Battlefield 6 vs COD: Launch Sales, Multiplayer Preview, and Gold Skin Debate

So if you're looking for your gold skin, go back to cog.

We don't need your participation trophy awards.

I kind of wish they spent more time on single player.

They probably should have just delayed it and focused on the single player part and fleshed it out more.

But it's not good.

It's okay.

Which could be true because EA does need a more diverse portfolio.

It cannot just rely on Battlefield, Sims and sports games, even though sports games do make a quite significant revenue stream for them.

That's good.

And welcome to a new episode of Digital Coffee Gaming Brew, and I'm your host Brett Dyster and and are you ever wondering how good Battlefield 6 actually is?

I'm going to be talking about the review of the single player campaign, plus a little bit of preview of how I feel about the multiplayer and just really COD players need to stop talking about what needs to be in Battlefield because it's always about bringing cod into Battlefield.

So we're going to get a little bit about that.

We also got some unionizing, some layoffs, some people switching jobs, Dead Space 4 trying to be made.

Don't know how successful that is actually going to be.

And we got some other interesting games, especially Exodus founders and then US Senators.

Finally caring about foreign influence in the video game space took a little while, but eventually it came and how well Battlefield 6 sold.

So let's get on with the episode.

So first up is 2K Games has hired Ben Berkman, a producer from Apex Legends at respawn, to lead 31st Union, the studio developing Project Ethos.

Brickman is replacing Michael Condrey, the former studio head who has reportedly dismissed due to Project Ethos poor reception.

Project Ethos was announced in October 2024 was met with a lukewarm response to during the reveal and community playtest, 2K President David Ishmael communicated the leadership change to employees, highlighting the need for a more distinct identity for Project Ethos based on playtesting feedback.

The memo noted that the team is reimagining Project Ethos with renewed vision and expressed confidence in the gaming's potential.

Brickman has extensive experience in the PvP shooter genre, having worked on franchises like Call of Duty and Apex Legends.

The game is described as a free to play third person roguelike hero shooter.

There is currently no announced release date or platforms for Project Ethos, so it looks like it was going off the rails.

It just wasn't really resonating with anybody and 2K is like all right, we got to make a leadership change.

So they went with Somebody that has more refined experience in the shooter genre, specifically some in the hero shooter.

Because Apex Legends does have a hero shooter, battle royale based type of a game.

I think it's doing well right now given the fact it's a much older game.

I played it in the beginning and I haven't really played it too much, but I don't really like battle royales.

But the hero shooter could be interesting.

So we'll see what actually happens with this.

This could be a good step in the right direction or.

Or they just need to scrap the project and start over.

To be honest with you, it looks like that's where it's going to go, but not really quite sure beyond what that is since it is, well, not even out yet and there is no release date or anything like that.

There's just been community play tests.

The community is like, nah, this is not it.

This is not good.

All right.

Glenn Schofield, the creator of the original Dead Space, expressed a desire to create Dead Space 4.

Schofield approached EA with his ideas for Dead Space 4, but EA declined his proposal.

He stated that he could save EA30 to $40 million on the project by retrieving models from EA Motive, the team behind the Dead Space remake.

Schofield worked as executive producer at EA Redwood Studios in 2008, contributing to the creation of Dead Space.

He founded Striking Distant Studios which created the Callisto project, but then he left the studio in late 2023.

He is now the director of Pinstripe Games, has not announced any new games in development.

But since the acquisition of ea for the 55 billion plus with the 20 billion EA debt, Schofield believes could be the new opportunity for the Dead Space franchise.

He mentioned that he's optimistic about the future of Dead Space due to the change in EA's ownership, which could be true because EA does need a more diverse portfolio.

It cannot just rely on Battlefield Sims and sports games.

Even though sports games do make a quite significant revenue stream for them, they do need to branch out, look at their old franchise and see what they could do with it, like Command Conquer, not just stop with the remake and just go, all right, we're done one offs.

And they really need to look at that and see what they could do with it.

Maybe look at what Microsoft is doing with Age of the Empire and do kind of content updates for to be paid for, like little expansions for that or something like that.

Maybe look at even the older franchises like the Syndicate and maybe look at people from Fraxis that you that Made XCOM look at home, hiring those to create the new syndicate type of thing in a third person turn based type of mode.

They have a lot of franchises that they could use and they haven't really used most of them, which is weird.

They could look at Theme Hospital, but Two Points is kind of doing a great job of that.

So I don't know if that will go over very well.

But they really need to look at their older franchises and see which ones they could possibly revive to see it.

I mean, look at Crusader.

I think that's an EA one, that's an old school 90s one.

Look at that one as well.

Maybe make it roguelike, third person type of game.

But there are opportunities that EA has in their portfolio.

They just aren't really using them to their best advantage.

And it's a shame because they do have a lot of games.

Dungeon Keepers are one one of them.

It was a really popular game.

Still has not done anything with it since Dungeon Keeper 2 and I think the early 2000s.

So they do have a lot.

It's just they need to start looking at more of these older franchises and see what they can actually do instead of just saying no, no, no.

They need to say yes to something.

I love that Battlefield 6 is doing well, but you can't always rely on it doing well.

You also have the problem with Bioware and well, it's just a little too woke for gamers and they could possibly be sold off, which I wouldn't be surprised if it's sold off because it's just not doing well.

2K Games has confirmed layoffs at Cloud Chamber Games, the studio developing the next BioShock game.

The layoffs and leadership changes were communicated to employees via email from the president of 2K Games.

The follow up to BioShock Infinite and the formation of Cloud Chamber was announced in 2019 and we still have not heard anything whatsoever from this.

It has been quite a while.

2019 is not that close anymore.

It's before the pandemic, which is really interesting now.

The other thing it says is that Rod Ferguson, previously overseeing the Diablo series at Blizzard Entertainment, will take over as head of the Bioshock franchise.

Ferguson has a history of working on Bioshock Infinite and Gears of War.

The President of 2K Games stated that the development team is being reduced to focus on reworking core aspects of the game and extending its development time.

Ferguson will also oversee franchise extensions, including a film partnership with Netflix because that is the bread and butter now.

So we'll see.

But yeah, layoffs are bound.

They're always abound seems to be in the gaming industry.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's layoffs at EA once the acquisition is complete, because that's usually what's going to happen.

They gotta trim the fat, especially with a $20 billion junk debt.

So we'll all right, so over 400 staff from Activision Blizzard platform and technology department voted to unionize under the Communication Workers of America, or cwa.

The vote included designers, engineers, QA testers, localization teams and workers on Battle.net.

microsoft has reportedly recognized the union organizing committee members such as Danielle Waltz, Alex Cohn and Timothy Biley cited low pay and redundancies as reasons for the unionization effort.

Earlier in the year, developers in BioWare's story and franchise development division also voted to unionize.

Nearly 3,000 workers at Microsoft owned studios have organized with the CWA, including those at Raven Software.

An open letter from 93 employees and ex employees of Build a Rocket Boy accused the studio leadership of mistreatment of staff and and legal action has been initiated regarding mishandled redundancies.

Now I know a lot of you are probably like oh, unions are good and to a certain extent they were.

However, the problem with unions is that people get lazy and they try to always.

They always really help the lazy people for the most part it doesn't really help the high performers cause the high performers always want more pay.

But you always have to unionize to make sure everybody gets their fair shot.

So I don't know how well this is going to do.

This probably won't help Blizzard really at all because unfortunately Blizzard doesn't really make a lot of games.

They have World of Warcraft, Overwatch and the card game, I forget the name of it.

And those are three games that they actually do regularly update.

Everything else.

Not really.

I mean they have Starcraft really haven't done much since the last Starcraft 2.

They have Warcraft.

Besides the remasters haven't done a lot with that and they've had a few other games that they've kind of done in their own in Starcraft and Warcraft World that they haven't really.

They've usually shuttered.

Haven't done much.

They also have the Diablo franchise as well.

I forgot about that one.

So they have a small number of games that they did really really well but they just haven't done anything with so far.

They have no new real games in the pipeline.

They did have a survival type game that was shuttered.

I mean there's not really much Going on beyond just maintaining their current franchises.

So with that said, I really don't know beyond Microsoft just being terrible and not really understanding how to really manage gaming studios or even their gaming division, how well this is going to go off.

Because if they need to trim the fat, they're going to trim the fat no matter which way you look at it.

So here's my issue.

It's great that has happened, but unfortunately a lot of unions don't really see innovation and they are very against innovation.

I'm not saying AI is a good thing.

In total are some good uses in AI.

And I said that the good use cases would be AI as Q& A, an early Q and A tester before you get the humans evolved.

So you do an early Q and A tester to see the map designs and see if it actually works out from an AI perspective.

Try to build it as a gamer if you can, and then make it run simulations.

That's a great way of doing it.

Also looking at bugs as well, figuring out if you could AI could help you figure out bugs.

And then in the NPCs as well.

Making their, I guess, animations or actions more lifelike or human would be another great usage.

Anything else?

I don't really recommend.

I really recommend for it, making the creative things because it's usually just slop.

But it should be interesting to see what actually happens.

There's probably gonna be more and more unions in the gaming industries.

Most companies will be not in favor of this, but they will probably be coming.

And gaming will probably get a lot more expensive because of that.

It's just how it happens every time.

I get that people always want more money, especially in California where it's ridiculously expensive.

But the more you ask for more money, the more the cost of things rise.

The more people go, I cannot live here, or this is too expensive.

I'm going to reduce what I'm doing, especially with gaming, as gaming isn't luxury and it's not an important thing.

There is a balancing act.

I'm not saying that unions are inherently or in total bad, but they're not inherently and in total good.

I'm more in the middle saying that they're both pros and cons to it.

But usually if you look back at the other unions, they haven't been in favor of innovation because it does reduce jobs, which if it reduces jobs, reduces their bargaining power.

It's all about that.

But we'll see what happens in the long run.

All right, Archetype Entertainment has released a new Exodus founders Q and A video that includes new details about the game and several new screenshots.

Exodus is now available for wish listing on major platforms Steam, epic Games Store, PlayStation and Xbox.

Thank God it's not just Epic Games Store, but it's also Steam.

That's where you get most of the money from anyways.

Chad Robertson, studio co founder and general manager, and Chris K. King, game Director, participated in Q and A session.

The developers cited Mass Effect as a primary influence for its deep narrative branching choices and continu continuality across sequels.

They mentioned Gorilla's Horizon series for its elemental combat interactions.

So it should could be good.

I mean if it goes back to the old school, bioware days, could be really good.

Mass Effect, the original trilogy, besides the ending of Mass Effect 3, still one of the best trilogies they've actually made.

Dragon Age not so much Dragon Age origin good.

Dragon Age 2 Interesting story, design was not great.

Dragon Inquisition interesting story, great ending from the DLC perspective.

Kind of grindy in a way.

It had this weird like MMO RPG type of feel to it and a lot of it wasn't fleshed out, but all in all it was a pretty solid game.

Dragons of Elgard not so good, terrible writing, just a I guess a Frankenstein game design art direction because of the way they went one direction had to change to another direction.

It just didn't work and the sales show it didn't work as it has ended the franchise.

As I said repeatedly on this podcast, they should just go back to Dragon Age origin, just remake it in Unreal Engine 5 and then then do a new to do a new three and do a new four, but keep the art direction like the original Dragon Age.

Keep basically everything that you've done in the original origin.

Keep the same just make different stories like you can update it and everything and you can make sure that has the latest and greatest but they got too far away from Dragon Age origin, which I didn't really understand why they got away from that.

It just never really made much sense.

But I don't think ea really understood RPGs in Dragon Age because it was a love letter to Boulders Gate and Boulders Gate 2, which BioWare originally wanted to do and they just never really understood it.

So that is a major problem with EA is that they just don't understand that industry very well or that genre very well.

But I'm hoping the exist is going to be really really good since I have no idea when Mass Effect 55 is ever going to come out or if they're going to be by war is going to be sold off by EA to somebody else.

Maybe back to venture capitalist.

Well, there we go.

All right.

Moving on to the ea buyout.

So U.S. senators Richard Boomenthal and Elizabeth Warren expressed concern about Saudi Arabia's involvement in the $55 billion leverage buyout of Electronics Arts EA.

The acquisition would transition EA from a public to private ownership and involve a consortium including Saudi Arabia's public investment fund, Silver Lake, and Jared Kushner's affinity partners.

The senators sent letters to the U.S. treasury Secretary, Scott Bestet, and EA CEO Andrew Wilson regarding their concerns.

The senators highlighted potential national security risk, including surveillance of Americans and censorship plans linked to the Saudi government.

They requested information from EA on how it plans to operate free from influence by any authoritarian government.

Analysts noted that Saudi Arabia's investment in the gaming industry is aimed at gaining cultural legitimacy and diversifying its economy.

The proposed Bio includes a $1 billion fee, and the acquisition is not approved by US regulatory bodies.

So let me get this straight, Senator Warren and Blumenthal, you are worried about Saudi Arabia's influence, but you're okay with China's influence?

Like, seriously, guys, you cannot be this ignorant about what China has done through Tencent is bought several different gaming companies and has a almost majority stake in Eat in Epic Games.

And you are concerned about Saudi Arabia's authoritarian government, but you're okay with China?

Someone's bought out by China.

Like, I'm not in favor of any of this.

I think there shouldn't be any in foreign influence.

But seriously, can you please stop going, oh, now we really care about this.

Oh, now it matters because Saudi Arabia is buying it.

Oh, because it's Jared Kushner's venture capitalist company that's doing it as well.

This is all political.

If you didn't care when 10 cent was buying riot Games or any of the other studios, then why do you care now?

You should have cared when 10 Cent was doing it.

You should have cared when they were getting investments in the gaming industry.

But.

But you didn't.

And now you care because it's your political enemies that you don't like that are buying this publisher.

So what is it?

Do you really care, or you just pick and choose what you care about?

Because it doesn't make any sense to me because China's been doing it for years.

I get it.

I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia.

I'm not a fan of China, but at least I can see kind of the weirdness of this.

It's like, oh, now we care.

Now we care about foreign influence.

Not when, you know, TikTok was on the rise and it got really popular and China has its algorithms to make it look like it makes Americans dumber.

No, didn't really care about that.

Nope.

Nothing.

Didn't even care when Tencent was buying all these other companies.

No, it didn't care about that.

So what is it?

Do you care or do you not care?

You can't just pick and choose.

It's called hypocrisy for a reason.

You can't just pick and choose.

You either got to care about all foreign influence or you really shouldn't care about any of foreign influence.

Either one is preferable.

But stop picking and choosing for the love of God, because China, to me, is far worse than Saudi Arabia right now.

Not saying that Islam is not going to try to influence us at all.

I'm just saying that there is one that is actively trying to destroy us and one that's, well, eventually going to try to destroy us.

I'd rather look at the enemy that is way more insidious and powerful now than the one that's going to be in the future.

Eventually.

Will we have to deal with it?

Of course we will.

Right now we should focus on China a little bit more and their influence.

But you don't care, so we shouldn't really care about your fake outrage.

All right.

Moving on to the voice of Master Chief Steve Downings.

He teased that big news may be coming.

The tease follows Microsoft's confirmation of a big Halo reveal scheduled for later in October 2025.

Down shared a photo of himself at Collect a Coin in Chicago wearing a I Love Cortana T shirt.

He and Jen Taylor, the voice of Cortana, are excited to attend the Halo World Championship at the end of the month.

Microsoft reaffirmed plans in September to reveal what we've been working on during Halo World Champions event.

So to me, it looks like we're probably gonna get a new Halo game.

For the most part, Halo Infinite didn't do as well as they wanted it to do, and it looked like it was going to be interesting, but it just kind of fell flat.

I mean, yeah, the multiplayer was free to play, but no one really cared to play.

It didn't feel like Halo.

That's just plain and simple.

So we'll see what they do with this.

I know they're supposedly going to the Unreal Engine to make the newest Halo game, and that's what probably we're going to see.

They're going to get rid of the Slipspace engine that they use.

I think that's what it's called.

So this could be, that could be a new game for Halo.

They.

They really do need a new game for it.

Not gonna lie, kind of died.

It died pretty quick too.

It was just, hey, it's out a month later.

No one plays.

Just.

It was kind of bared bounds and I kind of wish it was a little bit better, but I'm glad that they're actually doing something.

Maybe they can finally get a TV series that's actually good instead of the Paramount plus one.

That was abysmal.

But one can hope.

One can hope.

I mean, it's funny because the old, I guess movies, miniseries, the other ones they did were a lot better than the ones that Paramount did because Paramount's like, let's just take off Master Chief's helmet all the time because we can convey acting.

And I'm like, have you not seen the games?

He never takes off his helmet and he does convey acting pretty well through that.

But we'll see.

I'm excited to see what they're going to be doing with Halo series and what is going to happen if the Covenant is going to come back again and you're gonna have to fight the Covenant again because there is no other enemies that really anybody cares about.

The old school Bungee games, they were good.

Not like Destiny, which is not good.

All right, moving on to how well did Battlefield 6 sell?

Oh boy, it did.

It sold really, really well.

This is when you know that it sold well because the publisher developer will actually give you the sales numbers, not the how many people played numbers.

But Battlefield 6 achieved the most successful launch in franchise history with over 7 million copies sold in the first three days.

That's a lot of copies.

The sales figures rivals that of Call of Duty releases, as reported by the analytics newsletter Alina Insight.

EA took a couple of months to reach a similar sales figure with Battlefield 5 in 2018, and Battlefield 2042's sales launch did not meet expectations in 2021.

Executive Executive Vice President Vince Zampella expressed gratitude to the community for the successful launch.

The game has a Metacritic of score of 89, indicating generally favorable reviews.

Over 720 million matches were played during the release weekend and over 15 million hours of streaming were wide watched as of as a week after release.

Battlefield 6 is topping the bestselling gaming charts on Steam and has over 345,000 concurrent players, which is quite good compared to 2042 when it first launched was not good.

The first Season of additional.

Com content for Battlefield 6 is set to release on October 28th, which includes a new map and a new 4v4 match type.

So it did really well.

It actually sold.

The majority of its sales was from Steam and then it was PlayStation and then it was Xbox.

We don't have any numbers on the EA desktop because they don't offer that, but it sold really, really well.

And if Steam is any indication, the first weekend was over 700,000 people played the game.

So it's a good and successful game.

Good for them.

Now, we are going to get the Battle Royale later this month, probably around season one.

I'm pretty sure it's going to be coincided with season one.

That's what I'm pretty much banking on.

It could be later, but we don't.

We don't really know beyond it is coming.

So we will have that.

It more likely will be free to play.

So it should be interesting to see how well it does because they did did try it once in Battlefield 5 called Firestorm, and that didn't do very well because it wasn't free to play.

You had to buy the game to play the Battle Royale.

So we'll see all the streamers go over to the Battle Royale because they don't really care about the core of Battlefield, which is Conquest, Rush, Breakthrough and all those other ones as well.

Well, those are the main three, but it did sell really well.

There are some minor things I have issues with with the game, but beyond that, it is a good game.

It does feel.

Feel like Battlefield and I'm not getting into this.

Oh, it's not as deep as Battlefield 4.

So for you people that love Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4 so much, and you have your rose tinning glasses on.

Battlefield 4 took over a year to fix.

It was busted.

It did not run well.

I constantly got kicked out.

In the beginning it was awful.

Like, I understand it's a good game now, but remember, every time, even go back to Battlefield friends and they made fun of how terrible the launch was.

It was bad.

It was not good.

Can we stop?

Like, stop it.

I get it, it's good now, but it wasn't good for a year.

It was on top.

One of the worst releases I've seen in Battlefield.

Battlefield 6 is probably the best release I've ever seen in a Battlefield series.

That and maybe Battlefield 1.

Battlefield 5 had its issues.

Battlefield 2042 certainly had its issues.

Man, that game took forever to shut down, took forever to launch.

I mean, it would.

And sometimes it wouldn't really Connect.

So you had to get out and relaunch it.

Like it's still a bad game.

But Battlefield 4 you got kicked constantly.

The refresh ticks on the servers weren't great.

Like some of the evolutions just broke the game.

Like there were just constant issues that took them over a year.

I would rather have things missing or not there yet, but have it work really, really well.

And the great thing is they optimized it without dlss.

They added it in, but they did it before that.

Which is a good sign because all those frame generation text should just help make it better, not be the optimization.

So can we please stop with the battlefield 34 is better because I mean they're great games for the time that they were great games, but they all had their issues at launch.

I think Battlefield 3 was.

Was a better launch than Battlefield 4.

Battlefield 3 I had to have Punk Buster.

That's annoying.

It's still annoying.

If I want to re reinstall it, I have to download Punkbuster again.

That's annoying.

They should really just get rid of that.

But for the love of God, stop saying that Battlefield 4 is better because it's now better.

Like the game's old.

It's still a great game.

Don't get me wrong.

What they finally did.

It's an amazing game.

But it wasn't amazing when it launched.

And we have to recognize that.

So please stop, please.

Because if we were going to go back and look at battlefield 4 launch then and look at battlefield 6 launch now, battlefield 6 would have sold a heck of a lot more if it was just Battlefield 4, bar none.

It's just what it is.

And thank God it doesn't have those stupid suitcase things.

I hated that so much.

The randomized.

Oh, I finally got a scope.

Oh, thank God.

Anyways, what you want to know is Battlefield 6 single player review.

Yes, I played it.

It runs around five hours long.

So it's not going to take you too long to actually beat it.

It's okay.

The story is okay.

Like the.

The gunplay, the sound design.

Everything's good, story's okay.

Really don't understand why the packs are mata attacked.

Really don't really understand the motive beyond you left me from another character to other.

Basically he got left behind and he somehow survived.

I mean it's.

It runs like a mediocre military shooter, single player game.

It doesn't break any ground.

Is just rah rah, we're awesome, we're the good guys and we win type of thing.

The characters aren't really fleshed out Miller and all of them, even Hemlock, they're all very much a mystery and their motivations are all very much a mystery.

Even when you play Miller, you.

I still don't understand anything.

It looks like they cut a lot of content out just to get it to be at this state, which is bad because they need to flesh out the characters a lot more.

There are too many plot holes.

I don't know how the Pax Armana got all their stuff through everywhere.

I mean, they do this like, like, oh, they got it around our technology type of a thing and it's, it's, it's lazy writing, to be honest with you.

Now, I do like the, the variety of map designs and some open world type of missions where you can go and attack objectives the way you want to.

There are a few of those.

They're not very many of them.

It is akin to Modern Warfare 3, but I think they did a little bit better job of it in this one.

So is it good?

No.

Is it mediocre?

Yeah, it's mediocre.

Should you play it?

You could play just to see what you.

What you could do with it.

But beyond that, I really don't expect much from it.

There's a cliffhanger at the end.

I'm not really going to tell you what the cliffhanger is, but you kind of know that the cliffhanger isn't what is actually happening.

So take that with a grain of salt.

I would probably give it five and a half out of ten.

It's not good.

It's okay.

And the good part is you can kind of test a lot of the vehicles, you can test a lot of the weapons just to figure out what you like and dislike.

So, I mean, that part is fine.

You can kind of test some of the maps out in that way, but beyond that, there's really not much for it.

You go trophy hunting if you want to, for all the dog tags if you want to, but it's not really necessary.

It's just kind of extra fillers.

But here we're at.

I kind of wish they spent more time on single player.

They probably should have just delayed it and focused on the single player part and fleshed it out more.

But hopefully the new, if they ever do make new additions to it, it fleshes out more of the characters.

You kind of understand because like I said, it, it's a salvageable story, but it's not good.

Which moves on to my, I guess, preview of multiplayer.

I've played about 10 hours ish of it.

It's pretty good.

Not gonna lie.

It's probably one of the.

And I've said before, it's one of the best launches for Battlefield.

Very few bugs.

Oh, I forgot to mention, in the single player, I did run into one bug, and it was a freaky bug.

So that was really the only thing I actually ran into.

Some of the AI stuff was weird me.

It kind of was working a little wonky, but beyond that, it was good.

All right, moving on to the preview of the Battlefield.

Well, multiplayer good.

I'm a Conquest player, so Conquest was pretty good.

I think the best map is Firestorm, which is funny because it's the old map, but they need to have bigger maps.

A lot of the big maps aren't that big.

They kind of feel very constrained.

There's really not a lot of.

There's not a lot of maneuvering in it, which annoys me a little bit more.

I wish there was more maneuvering and easier ways of flanking.

The maps still feel constrained.

I don't understand why they feel so constrained on that.

And I wish they would fix that issue.

That is my only issue with the maps is that they feel just claustrophobic for a Conquest mode, which is you can.

Well, it used to be flags.

Now it's just lines on a map.

But you can capture lines on the map any way you want to.

I wish they bring the flags back.

It kind of helps, but gunplay is great.

My main issue right now is the mines.

The mines have become absolutely just spammy to a certain extent.

It is very annoying to deal with them.

Helicopters are really powerful, but they're really easy to shoot down, which I think that's good.

But, man, if you are a gunner and you use the lock on for tanks and stuff, you can destroy them pretty quick.

Pretty quick.

Not gonna lie.

I haven't really tried the jets yet.

I tried most of the classes.

I think this recon or the sniper one I've tried the least, that's a little harder.

But I'm also not one to stand around too much.

But I do like that they have brought some things back, like the dark guns back.

But it's on recon.

They've moved the spawn beacon to assault, which I kind of agree more about because usually when I was on recon, they would put it like miles away from it.

So there you have it.

I think it's going to be around an eight or nine for me, but I. I really want to play about 30 hours to kind of like get a feel for it and I've started to unlock some things on the tanks and the Bradleys and the helicopter.

My one main complaint is that there's really no customization on the jets.

What you have is what you get, and there's some on the helicopters.

There's nothing on the jeeps, which I kind of wish they would have a little bit more customization on the guns.

And I haven't really tried the different, I guess, specs on the different classes because there's a few different ones for them.

But once I unlock, I'll figure that part out.

But all in all, looking to be pretty good.

I just wish they would have the map design needs to have more open maps.

Even the big map do.

Big new maps don't feel that big, which is weird because they're like, it's really big.

And I'm like, it's medium size.

Firestorm's the best still, which is funny because they didn't make it.

It's just a refresh from Battlefield 3, but that's where we're at now.

My response to the COD players, because, man, you guys have terrible takes.

So first of all, who cares about skins?

If you really, really, really, really, really care about skins, especially your stupid gold skins, then it's a participation trophy award.

And really, you really need a participation trophy to be like, look how many times I've used this gun.

Who cares?

Play the game.

But I need my gold gun.

Really?

Really?

You really need a gold gun?

Ridiculous.

It's crazy because there is like a.

A skin for it for, like, being really good at a gun or just using it a lot.

And they're like, this is not good.

It needs to be gold.

I'm like, no, it really does not need to be gold.

Stop it.

Stop it right now.

So if you're looking for your gold skin, go back to cod.

We don't need your participation trophy awards.

Now, another streamer said that we need kill streaks in Call of Duty.

I mean, I'm sorry, Battlefield, but we need kill streaks from Call of Duty and Battlefield.

Well, here's the thing.

The player is the kill streak.

You are the one that flies the jet.

You are the one that pilots the helicopter.

You are the one that pilots the tank or drives the tank or the Bradley.

You also have UAVs, as in snipers or recon.

So you are the kill streak.

Stop whining about having kill streaks.

That's not what Battlefield is.

If you want kill streaks, go back to Call of Duty.

And you're saying, but I don't like Call of Duty.

Well, we don't like what you want, so stop.

You don't need kill streaks.

Stop trying to make battlefield Call of Duty.

I know it's not a mil sim.

I'm not saying it's a mil sim, but it's always been a cross between Call of Duty and Milsims.

It's been in that middle the whole time.

So can we stop with this?

And don't tell me that it's not that bad if we have gold guns.

Yeah, look what happened when Call of Duty did gold guns.

Then it did really crazy whacked out crap on the guns for whatever reason.

Like Thomas the Tank driving around on the gun.

I saw one of them.

And then they got even crazier with the skins where we had Beavis and Butthead.

It's a slippery slope.

Please, for the love of God, if you want those crazy, insane animations on your guns and your skins, go back to Call of Duty.

We don't want it.

Go play Call of Duty.

Call of Duty is coming out next month.

You're more than willing to go back.

Will I play it?

Yes.

Will I try it out?

Yes.

Will I continue to play it?

No.

Because that's why I'm doing the game.

Pass.

Because I can do October and November and then I'm out.

Don't want to play it anymore.

It's probably not going to be that good.

I really wasn't that impressed in the beta and pretty sure a lot of people are with me on that one.

It's not that good.

So there are problems with Battlefield 6 and none of them are about kill streaks and skins.

A the mind spam that really needs to be brought down.

B Just people learning how to play the game.

If you're a support, try to revive.

If you can, use your smokes, smokes are great for doing that here.

You also can drag people away and revive them that way.

Or you have the defibs.

If you are a assault, well, there you go.

I do appreciate, even though I was a little frustrated with the shotguns, I do appreciate that it's a little bit more finesse to use them because I feel like it's not as cheap as it was in the beta.

I'm happy about that.

Maps need to be bigger.

Stop being so claustrophobic.

I just don't like the claustrophobic maps.

Like I said, the best map is Firestorm, which is not a Battlefield 6 map.

It's a Battlefield 3 map.

So the old dice knew how to make maps, especially for conquest.

These don't know how to make them as well.

I do appreciate that there's way more cover than there was in 2042.

Because 2042, those big maps, it was like cover cover and then a huge.

Just nothing to cover you from.

So snipers were just like pew, pew, pew.

And so there you have it.

I do like that Recon is the only one that can really spot for the team.

I think that's great.

I do think that UAV should not have this battery counter thing.

I think it should just be up until you destroy it type of a thing.

That's me.

I do like that the dart gun is on the recon.

I do like that the spotter binoculars are on the recon.

I do like that the squad beacon is on assault.

I think that's a better use for it.

And I do like that Recon at least gets C4.

Eventually I'll unlock that.

But do I see myself playing this game for months and years?

Yes, it is good.

And this is coming from a guy that's played 1942, Battlefield 2, Battlefield Bad Company, Battlefield Modern Combat 2, which I played for a little bit when man, this game's not great.

What else was there?

Battlefield Bad Company 2, battlefield 1943 for a little bit.

Battlefield 2142, battlefield Vietnam.

I'm not going in order because I just started to remember some of them.

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield 5, Battlefield 2042 and then Battlefield this one six and Battlefield hardline.

Forgot that one as well.

I played them all so I know when it's good on Battlefield 1.

Forgot that one.

Don't know why I forgot that one because that's an amazing one still.

So I've played all of them.

I know which ones are interesting good.

My top three would probably be better.

Battlefield 4, Battlefield 1 and Battlefield 6.

Actually, no, I think Battlefield back company two, Battlefield 4 and probably Battlefield 6.

Battlefield 1 is top four at least.

They're all really, really good.

Battlefield 5 is okay.

I wish they had the bike building for fortifications in Battlefield 6, but teach his own.

Anyways, what do you think about Battlefield 6?

Do you like it, do you not?

Let me know in the comments below.

And thank you for listening to Digital Coffee Gaming.

Really, really do appreciate it.

Please subscribe to this podcast and all your favorite podcasting apps.

A five star review.

Will this help with the rankings?

Let me know how I am doing.

Enjoy me next week as I talk about what's going on in the PC and gaming industry.

All right guys, stay safe.

Get to playing Battlefield 6 and enjoying it if that's what you want to do.

Or if not, play the game you want to play.

And see you next week later.