Battlefield 5 Dev Says Fortnite-style Battle Royale Mode Would Be "Natural Fit"

While there's no battle royale announcement at this time, DICE doesn't rule out its possibility in the future.

32 Comments
Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: Battlefield 5 Officially Revealed; News Roundup - GS News Update

Fortnite's battle royale mode is a gaming phenomenon that dominates headlines on our site on a daily basis. PUBG, the progenitor of the battle royale genre, is still going strong with regular updates. And even Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 is going to have a battle royale mode (though the developer is cagey about quite how large it'll be). With a mode that so clearly leads the current gaming zeitgeist, it comes as a surprise that the reveal stream for Battlefield V didn't even mention battle royale.

Battlefield V takes the series back to World War II, and the developer released a glut of gameplay details and trailers during a livestream, but any talk of a battle royale mode was markedly absent. Speaking with DICE senior producer Andreas Morrel during the game's reveal, he said that the developer has nothing to announce regarding the mode at this time; however, he did admit that it would make sense for Battlefield V.

"It's hard to miss the battle royale frenzy that's ongoing," Morrel said. "We're all very much fans of it, back at DICE, and we're definitely looking to see how Battlefield can explore the Battle Royale genre." For the world that Battlefield has created, Morrel said, "We've got the sandbox, we've got the vehicles, we've got the epic scale--it is a natural fit for us."

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Battlefield V is set for a worldwide release on October 19, and the game will feature prominently at EA's upcoming E3 event. So in the coming months, you can expect hands-on impressions, more gameplay details, and maybe final confirmation on how battle royale might figure into the franchise's plans.

Justin Haywald on Google+

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 32 comments about this story
32 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for g4m1ngon
G4m1ngOn

"mode that so clearly leads the current gaming zeitgeist".. zeitgeist, really? REALLY?... oh you, professional journalists.

Avatar image for spiddyman007
spiddyman007

Yeah. Never bought a battlefield game but played the 3rd beta back in the day. Still love my cod

Avatar image for TexasStuBaby
TexasStuBaby

Battle royal is a great concept and game mode... but I'm afraid this is going to be the "new hotness" that every game developer will want to jump on. Just leave it to PUBG and Fortnite. I just think the battle royal will get old fast when everyone starts doing it.

Avatar image for consolehaven
ConsoleHaven

@TexasStuBaby: Why would you 'just leave it' to anybody? That would be the death of innovation. PubG devs have to get their heads out of their asses and use the revenue to hire new people and grow their franchise quickly if they want to stay on top. I just say, bring it on.

Avatar image for ratchet200
ratchet200

Please god just... no. So sick of seeing battle royal wherever i go these days.

Avatar image for oo7superdave
oo7superdave

I don't get why battle royale wouldn't be part of this game. It seems like an easy fit.

Avatar image for se7enxx89xx
se7enXx89xX

Disgusting

Avatar image for N-REAL
N-REAL

Battle royale this, fortnite that.....what a disgrace.....eveything is useless multiplayer now..... Oh and I forgot....microtransactions......

Avatar image for consolehaven
ConsoleHaven

@N-REAL: Unfortunately for us Single Player experiences players, Single Player is going the way of the dodo. If, say, 25% of your player base actually plays your game for the sp campaign (the least profitable microtransaction wise) and close to 50% of your budget goes into making it, there is a definite problem 'bottom line' wise. Thankfully, EA has been including them so far in their MP franchises (take Titanfall, the sequel included one where the original didn't) so, there is that. On the other hand, the fewer studios making SP games leaves greater opportunities for studios that thrive making them. It'll all balance out in the end, but, don't expect SP to make a meteoric rise in AAA games any time soon.

Avatar image for N-REAL
N-REAL

@consolehaven: Couldn't find better words to describe it..... AT 42 years old I'm a 99% single player.....

Avatar image for Flyin3lvl
Flyin3lvl

ok i know this comment is out of place when im bringing up black ops 4 but have to say - someone i know at work has pre ordered it and says cant wait .......... so when i said how about the no campaign and giving less for the same money he replied - ""i dont care they are focus on multi player and make it better, each weapon will be unique , feel different and have there own characteristics""

he is the problem we have today - instead of thinking why not have it all ..... he thinks they making an effort in mulitplayer and the rest dosnt matter....... and as the trends continue its blind people like him that push it by saying to these companies- take out what you want charge us more or the same for the privilege ...... and yes he also buys loot boxes

Avatar image for consolehaven
ConsoleHaven

@Flyin3lvl: I disagree, he thinks, 'why have something I don't care about that gets in the way of all the stuff I do care about' Just look at trophies from SP games. A lot of games have trophies just for finishing the chapter / regular progression. I've often seen SP portion of games only have like 34% completion by the end of the campaign with steady drops less than 1/3 the way through.

Avatar image for Rushaoz
Rushaoz

@Flyin3lvl: On the other side of that coin, having it all is EXACTLY the problem we have today. Every gamer is so self entitled over their measly $60. There isn't a group of people that bitch nearly as much and are self entitled beyond measure than the gaming community. But ignorance is bliss right?

Avatar image for consolehaven
ConsoleHaven

@Rushaoz: Right. With inflation factored in, game prices have stayed relatively the same over the past 3 decades. Look at Megaman and Mario Bros. on Nintendo. Games made by a handful of people that had completion times bloated by extreme difficulties. Gamers expect 30-40 hour games, top of the line grapics, animation, art, music, gameplay to even think about maybe buying the game, AFTER it's been discounted to $30-40. Thankfully, resolution wise, Devs won't have to think beyond 4k (the human eye can barely tell the difference given the size of TVs in the living room) and will start focusing on graphical effects and gameplay again in the next decade.

Avatar image for Rushaoz
Rushaoz

@consolehaven: Wow. Someone else with a brain lol I've been spewing the inflation thing for years now everytime someone bitches about paying $60 for a game. If inflation was applied to video games like it has with everything else we'd be paying $110-$120 a game right now. Game development has only gotten more expensive hence all the DLC and microtransactions. Not to mention the sheer drop off in the amount of games available. The amount of games released this gen pales in comparison to what the PS1 put out in just five years. That console had close to TWO THOUSAND games!! Best console of all time IMO.

Avatar image for consolehaven
ConsoleHaven

@Rushaoz: I'm actually happy there aren't so many games launching for the PS4. That would be catastrophic to my financial well being... The PS2 only had 17 games in its first year which is crazy, though. I remembered it as the worst year for a console ever.

Avatar image for Flyin3lvl
Flyin3lvl

@Rushaoz: dude i understand times are changing but why pay the same for less. these battle royal are so easy to produce over the normal campaign. plus the company is saving money from not paying people- story writers/ story boards / concept art ....and then producing the campaign ........ so they save money and gain more for the same price with less effort involved.

why pay 60 for a game that you can play for free else where .... and also in pugs case cheaper ...........

self entitled no but recognise they are taking the huge mick out of us with this b.s .... hay i guess you like the ignorance as well :D

Avatar image for Rushaoz
Rushaoz

@Flyin3lvl: I get what you're saying and I was making that same argument on FB the other day on our gaming page. I haven't cared for a CoD campaign since BO1 and BO2. That being said if you are going to cut out the campaign you BETTER make one hell of a multiplayer to make up for it. EA and DICE have been doing the same thing for years and I never had a problem with it because the MP was just that good.

That being said, BO4's MP doesn't look good at all. More of the same. It's BO3 without the thrusters and wall running. They even lessened the player count to 5v5. Only thing that has me intrigued is what the do with the battle royal mode because I've been saying for quite a while now that it'd be cool to see what a triple A dev with a wealthy publisher behind them can do with a Steam greenlight born fad like Day Z or PUBG.


I'm reserving judgement but I'm not keeping my hopes up.

Avatar image for Flyin3lvl
Flyin3lvl

@Rushaoz: maybe in reflection i do come across self entitled annoying or frustrating part is i recall a time on the 360 playing modern warfare 2 in co op and was just well dare i say epic.... tense for the most part sniping in the woods while keeping track of the dogs :D (and not just online but actully side side as well), (over the mic did bring more immersion :D) .... so yeah those days are dying for just a run and gun be first screw you all im the best ha ha type games .........

A dev with a wealthy publisher.......... what can they do? .... can they bring more or just cash in

ok maybe the point could just turn to ........ take out the campaign but just charge a little less this time around maybe 5 or 10 less .... or is that still coming across entitled? ..... they are wealthy :d , sometimes just compromise

Avatar image for consolehaven
ConsoleHaven

@Flyin3lvl: Depends when you started gaming. Many games from the past decade had budgets in line with projected growth in the games industry. The market has shown that the most systems sold will be around 80 million which means the industry has had to correct itself in terms of development and pare down games according to how people play them to stay profitable. A $60 COD game with no SP but deeper and better MP may cost less to make, and seem like a loss to you, but compared to the value gotten from games made 15-30 years ago, it's an effing bargain at full price and a steal once it's discounted. That said, if COD players jump ship to BF over a sp campaign, though, that will definitely change the outlook of future CODs for sure...

Avatar image for Flyin3lvl
Flyin3lvl

@consolehaven: -way back when with a tape and loading picture screen with lines :D

put less in , cut the price a bit to reflect ?

how much as gamers to we have to lose now ..... couch co op in most games..... now campaigns... progression systems that isnt a grind because you know loot boxes

Avatar image for consolehaven
ConsoleHaven

@Flyin3lvl: that was indeed a long time ago. To come back to what we are losing, though, the issue is the size of a game’s scope reflected the growth of the industry and was a gamble to secure more players. Unfortunately, there is no indication that a current console generation will ever be bigger than 100 000 000 unique purchasers spread out over several consoles. So, it’s not that we’re “losing” anything in my opinion, it’s more that what we’re getting now is more in line with install base and industry trends and that games were giving more value than What they should have for one and that to give the same value, at the quality gamers want, is untenable. That’s my observation.

Avatar image for pappafost
PappaFost

@og_gamerzzz: WOW...well there's a lot to unpack here!

Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

EA and Activision sound so pathetically jealous.

Avatar image for RevengeNegative
RevengeNegative

Cannot say that I'm surprised, yet still disappointed. Disappointed by what appears to be a total lack of historical accuracy. Lack of swastikas, a soldier wearing freaking Kratos warpaint, the hot heroine (whom of course is the mostest badass) rushing into battle with a prosthetic arm (because she is badass) and last of all: the main character one-handing a 30 lb firearm (Are we having a Blazkowicz cameo?). Definitely suspicious about this installment. Way to go, Dice.

Avatar image for bongaconga
BongaConga

There were BF games after BF Vietnam???

Avatar image for gamingdevil800
gamingdevil800

That trailer was awful... It was like a bad Michael Bay action movie rather than WWII... Kratos jumping off a tank, dude casually landing his broken plane, a girl with a synthetic arm... a guy with a katana on his back? Is this a JRPG?

Avatar image for gleencross
GleenCross

So, we already had cyberpunk WW1, now it's time for cyberpunk WW2? wtf

Online
Avatar image for tom_cat_01
tom_cat_01

Of course they would say that. They're not going to say "nah mate, we crammed it in to follow the trend and hope it takes off too".

Avatar image for edussz
edussz

It actually would... Battlefield has always had a huge open map for multiplayer.