I have to respectfully disagree. DICE are using the frostbite engine here. They did NIT create this engine for this game. So in short what we have here is BF4 re skinned and with new maps. Had they included space battles and actually leveraged flight it would be a bit easier to swallow.

As it stands this is a bare bones release with content pay walls whoring out the star wsrs license. The fact that you need to spend110 on this is ridiculous. This is where gaming is heading. Nickel and diming for everything.

EA - f you and the executives in the C suite that are doing this.

I for one will not be buying....ignore gamers refused these practices they would stop. Instead you lot are lining up.
Grab your Vaseline in November!! Cause you are getting fked!

You realize by that logic, any game DICE creates from now on that does not have space battles will simply be a reskinned Battlefield 4 because they didn't remake the entire engine, right?

"The fact that you need to spend110 on this is ridiculous. This is where gaming is heading. Nickel and diming for everything."

That's not where gaming is going, that's where it's been for the better part of a decade now. Clinging to this "OH, THE GOOD OLD DAYS" mentality is just going to ruin gaming for you. Wake up. This is where AAA licensed games are in 2015. It's not ideal, but we have a healthy, sustainable industry going for now, and that's a good thing.

$50 DLC bundles is not "nickel and diming". It's $50 for crying out loud. That's an investment in a game you already bought and expect to enjoy for the next 18-24 months. DICE have always been good with their Premium content strategies. I bought BF3 and BF4 Premium because I've been playing those games for years and intend to keep playing them. The latest BF4 map pack is the best one they've ever released, so if they continue on that path, I expect Battlefront's map packs to be of comparable quality.

"I for one will not be buying....ignore gamers refused these practices they would stop. Instead you lot are lining up."

Yeah, that's fine. No one really cares if you refuse to buy a game out of some sort of perceived principle. I'm not even 100% sold on this either, but I'm not writing it off just yet. I'll stay cautiously optimistic until launch day and evaluate whether it's worth it (like every other reasonable person should).

"Grab your Vaseline in November!! Cause you are getting fked!"

what happened to "respectfully disagree"?

The only problem with your statement "start from scratch" is that it's painfully obvious there are reskinning everything from battlefield. Every system they don't have or do have are all in corelation between does battlifield have it or not.

Nothing is ever as simple as "reskinning". Reskinning literally means "remake". Remaking something takes just as much effort as making something the first time with the added bonus of additional experience.

"it's painfully obvious there are reskinning everything from battlefield."

How is that painfully obvious when we haven't even seen the gameplay yet? On the surface, the games are bound to look similar to the untrained eye. They're both large-scale FPS games from the same developer. One's military themed, one is Star Wars themed.

There will be similar gameplay mechanics, there will be similar vehicle archetypes, there will be similar set-piece moments.

The core concept behind making games is to prototype, iterate, evaluate and repeat. If something is already fun and working, why change it? If something isn't working, change it or get rid of it and try something new.

You kind of have to pick your battles. Too much ambition can harm a game just as easily as a game that plays it way too safe.

And that's supposed to make it better? By making excuses on how today's modern industry is worse?

I'm not trying to make excuses for the industry, I'm just trying to explain it and reframe it for people to better understand the mystical reasoning behind what developers do.

Fully Agree with the Panda and Red on this one.

Its not some copy and paste job, the elements in Frostbite 3 are not found in BF2, soooo why would all those features be in the game? DICE doesn't want to add to a lower level of quality by adding such features if they can't make them better.

Consider what goes into a BF map now compared to 10 years ago. (BF in terms of Battlefield)

Those maps don't have destruction elements, they don't have textures, the same lighting elements etc.

One can't just ask for such a thing and not factor in that the level of detail and complexity will come along with it.

For all we know, DICE didn't add in that mode based on they likely want to make it similar to Titan Mode on BF 2142. That is such a huge endeavor its not even funny, I'd rather they save it for the next game and have it working vs rush it out and not have it come with all the amazing destruction features we grew to love.

As for DLC, its an extra, it can be debated on if it was suppose to be in the final game all day, but the reality is.....most games don't just launch with such a number of maps that the DLC will add up to, its just unheard of.

DICE has done some of the best DLC in the industry, its in good hands.

I've yet to buy premium for BF4 and I've owned it since launch and have over 180 hours in it, I'll get the DLC when I'm past 230 hours or so. For those who think Star Wars has few maps.......master the game before asking for more maps. I tend to love memorizing and mastering the maps before getting new ones.

For those who keep saying its a "reskin" lol, no...thats not how it works..... this game to my understanding doesn't even have Battlefield's modes.

and in terms of DLC, um.......gaming has had "expansions" since gaming has been gaming.....

The Super, Alpha, Hyper, etc in Street Fighter has always been for extras, they would legit just sell you the same game with 2 more characters or something, PC had expansions ie dlc for years, since the dawn of gaming we've had something like it.

This is no different.

@Nodose- "The fact that you need to spend110" no, you don't need to spend anything at all bud, dlc is a choice and no BF just launched with 40 maps or anything....

Hell, if Star Wars had 40 maps at launch but had 100 maps as DLC you would like still cry about that. I'm sorry but some gamers need to know what "extra's" are... The maps on this game can't be compared to the maps of a damn 10 year old game. More goes into games now then 10 years ago bud.

I agree also .

on top of how much more work it is to develop to todays standards they have to do it over muplitple platforms . think how much better any game could be if sony and MS shared arcitecture and the same version ran on both

the cost of a full hame today is the price of the game on release and the season pass if you want all the add ons . Im, not saying I like it but no one should be suprised when it happens every game

I get what you're saying but if that's the case and there is less content because they put a huge focus on making sure it's a fun game (which is obviously a good thing of course), then the dev time should have been longer to make sure the rest of the features get put in as well.

Adding offline modes like Instant Action and Galactic Conquest isn't some major undertaking to add to the game. If it could be done a decade ago, it can be done now.

Except that DICE isn't boiling down the essence of the stars Wars IP by not adding content that is synonimous with it.