>>533669341
>explain why 2042 failed
The project was technically too ambitious. Modern consoles had trouble running it well at all, and even beaides that, it launched in an extremely buggy/borderline unplayable state. The game was Battlefield 4 on steroids, meaning they sacrificed clever map design for just having big open maps where you're constantly dying dying dying. Plus 124 players is just too many. It was a cool thing to try out, but it results in each individual player having less impact unless you're willing to atke the time to get hyper sweaty.
>and why bf6 is not 2042
Putting aside the fact that BF6 was heavily beta tested by the community via Battlefield Labs to ensure a smoother launch, the ambitions of 2042 were also scaled back significantly in favor of a more polished experience. Maps are smaller, and the player count is back to 64 players per game (and even smaller in some game modes).

tl;dr
2042 was a borderline scifi future shooter with gigantic player counts and countless bugs/glitches
BF6 is a modern-day shooter with traditional 64-player limits and already plays better in beta than 2042 did at launch

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO