In the PlayStation 5 version at least, Battlefield 2042 will host up to 128 players simultaneously, but in order to keep servers full it will be populating any empty slots with bots. According to developer DICE – as per a report by The Verge – the title will prioritise humans, so it’s possible that during peak play hours you may never encounter AI soldiers. However, depending on your region and platform, there could be up to 64 bots filling out a map.
Given the scale of the next-gen iteration of the game, it’s a smart inclusion – although, we’d argue that crossplay across consoles at least would increase the overall player pool, and thus keep bots to a minimum. We suppose this is going to depend on the overall intelligence of the AI soldiers really: if they’re competent and work the objectives than they may actually be preferable to those real-life allies who have a preference for crashing jets into the ground.
It’s worth remembering that the PS4 version of Battlefield 2042 will only host 64 players at a time, so bots are much less likely to appear in the last-gen release. How do you feel about all this? Is it a smart decision? Do you think it may detract from the overall experience? Gun us down like we’re computer controlled in the comments section below.
I think it’s sort of turning into the standard now that bots are filling out multiplayer servers in FPS games. As long as it helps to create a seamless experience and it’s not just bot city, this could be a good idea to just get it out of the way at launch rather than how a lot of other shooters have tried to hide it or implement it too late.
As someone who generally dislike playing multiplayer games : can I play this with 127 bots?
Been playing BF4 on PC as of late and I wish we had bots there xd
Seriously, you'll think level 100+ fools would know to cap or rush a point by now.
As long as;
-Bots don't appear in ranked games.
-players can disable bots
-players can create private online and offline lobbies full of bots
-trophies (edit: and exp and unlocks) are obtainable on bots and in the offline modes.
@Richnj How is the option to disable bots a good option? That’s ok just create a playerbase split that won’t help the overall issue. Most people won’t bother. The 10% that is going to have trouble filling those servers.
All I want is server rentals from BF4 where we can manage everything including bots in the server. Bfv server rents were absent, instead they made it free to create private match but it was lacking so many options and they disabled the xp and leveling up.
@Jaz007 I mean, it's not going to hurt people that are replacing humans with bots is it?
When the community is healthy, human only players can be filled in with other human only, and players that don't care. It shouldn't be hard to blend those groups.
But I believe the choice should be put in to the player's hands. If players want bots only, they should be able to do that. If players want human only, they should be able to do that.
And if the population isn't healthy, and those 10% struggle to find games, they always have the option to enable bots again or find a MP with a healthier population.
Is there any sort of cross-play with last-gen?
Say for example the smaller maps?
If not, I fear this game with be majorly unpopulated when these next gen consoles are still so hard to come by for people.
If you think of it as a blend of PvP and PvE, it sounds kind of cool. If they do enable cross play, I hope there's an option to play against only those using controllers. It extremely frustrating to get hammered by mouse users.
I mean hey, maybe bots will actually try to defend or capture a point instead of going somewhere up high and sniping uselessly.
I think its unfortunate when bots take the slot of real people in MP games. It's just not the best situation and there is no need to pretend otherwise.
It's probably a necessity sometimes here though.
Just wait for 50% of it being bots lol
Remember when titanfall released on the pc with the same thing across multiplayer? It was universally savaged by the gaming community and i fear the same will happen here too..titanfall didnt have a campaign either so i'm expecting a lot of hatefull cool kids getting ready to serve this up regardless of whether its good or not..
When you have a player count like this it's essential to have bots, less you end up waiting ages or have empty servers. It's a good idea.
Show me a video of 128 bots in a rush match. If you can show me the bots working in cohesion, reviving, capturing, defending, etc., then we might feel more comfortable with bots in games. Til then the bots might just cannon fodder, which would eat up valuable tickets for actual players.
More bots the merrier, as long as skill level matches your average player.
How about it just make the game crossplay between Xbox series X and S and PS5 less chance of bots I hate bots you feel so good when you get loads of kills and then you realise their bot 😭
@blinx01 Xbox One PS4 versions are different which I'm grateful for all thay need to do is add crossplay between PS5 and Xbox series X and s
I would rather play against bots than most of the online noobz.
I’d much rather play with bots than PC players.
Not much of an online player, so with no single-player I won't be bothering with it anyway. Roll on Six Days in Fallujah, I guess. 🤷♂️
You know what's a better idea than bots? Cross platform play! If this supports cross-play it's going to be interesting to see what Sony's stance is.
Will the bots actually listen to orders and follow directions instead of running from point to point taking a new location while losing the one they just left? If yes, then I would rather play with bots than people.
EA screwed up a potential battlefield comeback so horribly, so many bad calls and lost a ton of features from the last game, when that game suffered for delaying those features, how's this one gonna do better not ever having them, not worth $70, this title deserves a $40 price tag at best
When you're as good as I am, most players are bots anyway.
I am not impressed, no campaign, 64 players on ps4 (Mag had 256 on ps3!) lobbies filled with bots AND they are charging full price? think I will wait for the inevitable free to play battlefield royale thank you very much
I mean… it seems ironic since they took away the campaign. The whole point of the early messaging on this game was that the MP was going to be so awesome that they didn’t need SP content, and their data shows no one plays their single player campaign. Now we see that they anticipate having to pad things out with bots to achieve this illusion of a large online MP battlefield. Either make the matches smaller or concede that players actually enjoy playing against AI. In which case, maybe there is a place for a SP campaign.
@Netbean yes MAG had 256 players online but also had terrible lag and frame rates that dipped below 20 fps for the most part..epic game with an equally epic scope that had ambitions beyond the tech trying to run it..sony needs MAG rebooting and socom too but not the 3rd person one as that was a fun game but not really a socom game..
Wont the bots be replaced with humans once they join the lobby?
Well, if you're finding it difficult to find a game you could always just go and play the ca
It doesn’t need bots unless they anticipate weak demand, look at Warzone, I’m not a fan but that game has a lot of popularity and no problems filling 150 player lobbies. Battlefront has bots as well it is the worst feeling in the world killing the bots, it’s like a fly in your soup
Anybody noticed on the PS5 listing it says "Supports up to 99 online players with PS Plus"
Are we getting 128 player servers or what Sony?
Bots might actually play the game properly and play the objective rather than what half the players do and just treat every mode like team deathmatch
Tap here to load 33 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...