Let's see all the "modern" BF games and its additions (ignoring console titles, I only ever played on PC):
>BC2 - introduced destruction and rush to the genre
>BF3 - merged the console-centric BC and PC-centric main series
>BF4 - introduced levelution
>BF1 - used a very unique and underused setting, introduced operations
>BFV - first WW2 game since the original BF 1942, revamped movement
>BF 2042 - introduced 64v64 on gigantic maps, dynamic weather, events a la levelution during gameplay
>BF6 - ???
I fail to see why anyone would pay $70 for a game that doesn't innovate in any way. Surely, if they're just rehashing stuff from 10+ years ago, it at least means we'll have a ton of content on launch, right? No, it's 9 maps, 3/4 of which are the size of my 100k Eastern Euro city neighbourhood, 1 IFV per faction, 1 tank per faction, meager amount of weapons. It's the usual case of nu-devs dicking around for years, burning hundreds of millions fo dolalrs only to eventually undercooked game that lacks content and can't even match the previous entries from decades before. I've had fun during the first beta weekend, sure, but after 20 I've had enough. There's no reason to buy and play it over any of the previous BF games, whether it's BF4, BF1 or BFV.