Could be, but it's still removing a large portion of the gameplay. Space battles were an entirely different set of tactics, and despite the small level space, the area felt massive and everything was epic.
I get this, but it shouldn't matter as long as the gameplay it does have is fun and polished. I'm not saying that it isn't disappointing, rather that it doesn't inherently hurt the games quality.
What do you mean "aren't mobile enough"? They might be slow, but they're loving OP. I remember in one of the campaigns you take control...it was epic.
"The ATAT's mobility isn't relevant imo" is what I was suggesting. The ATAT was super powerful, and we don't even know that it is going to be on rails. I loved the ATATs, but making a conclusion based on rumors is silly. Furthermore, it was OP, so this could be a nerf that doesn't completely remove the fun from the ATATs.
Don't be a loving idiot. This isn't about people wanting the prequels. This is people wanting variety. I MUCH prefer Republic vs. CIS. The special troop types were a little more interesting (on the CIS side), and I just think they're more visually appealing. People want MORE variety, not less.
Don't ad hominem lol, this is one of the reasons people dislike your opinions occassionally. You come off as an arrogant starfish, which really sucks because I think you have some really insightful opinions. Insightful opinions that if you didn't combine with arrogance would be worthy of respect.
Regardless, you are judging this games variety without seeing this games gameplay/troop types. All we know is that this focuses on the original trilogy. They can very easily just make more trooper/rebel types, just because it doesn't have CIS/Republic does not necessarily mean that it will be less varied. What ability/weapon (besides Droidekas) can not be replicated with a storm trooper/rebel/unlockable?
EA already pulled this kind of stuff with Sims 4. In order to reduce development times, they're asking their developers to cut out features. I don't even think they'll be DLC.
You read the article. DICE said this game is multiplayer-focused. That means there's a chance DLC could be P2W-orientated, such as a "time-saver pack" or new unlocks that are powerful.
Because this is 2014, and since we've seen a lot of how EA handles its titles, we can look at previous patterns to guess how this game is going to release. All signs are pointing towards a game too focused on graphics for the sake of money, and therefore a Battlefront title that is substantially weaker than its gameplay-focused ancestors.
Should note; I try to stay fair and balanced with all publishers, because they're companies trying to make money and I don't think companies are trying to be "evil". That doesn't mean I'm not going to criticise poor decisions, especially when a company like this should know better.
Just because the game is multiplayer focused with DLC does not necessarily mean that it will be P2W. You are jumping to conclusions. For instance- map packs, which appears to be the main type of dlc from the articles give no advantages. Sure, if there are guns added with the map packs then there CAN be an issue, but Battlefield, for example, has been generally very good about dlc weapon balance.
The only thing I can reasonably see happening is the loving shortcut bs from Battlefield, but, if balanced properly, isn't THAT big of a deal, or, at least not so big that it discredits the game.
In addition, any game with multiplayer can be p2w, including games with campaigns, and just because a game, a fps no less, a genre that most people play in a multiplayer environment, is multiplayer focused that doesn't mean that its gameplay won't be strong.
