thatdemoguy

Let’s take a trip down memory lane, all the way back to E3 2013, when EA (that's Electronic Arts) dropped a trailer and info for a new IP they were publishing exclusively for the XBOX and PC.  This new IP was Titanfall. They showed us an amazing trailer that demonstrated amazing gameplay that had us all salivating. The freedom of movement. The verticality. The mechs. I mean seriously, how awesome was the idea of starting on the ground, boosting around in your augmented suit, and then BAM....calling in a damn mech, hopping in and tearing through the competition. That is until you ran into an opponent who also had a mech!! AWWWWW SNAP, could it get any cooler than going mech on mech with infantry all on the ground? I mean damn, that's a boy's video game wet dream.

 

Then in March of 2014, the game came out, and was quickly forgotten within weeks of release. After all the marketing and money Microsoft threw at locking down this title, lighting the fuse for what was supposed to be an explosive title and the first major opening salvo of the new console war, the game just fizzled into obscurity.

 

Mind you, I’m not going to sit here and talk about how the exclusivity was an issue or rag on the game's mechanics or tell you how terrible it was. Because at its core, it was a perfectly functional title that worked very well within its framework. So what was wrong with it? In my opinion I feel this game suffered because they had this crazy cool presentation and interesting premise, with some fairly interesting lore attached to it, but there was no single player campaign, or even a campaign PERIOD, to flesh these things out. Meaning what you were left with was a stylish title that was completely devoid of any substance. Hell let's be honest, it had no single player, no local split screen, or even any offline modes. It was a strictly online multiplayer experience. And in the console (I won’t speak on PC) market, this just won’t work.

 

You would think that after this debacle companies would be more proactive so as to not make the same mistakes, correct?

 

WRONG!!!!

 

In the year since then we have companies gamble with this same model. And time and time again it’s just proven to be an error. Anybody remember EVOLVE? Yeah, that game. Are you still playing it? Is anyone even still talking about it? Or is it just another title that you pass by in the bargain bin that you hope nobody buys you as a gift because of its cool cover and attractive price point (much like Titanfall)?

 

Here we are, holiday season of 2015, and we have not one but two titles currently on the market vying for your dollars that fall into the same problems that have plagued those before it. The only difference is these are two big time AAA releases with either known licensing or a long and storied reputation attached to it. These two titles are Star Wars Battlefront and Rainbow Six Siege. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, and maybe I should prepare for the incoming vitriolic response, but once you strip away the bells and whistles, or the glitz and glamour of the names, you're left with two pretty standard games that also make the mistake of being online multiplayer focused experiences.

 

Considering that these games have no true single player component, yet still have the audacity to come out to market at full retail price of $59.99, this is an almost criminal offense. How is it even feasible to give you half or less of the original game, but charge full price? And then to throw salt into the wound, Rainbow Six is laden with micro transactions, though in their defense none of these really affect the gameplay balance in any meaningful way. But Star Wars Battlefront then has an even higher paywall in the form of a $50 season pass with content that is going to be absolutely crucial to the longevity of the title in the future. WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?!

 

Are we, the consumer....being "multi-played"?

 

What I mean is are we having the wool pulled over our eyes? Let’s focus on Star Wars Battlefront specifically here. We all know that the new movie is right on the horizon, so the Star Wars name is right on the forefront, thus virtually any product with the name on it will be snatched up. So naturally a new Star Wars game was going to sell like gangbusters, much less a brand new Battlefront title. The thing with the Battlefront name though, is that there are certain expectations that come along with it. And these expectations just were not met. I will take a definitive stance right now and say that I feel that the new Star Wars Battlefront is a wholly underwhelming title. But if you spend an extra $50, you get all this great post release content, right? Well that still does not justify all the things that have been taken out. Things like space battles and campaign. Even if it was just a simple string of missions following your unit using the in-game maps, it would be better than nothing. Mind you space battles and campaign were BOTH in the PS2/XBOX titles. So I don't feel I’m being unfair by pointing out the facts of their absence. And I simply cannot condone the idea of telling me that I can pay for a promise of a better title in the future when the base retail package is so lacking.

 

Not only is it lacking in content, but as is the point of this little diatribe I’m on, it's all forced online only multiplayer. This is an egregious error. So I pose this question, with the game being online only, what happens if there are server issues that need to be fixed? What this means is you're now left with a product that’s totally useless to you. If you can’t connect to play the game you put $60-$110+ into, then what’s the point of it? But there is such an air of conceit and borderline hubris from the publishers who just know that we will continue to be burned by these half-baked and uninspired games. And as of this writing, that hubris seems to be biting the publishers right in the ass. Because sales numbers for Battlefront, while not bad by any stretch of the word, have not lived up to the expectations of EA and Dice. The game has already seen a $20 price drop and the Battlefront PS4 system bundle has seen a $50 price drop (this could be a holiday deal). But if you look at this objectively, it appears that outside of the initial hype and the diehard fans who were going to buy it regardless, the consumers have started to speak with their wallet, which is the ultimate way to make our voices heard.

 

Bottom line is that we have to demand more from the products we buy. Lest we end up in a future where we truly buy the beta and pay for the "privilege" to be quality assurance before the REAL game is then later sold to us as DLC....

 

I’m of course making a joke. But it’s a very real possibility and a whole lot closer to our current reality than some of us care to admit.