Star Wars BattleANTICLIMAX

And here we were, hoping EA was changing for the better. LOL.

Lol... To be honest it's the route most devs are taking, independent or via publisher.

Whilst I think EA are being particularly bad in stripping day one features out of the game to push more dlc (hello sims 4), having a season pass for upcoming (assumingly yet to be created) dlc looks reasonable to me, in that it's essentially covering costs of the development time.

How good or bad this is value wise depends on what is included in said dlc. 4 single maps would be rubbish, but if they're more complex like walker assault and each includes several large, high fidelity maps and possibly a new game mode, well 12.50 each doesn't sound bad to me.

I mean it's effectively the model that frontier are taking with elite. Fact is modern games with the level of fidelity now demanded by fans are a huge undertaking and I don't think anyone would argue the new battlefront is a beautiful game...

I managed to play the beta and enjoy it without any DLC, I don't see how I won't enjoy the full game without DLC.

"Matchmaking failed: You lack the required content for this server".

Yeah thats another rule with EA:
You'll be playing alone without all those DLCs...

Anyway, I played the beta and found it to be a ~20€ game, nothing more. It is way too oversimplified. I payed 35€ for BF4 with all DLCs and that was fine. 120€ is close to scam.

oh boy. the temptation for me to use irony here is strong xD.... remember that windows 10 thread ?

Yeah that's something you're going to need to prove. I can still play BF3 without any of the DLC content purchased

Also lol at people who think games are cheap. "want fantastic graphics but pls no money pls".

Yeah but you can't rely on matchmaking these days. I don't trust them to not **** it up.

And that premium edition... Look, I get that it costs a lot to make such a high-fidelity title but the prices are just nuts.

It's $160 AUD. So that would suggest the DLC will have another 1.5 game's worth of content. And frankly I'm not convinced it will. The prices also fluctuate weirdly. In the UK it's 95 pounds. That's $200 AUD.

This is EA asking us to gamble on the quality of the DLC. No thanks.

There's quite a few people on the battlefront forums saying they are okay with this. They're just drooling all over it....wtf.

Okay here's the issue.. I'm sure we all understand games take time and money to create, but we feel that time and money must be being put in the wrong place. You mentioned us wanting a nice looking game earlier, when honestly that's just.. Not priority, what is priority is gameplay. It is an undeniable fact. This game will contain less than other games in a similar price range. Now normally this might be okay.. But when it gets to the point that EA already has a whole slew of ideas for future DLC that very much could have been a part of the game, or at least added on for free later.. Well it feels silly.

There will be 15 maps in the stock game, maybe 3 more with the free dlc I'm not sure. That's 15 maps spread across 7 game modes (hopefully with some interchangeableness as otherwise it's only 2 maps per mode)

While Battlefront 2 had a total of 33 maps (including galactic conquest specific space battle maps)

I was really supportive of this game, I argued for it, I said the lack of content that was in the previous games was okay. But to me this is just taking it too far. I shouldn't have to buy this game for sixty dollars and not get anywhere near the full experience when so many other games with arguably more content are going off for lower prices, without dlc. =/

I hope everyone cancels their preorders, and people wait for the price to go down like I will. Because practices like this should not be rewarded and encouraged.

http://starwars.ea.com/starwars/bat...ost-110-dollars-to-play-all-of-battlefront/p3

There's the 'reaction' thread on their forums. I haven't seen anything on Reddit butmi also haven't been looking :/

Squishy nailed it. The gameplay is definitely solid IMHO - its just that we aren't sheep, EA. They gave us a taste of it - now we expect TONS from a $60 pre-order EXPANSION.

Can you imagine if PA did this with PAT when they released PA to 1.0? My God.

And you're free not to gamble.

But don't put down the people who choose to, or the enjoyability of a game that people have already had four days to sample.

The DLC isn't going to make what was in the free weekend worse. If you liked that, you're going to like the full game. If you didn't like that, the full game still might not attract you.

Simple as.

You can feel whatever you want mate, you should know that doesn't make you right. The new Battlefront is a marvel of engineering that admittedly benefits from DICE's expertise with the Frostbite engine (to achieve such visual quality while also running fantastically on a variety of hardware). This costs money.

To create the amazingly-detailed ingame assets, costs money. And so on, and so forth.

I'm an ideas guy. I used to mod games. I make games. I do software development. I have more ideas than I have the time or resources to make. The same goes for any games developer, and even games publisher. Publishers can be guilty of cutting up game content to sell it post-release - absolutely.

But this doesn't mean that should be the default assumption. Nor are your assumptions about the content of the full game anywhere near accurate.

You're comparing it to Battlefront 2? A ten year old game built on twelve year old tech whose visuals were great for the time, but nowhere near the complexity of the new Battlefront? Sure, new technology makes this more achievable. Sure, tools have gotten better since then.

But a one-million poly model is still ten times as complex in pure mathematical terms compared to something that is 100,000 polys. Realistically, you're looking at an exponential curve and that's before you get onto the range of texture maps that models typically use these days (2005 barely had specular and you didn't really see normals at all).

If you want to oppose DLC? Don't buy the DLC.

But in order to prove that the DLC has any impact on the game's quality at release, you have to prove that assertion, sorry. The game itself is looking pretty solid. Their DLC strategy is simply a reason not to buy DLC - not the base game itself.

Buying the game sends the message you want / like the game. Buying the DLC says you want / like / accept the business practises of the DLC. You can do the former, but not the latter, and that still sends a message to the publisher (who are responsible for the bottom line).

Don't tell other people how to spend their money, especially when your conclusions are drawn from comparisons with a game that is a decade old. You didn't mention any others, sorry. Value is relative. I preferred Dawn of War 2 to Starcraft 2, released at similar times in the same genre for similar prices. That doesn't mean SC2 is a bad game.

Be careful what you do with your opinions. You may find you make the situation worse.

I never told anyone to do anything, and I never said my opinion was right?All I said was that's how I feel personally, and that I hope others will feel similarly and will cancel preorders and etc.

Vehicle gameplay is not solid. It's more like a gas.

My question is why this game is taking more money than battlefield. I get the whole licensing thing from Disney, but is that really going to double the price from Battlefield??

What do you not like about it?

The Aircraft mouse controls are awkward as heck, not nearly fluid enough. And the land based vehicles mouse movement is a bit too smooth and feels like they have a bit of mouse accel or something, and the weapon aim is often very off from the crosshair.

Besides the obvious floaty controls

Battlefield had the same price on release.

Problem is, people are comparing Battlefront's Ultimate edition to the base price for Battlefield. Apparently?