I see this as a good thing as I think DICE needs to step back and think about what's really important about Battlefield.
My relationship with Battlefield is an odd one and may be a little unique. I started out playing 1942 (vanilla and Desert Combat) and Vietnam. I largely skipped BF2 but jumped in with 2142 in a big way. When BC2 came out, I really fell in love with its emphasis on the smaller scale, infantry led battles. A good squad made all the difference in that game. Rush re-framed the way I thought about Battlefield by placing importance on maintaining a front. Vehicles were still a huge part and could really swing a match given how few there were and the role they played on maps.
BF3 and BF4 were good, but my engagement with each one fell as it went back to an emphasis on huge maps. BFV is the Battlefield I have played the least since Vietnam, and the content rollout strategy still doesn't make any sense to me.
More concerning than my own experiences with the last few titles was that interview or article a year or two back that said DICE was unaware of why people loved BC2 so much. To me, it meant that they wouldn't make another game like that again not because they didn't want to, but because they didn't know how.
There's a ton of talented people at DICE, some of which post here so I'm sure they will read this. I would love nothing more to throw a thousand plus hours into Battlefield again, so I hope this works out for them.
