Support NeoGAF

[Gemüsepizza]

Actually yes, to all of those questions. Making a campaign with the kind of production values that people expect out of a 2015 AAA title undeniably takes time and resources away from the multiplayer segment. Whether that loss comes to fruition in the form of less content or lowered overall quality, the multiplayer experience would without a doubt be worse to some degree.

I do not see any evidence that proves that this automatically takes away resources from multiplayer. They can increase team size. They can spend more time on development. To me Star Wars Battlefront is a very obvious example for a game which was created with limited resources (probably smaller team size/less time), and the result is a MP only game. If EA had invested more resources, they could have created an additional SP campaign.

 

[Nestunt]

The problem is not the "removal", but the trend of Multiplayer-only games.

That market is getting saturated and, contrary to the market of story driven games, is a style where people tend to not disperse, so I don't see the point of so many companies trying to hit the jackpot

well, they're cheaper games to make and have a lot of design cop-outs in terms of AI and depth of environments

 

[mclem]

I find this logic flawed. What about people that don't have their console online, and play only the campaign? They're not tracked, and don't stats show that even in 2015 a huge number of console players aren't online?

Their purchases are tracked, though. A finance person just needs to look at the discrepancy between 'purchases sold' and 'people who played multiplayer' to get a decent estimate.

I do not see any evidence that proves that this automatically takes away resources from multiplayer. They can increase team size. They can spend more time on development. To me Star Wars Battlefront is a very obvious example for a game which was created with limited resources (probably smaller team size/less time), and the result is a MP only game. If EA had invested more resources, they could have created an additional SP campaign.

"These budgets just aren't high enough"

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Battlefront has considerably less content than Battlefield 4. Where are they devoting more resources?

13 (15) maps compared to 10, 9 (10) game modes compared to 7, etc.

So, how does Battlefront have considerably less content than BF4 again?

A thin argument would be that BF4 has more guns, but in all honesty how many are actually used? Not many, where in Battlefront I constantly see all of the weapons in use.

 

[Apathy]

It has become a worrying trend.

The problem is with the price. If publishers are selling half a game they should be charging half the price. $30.

Or at the very least have a lot of multiplayer content. CoD games cost $60 but have a story campaign plus zombies/spec-ops mode plus typically 15-16 multiplayer maps. Games with multiplayer only cost $60 and typically have 11-16 maps so it's not like we're getting more maps to offset the lack of campaign, if anything we're getting even less.

So tomb raider should have been $30 because it didn't have multiplayer? come on. A game is not a full game because it has a single player and a multilayer component to it. A game is a full game based on what it was decided to be by the developers. Now if you don't want to pay $60 for a multiplayer game that's a different issue that has nothing to do with whether a game is a full game is a full game or not.

 

[WickedLaharl]

Says who?

That's the game i got with my N64. What a huge fucking mistake that was.

 

[emb]

I hate the idea of a game having a dependency on additional people or an Internet connection.

I'm fine with leaving out intricate story modes, but I should at least be able to play the multiplayer by myself with some half-hearted AI.

 

[RobNBanks]

You might not like that. That is ok. Not all games are made for you. Get over it.

yep..
There's hundreds of games released on console every year. Why do people act like each and every single one has to appeal to them?

Let's spend tens of millions developing a campaign so people on NeoGAF can consider buying our game.

 

[J 0 E]

I was excited for Battlefront + Evolve + Titanfall and I think all of them had a great campaign potential but had to skip them for this reason.

 

[Japanmanx3]

Not every game is owed a SP campaign. Which is ok. Just make sure if its MP its enjoyable and fully loaded from the get go. Titanfall vs Battlefront vs. Evolve.

 

[Wasp]

People say that games like Battlefront and Rainbow six would need significant development resources allocated to their campaigns in order for them to be worth a shit, and while that's true, I can never see the excuse for not having at least full bot support.

I've spent so many lazy afternoons just going through bot matches non stop in Unreal, Battlefield 2 and Red orchestra. There's times when you want to get a taste of the gameplay you want without the additional stress of playing online "for real"

And lets not forget the GOAT bot game, Perfect Dark. It took it's bot features to a whole new damn level. Timesplitters was a great game to just whack bots as well. Even PDZ was a hoot with 32 player bots matches with all spawns set to Rocket Launchers.

God I miss bots...they're obviously no replacement for a full campaign, but I think their a great compromise that scratches that "no preassure" , single player itch.

Also there's no excuse for a multiplayer focused game to lack splitscreen.

Titanfall - no splitscreen
Evolve - no splitscreen
Rainbow Six Siege - no splitscreen
Overwatch - no splitscreen
Battlefront - splitscreen in Missions only
Garden Warfare - splitscreen in Garden Ops only

 

[Turin Turambar]

Too much outrage for just two mentioned games in a full year.

Try again when there are a dozen of them.

 

[Cindres]

Making a MP only game isn't selling half a fucking game, man some of these posts are incredibly infuriating.

The game still took a bunch of people a long time to make and polish because game development's hard. But oh no just because it has no single player it's only wortth $30 to you? Let's just sack half the workforce now because returns weren't made on the required investments made to develop the game.

A game is a fucking game, they make what they want to make.

I'm happy to leave SP out where they didn't want to make it.

 

[MrDaravon]

Well, there were only 108 people making Fallout 4, which is about the same as the number making Titanfall (and about the same development time to boot), so it'd only be fair if they were both $30.

And Fallout 4 is single-player only, so it clearly should be $30! Because the MP/SP split works both ways right guys?

"removing" makes it sound like they had designed, built, playtested, polished, and QAed an entire single player mode and said, "...nah tho".

More realistic situation is they decided to focus on the multiplayer, because its a multiplayer game. You might not like that. That is ok. Not all games are made for you. Get over it.

.

 

[VincentMatts]

I do not see any evidence that proves that this automatically takes away resources from multiplayer. They can increase team size. They can spend more time on development. To me Star Wars Battlefront is a very obvious example for a game which was created with limited resources (probably smaller team size/less time), and the result is a MP only game. If EA had invested more resources, they could have created an additional SP campaign.

I think with SW dice just wanted to play it safe to do something more polished since its not their franchise and they cant fuck it up like they did BF4. To me, they just seem to bite off less just to made sure it was working and polished. even explains the 40 players online instead of 64. Played it super safe.

 

[Apathy]

Also there's no excuse for a multiplayer focused game to lack splitscreen.

Titanfall - no splitscreen
Evolve - no splitscreen
Rainbow Six Siege - no splitscreen
Overwatch - no splitscreen
Battlefront - splitscreen in Missions only
Garden Warfare - splitscreen in Garden Ops only

Wtf, yes there is. It's taxing on the hardware. It would make the experience worse for the people involved and the devs would rather not have that. Oh and the big one, it's not a feature that gets used enough to warrant time being spent to code it.

 

[JumpJeff84]

I think with SW dice just wanted to play it safe to do something more polished since its not their franchise and they cant fuck it up like they did BF4. To me, they just seem to bite off less just to made sure it was working and polished. even explains the 40 players online instead of 64. Played it super safe.

I think they just had a mandate to get the game out in time for release of the new Star Wars movie

 

[VincentMatts]

Wtf, yes there is. It's taxing on the hardware. It would make the experience worse for the people involved and the devs would rather not have that. Oh and the big one, it's not a feature that gets used enough to warrant time being spent to code it.

Well maybe the hardware sucks then? It was never a problem before and they always made games to be visually impressive. The HW this gen is way too weak. Super disappointing.

 

[Dr. Buni]

I don't see why game has to have both a single-player and a multiplayer component. I'd rather see the devs commit their resources to one mode (Bioshock, Titanfall, Wolfenstein: TNO) than split their budget across two (Bioshock 2, Battlefield 3). There are franchises that do both well and that's awesome, but not all games can achieve that, or are interested in doing that.

There's so ungodly many games out there nowadays, I am looking for focus and depth over quantity and breadth.

Bad example with BioShock 2 there, since it's the best game in the series and it had both modes.

 

[Pilgrimzero]

New Star Wars game! Awesome!

Multi only? Nevermind.

 

[thenexus6]

You need to think is it removing a SP or just not putting time, money and effort into a SP that no one really cares about.

I play the Battlefield campaigns - takes me 4-6 hours on normal then I never play or think about them. For the most part they aren't reviewed very well either. The main focus is the multiplayer.

You start Battlefield 4 and the first option on the menu is multiplayer.

For me, i've enjoying the Rainbow Six campaigns so thats a bummer. With Battlefront its cooler just playing through the iconic areas / battles with iconic characters so i'm not as mad there. However I know a lot of people would've loved a fully featured campaign for Battlefront.

 

[BossDarkseid]

I think they just had a mandate to get the game out in time for release of the new Star Wars movie

Probably. Hadn't thought of that but considering what Lucasarts did with Obsidian and KotoR2 it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[VendettaRed07]

There's nothing wrong with multiplayer only games. It just has to have enough content or features in the multiplayer to make up for it.

A lot of the times the games do not. I wish reviewers were more critical with this but oh well.

 

[Cleve]

Please stop inserting single player campaigns into multiplayer games.

This please. If a game is desgined as a multiplayer shooter I'd rather all the resources go in to that. I don't know how much dev time was put in to titanfall's "campaign" mode but I'd gladly trade it all for 1 more map or gameplay mode.

 

[Jack The Nipper]

Battlefields last single player was so bad and thrown together that I can see why people are saying it doesn't matter. It was really short and half of it seemed really tacked on unfortunately.

I'd like some more darkness, condemned like games though

I do hope we can get more in depth and better single players though.


We have Deus Ex for shooter first person fans but not a lot else?

I play the Battlefield campaigns - takes me 4-6 hours on normal then I never play or think about them. For the most part they aren't reviewed very well either.

Becase it sucks but should we allow dice to make these things bad and make other developers follow this pattern of a cheap scripted linear single player with no meat and no feeling?

I guranntee they would sell better if the single player was actually deep and rich like a half life, deus ex or mass effect. It would increase the sales and player interest 30 percent imo Just my guess but bad company was actually pretty decent but boy have they gotten worse.


This is exactly why I haven't bought Battlefront even though I'm a huge fan, the content isn't enough for sp only and there is no long and whimsical single player. What it could be is something special and amazig, but EA would rather whip out a quick product and make a nice profit. I'm not a fan of this. I like art, and I like creation myself, I try to put all the effort and time I can in a product but this is not what EA is doing. They are simply letting money control them.

 

[patapuf]

I'll never understand people that think MP is less valuable when they offer so much more playtime than a traditional 8 hour action game campaign.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I do not see any evidence that proves that this automatically takes away resources from multiplayer. They can increase team size. They can spend more time on development. To me Star Wars Battlefront is a very obvious example for a game which was created with limited resources (probably smaller team size/less time), and the result is a MP only game. If EA had invested more resources, they could have created an additional SP campaign.

Resources are finite.

Battlefields last single player was so bad and thrown together that I can see why people are saying it doesn't matter. It was really short and half of it seemed really tacked on unfortunately.

I'd like some more darkness, condemned like games though

I do hope we can get more in depth and better single players though.


We have Deus Ex for shooter first person fans but not a lot else?



Becase it sucks but should we allow dice to make these things bad and make other developers follow this pattern of a cheap scripted linear single player with no meat and no feeling?

I guranntee they would sell better if the single player was actually deep and rich like a half life, deus ex or mass effect. It would increase the sales and player interest 30 percent imo Just my guess but bad company was actually pretty decent but boy have they gotten worse.

You don't have to allow Dice to do anything. They don't owe you anything, andyou don't owe them anything. They made a MP-focused game. if MP is not your thing don't buy it, but this attitude in threads like this that something is bad or worse "anti-consumer" just because it doesn't suit your specific tastes is ridiculous.

Also, I'm sure your "30 percent" number is based on some deep analysis, but the game is already going to sell boat loads. Adding a SP mode would not have been free. Maybe they decided the additional cost/time/resources would not have made up that 30%.

 

[VincentMatts]

This please. If a game is desgined as a multiplayer shooter I'd rather all the resources go in to that. I don't know how much dev time was put in to titanfall's "campaign" mode but I'd gladly trade it all for 1 more map or gameplay mode.

That would be fine if it wasnt called Star Wars. Star wars is a huge franchise like it or not. Not only MP gamers are going to jump into this. This game will be bought as xmas gifts by a ton of parents who grew up with the original trilogy thinking "ah, my kid will enjoy this". You cant just have those shit missions for people who dont wanna go online and expect it to be enough, ESPCIALLY for a SW game. This isnt Titanfall that no one gives a shit about, its Star wars.

 

[Wasp]

Wtf, yes there is. It's taxing on the hardware. It would make the experience worse for the people involved and the devs would rather not have that. Oh and the big one, it's not a feature that gets used enough to warrant time being spent to code it.

Most of those games are 60fps, it should be relatively easy getting a 60fps game to be splitscreen in 30fps especially if some effects like AA are also turned down.

Battlefront looks and performs amazingly well in splitscreen, but doesn't permit splitscreen multiplayer for some arbitrary reason. At least Garden Warfare 2 is fixing this issue.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

That would be fine if it wasnt called Star Wars. Star wars is a huge franchise like it or not. Not only MP gamers are going to jump into this. This game will be bought as xmas gifts by a ton of parents who grew up with the original trilogy thinking "ah, my kid will enjoy this". You cant just have those shit missions for people who dont wanna go online and expect it to be enough, ESPCIALLY for a SW game. This isnt Titanfall that no one gives a shit about, its Star wars.

And why do you assume that those parents/kids won't enjoy what is there? Because you didn't? Are you aware life and tastes and perspectives exist outside of your bubble?

It's not like the legacy of Star Wars in video games has a high standard to live up to anyway. A majority of them (especially on consoles) have ranged from crap to mediocre. People know what they are getting.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Resources are finite.

Yeah, and they can't just "increase team size" either (that's an idiotic thing to say). The game has a budget and a strict time frame. Game development is a business first, they won't go over-budget if they don't really fucking need to. Throwing more people at a game means taking them off other products, potentially paying overtime, and a dozen different things.

 

[GravityMan]

Just do what I do, OP...buy and play the loads of other games that do have single-player. Pretty simple. You simply aren't the target audience for MP-only games. There's nothing bad or "anti-consumer" about this.

Also, some of those MP-only games are pretty good.

 

[SimpleCRIPPLE]

$60 multiplayer only games have just as much a right to exist as $60 single player only games.

Quoting just so people can let this sink in.

As long as there is enough content to justify the price, multi-player only is ok.

Not every game has to cater to every player type.

 

[Chû Totoro]

Multiplayer only game is ok for me if it's actually good and if there is local multiplayer... why forcing me to play online only, why?

 

[VincentMatts]

And why do you assume that those parents/kids won't enjoy what is there? Because you didn't? Are you aware life and tastes and perspectives exist outside of your bubble?

You mean those 2 minute tutorials and that bad horde mode? Yes, hours of fun.

 

[UCBooties]

I definitely don't by MP only games because they're not to my taste and don't fit my playing schedule/habits. I was definitely disappointed to hear that Battlefront was doing away with Galactic Conquest because I put hours and hours into that mode in BF2.

I get that developers want to put their resources into the things that will draw the biggest audience so it was probably the right decision from their end, however disappointing it may be to me personally. Losing my sale isn't going to hurt a game like Battlefront and I understand that ultimately a business decision was made to put resources into the things they thought were going to make the biggest impact on their audience. It seems like they made the right call and I'll just have to hope that some future iteration on the franchise brings back the elements that I loved from the old games.

That said, everyone in this thread pretending that new installments of a series discarding elements that were previously part of the series is not "removing" something are being extremely facile. The OP was clearly working in the context of series and not individual games. Useless pedantry doesn't add anything except an opportunity to look smug.

 

[Grover Cleveland]

I do not see any evidence that proves that this automatically takes away resources from multiplayer.

If EA had invested more resources, they could have created an additional SP campaign.

These two contradict each other. Why would EA need to invest more resources if creating the singleplayer campaign doesn't take away resources from the multiplayer?

Keep in mind, DICE Stockholm is a very large gaming studio. But at the same time that they're working on this game, they also have people working on Mirror's Edge 2, and most likely pre-production for Battlefield 5.

I agree with the people saying that Ep. VII compressed the dev schedule for Battlefront. Because of the decreased time, they had to really concentrate their resources on this game. It went to their bread and butter , and ultimately the most popular feature of their games, the multiplayer.

That said, everyone in this thread pretending that new installments of a series discarding elements that were previously part of the series is not "removing" something are being extremely facile. The OP was clearly working in the context of series and not individual games. Useless pedantry doesn't add anything except an opportunity to look smug.

The distinction in this point is important because this is effectively a new series. To imply the direct connection between DICE's Battlefront and Pandemic's Battlefronts 1 and 2 in anything other than sharing a name, implies that DICE actually had Pandemic's Battlefronts intact as a starting point for development. Which they didn't, this is a completely new game built from scratch.

 

[Melter]

$60 multiplayer only games have just as much a right to exist as $60 single player only games.

Depends on the game. I agree Stars Wars Battlefront for what it is is not worth $60. It is a fun game but I feel there is not enough content to justify the price tag. Especially since they already have slots for 4 (or 3) palrobalby paid DLC packs in the menu sounds like a money grab to me.

 

[PsihoPerihelion]

You cannot remove something that was never considered on the first place.

 

[BigDug13]

The main thing I'm bummed about with Battlefront is the no offline bot support. If the populations dwindle the game is essentially dead.

 

[Zaptastic]

That would be fine if it wasnt called Star Wars. Star wars is a huge franchise like it or not. Not only MP gamers are going to jump into this. This game will be bought as xmas gifts by a ton of parents who grew up with the original trilogy thinking "ah, my kid will enjoy this". You cant just have those shit missions for people who dont wanna go online and expect it to be enough, ESPCIALLY for a SW game. This isnt Titanfall that no one gives a shit about, its Star wars.

Then that's their fault for not looking into what the game is about.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Resources are finite.

And? What is your point? EA is a big publisher, they have lots of resources. And I think EA has invested more resources into Battlefield 4 than into Battlefront. Why should I pay the same for both games?

Idk, do people honestly play SW:BF and think "Oh yeah, not having a SP campaign really payed off." When I look at the reception of this game, I don't think so.

Yeah, and they can't just "increase team size" either (that's an idiotic thing to say). The game has a budget and a strict time frame. Game development is a business first, they won't go over-budget if they don't really fucking need to. Throwing more people at a game means taking them off other products, potentially paying overtime, and a dozen different things.

That's not my problem. That's EA's problem.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

There is nothing wrong with multiplayer focused games, tons do it, you don't go around yelling at the rocket league devs because they dont have a single player component. You should be forced to add in a multiplayer component just as much as you shouldn't feel obligated to have a single player campaign.

Idk, do people honestly play SW:BF and think "Oh yeah, not having a SP campaign really payed off." When I look at the reception of this game, I don't think so.

If they had a campaign it would have likely been in the style of the other battlefront games where it was just a multiplayer game mode, with some story blurb before and after. Considering how the game only takes place during the original trilogy and they're trying to keep to the movie it would have been one short campaign, the amount of single player missions and stuff they offered was decent but they should have had more of those rather than a full campaign.

 

[Jack The Nipper]

Resources are finite.



You don't have to allow Dice to do anything. They don't owe you anything, andyou don't owe them anything. They made a MP-focused game. if MP is not your thing don't buy it, but this attitude in threads like this that something is bad or worse "anti-consumer" just because it doesn't suit your specific tastes is ridiculous.

Also, I'm sure your "30 percent" number is based on some deep analysis, but the game is already going to sell boat loads. Adding a SP mode would not have been free. Maybe they decided the additional cost/time/resources would not have made up that 30%.

There is not a lot of difference between the guys who dislike it and the ones who like it. There are two sides of the spectrum.

You are right they don't owe me anything, but if they want the money and the numbers they want to meet they are going to have to consider me ?

I may be one, but I won't be the only one who wants a nice and long star wars campaign.

I don't think this is ridiculous but you can have your thought on the subject and I'll have mine.

The issue isn't so much about the single player in my mind but what they are doing with the overall package, the game, the content and the season pass. They are rubbing me the wrong way overall with what they are doing an that is what I feel is wrong in my heart.

i have a righ not to buy it and to wait for a cheaper price and they have right to try and sell it as it is. i agree with you 100 percent there, but they won't get me to bite like this. And that is unfortunate because I like star wars, but I don't want to get bored and regret paying 60 for it when I may only like a few of the maps. Judging from the beta, that is possible.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

And? What is your point? I think EA has invested more resources into Battlefield 4 than into Battlefront. Why should I pay the same for both games?

Idk, do people honestly play SW:BF and think "Oh yeah, not having a SP campaign really payed off." When I look at the reception of this game, I don't think so.



That's not my problem. That's EA's problem.

Its your problem if you think it's a valid argument to continually troll Battlefront threads.

 

[Slixshot]

As long as there is a market for something, it will exist. Even if the number of single player campaigns diminish, some developers will still make them because potential sales for a product increases within its own market...

Say that there's 100 people who want to play video games and there's 50 of those people who only want multiplayer. Now there's 50 left who want some sort of single player experience. If there were a dozen different single player games fighting for the attention of those 50 people, the percentage of people who would play each game would be divided amongst all 12 games (not evenly, but based on preference of the consumer)... But if there were only 3 single player games, and those 50 people wanted a single player game, then potential sales and revenue increases significantly. Just look at Rise of the Tomb Raider as an example. If fallout 4 hadn't been released on the same day, one would assume that more people would have bought RotT -- not EVERYONE who bought fallout -- but a certain percentage of people who had interest in both games but favored fallout instead.

A very dumbed down explanation but there will never be an all multiplayer future.

 

[Cleve]

That would be fine if it wasnt called Star Wars. Star wars is a huge franchise like it or not. Not only MP gamers are going to jump into this. This game will be bought as xmas gifts by a ton of parents who grew up with the original trilogy thinking "ah, my kid will enjoy this". You cant just have those shit missions for people who dont wanna go online and expect it to be enough, ESPCIALLY for a SW game. This isnt Titanfall that no one gives a shit about, its Star wars.

This makes no sense at all. The brand it carries means they can't make a multiplayer only shooter? The original brand is all movies, they clearly shouldn't make any star wars video games or books. Someone might see this box on the shelf and think it's a dvd movie.

That's about how much sense your argument makes. You don't like the game, you want single player campaigns in shooters. Those are okay things to want. Claiming that the star wars brand is attached to any of your preconceived expectations makes no sense.

 

[Jack The Nipper]

There is nothing wrong with multiplayer focused games, tons do it, you don't go around yelling at the rocket league devs because they dont have a single player component. You should be forced to add in a multiplayer component just as much as you shouldn't feel obligated to have a single player campaign.



If they had a campaign it would have likely been in the style of the other battlefront games where it was just a multiplayer game mode, with some story blurb before and after. Considering how the game only takes place during the original trilogy and they're trying to keep to the movie it would have been one short campaign, the amount of single player missions and stuff they offered was decent but they should have had more of those rather than a full campaign.

But we got the game for free, big different there.

Also, I do wish they had more modes and "trials" like missons, multi ball modes, race modes and such. I wold pay to have those as extras, but they have just been making parts and cars.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Honestly I'd rather have a robust single player or a robust and deep multiplayer than I would have tacked on multiplayer for games that don't need it. Take Rise of the Tomb Raider for example. All the development resources went to the single player this time, and it shows, the game is a vast improvement on the already good 2013 reboot with much more content.

In the same way, I don't see the removal of the lackluster 'single player' from Battlefront 2 with the new iteration of battlefront as much of an issue. I do think the removal of bot games for all modes is a bummer, but I don't think battlefront ever benefitted from having its tacked on campaign. Different strokes for different folks I guess, but I'm totally fine with games focusing on either single player or multiplayer and making those experiences the best they can without distractions.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

There is not a lot of difference between the guys who dislike it and the ones who like it. There are two sides of the spectrum.

You are right they don't owe me anything, but if they want the money and the numbers they want to meet they are going to have to consider me ?

I may be one, but I won't be the only one who wants a nice and long star wars campaign.

I don't think this is ridiculous but you can have your thought on the subject and I'll have mine.

The issue isn't so much about the single player in my mind but what they are doing with the overall package, the game, the content and the season pass. They are rubbing me the wrong way overall with what they are doing an that is what I feel is wrong in my heart.

i have a righ not to buy it and to wait for a cheaper price and they have right to try and sell it as it is. i agree with you 100 percent there, but they won't get me to bite like this. And that is unfortunate because I like star wars, but I don't want to get bored and regret paying 60 for it when I may only like a few of the maps. Judging from the beta, that is possible.

You are free to be rubbed the wrong way, but the game is going to be super successful so can you really argue they were wrong? Do they have to "consider" you? Sure, but ultimately they are never going to please everyone so they have to pick a demo and go for it, which is what they did, to great results. You talk like the game is a flop or something. EA's investment/partnership with Star Wars is just beginning and it's off to a great start so far, and hell, I don't even like Battlefront, but I'll find something else to play, there's too much shit out there to lament about the stuff that's not for me.