Star Wars Battlefront Has a Really Steep PS4 Season Pass

That's made my mind up for me, not going to bother with the game (didn't bother with the beta and was going to wait for reviews anyway). I don't have an issue really with them charging £40 for a season pass (personally I wouldn't pay it, but each to their own), but DICE and EA need to learn that splitting their player base with map DLC needs to stop.

Maps, tracks, whatever should be free in my opinion. Shame really, but after some of the previews I read (here and other places), I don't really care that much - plenty of other games to play.

I don't like that we have a price for DLC before the game even comes out, let alone a season pass for multiple DLC releases?

Yeah, Smash Bros. technically did it too, as does every company, but a season pass is a more dangerous practice. Consider the example of say...Smash and other games (Cant think of any right now) where the level of DLC is uncertain. Throwing a Season Pass and calling it £40 is a bit much if its for nothing.

The existence of a Season Pass is for multiple releases, but worse, what we have here is a case of DLC being planned in advance, and I'm not okay with that.

Though @get2sammyb, imagining the now doubled price of "AAA" games (Thanks Arkham Knight. 10 minutes was fun) it kind of goes along with the doubled file size. Clearly they are putting more effort in. Now we are getting £1 per GB. Or £1 per GB of uncompressed audio and textures with £0.25 for the actual game bit. Or £1 per 10 lines of Troy Baker and Nolan North.

This is getting out of hand. I preordered the game for as little as €47, so now I have to pay more than the base game for the DLC. Prices like these are bound to split the userbase, the last thing you want from a online only game.

We all were so mad at Xbox for their online only policy and the way they wanted to treat used games, but now the publishers simply found a way around it with huge patches that require an online connection and Season Passes that diminish the value of the base game.

I realize making these games is expensive, but there must be another way. I like Halo's approach where the userbase doesn't get split which is kinda like Destiny's new idea where microtransactions pay for the extra content. There are better ways to gain an extra few bucks without €50 season passes and we as gamers should be part of the discussion.

I had to say I had fun in the couple of hours I spent in the beta, but I'm not entirely sure I'd pick up the full game. But I do object to spending £50 on a game and feeling like it's not got a full-game's worth of content. This feels like there's a £40 pay-wall to get the second half of the content.

Basically, it's a £90 game. I personally doubt any game is worth that much, but some people might be happy to pay that.

@RawShark the most i've paid in recent times was £82 for the Forza Ultimate bundle, which included the car pass, VIP, game and early access. Some might think that's expensive but I've played over 100 hours already and love the game and don't regret my purchase at all.

If it was DLC tracks though, there is no way I'd have supported them - I can't stand companies splitting user base, as it ultimately damages the online experience (for both those who pay and those who don't) because less players = longer queues etc. Yeah that's a simplified argument but valid I feel.

Not happy about this. Definitely not buying the season pass on day one, that's for sure. If the dlc is amazing I might get it on release. Maybe.

Yeah im now gonna pass on this. Maybe when there's a sale. Always said when titanfall came out i wouldn't pay full price for only the multiplayer, when you know there's gonna be a season pass on top that will actually work against a multiplayer only game. Sad days when COD becomes the best value game around. Going by the digital prices it's gonna cost me less to get a big budget 4 player online and splitscreen co-op campaign, excellent horde survival mode AND an incredibly robust multiplayer mode. Where's it all gone wrong?

I'm not saying this particular content is worth it, but £80 is how much games should cost now if they'd actually moved with inflation with everything else. In fact, cartridge games used to be about £50 to £65 in the 90s, depending on where you got them from, which was about £90 if you adjust for inflation.

The Internet has been amazing for so many things, but DLC is not one of them.

... can I pay in Republican credits?

My objection is buying sight unseen - like the Arkham dlc which was a total waste of 40 bucks. In this case unless they say exactly what is included then it is supporting a bad practice.

@Matroska people do seem to forget that sometimes...i paid £200 or £300(i forget which, it was a loooong time ago) for a sega megadrive before its European release and when i got a uk megadrive i clearly remember paying £39.99 for games...

@get2sammyb Yeah I agree. I should have been a bit clearer in saying DLC is not always good when like this.

@Matroska people often mention that - I remember paying over £70 for Street Fighter II on the SNES - but saying that, is game production the same these days? Cartridges had hardware (sometimes bespoke, e.g. new chips etc) where as games these days are just on disc or digital - surely the actual manufacturing costs are in no way comparable to the 90s and cartridge production?

No online-only games for me... the only online-first game for me is basically Splatoon and it's only because it's just a random story-less shooting fun

@Cron_13 driveclub got it right with free tracks for everybody! I gave up on bf4 and moh because I could never find a server due to everyone having the season pass. It just excludes the casual player. I play fps once every few months so why should I be excluded playing a game which I paid for just because I didn't caught up the extra coin.

@sradmatt yep - plenty of other ways for them to make money via a season pass - skins, new guns (balanced), icons, sound packs blah blah. Hey, they could even charge £60 for a season pass and add a campaign eh?! lol.

This is what DICE has done with the last 2 installments of BF. this is nothing new guys. And it's a premium package, so you get more than just the new maps, you get all kinds of other exclusive items as well(weapons, camo, dog tags, etc). I'm sure that Battlefront will be the same.

So it's £50 for as far as we can see 7 multiplayer maps then £40 for another 4 and no story mode. Thanks EA for making my decision easy and the pre order is now cancelled. There is no way I'm paying nearly £100 just for one online shooter, when with most games it's an addition to the actual game

No chance I'd get this launch when the base game most likely lacks content.

@KomrathDE Splatoon had a story though with decent post apocalyptic lore.

This is insane. $50 is just too much. You're practically paying for Star Wars: Battlefront 2 at that point. It would need to more than double the game's content in order to be worth it.

I'm building armor and blasters for the 501st and even I'm hesitant. they'll have to prove a lot in order to sell the sequel

considering the base game plays terribly, and I don't think I'd buy it unless it was on a heavily discounted sale...Now I have every reason to skip the release entirely.

Still waiting for 1313~

@Cron_13 And don't forget to mention people who buy digitally.

@NomNom Then I think you will be waiting forever, unfortunately. Was this thinking about getting this game, but I am through with it. Similar to evolve, just not enough content for me. See ya

£40 for a season Pass ouch!
Will be waiting for a price drop me thinks before I bite.

Battlefield 4 premium was 35.lol, I'm sure I can stretch 5 more, until my wife finds out then I got no chance

@Jazzer94 "Splatoon had a story though with decent post apocalyptic lore."

I'm guessing he, like many others, simply skimped the single player and went right into multiplayer. Meanwhile I'm still waiting for ink fountains, moving platforms, sponges and mostly invisible walls and floors to make it into multiplayer. Especially the invisible part, but only on easy levels like warehouse or port mackerel, not on Moray Towers or bluefin depot or the bridge.

Companies keep doing this, people keep complaining, but people must still be paying b/c they keep doing it. I'll be happier when they all switch to the Destiny:Taken King model and just wink at it being a new game when it's really just DLC on a disc. At least then we can at least pretend to be spending money on a"new" game, rather than just parts of the game we already paid for. That or the subscription model, break it up into 5 $20 parts so I can quit playing after only spending $20 if I want. Season Pass DLC needs to stop. Or at least max out at 1/3 the price. Any more than that it's insulting.

Yeah... Right... Season Pass but then there is also that's not included in the S.P.. Skins, maps, etc...

Ok, let me get this straight. To play Battlefront I need to:
1) Buy a PS4
2) Pay extra for the Battlefront Edition
3) Pay monthly PS+
4) Pay season pass
I've got money set aside but I'm thinking it's just not worth it 😩

@Cron_13 Cartridges are more expensive to make than CDs, DVDs and BDs, though not to this degree where we basically have the RRP of games now being half price of what they were in the 90s. Also, I can't say for sure if the extra cost of cartridges was just taken as a hit by the companies making them, similar to how consoles are sold at a loss, though not that extreme.

The general upshot is that games should probably RRP at around £70 or so now, at least. That's without going into how they have way more content than they used to. Another pet peeve of mine, that also ties into value, is when people say "modern games are shorter than older ones". That's just hilarious, most of the games we'd have played in the 90s could be completed in one afternoon. The Order was mauled for various reasons, one of which being that it could be completed in as little as 5 hours. Well Super Mario Bros can be completed in under 5 minutes, or under 20 minutes if you do every level in full. All that for the price of about £70.

@rjejr Consumers just aren't too sharp these days which is why we have phone companies selling devices that barely change year to year for £/$100s also smart watches that are just bad smart phones.

@Fandabidozi To be fair, PS+ works out at about £3.30 a month and you get about 5 or more games each month for that as well. It's pretty negligible. I'm sure your electricity bill for the PS4 running cost would be higher than that. It's also a bit odd to put the cost of the PS4 in there as well. It's like saying going for a walk is quite expensive because you need to buy clothes first.

I mean, I'm not saying this in defence of this particular game. I played the beta and found it incredibly bland. I think I'd have enjoyed it more if I loved Star Wars but they're really putting all their eggs into the "It's friggin' Star Wars!" basket.

I understand that games are expensive to make now. But with no campaign I won't be buying this. If they put out a campaign later I might change my mind.

Man wtf

@get2sammyb I'm savvy. Can you dig?

@Jazzer94 "these days" ??

Can I interest you in a pet rock?

http://petarock.homestead.com/1970craze.html

@Matroska
Yeah, I see what you mean. I've decided not to get a PS4 for the moment anyway, I can't justify the cost when I've got plenty of games I still play on PC, 3DS, WiiU etc. Uncharted or Mass Effect might still get me interested again. I might wait till there's remastered versions on the PS5 at this rate.

£40 - So about the same price as BF Premium then - the same price as CoD Season Pass too. It will depend on exactly how much content that will be but at least we have an idea on how much to expect because these other FPS games have kind of set the benchmark.

I really don't see the issue with paying £40 for a Season Pass though - its a lot better than paying £12 (or more) for 4 separate DLC packs and often you do get some 'extra' for buying the season pass too - although generally just a cosmetic or slightly earlier access too. Its not like I have to buy it until I know exactly what that content is and/or has been released. I certainly won't be buying this before I have spent a few weeks on the game to know if its going to be another 'Titanfall' - fun for a while but got boring very quickly or a CoD/BF - became my FPS MP of choice and spent many many hours playing! If its the latter, then £40 will seem good value (cost per hour) but very expensive if its the former...

I guess it will very much depend on the on-disc content as to how I fell about buying DLC. At least with CoD the on-disc content hasn't shrunk with the increase in DLC - in fact that even gives more content per pack too. CoD4 for example had the same number of maps and a similar sized campaign as the most recent CoD game but that also had a lot more co-op options. DLC has increased from just 4 maps for £12 to 4 Maps, a co-op (zombies) map and weapon(s) too. I can see Battlefront following a similar pattern to Battlefield and/or CoD with its DLC - 4 maps and a co-op (wave based) map. I do have concerns that Battlefront won't have the content to keep my interest. Part of Titanfalls problem for me was the lack of options, variety etc. No Campaign meant that it was very reliant on the community and if they left, then the game offered nothing. The lack of modes (those it had all felt and played the same), lack of weapons, gear etc all felt like you experienced and mastered everything very quickly and added into the short life this game had. I hope this doesn't fall into that same trap!

I know it seems expensive (DLC and digital content often is) especially as the main game can be purchased from stores for less. However, I bet you can't buy the Digital game for less. Personally I would like to see more 'stores' to bring some competition to the PS Store. I bet they would be more competitively priced then! With physical copies, the retailers lower their prices below RRP because of retailer competition. I know that I can pay less than £40 for the season pass by shopping around for the best price for PSN credit but again that means buying from a retailer that has 'competition' from others. Either way Season Passes are always better value than buying ALL the DLC separately and are really designed for the 'fans' of a game, not the 'casual' player. I know I would rather buy a Season Pass than buy all the packs individually.

@Matroska @teknium_ Carts were expensive adding £12 to an 8 meg and £20 to a 16 meg cart at the time. Everyone says games were £40 back then but you have to look at the disc based games to have a proper argument. New Amiga games were usually £20. Before that c64 games came out at under a £10. With new games frequently at £5.

• Games cost more so we pay more -

Why? Make games cheaper so they fit our wallets rather than the other way around.

Screw this game, EA must be ran by Jabba the Hutt at these exuberant prices. No single player? Goodbye and good riddance.

There is other way's for them to make money as well with skin's, camo's etc and it wouldn't suprise me if they do this as well as the pass. Unfortunately online game's have cost £80-£90 for a long time now if you want the full experience I don't understand why people would expect anything different from this game. AAA game's (edited)

@get2sammyb While I'm not a fan of Bloodborne (found it tedious half way through, never had the urge to go back, game and console now sold) at least the DLC for that is coming way, way after the game and has been made since release. What really pi$$es me off is all this Battlefront DLC will either be finished now or already being worked on. That is wrong. I'm happy to pay £40 for DLC if it is for a game I love to bits and want more of (Borderlands 2, for example) but not when all of it is thrown out within a couple of months and 90% of it could - should! - have been on the disc. That's what is wrong with DLC in my opinion.