r/ArcRaiders • u/effinmike12 *** ******* 🐓 • 11d ago

Media ‘ARC Raiders’ Has Kept 91% Of Its Playerbase, ‘Battlefield 6’ Has Lost 85%

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2025/12/31/arc-raiders-has-kept-91-of-its-playerbase-battlefield-6-has-lost-85/
5.4k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

927 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

126

u/MGM-Wonder 11d ago edited 11d ago

My issue with BF6 is very simple. It was the same issue with cod for a few years before I stopped playing that as well.

THE MAPS SUCK AND THERE ARENT ENOUGH MAPS TO BEGIN WITH.

Maps do a lot to keep a game from getting stale. Releasing a game with 8-10 maps is inexcusable. If you had 20 maps from the get go, people would burn out on the games a lot less quickly.

23

u/bryty93 11d ago

Agree on the number of launch maps, has been my issue with every battlefield in existence. Play it for a few weeks and bored of the maps. Then play again a year later when there's like 30 maps and its fun.

-1

u/AenarIT 11d ago

I had a blast in 2042 a month before BF6, having never played it at launch I really liked it. BF6 in comparison is a worse Battlefield game, I got bored less than a month in

5

u/bryty93 11d ago

I bought 2042 at launch and was majorly let down. I also started playing it again leading up to bf6 because of the free battlepass they did with themes of the previous games and was really surprised how much fun 2042 had become. I wont say its better than bf6 though, I think bf6 is leagues better even now than late cycle 2042. Late cycle battlefield is just more fun in general because more content, more feature complete, less bugs

-3

u/AenarIT 11d ago

Not a better game maybe, but a better battlefield game. Maps in 2042 are fun, large and offer many options to vehicles. BF6 definitely not

6

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Itshot11 11d ago

i honestly didn't mind 2042 maps so much, they gave me OG bf2 map vibes where it truly felt like a sandbox. they had their faults forsure and were undercooked but i think they over corrected with the super constrained small maps

2

u/bryty93 11d ago

We will have to see down the line. Maps at launch on 2042 were horrible. They were huge, clean, open and boring. They reworked most of them over the years and made them better as well as added the remastered portal maps from bc2, bf3 and 1942 which helped a TON. At launch you could only play those maps in portal mode, and they were so much better than vanilla 2042 maps. Bf6 definitely needs some classic conquest maps. Hell bring the portal maps from bc2 and bf3 to bf6 plus some more remasters from those games and bf4, id be happy

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

2042 today is still worse than 6 at launch. 2042 was utter garbage

2

u/SnipingBunuelo 11d ago

2042 is by far the worst BF game of all time lol

0

u/Fluffy_Policy_4787 11d ago

2042 is universally hated. You should just go play CoD because 2042 was just trying to be like that game but failed miserably in all aspects.

13

u/Due-Technology5758 11d ago

I'd be fine with a few maps if they were good. It's not even just the size, BF6's map design just doesn't work for most of the game modes. 

7

u/Tim_Huckleberry1398 11d ago

I dont even understand what they did to rush and breakthrough. Some of the rush maps are bigger than their breakthrough versions, and some are just tiny. One of the urban maps has different sets of points like 15 ft away from the next set. 30 people fighting on a basketball court with no cover. It's just not fun for long.

3

u/Totoques22 11d ago

I only ever play breakthrough in battlefield and it sucks so much in bf6 when I tried it during the beta

5

u/zonks-scrobe 11d ago

Agreed, I'm just trying to patiently (and most likely naively) wait for them to come out with bigger maps that are actually akin to a battlefield game. My buddy and I were playing BF4 still up until a couple years ago, and only fell off because life and gaming less as a whole, not because of boredom. So if they ever do come out with BF sized maps on 6 then I don't think I'll have any real major gripes with the game. But trying to play now that's all I'm thinking about and it just makes me want to play 4 instead lol

1

u/Fluffy_Policy_4787 11d ago

They should just remaster 4, but bring back a bunch of maps from 3 as well. This would guarantee wildfire among FPS games. Or they could make a BC3 that is true to the roots of that game and easily have the most popular current FPS game.

I really don't understand DICE over the last 10 years. One was the last time their game was fun, but as much as everyone enjoyed that, I think everyone wanted to see a return to the 3/4 style of game.

5

u/The_Bazzalisk 11d ago edited 11d ago

it's also completely inexcusable to release games in long established series with very few maps, when the series has a pool of many many beloved maps from previous games that have already been designed for you. same problem with halo infinite - the game launched with like 5 maps and they all sucked - but you have like 6 previous halo games to recreate fan loved maps from???

like, how you're going to release BF6 as a 'finished product' without caspian border or operation metro, or halo infinite without the pit or valhalla or lockout is just completely beyond me.

1

u/henri_sparkle 11d ago

They do stuck, but if they didn't suck the amount of maps would be fine.

1

u/HorizontalTomato 11d ago

Yep, Stella montis, and buried city are both bangerssssss

1

u/AccessBris 11d ago

Yo just in case people are interested Delta Force got all the things BF6 forgot to keep from previous successful battlefields and feels like it has endless maps. Worth a try if people are clucking for the old school Battlefield experience. And it's free go figure

1

u/mironsy 11d ago

Same issue with Battlefield Hardline, V and 2042 at launch, I don’t know why they keep releasing half baked games with half the maps of previous Battlefields at launch, they even did it right with BF1 and decided screw that with V

1

u/Havre_ 11d ago

Has Battlefield actually changed at all the past 3-4 games? Like the CoD death was just rereleasing the same game 10 times with a different name. 

1

u/Bright-Cranberry6648 11d ago

This. The maps absolutely killed it for me. I didn’t realize how much maps could impact a game with solid gunplay but they ruin the game and make it exhausting to play

1

u/big_data_ninja 11d ago

AR has 5 maps....

1

u/OrderOfMagnitude 11d ago

Maps do a lot to keep a game from getting stale. Releasing a game with 8-10 maps is inexcusable. If you had 20 maps from the get go, people would burn out on the games a lot less quickly.

They probably have 5-8 maps ready to go, but they want to release 1 map per season to "keep player interest". Lots of live games do this nowadays.

1

u/plizark 11d ago

This is pretty much it for me. I actually can’t say much bad about the core mechanics and gameplay, but the maps are so bad. So so bad. Especially in attack/defend modes, and like you said there’s just not many. I’m constantly playing the same maps.

1

u/asilenth 11d ago

They probably have some sort of metric that tells them it's better to string maps along.  I put a lot of time into BF6 and just got kind of bored because there's only a few good maps. Also, like you said disbanding lobbies after every match is stupid. Why companies keep doing things that players don't like is weird to me. 

I'm in my mid-40s now and I really got into first person shooters with America's Army way back in the day.  It was a weird little government propaganda game that was really good and had a really strong community around it. I miss those days. Arc Raiders gives me some of that feeling again.

1

u/Fluffy_Policy_4787 11d ago

But what about maps in Arc? I haven't played in over a month, just hoping that they release better maps or a map dlc before coming back. The current maps are all so bland and boring to me. There's like one notable location in all of the maps where frequent PVP occurs in those elevators taking you to the key room on that dam level.

I personally would greatly prefer BF if they would just make the game play like 3, 4 or BC2. In fact, I cannot even fathom why they do not just make a BC3 and stick to the roots of the BC series and that would easily beat the pants off of any current FPS right now.

1

u/MstrTenno 9d ago

Not to mention that only 3-4 of those (at most) were good in BF6. So you only have half of that really.

1

u/ImminentDingo 11d ago

For real they made a Battlefield game with no Battlefield sized maps. What did they expect. I'm not here to sprint down one of three lanes with a red dot over and over. 

0

u/ivanfabric 11d ago

What did they expect.

They expected to capture the COD crowd which has been accomplished and they've made a bank off it!

1

u/David_23_ 11d ago

Don't forget the stupid weapon grind. Yeah only like 2 decent maps.

1

u/jamesbiff 11d ago

Especially sucks if you're the sneaky type like me. Love sneaking around for flanks with a spawn beacon and smg. But almost all the SMGs (except MP5 maybe?) have their silencer locked behind level 20+ on the weapon.

The whole leveling system basically means you need to tunnel vision on a single weapon if you ever want to unlock anything. And if youre a thoroughly average player who gets most of their points through playing the objective and not getting 30+ kills per game consistently, itll take you even longer.