keep doing new things to the series which is more than inifity ward have ever done lol. and the apologist thing are you an atheist or something? :P

Showing 1-20 of 32 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.