EA explains lack of campaign in Star Wars Battlefront

[owsf2000]

Over at PCGamer they have an article about the lack of a single player campaign in the latest Star Wars game. "In a recent investor broadcast, EA boss Patrick Soderlund said this was a conscious decision. They wanted to "launch the game side-by-side with the movie to get the strongest possible impact." That movie being, of course, The Force Awakens."

Translation: "We rushed it out half done knowing people would buy it anyway thanks to the movie."

Comments

[kane-magus.livejournal.com]

So, aside from the movie connection or whatever, it's basically the exact same reason Capcom rushed out Street Fighter V without most of its modes.

Translation: "We rushed it out half done knowing people would buy it anyway thanks to the moviethanks to fighting game tournaments. (http://www.cinemablend.com/games/What-Capcom-Finally-Admitted-About-Street-Fighter-5-Rocky-Launch-137547.html)"

Also, it's EA. Par for the course for them.

[kane-magus.livejournal.com]

Though I guess the real translation should simply be: "We rushed it out half done knowing people would buy it anyway, period."

[owsf2000.livejournal.com]

Yeah, although not as many people bought it as they expected (they expected over 2 million sales in the first month instead of the 1.4 million or whatever they got) so now they're in Apology mode - which according to google they go in fairly often. I guess they drastically overestimated the size of the fighting game tournament crowd.

Personally not regretting not bothering with SFV. Even if it didn't have the in-game currency scam in place. (Any game that hides the amount of cash your spending by making use an ingame currency that can only be obtained with real money is a scam to me.)

Didn't really enjoy SFIV's initial release (That I got for 10 bucks new) so never bothered with the re-release after re-release bull. I -would- have gotten the last version of it probably, except that they resorted to online connections for added DRM by that point iirc. Probably the last SF game I enjoyed was Street Fighter Alpha 3... on the PS1.

[kane-magus.livejournal.com]

The absolute worst thing about EA's "apology mode" is that far too many people swallow it, fucking hook, line, and sinker, every time. Every single goddamn time they pull this shit, you have a ton of people going "Oh, well, I guess EA is cool now? Good on ya, EA! Way to go!" And then, the next time EA inevitably pulls some kind of stupid horseshit again, the same people are all like "Wait, what? I thought EA was good now. What happened? Where did they go wrong?" Or, worse, they'll actually defend EA when EA does something asinine. "What are you on about? Don't you know EA has turned over a new leaf and isn't shit anymore? Fuck off, you EA-hater." This has been the same old cycle, over and over, ad infinitum, for at least the past two decades now.

(EDIT) And I realized immediately after I posted this that you were talking about Capcom there, not EA, but your "apology mode" remark definitely applies to EA as well, and I guess what I said up there also applies to Capcom and any other company that has a cyclical "apology mode." (/EDIT)

As for Street Fighter... the only reason I own Ultra Street Fighter IV now is because I got it for $15 as part of the first Humble Capcom Bundle, and I got that for several of the other games more so than for SF4. And I've still only played it for a grand total of 21 minutes so far, according to Steam. Unless I can get SFV in a similar way, I will definitely be giving it a pass. I will not ever be spending a single penny just for SFV, that's for sure.

I have to agree, regarding SFA3 PS1. That version had the World Tour mode that wasn't even in the Street Fighter Alpha Anthology version, which was a huge let down for me when I started up the Anthology version of SFA3. Though the Anthology version was based on the arcade version, rather than previous console versions, so I guess it makes sense that it didn't have it, but it was still a bummer.