Are Gamers Actually to Blame for Star Wars Battlefront’s Insulting Business Model?

Ah yes, here it is. Everyone else has left a nice dump on EA’s business model for Star Wars Battlefront so why shouldn’t we jump on the bandwagon as well? Well it’s not actually “us,” it’s really just me. So don’t hate Gamers Sphere if you disagree with this, you can just boycott the rest of my articles. Sound fair? Good. There’s your disclaimer.

[Axonometri]

Um, it has 12 levels at launch gets 4 free levels in December. It costs the typical $60. It's DLC has another 16 levels new modes and a list of other things to add and is $50. Both have more levels than Black Ops 3 and a handful of other AAA multiplayer games over past years.

WTH is everyone complaining about? The game has great tech visuals, high end audio and fun game play. It's safe for all family members to enjoy and yet fun for adults core gaming.

I don't get it, other than the oh so popular band wagon jumping competition the internet is obsessed with. Have fun hating the game while my children and myself play the game with friends and a huge smile on our faces.

[Aloy-Boyfriend]

This really has not more content than BO3. BO3 had tons of Unlocks, weapons, maps, modes, and lots of customization for $60, with no need to throw another $50 more unlike Battlefront

[Axonometri]

I never said it has as much or more content than BO3. BO3 is more for your money than anything in some time. My point was that Star Wars is not lacking as bad as ... NM. To each his own.

[Thatguy-310]

Exactly BO3 is simply showing others how it's done when it comes to bang for your buck. Has a regular campaign, unlockable zombie campaign and on top of that a multi-player dull of content. Hopefully studios go back to offering that instead of just multi-player only games

[CPTN MITCHELL]

Black ops 3 also has a ton of freaking campers and i think is the worst call of duty or should I call it camp of duty lag ops 3

[RedDevils]

Call of Duty always have camper, hell every FPS online game have campers lol you just have to live with and find a way to counter it

[Majin-vegeta]

No just no....Normally I don't defend COD but BO3 has mote content than SWBF.

[Axonometri]

Maps. I said nothing about overall content. BTW, COD BO3 has completely redeemed the name. All around excellent game.

[TwoForce]

Even BO 3 is my favorite COD game. And it made by Treyarch, so you can expect that they know how to make a fun game.

[Tedakin]

Is Jakku 4 maps?

[Monster_Tard]

I read it was only 2, I could be wrong though.

[LoneWolf019]

the way the game works, its safe to assume 2. 1 huge map for the 40 player modes and 1 smaller for the 16-20 player modes.

[alfcrippinjr]

people are complaining about they are charging for a full price game with no campaign and no replay value
it the same crap go here disable this

black ops 3 has a story mode ?

so does bad company 2 which is the best online game
going it beats star wars anyday.

star wars is beautiful that all

go and check out pandemic studios starwars
which is the same as the old one with out any story mode.

it a quick grab cash because of the new starwars coming out
dont trust what ea tells us as they are lies

[SpinalRemains138]

Battlefront is really really fun.

You say it is beautiful, and that is all.

That is incorrect. The game is extremely fun and one can put hundreds of hours into it, just like they do any other FPS.

Its way too fashionable to hate on this game. It's at an absurd level now.

Do the pay extras suck? Of course, but you don't have to buy them! The standard edition of the game is awesome.

[styferion]

uh... you seriously don't see anything wrong with that? Even on that 'awesome $50 DLC content'?

...for god's sake, Fallout 4 only costs $10 more than that 'whole nother 16 levels and new modes'

The Witcher 3 too, only costs $10 more plus they give you 'whole nother 16 DLC' for free, and a thank you note.

[AngelicIceDiamond]

Well freakin said...

[Arkardo]

This x 10

People are simply blinded by hype and stupidity, of course people are to blame they don't know the amount of damage they are doing to the industry with their wallets.

[GregMicek]

People get upset by the fact that game developers and publishers are in it to make money, not offer up charity.

[Mr_Writer85]

Whilst that is true, and if this was a F2P game then I would agree.

But this game is £50, and it's Star Wars, they will make money, so that isn't an issue.

What is an issue is that is starting to set a new trend, where the price for content goes up, but the amount of content stays the same.

DLC has become a dirty word to some due to bad practice, day one DLC, locked on the disc DLC, season passes, and micro transactions in NONE f2p games. All used to take our hard earned cash.

Yes they are not charities, but we are not cash cows either.

[s45gr32]

Is a business I get it, game developers make money by making games. The video game industry is the only industry to lack coupons, reward program, loyalty program ,poor to non-existent customer service, the one where consumers have no cajones like you. My god back in the PS2 days a game would cost $50.00 with online gaming/single player campaign, map editor, free unlockables (hidden levels, characters, skins, etc.) mini games, cheat codes that allowed flying cars on GTA san andreas. Sidequests and alternate endings. Flash forward to today umm microtransanctions on $60.00 plus tax games, dlc galore, no more map editors/free unlockables. So basically gamers should get less content and pay $60.00 for it brilliant

[SpinalRemains138]

Using more standard business practices is 'charity'?

Its this type of Atlas Shrugged, BS attitude that is killing the modern consumer.

[showtimefolks]

Axonometri

i am tired of people saying it will have more content this cod or other games. COD at this moment has way more content and it also cost 60

fallout 4 right now has way way more content and it cost 60(and its season pass is only 30

witcher 3, mgs 5, mad max, bloodborne etc, have way more content and for 60

its amazing how you said for 50 more you get more content, so that's like buying a game twice because 6- plus 50 almost equals to full price of 2 games

but please keep this up, gamers like you will get us all screwed.

games will cost 60 and won't have all the content because publishers know gamers are more than willing to pay another $50

up next gamers will defend micro transactions

just keep it up and soon to get full experience we will have to pay more than $100

star wars fanboys have been the worst so far. you guys will go to any length to defend this half asses game. but worry not we will get the yearly star wars games because star wars fans don't mind

[Axonometri]

They are breaking it up so you don't have to pay $100 if you choose not to. Almost all DLC season passes for AAA is at $50. It's been this way for years.

[Rachel_Alucard]

@Axonometri

Thats just flat out wrong. Their have only been 2 series to offer a $50 season pass. First was Battlefield 3 back in 2012, then the sequel. The second was every CoD starting with Black Ops 2. Outside of that the only other games to offer a season pass at or above $50 was Project Diva F 2nd on the vita, and of course DOA5LR with a total of 3 season passes for $93 each. Close contender includes Batman: Arkham knight at $40.

[showtimefolks]

Brother fallout 3 and Witcher 3 would like to have a word with you about the 50 dollar season passes

[joab777]

It doesn't have a sp though and most reviews aren't fans of most the modes.

I must say as a Star Wars fan, I am a bit disappointed, but have been for awhile. It's an evolution in sound and looks, but a step back in content for the franchise. And it's definitely a grab.

I don't blame ES b/c of I'm a shareholder Amd see the numbers, I'm all in. It works for certain games despite the backlash. For the next game, they will do what they have to. And I don't blame gamers for buying what they want.

I blame everyone who has bitched about paying more than $60 for a game, more than $400 for a console, ppl who bitch about $15/month subs, but want a full team releasing new contwnt for a decade.

Businesses will give us what we cry for, from $60 games to f2p, to f2p mmo's etc. Then they will adjust in order to be profitable. And if it works, they will keep doing it.

[s45gr32]

Ok ummm but we gamers are treated like att cell phone users. To pay everything piece meal 😿. The only way gaming is going to get better is to get gaming out of corporate. Kickstarter/early access are the only shining of hope this generation. I would rather publish a game than buy a souless game from a greedy corporation

[Tobsesan]

Halo has sp and launched with 18 maps i think and gets 18+ free maps in the first year with New gamemodes and also forge = unlimited maps. So 120$ vs 70$ and halo has.still more content. Star wars also is not even close to the content of battlefront 2 with only the old trilogy and alot of gamemodes missing.

[slappy508]

This type of comment, defending SW's launch content answers the title's question: Yes, gamers are to blame

[contradictory]

$110 to get all content...?
Have fun being milked..

[Perjoss]

Please dont forget that the people who complain on internet sites are just a tiny percentage of all gamers who buy and play the games, even though they like to think they are the majority, they're not.

[amnalehu]

I agree Axonimetri. They could just release Battlefront X or what ever they want to call. The DLC is as big as the initial game. I just bought a new car and I had a variety of options and add-ons. Each option cost money. No one is obligated to buy the DLC or the game for that matter.

[Revvin]

Its the same every time a AAA game comes out, sites desperate for hits will attack it and in the process make hypocrites of themselves. Blops 3 has one zombie map unless you pay for the other and the chin dribblers lap it up, Activision have been caught out recycling maps and passing them off as DLC in previous games and still people buy the season passes. Call of Duty is the same rinse and repeat every year, even more so this year with what amounts to Advanced Warfare v1.5 and it gets a free pass by critics despite its lame single player campaign.

Blops 3 may have a lot of unlocks but the weapons all feel the damn same. It used to be a case where the different weapon classes were different and could be used in different situations but now its just grab an assault rifle and run and gun or if you play hard-core grab an SMG because its sight time is quicker and you don't need the punch of a rifle in hard-core. The maps are so small it makes sniper rifles pointless apart from the no-scopers and some of the kill-streak perks actually lag the game and it still gets rave reviews.

[Ray_moondo]

I was okay with your comment until you talked about the huge smiles

[Feenspear]

You are a delusional piece of donkey ass! If it's ok with you that developers to offer less content for more money then sell all of your video games, consoles, PC and go get a hobby giving handys at the greyhound station.. Because you don't deserve to be playing games. Wake up dickbag less content =bad!!!

[mikel1015]

How else could it have gotten this far?

[Geekman]

I'm gonna go ahead and add Star Wars Battlefront to the list of Irrationally Bandwagon Hated Games. Right below Watch Dogs and any Call of Duty.

[rdgneoz3]

If you noticed the other comments, people are comparing Battlefront to BO 3 which blows it away in content off the bat.

Watchdogs was hated because the huge difference if graphics from the stuff right before release, to what had an embargo till the day off release... The PC version only looked as good as the pre release due to mods player made. Watchdogs was the old switcheroo, while Battlefront is just a lack of content with a $50 season pass.

[alfcrippinjr]

watch dog is a very good open world game
it got bad reviews as they said your be able to hack people
but all you do is press a button no hacking at all

but the game is better then starwars anyday lol

[_-EDMIX-_]

....yet Watchdogs did 9 million.

How many do you really think care about that issue if it moved 9 million units? The issue is many of you exaggerate the situation to an extreme level that makes no sense. If it was THAT BAD, the game would not be selling. Period. I'm not even saying they are not issues, merely that they are not big enough issues to warrant THIS much outrage, some of you have more to say about post launch content, then the damn quality of the game.

If the Season pass is the reason for the hate, then surely Fallout 4 is also crap too and deserves hate?

Your mad at optional content post launch that you don't need to buy? Oh so your mad at most games that release ever then? Really now people...

[rdgneoz3]

@EDMIX You do realize that Battlefront might be gutted for content, but it'll still sell millions and most likely beat Watch Dogs in sales? It's called a huge legion of fans that love star wars and the next movie coming out next month. Watch Dogs sold well because the pre release footage looked amazing and when the PS4 / xbone launched, there were not a ton of games to choose from (I had fun messing around in the MP just blowing up half the city).

As for Fallout 4, it has at least 10 times the content that Battlefront does (Battlefront doesn't even have a campaign). There is a ton of stuff to do and building up your settlements can cause you to lose track of time.

[_-EDMIX-_]

lol, you mean classic hipster gamers?

[JasonKCK]

Watch Dogs is a way better game than BF, way more content. Watch Dogs got the hate because the final product didn't look like what they showed. Overreaction? maybe but the game still came out fine. What EA has done with BF is on a whole new level of screw the gamer, and the gamers defending this are part of the problem.

https://youtu.be/zmxVlmCkSX...

[Slanty]

Watchdogs better than battlefront? Gonna have to disagree they ripped off gamers over the graphics being under par as they advertised and the game play was average at best. Played the battlefront beta and had a few hours on the pc last night. Battlefront is awesome . could do with a few more maps and a few more are coming for FREE at the start of December dlc is a little pricey but if the game get anything thing like the support battlefield 4 still gets 2 years down the line I will be happy. I can understand people being unhappy about paying out twice. Lucky for me I bought from cd keys for 30 pounds. Hoping I can pick up the dlc a little cheaper from them soon hehe.

[Spotie]

More content doesn't equal a better game. The content and gameplay and everything else still has to be good.

[Tedakin]

COD and BF have more content than this.... And a campaign... and their season pass isn't doubling the cost of the game.... This is one of the biggest cash grabs in gaming history. Using Star Wars, which everyone loves, to milk us dry.

[WellyUK]

well they pretty much are doubling the cost of the game Premium was £40 and Cod pass is £35... They both have campaigns, yes but they aren't why people buy them. CoD is popular because of the MP NOT the campaign, BF is known for being pretty much a MP only game, the SP has sucked on every single BF game.

Evolve is the worst of them all for it's DLC, at least Battlefront is a fun game and a solid game even if it does lack content at the moment.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Gamer's voted with their wallets.

Those who voted won.

I'm sorry but many of you really need to live with this. The majority don't care and enough buy it to justify its existence to publishers, developers etc.

Don't like it...don't buy it. Its very, very simple. This idea of hating consumers who buy products, in turn making companies make said products makes zero sense.

Supply, demand. Consumers demand more content, thus...they will make more content.

#DealWithIt lol

[thereapersson]

As much as I don't like the practice of microtransactions, you are right. Gamers keep buying into this, thus companies keep doing it. As long as it keeps happening to established franchises, it will continue with being a trend because people buy products based off a name. EA knew they'd be able to get away with it, even with the expected backlash.

[-Foxtrot]

That kind of thinking is why they screw us over so many things today

The type of people who would drop their pants and lube themselfs up just as big publishers announce the season pass or if a hyped up game is found out to be missing content

Yeah well I don't like lubing myself up, I like to sit down and play a game without having to keep sitting on soft feathered pillow under my ass.

Unite for once, stand your ground and don't buy it

Those who call themselfs gamers and care for the industry yet don't mind supporting this kind of shit because..."deal with it". Hypocrisy at it's finest.

These practices are a cancer and that "I don't care - well it happens tough shit" attitude is the way it spreads

[_-EDMIX-_]

"Unite for once, stand your ground and don't buy it"

? Why do you keep adding stupid moral understandings with business? The concepts do not mix for the sole reasons that people buy games for fun.

Not for some political movement. The reality is, people will buy games they want, period. The market will get dictated by the majority. You keep cursing, making immature comments like its actually helping make your point any better when it just shows you know very little about business.

That isn't why people buy games, so I'm not sure why it would be why someone wouldn't. I feel sorry for anyone that wouldn't play a game based on such things as the only reason someone shouldn't be playing a game is if its not fun.

You keep claiming this "missing content" which I've told you literally dozens of times.

How can something be "missing" of content you LEGALLY DO NOT OWN IN THE FIRST PLACE? Why is it that you've never been able to actually explain how your owned content you have no rights to? How something that is missing, cut or removed of something that wasn't yours in the first place?

The moment you start with "care" or "supporting" etc your argument fell to pieces. Your trying to win with emotional appeal on something that is based purely on majority, sales, business concepts etc.

They have no place in what we are even talking about, as it sounds like your whole argument isn't that anyone did anything legally wrong. You have no legal claim...

In fact your whole argument is band together "care" and "support" your feelings....

Who told you sales work this way? That has nothing to do with REAL business ideals...not even slightly.

If its LEGALLY WRONG, make the claim. I think you and I know you can't and its why you keep resorting to this... The reality is, you don't need to buy it. They are marketing to you whats in the game. You do not own the IP, the copyright etc. You have no control over their post launch content and even if that content was removed from the main game.....its their game to legally do so with. NOT YOURS.

The basic concepts of supply and demand apply to this. If the majority want it, they will demand more content. Such a thing is why its supplied.

Thats it. The REAL MARKET VALUE is based on who FACTUALLY buys those products, not feelings, not emotions, not "care" lol

Vote with your wallet and call it a day. Its the absolute way to really protest if you really think its THAT BAD.

Funny too...millions voted against your little cause, they voted with buying more content and actually having fun vs not buying a game for some silly claim lol

[s45gr32]

Well said is like PlayStation fanboys crying and complaining about having to pay to play online during last generation. As soon as Sony started charging to pay to play online the PlayStation fanboys cave in. PC gamers are the only ones that do stand up against corporations with no help of the media. PC gamers forced Activision to drop the auction house from Diablo 3 (microtransanctions), told both Valve/Bethesda to kick rocks in regards to pay mods (videogame journalists were pissed that pay mods were gone), forced WB to pull batman arkham knight from store shelves (digital/physical).

[WellyUK]

What about if people like the game and will enjoy the game? Are they not allowed to buy it? Even if they also like you don't agree with EA's DLC ideas. What about if the price is worth it for those hours of fun?

Then there is the fact that Battlefield premium on BF3 and BF4 has been 100% worth it. The problem here is that the initial release doesn't seem to have just enough content for people yet for them to want to get the season pass. Doesn't mean the game is bad because it isn't it's on of the best games out at the moment.

[freshslicepizza]

there are thousands of other games to choose from and what you should be focusing in on then is the indie scene because the aaa market is not sustainable.

you cannot keep putting 10's of millions of dollars into these games, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars, and not try and recoup those investments other than the typical $60 formula we have seen for years.

put your money where your mouth is, make your own game and invest your own money. nobody needs to unite, people will always vote with their own wallets and you do nothing but complain about everything. you complain about how they should make games, you complain about how games ought to stick to your nostalgia beliefs, on and on it goes.

you know what you seldom do? you rarely actually talk about games you enjoy and post any positive feedback. it's fine to be constructive in your criticism but you lean so far in one direction which is always being a critic that it is hard to ever take your thoughts seriously.

[Tobsesan]

That is what I did. Im a huge star wars Fan and battlefront 2 is at my top games of all time, but this new one is just a joke. I will never buy a half assed game for 120$. This Low sales for a star wars game right before a movie show im not the only one.

[contradictory]

yup. It's basically digging your own grave when you buy these games and THEN complain about it haha

Or atleast a grave for your money...
A grave filled with piss...
...fuck.

[sashimi]

umm... previous BattleFront had same season pass...except it wasn't called a season pass..

[s45gr32]

Previous Star Wars battlefront game had:

Single player campaign
Conquest Mode
Space Battles
Voice chat
Able to drive any vehicle and able to see player getting on vehicle

Allowed gamers to play on the ground take the battle to the air and then space.

Had free emoticons

Im sorry but as a huge star wars fan I am not buying a $60.00 game that has less content than its predecessor

[WellyUK]

The old battlefronts didn't have a damn campaign... All Galactic conquest was, was a damn instant action matchmaker. It was like Battlefields where you just did EXACTLY what you would do in MP but against bots. Hardly a campaign please stop making crap up.

Space battles I can agree with but tbh i'm not massively bothered, voice chat doesn't matter as there is a party system on ps4, don't see why seeing someone enter a vehicle makes a massive difference.

[zsquaresoff]

The ones who buy microtransactions to level up their player without putting in the hardwork are the ones to blame.

[Chaosdreams]

Partially. But the blame starts with the ones making the content. Money and Passion are the two powers that clash in this industry. How much time and effort and soul is put into something in comparison to how much money is being used and can be made as profit. The line that used to be somewhat visible is becoming incredibly hard to see, and the idea of purchasing a game at launch and getting everything is well, gone. We get pieces of the passion and the rest is behind paywalls.

What's worse now is where we see examples such as Destiny and now Battlefield, sorry, Battlefront, and the content that's given is beyond laughable. Is this a game? Why do I feel like this is literally nothing? Why is the season pass so expensive? Why do I feel cheated?

If you combine a strong insight into addictive personalities, pop culture, know how to market and have the money to do so, it's becoming quiet clear that games don't need to be fantastic to sell a lot...sadly, fantastic games might not even sell all that well when next to games like this.

If you take what's been said and include a gamer who hasn't had as many years of gaming under his/her belt then they aren't going to be as reluctant or even consider refusing the business model being presented.

The model itself is insulting and if other developers decide to push it even further, gaming is going to change into something I won't support. The problem is, how do we inform the younger generation that what's being offered isn't moral when they in fact could be loving what they are getting? How do we tell those with an abundance of cash to not spend it? In a way you can't, all you can do is be smart with your own money and hope that there's a strong collective of people who do the same.

At the moment, the majority is spending the money and this is why we are already seeing an increase in the lack of content versus the price.

The worst thing is...I hate gamers who whine but then spend the money on it anyway, you just let EA or whoever know that even if you disagree, you'll still pay, and that's the main problem.

Gamers aren't the devil to the gaming industry, but the devil knows how people act within the gaming industry.

[s45gr32]

I agree and the best option is to let gamers publish the game instead. Kickstarter/early access are far from perfect but is better than what gamers get from corporate game developers.

[sullynathan]

I am not a fan of DICE/EA's DLC model. The last DICE game I bought was Battlefield 3, I put over 100 hours in it and I liked the game but that was the Premium edition that I bought and the best mode was DLC. I can't help but feel like this model sucks because it leaves some of the potential best maps and game modes for DLC and you'll either have to wait to get that "GOTY/Premium edition" or you buy it now and get the costly season pass.

That's my real problem, the fact that the season pass costs this much and that the DLC might be more interesting that what's currently in game. So far from what I've been following of this game, it seems to have enough content for a current multiplayer shooter.

Ignoring the obvious nickel-and-diming practices, did people really want another Battlefront campaign? Seriously? Did people play Battlefront 2 recently?

I am playing the game for the first time and the campaign is sub par at best. Why would people want a multipayer focused series to go back and waste time with a campaign?

Then you have people complaining that this reboot "lacks depth" or is "too simple". Battlefront 2 was also simple and lacked depth, the series started as an even simpler version of Battlefield, it didn't need to be more.

[Aubrey1990]

Honestly battle front has some of the best shooting gameplay in a mulitplayer game this year with kick ass visuals but it does need way more content. They could of added a campaign it does not have to be a good one but at we have the option for it .like the call of duty series the campaign is usually bland but the mulitplayer is ok but people like the option of singleplayer

[captainexplosion]

I don't understand the rage against this game. I have no problem with 15 maps and 10 modes for $60. I have a problem with the quality of the game, but not the volume of content. No idea why people trash this game but are cool with Splatoon and Until Dawn charging the same amount for far less content.

[retrogamer09]

This game about a year ago was one of my most anticipated games of all time after the beta and trying it on EA Access I have to say it's really just a middle of the range shooter with bland gameplay, outstanding visuals, great sound design, and a terrible lack of content. If you're not going to have a campaign then you better come out of the gate with a ton of modes, maps, battles, etc to justify 60 bucks. For me I'd rather just play more Halo 5 multiplayer, MLB the Show , and finish up Uncharted 3 than waste 60 bucks on the game. I didn't even find the multiplayer matches even that exciting. It was just a huge disappointment for me.

This is off topic, but while everyone is crying about microtransactions and DLC something that's way more awful and that needs to come to light are these single player only games that last 4 hours with 2 of those being actual gameplay and these multiplayer only games launching with limited maps and content being sold for 60 bucks. To me that's scary if that's where the industry is going. If a Dev like DICE feels no need to add even a cheap 5 hour campaign to probably the biggest intellectual property EA has then my god what the hell are they gonna do to Battlefield.

[dillhole]

It all depends what you play and how much you play it. I'm sure Fallout 4 has over 100 hours of stuff for me to do but I've been playing Rocket League all week.

I hated the campaign more than any other game I have played on the PS4 but I am still playing Conquest on Battlefield 4, 2 years after its release! Seriously, I play that game a few times a week, and mainly on 2-3 maps.

All I'm saying is 'content' often a few thin concepts stretched out - and I'm thinking Dice just thought 'screw the bullshit and focus on what people play' linear FPS campaigns tacked on are pointless but the core gameplay that you will still be playing a year from now is the multiplayer modes on a handful of maps.

[MemphisDJ]

Most pre-ordered game this year? Check
EA made money back in first weekend? Check
More people will buy season pass once there is season pass content? Check

We can write articles and complain all we want? EA and other publishers are reading our comments and articles as they walk into the bank and cash their Check! So until games stop buying the crap the doc.... Don't expect EA whose main goal is profit to stop doing us this way.

[Ark_]

Well, it confirms EAs image and hurts DICEs.
That may not be represented immediatly in hard $ figures, but it will hurt them in the long run.

[LoneWolf019]

Other then the lack of content where has Battlefront failed? Everything that was said/shown to us we have received it. The only reason this game doesn't offer up as much is because it was rushed to come out before the movie. I know paying an extra $50 doesn't alleviate that but hey, the game is not bad.

[SynestheticRoar]

This holiday season has been a let down so far. EA and others to blame.

[ufo8mycat]

People complaining about the lack of maps and content in Battlefront, yet still bought the game.

Nice job in supporting this kind of practice.

[Ark_]

I know enough people, who didn't buy into it - me included. It's just a typical EA ripoff. Not saying it's a bad game btw - just not woth the money they ask for.

If this is gonna be that huge of a commercial success? I have some doubts. At least it will not be as big as the ties are hoping for I guess. On the other hand it's hard not to make money with this licence.

[mogwaii]

It looks great but i simply cant justify buying it, shame.

[TwoForce]

I'm not buying this. I'm sorry, but that's what happen you tried to steal our childhood memories.

[Sadist3]

The only game that gives you your money's worth is fallout 4, witcher 3 and battlefield 4. No other game gives goes all out on content like these do. And whoever said call of duty is worth the money is smoking crack. A 5 hour campaign and multiplayer where you run around and press the right trigger/bumper is not worth your money. And no one cares about stupid zombies. Battlefield definitely gives you your money's worth with all the maps/vehicles/content and it's still going strong after 2 years. Witcher just set the bar on delivering content every other week or so, and fallout is fallout. Those are games that give you your money's worth

[JBlaze226]

I can agree with that but you cannot forget about the fun factor because you can have tons of content in their game but if the game is boring what will make the players care about the game, I love black ops zombies because I love shooting zombies and battlefield 4 got boring because its too real, no much fun factor. But that's just me I'm having a blast with the new Star Wars game.

[Artemidorus]

I remember a day you got full content on a disc and everything else is a bonus it seems gamers of today don't understand this and will pay anything.

Anyone who thinks paying over 100 for game content on a regular basis is worth it is a clear clown, EA over the years will slowly charge you more and more for less and less and you the consumer will do as you are told until you all say the word NO to buying.

Boycotting this crap until a discount.

[Ark_]

Well, I actually would pay those 100 bucks - even on a regular basis, if those games would just be worth that kind of money. But Battlefront feels to me like milking a franchise - instead of celebrating it.

[Artemidorus]

Then more fool you if it's for consoles. No game deserves over 100 they don't commit long enough for me and modders provide good content for nothing.

Games like MGS V and Fallout provide much more content and it's on a disc or free to download, didn't see them diving on the season pass wagon.

[JBlaze226]

I would agree with you their but in the other hand Battlefront has really good game modes with more to come, their design does much service to the franchise with exact details in the maps, character models, the sound is amazing, you have to understand how much money is spent making this game. true I wish it had space battles and conquest mode but something they can add later.

[philm87]

It's not a business model, it's a pricing structure.

[Artemidorus]

Yeah and it's a clear rip off.

[philm87]

Agreed. I say let people pay it if they want, hopefully the money will get put into making future games better. I'm just going to wait till it's cheap to get the game and season pass together.

[Perjoss]

Its always gamers fault, we have 100% control over who we give our money to when it comes to buying games. Whenever a games company tries a new pricing model wether its good or bad, if you buy into it you're sending a clear message that you are willing to support this again and again. And they will always keep pushing until they hit that sweet spot where the majority just stop spending and then jst dial it back a bit.

[JBlaze226]

It's all 50 Shades of Gray when it comes to all this Season pass, DLC, and Micro-transactions. I can understand it being in free to play games but not 60 dollar games. but you should also have to understand how much it cost to run a studio.

[Picnic]

If I was a games maker, the potential that just ONE person could buy a game and for it to be resold many times would itself concern me. Don't get me wrong- I've bought second hand before but I've made up for it for buying DLC and online pass for the same game. When it's for the latest consoles, it's a deprivation of the industry and a win for the second hand stores and the pockets of those who don't necessarily care about getting the best quality disc/box- why should we pander to these people who might not think that buying second hand deprives studios but are contributing to helping kill the industry (although pirating IS definitely far worse because it was originally something for nothing)?

But that remains anyway because of an outcry over the Xbox One.

But that the same people buying second hand could also get all downloadable content essentially 'first hand' for free?
That would be wrong.

And games makers would rightly cut right back on making downloadable content at all if they had to give it away for free- that'd be time and man hours that there'd be more business sense in making their next game.

[bednet]

The way they structure the game (MP) makes it almost impossible not to purchase the Season Pass. You need to spend another 50$ to make that original 60$ worth it.

As much as I want this game, I'm just not buying into this model...it's not a money thing, it's a question of principle.

[Warshade]

It's EA. They made SWTOR 'free' but with more nickel and dimes than any other ftp mmo. (Free accounts can't use epic gear...subscribe today to use this item)

I really wish Star Wars did not have an exclusive contract with EA. Oh well, plenty of other great games to play.

[MadLad]

Idiocy within the consumer base is no justification for developers/publishers (in this case probably the latter) being greedy.
That said, gamers are the ones that let this sort of thing become a realistic business model for the industry.

We vote with our wallets, and there's no real way around it. If there wasn't more money to be had through this, it wouldn't be happening.

[NeoGamer232]

What I find most interesting is that Sony has aligned themselves (marketing wise) with two games that are essentially online only experiences.

Destiny and Star Wars Battlefront. Why is everyone still supporting Sony when they are pushing gamers to online only?

[MadLad]

Because Titanfall doesn't exist.
The recent Halo being called, by many, as a multiplayer focused title.

I usually support MS, being that there's so much Sony pushing on this site, but your comment is idiotic.

You see only what you want to see.
Nothing else.

[NeoGamer232]

I spent 8 hours going through the Halo 5 campaign.

Some make think it is nothing but for me it was actually enjoyable. It isn't the best Halo campaign, but it isn't the worst neither.

MS was clear that they wanted an online device. So, Titanfall was in development and they pushed it along. Since then, MS has had solid SP experiences in almost all their titles.

[MadLad]

And so has Sony.
But you blind yourself to that, while laughably trying to make yourself out to have a point.

While I didn't act immature and down vote your original statement, I am now, and the latter, just to tell you your comments are those of a child.
Being that you chose to do just that with me.

And it's cute when you make a point to say it was eight hours, being that, obviously, you know most people claim it is much shorter.
And I am a fan of the series.

Don't make a comment asking why they support a company making online-driven experiences then, when someone responds, hating on them for pointing out that there's online-driven experiences on both sides.

That's why I sometimes hate this site - children.
And I don't care what age you may be; I am talking of the age you present yourself as when you type such nonsense.

[dkp23]

If people are willing to pay it then publishers will price it that way. Even if less content and half a game. Considering this has no campaign a few modes and little maps per mode but still charge $60 and another $50 on top for additional content, this is a rip off but if people are willing to pay it, then I see no reason why ea wouldn't do it. I made a decision not to buy it now and maybe wait until it's really cheap or in the vault.

[Trekster_Gamer]

No it's the developers fault for being lazy and not giving us a complete game for full price what a stupid stupid article title.

[Feenspear]

No single player content and useless maps at full price ... Fucking wake up gamers, if this is the future of games we shouldn't buy them. Maybe then they will add lots of content forour money