Star Wars Battlefront: The Milking of EA

I had some hope left for the new Battlefront game thinking just maybe it will still have the same awesomeness from the previous battlefront games. And no, EA decided "Hey, should we put a campaign fans would love?" No doesn't good. "Hey, should we give them all the content in the game and have the future content as a dlc for reasonable price?" No that doesn't sound good either, come up with something or your fired. "I got it! What if we rip out the content, put just the core in the $59.99 and the rest of the content PLUS the future content into a Season Pass with Darth Vader on it for $50!?" THATS BRILLIANT!!! I'm positive this is how it went down.

Then I read this by EA CFO Blake Jorgensen, "Our game teams are all thinking through, 'What's the engagement model to keep the consumer, to really entertain the consumer for a long period of time?'" he said. "When you think about that, it's not really the economics; the economics come afterward. There might be multiple models of ways to engage people." And, "It could a subscription, a subscription that has extra content as part of it, or a sole subscription, or it could be simply an upfront payment to a game that has extra content coming over time," Jorgensen said. "What we want to do is give the consumer a great value for their money and keep them deeply engaged in something they love to do." And also, "I do think there's a bit of consumer fatigue around feeling like they're getting nickle and dimed all the time. And a lot of mobile games don't allow you to have fun unless you've paid for it," he said. "So we're looking at new models of ways to try to alleviate some of that fatigue that's going on. Some of those might come in the form of subscription-style, but some of them might simply come in different ways to play games over time so you don't feel like you're always getting nickel and dimed." Nickel and dimed? More like 50s and 100s.

I'm not buying this damn "Could have been the Star Wars game fans dreamed of dead corpse" game any time soon. Its not worth $64.99 plus the rest for $50. It only has 4 maps to play on, no single player campaign, they could have very easily made a campaign going through each star wars movie and playing through them and remembering what may have been forgotten before the new one is released, but no. Survival mode has very few maps, I'm guessing the mission challenges are "like" the campaign and only certain vehicles you can use to play in game. The only way I'm buying this is if the game is $40 and the season pass is $30, even then I still feel like I'm making a mistake giving them my money.

Here's the link where I found their "reason": http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-doesnt-want-to-nickel-and-dime-players-with-mic/1100-6432356/

*Venting over*

The gameplay itself is good, its fun and its Star Wars. Its just the wrong company that made it. Barley any content on the actual game itself, recommend just waiting until they bundle the game with the season pass or ask "Santa".

- Have a gaming day!

If this was the Battlefront game that came out, I would have so played it.

$20 with all the DLC might be nice, but will people still be playing then? Battlefield can stand the test of time, but I don't think this can. Bless this mess.

they could have very easily made a campaign going through each star wars movie and playing through them and remembering what may have been forgotten before the new one is released, but no.

Nothing about making a multi-million dollar AAA single-player campaign is "very easy".

If they added some depth to the game that woudl have helped. When I play CoD games I get at least SOME customization of outfits. I get at least SOME customization of weapon parts and skins.

That's the problem with properties like Star Wars. They don't want Yellow troopers with Purple Backpacks. Disney don't want no "Kitten" texture pack on your sniper blaster. And, my guess is EA wanted a game that any Tom, Dick, or Dan could play; which is fine until all shooter fans notice how threadbare your game is for long term play. Lady storm troopers...nope. A lady with a Light Saber...not at launch gals. Big personalized patches on your armor to distinguish you...nooooooooooo.

If I was at "the meeting" an year ago; I woudl have said, "Level 20 you get to color that armor, right? Princess Leia gets a light saber....eventually right?" Come on guys this is a game...this isn't canon...you HAVE TO allow players to have some fun. "Ace of Spades Card" Rebel Helmet...? Samurai Storm trooper armor?

Even if the game had more depth in modes. Even if the game had more maps. Even if the game allowed some weapons mods. Well, sorry that isn't really the itch that needs to be scratched. I don't want to be plain old boring vanilla Rebel solider #4! I want to be a Rebel Soldier with an 'Union Jack' on my helmet...and I want the soldier to be female....and I want to wield a lightsaber if I get the drop with MY avatar. Personalization is what shooters are about just as much as they are about sooting or objectives. I don not care if Disney is convinced Star Wars is precious. The more I can get invested, the more invested I will be long term, not customization is not made up by allowing me to be Luke 'fucking' Skywalker

Are there really only 4 maps?

12 maps over four planets.

There are not 4 maps. There are 4 PLANETS (tatooine, hoth, Endor and some other non-movie one) There are many different maps that take place on these planets, though I am not sure of the final amount. I just played two matches, one took place in a hanger and the other in a junk yard around a sandcrawler. These are different from the big giant maps then the big battles take place on.

All that being said I feel like there is a bit of a content problem and I really wish there was a single player adventure because the game looks so good. Adding more weapons would be kinda strange though, because most if not all primary weapons fire very fast and have low to no recoil, so maybe they don't have a room to grow? We'll see.

I'm honestly surprised they have as much customization as they do. Lady stormtroopers? Storm troopers without helmets? IS THAT CANON!?!?

To be clear I'm joking and view these as positive changes and I agree that I hope they go crazy with it.

Why did Haze have to ruin everything.

If you have a problem with how the game and it's DLC is priced/packaged then don't buy it.

Personally I'm having a good time with. Nobody FORCEd me to get it ( ha ha I made a funny)

So you can't discuss it?

For me, it stopped me from buying the game. I don't want to pay 90 for a full game.

For me, the deciding factor was the game featuring a TWO player horde mode in 2015. That's even more ridiculous than Destiny's three player limit.

I dig the game, so I don't know. I'm sorry you aren't down for it. It's some excellent fun.

While I can understand the complaints about there not being enough content; I grabbed it for $64 AUD so I can't really complain.

Even if I only get 10 or so hours out of it I feel I got my money's worth.

But you can only play supremacy and walker assault (the only two modes that allow for big player counts and capture the Star Wars feel) on four maps. Each planet only has one big map. There may be 12 maps for team deathmatch and capture the flag, but those aren't the game's strong points.

Every time I think I am going to have to download Origin and buy an EA game I see what it turns into and never end up getting it. I was super excited about Battlefront but as details emerged I've slowly come to the point of passing until its way cheaper. Steam has made me frugal and given me so many other options.

I think Hero Hunt and Heroes vs Villains are pretty fun modes as well.

Good thing it's regular priced for the full game then, eh?

@blu3v3nom07 that looks amazing.

I loved the other games but am hesitant to pick this one up at launch. Just doesnt feel like enough for 60 bucks. Considering how much the prequals had without any DLC or unlockable BS.

I also think Dan has a good point with the fact that a few months from now after the xmas rush and other shooters releases this game is going to be a ghost town.

That still dosent take away from the fact that there is still 12 maps. Maps dont delete themselves from the game just because you have a preferred game mode. Plus, not all battles in Star Wars were massive, and many believe Battlefronts best mode is actually the Drop Zone game mode.

You do know you can play as a female storm trooper in Battlefront, right?

Welcome to the 8th generation of consoles. Don't forget to buy your online subscription also!

It's standard fare. Doesn't make it any less acceptable. But that is how the current gen rolls. Accept it or not, the ball is in your court.

I really don't get how we don't have yet concurrent space and land battles in the same map. I thought that that would be the ultimate end-goal for a Star Wars Battlefront game, especially considering just how many of the large conflicts in Star Wars have those two parts of the battle happening at the same time.

I would not be surprised if one of the expansions ends up being "The Episode VII Expansion" (maybe even the first one, to capitalise on the excitement for the film post-launch), introducing the new designs for rebels and storm-troopers for customisation, new heroes/villains, such as Kylo Ren, and new maps for battles that occur in the film (we already have The Battle of Jakku for early buyers).

Edit: Also, I know that people like to see EA as the constant video-game bogeyman, but I would imagine that Disney had a fair amount of sway in how this game came out, including the timing of release and the gameplay made to attract as wide of an audience as possible, along with the aggressive expansion plan. If anything, EA has been very a bit more pro-consumer recently, if only because of their willingness to have an open beta on almost new major MP releases, so you know what you are getting into.

I think I can summarize most of your issues with "This game better fucking ship in November to promote the new movie or your team is FUCKED"

Adding less content and finely polishing the content that is there is a great way to make sure you reach your target date. Postponing any additional content and making some extra cash on it by selling it as DLC is an added bonus for EA/Disney.

Also, emboldening and underlining an entire paragraph makes you seem like a crazy person.

The number of posts like this on the internet shows to me that too many people simply have no clue how game development works.

The price of making games is going up. The more and more visual detail and computational complexity that these games require, the more money it requires. The reason you're getting shallower games content wise, is because it takes way more time/money to make said content. 50 million dollars 8 years ago got you MSG4. Now? 50 million dollars is entry level for AAA game development. So game developers have two options. Extend the development cycle of these games to 6-7 years, or, release a relatively bare bones version of a game, and then build on it for the sequel. Most are chosing the latter, because the former is untenable for most companies outside of Blizzard and Valve.

This is exactly what's going on for a franchise like Titanfall, or it explains why Fallout 4 is using a lot of the same tech as Fallout 3. If you make an entirely new game, it's going to take a lot more time and money to make than one that's built on new tech, but there isn't a developer out there that can go 6-7 years building a game from scratch with no revenue. There's a balance, and I can see that a lot of developers are struggling to hit it. This doesn't make them bad people, it just shows how competitive (and expensive) the gaming market has become.

It's a sad reality of getting games with more graphical fidelity, and more complex underpinning systems. Especially when compared to the late games in the Xbox 360/PS3's cycle, games that were jam packed with content because the fidelity and processing limit had be reached on the consoles by about 2011.

I just don't believe any company can afford to release a product that can be perceived as "too shallow" if they can help it. The market is saturated with a lot of quality. Releasing a product now a days in a state any less than it could have been is enough to bury a game nowadays. I don't think EA is unaware of this fact.

**EDIT**

By the way, consider that games are also cheaper than they've ever been despite everything I just mentioned. Games on the SNES were $50-$60, some times up to $80 new, depending on the game. Accounting for inflation, you easily pay way less than you did in '92, for games that are exponentially more expensive to make.

@dfsvegas: While I generally agree with this argument you cannot tell me that a freakin' Star Wars game released in 2015 won't make it's money back. I got the game with the console (actually before the console since it isn't in store before December, so looking at a copy of it right now) basically for free and will never ever buy a season pass, so I can take it or leave it really, it doesn't really affect me, but I can understand why people are pissed off. It's greed and yes it's a big corparation but that doesn't make this acceptable.

I am fucking sick of people demanding a SP campaign in a game that is designed around multiplayer.... It's almost like people forgot how awful the BF campaigns have been since 3.

@blu3v3nom07: Oh man, that looks amazing. Playing as an Ewok and just leaping at Stormtroopers legs. Where did this game go.

I just played 4 hours of it and I think it's pretty awesome. Can see myself doing at least 15 or more before getting bored with it. So that's almost 20 hours of fun for 52 euro's. Not a bad deal at all.

I bet you can complete Rise of the Tomb Raider in less then 10 hours without doing all of the filler content. And I don't see any complaints about that game's price..

That is more like a Captain Phasma not really a Storm trooper.

@monkeyking1969: ...what? Like, I can't tell which of two things you're saying. Is it that A: You want a character who is like Captain Phasma in that they're a special storm trooper who happens to be female, or B: you believe there is no female storm troopers in Battlefront, rather you can play as a Phasma-like character.

If it's the latter then you're just wrong, because the game defaulted my avatar to a black female storm trooper. You can be a dude or a lady under that armor, unless you have the helmet off it's only really distinguishable by voice. Their unmasked appearance carries over when you switch to the rebels. If you want the former then I don't know what to tell you because that character doesn't exist for the time period the game is covering. Like sure it'd be great if it were full of weird what-if scenarios but that's obviously not what the game is shooting for. They're trying to give a very movie-accurate presentation. I don't know how much of that is a mandate by Disney, and how much of that is simply the aesthetic EA wanted for the game.

I can only speculate, but it'd surprise me if there's not a force awakens pack down the line, and I'd assume they'd add Kylo Ren and - possibly - Phasma to the villain roster to match up with Finn and Rey.

I stand corrected. I thought the only female arm was Phasma-like.