Star Wars Battlefront The Battle of Jakku 02

Star Wars: Battlefront’s $50 Season Pass Already Feels Like a Ripoff

By

Star Wars: Battlefront isn’t even out yet and publisher Electronic Arts is already tightening the screws on fans’ wallets with the announcement of a $50 season pass that you can pre-order now if you want, but you shouldn’t.

Here’s what EA said about the season pass:

“We’re also excited to announce the Star Wars Battlefront Season Pass*, which extends the game with four expansion packs coming at a later date, filled with new content that will take you to new locations across a galaxy far, far away. Star Wars Battlefront Season Pass owners will also secure two-week early access to each expansion pack and an exclusive “Shoot First” emote.”

OK, now go pre-order it for $49.99.

So for $10 shy of the price of the full game — which is not out yet — what are you even buying? “Four expansion packs” with “new content” and “new locations.” But what does that mean? What kind of “new content” are you getting? Will it be new multiplayer modes or single-player missions? Will there be new weapons and new vehicles? New heroes and villains to play as? What are the “new locations?” Are they from the new movie or are they classic locations? How many new locations will I get? When will I get any of this stuff? Because “at a later date” isn’t exactly something I can put on my calendar.

Star-Wars-Battlefront-Hoth

In a world where Warner Bros. was (rightly) criticized for announcing a forty dollar season pass for Batman: Arkham Knight without enough information as to what you’d actually be getting, it feels like EA is spitting in our faces with even less information and a greater price.

As a refresher, here’s what the initial announcement looked like for Arkham Knight‘s season pass:

“The Batman: Arkham Knight Season Pass will deliver regular new content for six months post-launch including new story missions, additional super-villains invading Gotham City, legendary Batmobile skins, advanced challenge maps, alternative character skins, and new drivable race tracks.”

Compared to Battlefront‘s season pass announcement, Arkham Knight‘s feels like a treasure trove of information. You know exactly how long you’ll get new content and you get a breakdown of what kind of content you’ll get. It’s still not specific enough to shell out forty dollars, but it’s lightyears beyond Battlefront.

star-wars-battlefront-beta-tie-fighter

It doesn’t help that there’s not even a guarantee that Battlefront will work at launch. Developer DICE’s previous game, 2013’s Battlefield 4, was flat-out broken for at least six months after its release, with many players experiencing severe bugs and crashes or unable to play at all. Here’s what David Sirland, DICE LA’s producer, told GameSpot last year about how Battlefield 4‘s technical failings at launch affected the studio’s relationship with its fans:

“I can absolutely say that we lost [player] trust in the game’s launch and the early parts of the year,” Sirland said. “We still probably have a lot of players who won’t trust us to deliver a stable launch or a stable game. I don’t want to say anything because I want to do. I want them to look at what we’re doing and what we are going to do and that would be my answer. I think we have to do things to get them to trust us, not say things to get them to trust us. Show by doing.”

Sirland is absolutely right that DICE lost a lot of trust with Battlefield 4‘s launch, and he’s similarly correct that DICE needs to prove that it’s worthy of that trust again. The way to gain that trust, though, is not to start charging for a $50 season pass with zero details about what players will even get a full month before the game itself is even out yet.

The only thing you can trust here is that when a developer charges for map packs on a multiplayer game like this one, it splits the player base and hurts everyone. Over time, fewer people will play the maps that shipped with the game because players with the season pass want to play the new content; but even for those players, they can only play with other people who also bought in. To make matters worse, each subsequent pack has to deal with the inevitable player drop-off, so the pool of people to play with keeps getting smaller and each pack only splits that group further. Eventually the player base is so fragmented that the only way to unite everyone again is with a new game.

It’s planned obsolescence for your game before you’ve even bought it.

battlefront_3

Plain and simple, even if you’re really looking forward to Battlefront, there’s no reason to buy the season pass right now. Maybe all the “new content” will be amazing and the “new locations” will be incredible. Maybe the game will be rock-solid on launch day and it’ll be super fun. But those are all maybes right now, and maybes aren’t good enough to justify laying down sixty dollars for the main game and fifty for the season pass a full month out from release.

Don’t buy the season pass yet. You don’t even know what you’re buying.

  • SANSHORYU

    Don’t buy the season pass… at all. Just wait for the inevitable game of the year edition. I hate the whole buy-the-main-game-for-full-price-and-then-buy-each-subsequent-DLC-installment model. HATE. IT. The only game series I’ve ever done that for (and gladly, and would do it again) is Mass Effect. But for something like this, why do I want to spend more than double the full retail price if I can just wait a while and buy the GOTY version for $30 or less?

    • Thomas Ella

      Great point. I completely forgot about GOTY versions. I got Saints Row IV on PS4 + all DLC + Gat out of Hell for something like $12 on sale at Best Buy this year. That’s an insane amount of content and way better than had I bought it at launch for $60 on PS3, then bought all the DLC, then Gat out of Hell. Did Battlefield 4 had a GOTY edition?

      • SANSHORYU

        I am unsure, sir, but I do not believe so.

        But I was able to hold out for GOTY/Director’s Cut versions of Batman Arkham Asylum, Batman Arkham City, Red Dead Redemption, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Mordor, GTAIV, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, and Injustice: Gods Among Us.

        I should have ALSO done the same for Mortal Kombat 9, but my sister wanted the game so bad. But you can bet your ass I’ll wait for the GOTY version of MKX and Batman Arkham Knight.

        • DarthDiggler

          @thomasella:disqus @nick_yee:disqus

          Battlefield 4 Premium Edition is what you are looking for.

          For Single Player games the “All DLC” Editions are a great value if you have the patience to wait. The problem with multiplayer games is by the time you buy the “All DLC” Edition everyone else has everything unlocked and you are basically walking into a fight with your balls in your hand asking everyone — “please crush them” LOL. 🙂

          • Thomas Ella

            I’m glad they bundled all that stuff up. I had a lot of fun with Battlefield 4 when it launched but wasn’t playing it actively enough by the time the DLC was in full swing. Good on them for continuing to support it though.

            As for playing against seasoned veterans, there’s always enough newcomers, especially when a GOTY or All DLC edition comes out, that they should be able to play against each other without getting trounced by pros. If they immediately get thrown into a match with you and the veterans crushing them, that’s bad matchmaking.

    • DarthDiggler

      @nick_yee:disqus

      Yeah wait a full year so when you finally play the multiplayer you are up against seasoned veterans who will hand your arse to you on a silver platter! 🙂

      I will be online when the GOTY edition releases ready to chew you guys up! 🙂

  • Dirkster_Dude

    The beta seemed to indicate the game isn’t really ready for launch. A lot of things you can easily tweak before launch such as A.I. balancing but I have read way to many glitches that make the game seem like it is broken. I suppose it is possible some of the glitches are because the beta is clearly from a larger game and by making the beta they broke something that the full game will already have fixed. For me the decision to purchase this game is simple one. I’m not going to buy it because it doesn’t have a Star Wars Single Player campaign I can experience.

    • DarthDiggler

      @dirkradke:disqus

      Most beta builds are weeks or months old. We were not playing the most recent build we were playing the most recent stable build.

      This is one reason why I am not a big fan of Open Betas. You get people involved that seem to think the beta represents how the game will be on launch day. The purpose of the beta is to get feedback to make changes before launch. If you didn’t like something about the game it likely wasn’t a big secret and may get addressed in a future patch.

    • lunco

      What glitches are you talking about? Other than weird spawning, I really didn’t have any technical issues.

      • Dirkster_Dude

        Only what IGN and Gamespot talked about and they were not thrilled that said glitches were still there so close to launch indicating this game might be a repeat of the Battlefield 4 launch. It will go better because of the imminent movie release and Star Wars name, but not necessarily because it is a technically competent game. However, I don’t care one way or the other since I will not be purchasing it. To me the game is worthless without Single Player.

  • Alexander Marrero

    they should pass a law that if a company makes more than lets say 3/4 the price it took to make the game than there should be free dlc, but if they make less than they could charge. but paying like you said $50 is like buying a new game.

    • DarthDiggler

      @disqus_Gy3wUOUh1h:disqus

      I think they should pass a law outlawing economic ignorance. 🙂 We would likely have fewer issues all around. 🙂

      The fact is the video game market is a competitive marketplace. If you don’t like what a publisher is doing, stop buying from them. If enough people agree with you they will have to change their policies. I don’t think it is a good use of government services to micromanage the game industry. IMHO the government has FAR too much power to begin with.

      Please see my post above inflation plays a much large role in game and DLC pricing.

  • PachterStation

    Enough idiots pay into DLC and season passes, so they’ll always be out there.

    • VenomSnake421

      No, those are gamers who have the money.

      • ner10

        Idiot gamers with money

        • DarthDiggler

          @ner10:disqus

          These expenses for gaming are not that high in comparison to other hobbies and activities. You spend $20 on a 2 hour movie ($10 per hour not including snacks). If you paid that much for gaming the Witcher 3 would cost over $1,000. 🙂

          So how about we have a sense of scale here?

        • NeverGoingToNorway

          Everyone has there hobby. No idea what yours is, could be awesome, could be stupid, but its your hobby and what you would invest your time and money into. Its what you enjoy. Gamers hobbies however, while paying initial $60 + 20-50 for DLC gives them hours upon hours of entertainment. Maybe your hobby entertains for hours maybe, even days, you pay $150+ for a night out doing something, who knows. No need for insults being thrown at 1 persons hobby, especially when your reading gaming articles and trying to insult the audience this article is meant for. If this isn’t a hobby or interest of yours, why are you here3 in the first place?

      • DarthDiggler

        @disqus_BB:disqus

        Gaming is a fairly inexpensive hobby. $60 gets you hours (sometimes hundreds) of entertainment. Try skiing or Djing out sometime if you want to see your wallet get thin quickly.

    • DarthDiggler

      @PachterStation:disqus @disqus_BB:disqus @ner10:disqus

      Please do me a favor, this will give you guys a quick lesson on economics. Do a google search for “CPI Inflation Calculator”. You should have the US Government’s inflation calculator there.

      In the first field put in 59.99, change the first drop down box to 2015, now change the second drop down box to 2006 (year X360 came out and last time game prices were raised).

      As you can see inflation has robbed $9.16 of value out of that $59.99 price (over 15%).

      Publishers and Developers are using OPTIONAL DLC and Microtransactions to make up for that loss. I think they are being very smart by not raising the retail price and using add-on content to buttress the value of their offering. If they were to raise the retail price games and not have optional content. would likely run about $80-$100. If they went that route that would make the used game market a big issue for them again. A game would release for $80 and within a week a used copy would be sitting right beside it for $60 or less. Developers use Add-On content in order to create a value difference between New and Used games. Developers and Publishers have a duty to their investors to generate the most value from their properties.

      If you think games are expensive now you should do a little research and have an educated opinion.

      Atari 2600 – $199.99 (1977 Dollars) $785.26 (2015 Dollars)
      Atari 2600 Games – $24.99 (1977 Dollars) $98.12 (2015 Dollars)

      While game pricing has over time become much cheaper, the ambition and scale of games has never been higher. These days AAA games do not get made unless you are talking budgets of at least $50 million, many are $100+ million.

      At the end of the day these guys want to make money and I have no problem with that it takes a great deal of resources and talent to get these projects retail ready. If you want to complain about it that is fine, but at least temper your complaints with the reality of economics.

      • Eagles83

        I agree that game prices haven’t risen with inflation and I agree that this is why the dlc and micro-transactions exist but I would much rather pay a higher price up front than to have this kind of shady stuff on the back end.

        Battlefront is just the worst example of this since the game is full price at $60 and is multiplayer only. Similar games have multiplayer and single player portions for this price. Add on top of that they want you to pay another $50 with no information about what you would even get is crazy.

      • Thomas Ella

        I completely agree with everything you’re saying, but for that to work, that extra content needs to be worth my time and money.

      • HAppY_KrAToS

        Wrong.
        How many units a company would hope to sell, for a triple AAA title, back in 2006?
        Maybe 1-2 millions max.

        Today, a triple AAA game will easily sell 3-10 million units, on both consoles.

        How many week-months a company would need, to have the first polygons fully textured, animated at screen? A bunch.
        Today, a guy can enter a dozen values, click on a button ‘generate’,
        And in 5 seconds, he can have a fully textured, random grass, trees, animals, rocks, 10 square miles terrain, full of random vegetation, pathways, animals, NPC’s, everything with a working AI, with rivers, lakes, and a nice sunny sky with a few clouds. All randomly generated in a few seconds, fully playable.

        a few tweaks here and there, and a new 10$ dlc ‘map’ is 99% ready.

        want a texture ? Spend a week taking photos, or browse online a grab all your textures, in just 5 minutes.
        need sounds and tracks? Download in 2 minutes some 200 or 500 free sounds, effects, etc, or have some freelance guys compose infinite tracks for you.

        online gaming, matchmaking, leader boards, etc ? Just use the ps3-4 /Xbox API’s, and the game is online.

        you see, not everything is black… or white…

        and most important. …
        feel LUCKY, because you guys only pay 60 bucks.
        in Europe, with the different currencies and dumb taxes, many countries used to pay like 100-120 dollars for a console game.
        I remember paying around 119$ for uncharted 1…
        Companies already make MORE money with half the sales, in Europe. 60 bucks, that’s only the US. In France alone, a ps4 game costs around 75-79 euros, which makes like 90 US dollars.
        you see, companies AREN’T selling games at 60 bucks only. You will be amazed, when you quit the US cost, and go beyond the ocean, there actually are some new countries. Incredible, huh?

        • NeverGoingToNorway

          Seems pretty simple to make a multi-million dollar, makes me wonder why you are here in the comments instead of making millions spending about an hour making a game. Or maybe, just maybe, its not as easy as you have stated.

          • HAppY_KrAToS

            Have you pre-ordered your season pass? They need your money and support.

          • NeverGoingToNorway

            Actually I haven’t ordered it and I didn’t play the beta. Would be interested in playing it when released and if I enjoy the game, have no problem giving them my money. If you aren’t interested in this business model, that’s your preference, as many people obviously don’t like this model. So no I haven’t given them any money. But since you mentioned just how easy it is to throw together a multi-million dollar game, I figured you would have produced 1 in the last 2 hours since I made my first post since you already described the 10 minute process it takes to make a game.

          • G-man

            He isn’t saying it takes 10minutes. Anyone right now can pick from several completely free to use engine skds and start making a game. Say a game like portal where you never interact with another human, so there’s no need to animate a face and match it to audo, that’s difficult. The maps are the same assets repeated, so that’s pretty easy, there’s nothing particularly difficult about making a multi player map now.
            So why is this game twice the price of la noir? Gta5? StarCraft 2? Games that have single player mode, multiplayer mode and actually have inventive aspects to the games creation. This is maps that look like star wars and some character, vehicle and gun models from star wars. There is zero plot to anything that happen, just get out in a map and shoot each other, its as half added as any game could ever be and still function for twice the price. Because they already got away with selling a game that didn’t work, they probably thought they’d be pushing it to do that twoice

          • Chopyhop Danderfluff

            Which makes me wonder why EA are here in the comments trying to make the massive majority of haters look like a smaller majority.

        • lunco

          Sounds like a good recipe for bad games.

      • Brian Traina

        This is a level headed response. Good read.

        • G-man

          By level headed do you mean flat and one dimensional? Taking one variable into consideration over 30 years? That’s next to pointless.

          This game is a rip off because its battlefield 4 multiplayer with a reskin. They use an already made engine and stick some new models in it. Then charge double the regular price. Only an idiot tries to defend that bs business practice

      • Delima05

        If you sell 5million copies (manageable for this game) at $65 a pop you make $350 million.

        Right now VgCharts has Bf4 listed at 12million global. That’s 780 million.

        Most games won’t touch 5million. especially the Batman series, but idk what their budget is at either.

        What you wrote is really solid, unfortunately this will be well over their market line.

      • Mad Cowl

        Ah but…….. You have to account for the value of the dollars. Your description was all well and good, but those Atari games in 1977 were triple A
        games, as well. Additionally, you got all the maps/content, the game was fully
        tested and just worked, barring dust on the contacts. Top that with a
        lifetime that includes today. If Activision wants to give me a full-on game
        that works 100% on day one, has all the content, and won’t have the
        servers shut down inside of 5 years, then I’ll pay them $99.99 for the
        game (more than 2006’s $59.99 price point). On November 17th, I can expect to pay $60 for a day zero patch, and another $50 for content that may or may not include game modes or game play to my liking. And since battlefront 6 will likely be out in 3 years, support for battlefront 3 will be gone.

      • Hrrmn

        What about market growth? What about technological advances in production? What about the fact that a significant portion of the customer base is downloading games that don’t require cases to be molded, manuals to be printed, discs to be printed, warehouse space to be rented, trucks to be fueled, retailers to be wheedled, and so on? If you really think you can determine the profit margin of a product over time by using a single factor like inflation rate, you’re the one in need of an economics lesson.

        • Thomas Ella

          Digital isn’t the savior we hoped it would be, unfortunately. Stuff like printing cases and discs (but let’s be real: manuals are dead) isn’t actually that expensive, and the most recent figure I remember hearing is that 20% of games are bought digitally.

          I was pretty excited about our all-digital future, but personally, I’ve stopped buying digitally unless a game is *only* available digitally. I want the ability to sell the game if I don’t like it and I want the peace of mind to know that they can’t just revoke my license and pull it from the store (see: recent App Store games, P.T.).

          • Hrrmn

            Most of EA’s revenue comes from downloads, and downloads have a much higher profit margin. Check the company’s profitability between 2006 and 2015. Then tell me that games need to be more expensive or carved up into more DLC.

          • Thomas Ella

            Yeah but is that solely due to digital distribution or due to them changing business practices? I’m not trying to defend EA here; I’m just trying to offer perspective. There’s a reason they’ve been voted the worst company in America twice.

          • Hrrmn

            It’s due to a host of factors, which was my point. When it comes to video games over the past ten years, you can’t justify underhanded price hikes by citing a single currency’s inflation rate. It’s a lousy argument, especially coming from a consumer. “For the sake of corporations, I think we can be milked a bit harder. Who’s with me?”

          • Thomas Ella

            Oh, then yeah, definitely. My bad. I misunderstood. Inflation is but one of many factors—totally agree.

          • Munchy

            I remember they said digitqal will make the games, films and music cheaper as ther media didn’t need any physical hardware.

        • Daniel Anderson

          They’ll still have physical copies as well unless I’m missing something.

          • Nathaniel Jones

            I haven’t bought a physical game in years… I’d imagine I represent a healthy percentage of their market. If you even shave 20% of the original distribution costs associated with games that “were never sold digitally” we’d be talking about millions of dollars in savings for the publishers.

            I could build an indie game and share it on Dropbox… Costs me nothing but the price of an internet connection.

            Please explain to me how that doesn’t compete with the costs of the disks, the labels, the containers, the boxes you stuff all the containers in, the trucks/boats/planes that transport the boxes, the clerk that sells the games after removing them from said boxes, and every soul that earns a paycheck along the way as well…

            Stop defending the people extorting you for an extra 90%. You’re part of the problem if you do.

          • Daniel Anderson

            Lol so sad. You really think they’d make games cheaper just because the fact is they’d save money on not having to box it up. Maybe some day you’ll realize why they won’t. Not to mention, you should share with me where they state they don’t have boxed copies in brick n mortar stores of Battlefront. Your point is moot until that does occur.

            Not to mention your assumption I purchase solely physical copies, instead of just laying out a fact everyone should know, makes you a jackass as well. Kiss my D!ck

          • Nathaniel Jones

            I didn’t say any of that. Learn how to have a conversation… And read.

            PS. I wouldn’t touch that cold sore infested dick with a prostitutes hand and Bill Cosby jerking. Enjoy your cold sore!!!

          • Nathaniel Jones

            Oh, and when you’re done trying to get complete strangers to touch your junk… The conversation was about the cost of DLC beyond the core game, not making core games cheaper…

            You strike me as a Trump supporter. Kiss your mother with that mouth? What am I saying? You probably killed and raped her after she took away your COD for bad grades.

          • Nathaniel Jones

            I don’t think you really took the tone of my post in the way it was intended. And the fact that you would stand up for this crap practice by defending the reality (which is complete BS) just goes to show how OK you are with getting screwed like a fan boy.

          • Daniel Anderson

            Your original tone was one of ignorance. They’re going to take the cost savings from packaging + Shipping and use it to further increase their profit margin, thus their shares. You have an issue with reality. If you don’t like it stop purchasing their products.

          • Nathaniel Jones

            At least I’m not a condescending prick. You have yourself a great day.

          • Daniel Anderson

            You’re telling people what they’re outlook is on topics and you think you’re not condescending? Been seeing physical copies of battlefront at the brick n mortar, looks like you were wrong. At least I know you’re stupid to top it off.

          • Nathaniel Jones

            Actually… Stupid is arguing against your own interests and then taking pride in it. Being a prick is just generally dismissing any kind of valid points that are worth addressing so you can hear the sound of your own voice and talk down to a complete stranger. And ignorant… Is thinking your negative comments and insinuations of my intelligence are even close to realistic statements while you smugly type away.

            I’ve made no points that aren’t true or valid.

          • Daniel Anderson

            You’re wrong. You also made insinuations regarding an entire industry regarding a comment I made about a single titles physical copies being in brick and mortar stores. You are a prick basing an argument on bias and ignorance who has lost touch with reality. You created an argument on something as meaningless as someone pointing out the obvious.

          • Nathaniel Jones

            Again… Have yourself a great day. You’re just talking to be a prick at this point.

          • Daniel Anderson

            2 replies to a single comment. Ruffled feathers much?

      • Nathaniel Jones

        I’m sick of every fan boy in the world defending this @#$%y ethical system the corporate machine has created.

        For some reason though… Despite every point made… Teams of people were cranking out games long before the DLC was introduced. They did it with smaller staffs, weaker computers, and a much less efficient distribution system. They worked on projects for years and years, they didn’t just lob out a shiny new tittle annually because the share holders needed to see a profit margin, they took their time and did it right (Fallout anyone?)

        Game Devs didn’t cut corners in the script, the gameplay, or the amount of content available on day one either. They knew if they did… There wouldn’t be another.

        They made games and made sure they were absolutely awesome on release or they got tanked by the consumer when they realized it was a crap title. Devs didn’t pack up half a game and then offer the other half for an additional $50… Because frankly, we all would have laughed at the price tag and just bought another core game instead.

        People claim DLC needs to exist in order for Devs to make their money… But this just isn’t true. People claim they need to keep that money machine moving in order to keep the games coming, and again… Just not true.

        Every title benefits from the existence of the one that came before it. The graphics, the gameplay, everything we know in these systems is just an enhancement on last years model, so the idea that “they have to build it all from scratch” is complete BS.

        If small teams of 6 people can kick out amazing experiences… I fail to see how EA’s epic budget couldn’t at the very least deliver quality on par with a 6 man circus when it comes to “actual content.”

        Lets not get carried away here defending the big corporations currently taking a volatile stance behind all of us… Half of their problem is poor management, teams that don’t communicate effectively “because they’re too large,” and an army of suits thirsty for a piece of the pie they contributed absolutely nothing to “save being the middle man” in a long line of mouths to feed.

        It’s appalling… And EA? Is the @#$%ing devil.

        We got ripped off. Plane and simple.

        Cause if this is what a 100 million dollar Dev budget gets us? I’m going to be the first to suggest that this system is lacking in ethical foundation and realistic expectations.

        Like…

        It is unrealistic that I will ever purchase another EA title on day one again. I’ll wait until the core game and all of its content is available for $60-$70. At least then… I won’t feel as if I’m being conned out of my hard earned money.

        Battlefront looks great… It sounds great… But much like the hot chick in high school, it lacks substance and only knows one trick in the bedroom.

        I’m a 120 in the hole now thanks to that one night stand… And what’s worst? Is I don’t even play it. I play games like Fallout 4, The Witcher 3, Metal Gear 5, Grand Theft Auto 5…

        You know. Games that actually offer an experience worth 60 bucks… Much less 120.

  • Edwar Leon

    I did enjoy the premium dlc maps from Battlefield 4 but Battlefield Hardline has been a disappointment over and over. It feels like EA has become so stingy with content that now every time I open a dlc pack it is a fudging premium emblem. WTF am I suppose to do with a premium emblem? Shove it up my arsenal. EA is messing up dice and they are making it easier and easier to abandon them every day majority of people I know didn’t even buy the dlc for hardline because it is pointless.

    • DarthDiggler

      @edwar_leon:disqus

      BF Hardline was the first Battlefield game I didn’t get the Season Pass. I just didn’t like the base game as much as previous games.

      How many maps were included in each Map Pack? I think typical Battlefield games included 4 maps per pack and usually a new game mode.

      At the end of the day we gamers only have ourselves to blame for the games and expansions we buy. There is ample opportunity to research this stuff prior to purchase.

      • lunco

        They generally have 4 maps, 1 new game mode and additional weapons.

  • Spencer

    You people are pretty stupid. All this complaining without realizing this has been the norm in major AAA shooters like call of duty and battlefield for years? Get over yourselves.

    • DarthDiggler

      @disqus_ZPU19Bza1c:disqus

      On the internet there seems to be a small yet very vocal bunch of gamers that are ignorant of the realities of economics (inflation, exchange rates, local policies / taxes). Some seem to think that games should remain priced at $49.95 or $59.95 and if the developer sells any additional content they are ripping their customers off because that content was “cut” from the game. Nevermind the fact that when the game was launched the content wasn’t complete.

      IMHO this knee-jerk reaction by some gamers is all rooted in emotion. Which explains the pricing temper tantrums some gamers have when any discussion of DLC or Microtransactions is published.

      As you can see above I did attempt to point out some of the economic realities with game pricing and I bet the responses I get will be mostly emotional and unintelligent.

      • Spencer

        Exactly. Man you are one of the very few I’ve ever seen that actually get it. You can’t demand that games get bigger, more beautiful, more detailed, more advanced, and more intelligent while expecting them to stay the same price as 10 years ago. It’s absolutely ridiculous. When adjusted for inflation, video games are literally cheaper than they’ve ever been and all these kids can do is whine about it.

        • James S

          Why? it’s faster and easier than ever to make games so it’s only natural that a developer like DICE would have games of this quality. DLC has nothing to with making up the extra lost to inflation. It’s just common practice these days and there’s no reason for developers not to do it if people buy it.

          • Spencer

            The engine used has had a crap ton of updates and revisions since battlefield 3. That statement alone tells me that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

            “Reskinned” battlefield 4? Did you even play either one of those games? They’re nothing alike, at all. The only thing they share in common is fact that they have a first person mode.

            It’s not faster and easier to make games. It’s just as hard, if not harder. New tool sets that streamline development don’t erase the significantly more difficult challenges that need to be solved to make games as complex as they are now. And yes, DLC has everything to do with recouping costs and making a profit due to inflation.

            You know what’s going to happen? If you people keep resisting and not buying DLC, thinking things are going to get better, all they’re going to do is implement microtransactions that are essential to the game. They will find a way to get the money out of you that they need to make a profit on their production. If you guys want to turn the console industry into the phone industry, keep it up, we are headed there.

          • Thomas Ella

            Game development is absolutely harder than it was.

            But honestly, microtransactions in a game like this would be preferable to me than selling map packs. Sell skins and characters and outfits and stuff like that to the people super into the game, but keep the map packs free for everyone to foster a huge, unified community of players who will stick with the game for a long time.

            For single-player games like Dead Space 3, no thank you, but for multiplayer games like Battlefront, microtransactions aren’t necessarily a bad thing. Look at Rocket League. They’re selling little car packs and other cosmetic stuff and giving away new maps for free. Given that it was a PS Plus game, it’s essentially a console free-to-play game, and it’s been doing incredibly well as a result.

      • Thomas Ella

        Yo, it’s not an emotional reaction based on people not accepting or realizing economic realities (OK, if we’re being honest, some people are doing just that). For me, it’s that it’s not OK to put up a non-refundable season pass for $50 without even spelling out one piece of content you’ll get. That’s the whole thing for me. That’s why I ended the article on “hey maybe all this content will be awesome and totally worth the money but don’t buy it until they at least tell us what it is first.”

  • Hvd

    $50 for the season pass???how much id the dlc with out the season pass?fiy dlc would maps and skins maybe a new game mode down the road.thats usually what fps’s do.i have never bought a season pass from any game..lol i barley buy dlc. unless the game has mass replayability.i wont buy it.

    • DarthDiggler

      @disqus_6Putk03FJ1:disqus

      I have always been happy with my Season Passes from DICE, their map packs generally get better with every release and they do an excellent job on crafting a battlefield for you to run on. Buying the season pass will save you $10 on the DLC and grants you early access. With Battlefield 4 they threw in a couple freebies just for getting the season pass.

      See my post above about the role inflation plays in pricing of games and DLC. Today games are about as cheap as they have ever been.

      • Hvd

        thes why i play mmos way more content and f2p only one that charges $15 is wow and that still has more content then any fps dlc.

    • Thomas Ella

      The only season pass I’ve ever bought was BioShock Infinite and wow, what a terrible decision that was. Fantastic base game, horrible expansions.

      • Hvd

        ill give it to them i dodnt hear anything bad about the bf4 season pass maybe this will be ok or they mite pull a destiny..give you the 4 dlc like destiny then put that dlc in the expansion after and charge $60.

  • Micah Smith

    Pay close attention to the “four expansion packs” part. Destiny was did a similar thing where a lot of players pre paid for the first three expansion with a similar worded season pass. As soon as it finished shilling out three small dlc packs to fill the season pass, it released a much larger expansion that was more content than any of the previous stuff for the same amount. Dont pre purchase anything.

    • DarthDiggler

      @TheShorterBus:disqus

      You may want to take your tin foil hat off. Destiny offered a $5 discount on the first 2 DLC packs ($35). I bought it, I am well aware of how it was worded and there was nothing nefarious about the offer. The first 2 DLC packs were a little slim on content, but they definitely made up for that with the Taken King. Also the Take King was considered an expansion pack not DLC like the first 2 add-ons.

      DICE has been using the same season pass strategy since Battlefield 3. There is plenty of precedent here. They will release 4 map packs (and maybe a few additional maps for free like they did with BF4). Map packs will be priced at $15 each, buying the season pass will save you $10 overall. Sometime next year they will release Battlefront version with all the Map Packs for $50-$60 so you can get all the DLC you want for no additional cost over the retail price as long as you are patient.

      • David Huynh

        You speak economic but you forgot to mention supply and demand, and the manipulation of supply and demand curve due to rarity or market manipulation. Furthermore, efficiency comes to play because a 10 minute work may reduce to 1 minute because of the evolution of technology, skill and labour changes.

        Gamers argue that game makers should release completed products and price accordingly. This isn’t about extending the life of the game, it is about condensing the work cycle and increase corporate profit. For instant, a game punisher may make a completed produce with 100% labour and 10 months. Alternatively, it can use 100% to within 8 months, and 20% for the next 4 months. By doing so, they have 80% of their work force moving to next projects. When I look at it, it is about putting corporation first, and consumers second.

        A counter argument to your price argument is that the living wage and mean salary are less comparing to 20 or 50 years ago. There are many factors in optimizing a product price. Inflation is a small factor.

        • Jonathan Geiger

          As you explain it, Season Passes/DLC sound not just good for corporations, but more importantly for their employees. It sounds like a way to avoid having as many layoffs right after the completion of a game. Some go to DLC, some go to new projects. Still doesn’t mean it’s good for consumers in the short run, but if it helps the overall health of developers (both corporations and the individual programmers/artists/designers), that’s probably a good thing.

          • David Huynh

            It rather the opposite because it takes more resources to initiate a project from the ground. Your argument of job security is ridiculous because it neglects the market and backlogs. You’re not an econ if you don’t consider the potential of people. There is an argument of keeping people because of high severance pays, costs of new hiring and training. Remember, increase work efficiency means a corporation needs less resources to produce the same amount of work.

            I don’t see the merits of employment benefits because their values remain the same regardless of a completed work and incomplete work with additional materials.

            If it negatively benefits consumers in the short run, it will negatively benefits the corporations in the long run. We are talking about the economical interaction between corporations and and consumers. A healthy economic is where both corporations and consumers reap the rewards.

          • Thomas Ella

            Unfortunately, even though what you’re saying makes sense, the actual trend we’ve seen in game development is that they hire developers young, grind them into the dirt with crunch, low pay and an overall poor work environment, then cast them aside to hire cheaper younger people. Developers have long been seen as expendable to many companies, and that’s one of the reasons why lots of publishers and developers actively try to make sure everyone stays anonymous and no one gets too much press. Like Konami and how they forbid their developers to talk to the press, assigned them random emails, etc.

            So in that sense, DLC is actually very good for the industry. Lots of jobs in game development finish before a game is shipped. Like, a writer or a composer or a voice actor don’t necessarily have all that much to do in the lead-up to the game’s release since their work is more or less done and all that’s left to do is bug fix. That’s why lots of developers get laid off as a project comes to a close—that role just isn’t needed anymore, so they can save money by cutting them altogether.

            But like you said, when you don’t retain that talent, you’re starting fresh every time and it introduces inefficiency and people can’t learn to work together well as a team. So what do you do? Keep them on payroll working on DLC.

            Of course, that’s the black-and-white idealized version of it when the reality is a little more grey. DLC, like patches, should be an amazing thing for the industry and instead, corporate greed has turned it into shipping rushed, incomplete products with the promise of day-one patches and paid DLC to fill in the gaps.

          • David Huynh

            I voice my concerns as a casual gamer. From your words and the stories of young developers, it is terrible to live in a dog-eat-dog world. Greed and workplace culture that disrespect the human values need to change. We have witnessed this movement in the early 19th century where people came together and made significant improvements to the workplace conditions. In this regard, developers should unite and have a collective voice. Consumers can participate by rewarding the rightous developers (like CD Project RED) accordingly. Causality bounds to happen, but the long-term benefit is big.

            I still think that the gaming market is very volatile because of the evolution and the pace of technological change. Thus, the gaming workplace culture may seem immature at time.

          • Thomas Ella

            I think you’re seeing some of that maturation happen now, actually, even as it gets worse in many companies. Lots of AAA developers are leaving that scene behind and striking out in smaller teams where they have more control and less crunch. You’ve got development studios like Disruptor Beam that actually value their employees enough to promote from within, offer real vacations, reasonable hours, etc.

            Of course, on the flip side is companies like EA and Activision and Ubisoft, which all get increasingly monolithic by the day. Hopefully it changes, but the casualties here are talent in game development. When developers burn out, lots of them leave to go to other industries where the conditions are much better, so they get paid more to work less.

            That’s why, personally, I think DLC is overall a good thing for the gaming industry—it helps give developers more revenue, helps them retain employees they otherwise wouldn’t be able to justify keeping, extends the life of games people love. It’s just a huge bummer that it’s getting abused by the EAs, Activisions and Ubisofts of the world.

        • Thomas Perakovic

          I disagree. Inflation does not require factual changes. Just because inflation exist does not make this right. Because how far will they bend that attitude and start giving you less then what you are owed. You pay 60$ you should get the entire experience. You spend 20$ more to only gain 10% more of a game when 20$ of 60$ is 33% TO say the least you should never pay more for less. And to top it off , we need to step onto toes of those rushing the game. Why are we not allowed to wait one more year in order to get a full game? The whole rushed world is to blame as well imo , HOW long has battle front 2 been out. And yet BF3 cannot release as a full title?! Dont give me oh they just started development and they cancelled the first. Well yeah we know so they should just take more time.

          .
          Sorry I realllly am against DLC. Its masked crime.

    • Ricochet Saw

      Don’t for get the “Season Pass” for Borderlands: TPS

  • TheFirstGame

    I clearly don’t see the problem people have choices , to buy or not to buy the DLC it isn’t that hard ….clearly describes the content and it is up to the Gamer to decide from there

    • Thomas Ella

      All it says is “new content” and “new locations.” That’s not a clear description.

    • Thomas Perakovic

      Why is it constantly ok for a title to just not come out fully? DLC is being raped. The idea should be cool. BUT what will happen is. They release 1 years of updates. 4 preplanned packs. Then. NOTHING.

      DLC should be something that comes out a year later IF the game deams it worth it. PrePlanning money grabs are nothing more then pre planned money grabs. This hurts the game immensely.

      • Thomas Ella

        The problem there is that DLC a year later is almost a guaranteed failure. Most players will have stopped playing or even sold back their copy of the game by then. DLC released in the first month gets the highest return because most players still have it. I have no problems with DLC in general, but in the case of Battlefront, it just annoys me that they don’t even tell you what you’re buying and still have the audacity to charge nearly the price of a full game a month in advance. That’s ridiculous.

  • mlg pro Itachi

    ima hardcore star wars fan But MAN im not rich. these people trying to steal my money. I might buy this. If I Have an EXTRA $50.

  • lucasFIFAchamp99

    WHAT UP PEOPLE ! THIS IS STAR WARS DAMMIT, BUYING THIS SEASON PASS DAY ONE !!!

    • scoobydooby

      And EA know this obviously, which is why they are offering these types of packages. For a lesser brand of game, they likely wouldn’t bother.. but they know full well that people like you will shell out any number of dollars for a SW game..

  • ezGenesis

    Have bought premium for battlefield 3 and 4 and never regretted it… I don’t think battlefront is a game for me, otherwise I wouldn’t hesitate to buy season pass from dice. And I don’t think it’s wrong to ask for payment for additional content??

    • Thomas Ella

      It’s not wrong, but tell me what I’m buying before offering me the purchase option.

  • Padpaw22 .

    I still plan to boycott the game. Maybe I am in the minority for wanting nothing to do with anything EA touches.

  • Peter J86

    I don’t see the hype in this skin mod for BF4?

  • Keith Jaxson

    Every game that is worth playing has DLC that is usually the same price of the game the day it comes out. This is nothing new and infact Call of Duty I think charges 60 for a season pass

    • scoobydooby

      That’s a pretty bold generalization to say that “every game that is worth playing has DLC” What is worth playing to you is not worth to someone else, and also, not all games have day one DLC.. it may be the majority these days, but its certainly not a 100 percentile case.
      Seems to me that people are now just “familiarized” with developers offering these season passes and don’t care to consider how bad of a thing they are for the industry.. its great for their ability to make major bank, but not so great for gamers.

  • jeremyg85

    Maybe just.. don’t buy it? No one is forcing you to buy additional content, the game stands alone and if you want more you can get it.

    • scoobydooby

      That’s all fine and good for single player campaigns, but what about multiplayer? “please wait to join server…. Failed. You need to purchase the latest map pack > hit X to purchase” The point is that in this case, for multiplayer, you are sort of forced to buy additional content. They are making it so that “just don’t buy it” is no longer an option for people.

      • lunco

        Last sentence is the biggest BS ever.

    • Thomas Ella

      I’m… not buying it. But the “pay $50 extra a month before this game is out and we won’t even tell you what you’re buying” trend is not something I want to see continued.

      If they had announced the season pass with clear distinctions on “here’s what you’re getting,” I wouldn’t have bothered to write the article.

  • Goldsun

    Dude, quit being a bitch. If you ever played Battlefield 4 it’ll be plain to see what you’re getting with a season pass.

    • Thomas Ella

      Dude, I did play Battlefield 4. It was a really fun game until the DLC came out and fragmented the community. But it’s ridiculous that they expect you to shell out $50 a month in advance and won’t even tell you what you’re getting. Why is that OK?

      Plus, using Battlefield 4 is a bad example because that game was broken at launch for months. Why would I then feel compelled to shell out $90 for the full Battlefront experience with that in mind?

      • Goldsun

        Why must I cry?

  • Thomas Perakovic

    DUH! The whole video game industry is a crime. We have ZERO regulations on big companies dividing a completed title. This is a crime in my personal opinion. We need a division of rights that investigates business so they cannot do this! How many times are we going to see this happen? With Battle front 3 now comming out in this DLC era we can see NOTHING IS SAFE. We need regulations on developers! The fact they are allowed to promote a double price tag with zero reality is a crime in my opinion.

    There are too many gamers out there who truly do not understand this deceit. With this spread the knowledge and do not ever pre-order or feed to the consumerism that is a crime.

  • context

    i miss when all of this came as one game, for one price. and the writer is correct about fragmented communities with this DLC map pack crap.

  • daftPirate

    Gotta disagree.

    First, where’s the call out CD Projekt Red for their pass, with undetailed content? Is that cool because they gave away “free DLC”? Is there an article about Bethesda’s Season Pass for FO4? I mean, announcing and even selling a season pass at this point is not an EA exclusive practice, and unlike a lot of other companies, DICE has a long established precedent for how they handle DLC. This isn’t surprising, or even a big deal. Also, is that a suggestion that Battlefield 4’s launch problems should mean some kind of concession on Battlefront for the sake of “trust”? The launch issues and DLC model are completely unrelated.

    Planned obsolescence? By that logic every yearly franchise, hell every franchise in general is guilty of planned obsolescence simply by dint of planning sequels. Doesn’t that sound like nonsense? Because that’s what it seems like to me. It implies some kind of arbitrary fixed limit on how long a game should go without a sequel, or how long players have to play it for it to be “worth it.”

    And how is never adding new maps going to ensure that people keep playing the game? Assuming player drop-off is inevitable (and to be fair, with multiplayer games, it is), fresh content slows it down. The (perhaps singular) pro of a lack of private servers is that it also reduces “fragmentation”; you join the servers they send you to.

    • Thomas Ella

      I’ve noticed there’s always such a weird tendency people have to completely dismiss an article just because “WELL WHAT ABOUT X, Y, and Z, HUH?” No, I didn’t cover other games here, but that makes this no less OK just because Activision is also doing it, Bethesda is also doing it, etc. You play a weird game of chess with commenters when you write an article like this: “Well, I said this, so they’ll argue this, so I need to counter by including this, then they’ll…” It’s exhausting and counterproductive and I just don’t bother because I’d rather just talk about one topic. The point here is to start a discussion, not be a comprehensive academic study. Battlefront’s announcement stood out to me, so I wrote about it. Other people have mentioned Black Ops III, for instance. I would’ve absolutely mentioned Black Ops III had I known about it, but I don’t follow Black Ops III and again, I don’t feel the need to turn every focused opinion piece into a comprehensive examination of a growing trend in games. Maybe as a follow-up sure, but there’s something to be said about introducing a topic and an argument and giving the community room to branch out in discussion.

      Battlefield 4’s performance for me is significant when you’re talking about the idea of buying a nonrefundable digital season pass for a game where not only are you gambling with whether or not it’ll be good, but whether or not it’ll even work, potentially for months, and then that content could get delayed as is the case with BF4. All of this one month before the game even launches and where they won’t even tell you what, exactly, you’re buying.

      As for maps, I have no idea how you got the idea that I was advocating for never releasing new maps when I said the problem was “charging” for them. Release maps for free to keep the player base united, engaged, and willing to keep their copy of the game and come back every few months. Charge for cosmetic stuff or even weapons, but keep the players all playing the same maps at the same time. Rocket League has done an excellent job doing that. Team Fortress 2 has already proven that business model several times over. Sure, now you just accept whatever server the matchmaking gods give you, but the pool of players to choose from gets divided into distinct chunks when you charge for maps: players who have them and players who don’t. That’s the problem. Over time, you have fewer and fewer players to match with as a result and therefore less incentive to keep playing. Free new maps and an invigorated player base with long legs is a fantastic way to inject value into a game over the long run rather than churning out a couple maps for a quick buck before moving on to the sequel.

      • daftPirate

        That’s because this isn’t an issue that should be addressed outside the context of the rest of the industry. I would totally understand if this were a review of content already released, because that can be judged on its own merits and compared to what other games are offering. But DLC/season pass preorders aren’t like that. If it’s criminal for one company to do it, it’s criminal for all of them to do it. If what we’re trying to accomplish is change/improve the industry, than the brush needs to be applied to the entire canvas, or it’ll get nowhere. It would have been much more impactful if you had simply used Battlefront as support in advocating buying no season passes from any dev until you know what you’re getting. I understand that there’s a trouble when writers are covering multiple things from different angles, but all of this belongs together, under one umbrella of discussion.

        I understand someone’s personal hesitancy to buy into an untested product after going through BF4’s launch, but at the same time, the shadow of BF4’s launch problems existed back during its beta, while in comparison, Battlefront had a stable beta. No, it’s no guarantee, but again this is the kind of issue that they’ve been dealing with and working to avoid for years now, before and since BF4. Even considering that, I don’t see how a season pass pre-order is so culpable when, as you said, all it takes is to wait for more details; the price won’t go up. And we really do have a very good idea of what these expansions will entail. We may not know specifically, and to be fair, I do think it’d be foolish to order the season pass before at least hearing an announcement about how many maps each expansion will have, but the precedent DICE has established doesn’t leave much room for wildly different speculation.

        I took for granted that you wouldn’t suggest that these map packs should be free. Games like Rocket League and TF2 are in a completely different class; that’s not a model that would work in something like Battlefront. I mean, you’re the journalist, maybe you can inform me on this, but I’m thinking it’s much more costly to design and implement a new walker assault map than a handful of skins to sell. Like would I love to get maps for free? Abso-freaking-lutely, and hell, they’re opening DLC announcement was for Jakku, with two free maps. But I don’t think just giving them away is viable (and if you’ve got something indicating otherwise, I’m happy to consider it). It doesn’t preclude further free DLC, but I don’t see any grounds to expect it. The truth that I’ve seen, personally, while playing these games, is that while player drop-off happens, the result is that the DLC is what gets played less. Even if you can’t find matches on DLC servers, there’s always still people playing the base game. But that’s why buying the DLC is a choice, and one that no one has to make immediately, even if it’s available.

    • Barksdale

      Have you even looked at The Witcher 3 season pass? They tell you exactly what you’re going to get. Two major expansions – Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine. Even more, they tell you how long it will take on average to complete that content. Why would we need to call out CDPR for telling us exactly what we’ll be paying for?

      • daftPirate

        And this tells you what you’re going to get: 4 expansions, promised to at least include new locations, and early access to all DLC (relevant only to multiplayer games). When the Witcher 3 Expansion Pass was announced and went on sale (again, a month before the game came out), the only information it gave besides the length of the adventure (relevant only to single player games), was a generic fantasy hook. The only actually revealing information was the locations. Very little more information was revealed until barely a month before the DLC’s release.

  • Daniel Anderson

    Wait till the season pass goes 50% off. I’m going to pick up this game once it and its season pass gets at least 50% off.

  • Munchy

    yey dice say bad battlefront llaunch due to tech issues, hum wasn’t battlefield 4 exactly the same. I’m so glad I didn’t by this crap. Personally dlc and no single player mode was more than enough for me to say no.

  • Nathaniel Jones

    If I could file charges over being ripped off by EA/Dice I would…

    I will instead never purchase an EA game on it’s opening day ever again. Season pass? You gotta make a core game that’s worth something before I’ll even consider such an investment.

    As beautiful and sonically accurate the world they’ve created is… This is not Battlefront. This was a $30 Arcade game at best. I would play Battlefront II over this polished pile of crap any day. It’s shiny…

    But much like most of the beautiful women I knew in high school, it’s without substance, and doesn’t know how to @#$% either.

    Thank you for the worst one night stand / blind purchase ever EA/Dice!!! Keep the money… You’re gonna need it if this is how you plan on treating your fan base. (Shakes head.) Way to shake us down for $120 bucks. With an expansion already out, it’s safe to say “A complete experience, this is not.”

    Nor do I expect it ever will be…