TR Member Perks!

That people were disappointed with the reboot of the Star Wars: Battlefront franchise isn’t a secret. The simplification of the game’s mechanics and the focus on graphical fidelity over everything else didn’t sit well with many fans of the original games and while the game did manage to walk and talk like a Star Wars game, it lacked where it mattered. Now that the game has been out for a little bit, it becomes easier to get an overview of just how (un)successful the game ended up being, and it seems like the PC drew the shortest stick here.

Battlefront Stats, a website that tracks player activity in the DICE made online shooter set in a galaxy far, far away, sheds some light on the game’s server population. At the time of writing this, the PlayStation 4 has managed to draw in the most players, with around 70.000 players coming back every day to shoot some blasters at some other people dressed in either white or brown. The Xbox One is  in second place, with some 46.000 people playing within the last 24 hours. The numbers on the PC, however, are shockingly low, with only around 9,600 people being logged in during peak hours. Seems like PC players haven’t been taking to Star Wars: Battlefront at all, even with the balance tweaks and free map DLC.

One wonders how fast that number may fall down even further with the slow stream of new content (most of which is locked behind the extremely expensive season pass). The disparity might be due to the game’s more casual nature that seems to be more popular on consoles than on the PC platform, which has a ton of hardcore competitive shooters. This is not the first multiplayer-only game to have population problems on PC, with Titanfall and Evolve having a very inactive playerbase compared to their console versions.

The funny thing is that an EA community manager has disputed these numbers, calling them inaccurate.

EA seems unwilling to go beyond claiming the statistics gathered by P-stats are inaccurate since they are not releasing any info regarding player population, going as far as to lock threads keeping score of the player population on their forums. Some responding to the tweet below are also wondering why it is that they are having trouble finding matches on PC. The closest thing to numbers EA will toss out is how well their recent Community Challenge went where in over a period of a week they challenged players across all devices to complete 3 million daily missions. Daily missions were introduced in January for Battlefront and include goals such as kill 30 enemies, or play a specific multiplayer mode so many times in a day. Over 4 million were accomplished in that time, but given each player could do some each day and it counts all platforms it fails to actually address the point

I’ve reached out to P-stats and asked where they get their stats from. A representative told this writer that they pull it directly from a non-public EA API every 5 minutes, but wouldn’t tell me the specifications. We have also sent EA a message last week, but we did not get a response. I will update this article if and when we do. We weren’t too impressed by the game either as you can read in our review right here.

PC Players! Why are you still/no longer playing this game? What can be done to get you to pick it back up again, if at all? Sound off in the comments and let us know!

More About This Game

Chris Anderson

Staff Writer

I've been playing games since I was just barely able to walk, and I never really stopped playing them. When I'm not fulfilling my duties as senior staff writer and tech reviewer, I'm either working on music, producing one of two podcasts or doing freelance work.



  • Azure

    It’s just like FFXIII it is a turd wrapped in gold wrapping. One of the prettiest games ever made but everything else is just so sub-par to the point where it just cannot compete to Battlefield and such for online shooters.

  • John

    I miss Bad Company 2. That game was a game changer to me, the destruction and lovely graphics was freaking phenomenal. Now we get grim super contrast blinding graphic and laughable destruction.

  • Sebastian Mikulec

    It’s the same story as with Titanfall (which is an exponentially better game than Battlefront). The multiplayer shooter market on PC is BRUTAL. On consoles, while there is a selection of shooters to choose from, that selection is exponentially smaller than on PC, hence why a half-assed effort like Battlefront has a lot more longevity. There simply isn’t nearly as much competition. On PC even a good game like Titanfall has a steep uphill battle to maintain a healthy player base because it’s going up against so many more quality shooters, including CS:GO, which rules the landscape with an iron fist. It certainly didn’t help that Battlefront released with a shamefully meager amount of content. It doesn’t matter if they add more content later. On the PC front the player base has already dwindled so far that it’s too late, the game is in its death spiral on PC and nothing short of divine intervention is going to pull it out of the nosedive now. And rightfully so, because what EA presented us with on launch was pathetic.

  • bishop99999999

    They need more interesting bling, and more involving challenges to get it. Black Ops 3 is still in my playlist because of all the garish crap I can get and the way the challenges force me to alter my gameplay to something new.

    Battlefront just wants me to spend credits that are tedious to earn on items that are utterly boring.

  • NorBdelta

    I found that it gets rather boring quite quickly, it looks gorgeous but that only takes you so far

  • Reptile

    I’m an admin on the Brazillian Battlefront Group and i’ve been playing Pandemic’s Battlefront II since the times. What I noticed that would lead to a downfall:

    1- Half of old Battlefront fanbase, aswell myself, didn’t had good views on EAs Battlefront since the announcement, Some bought anyway but not all of us had interest in it.
    2- PC players can still play Battlefront II (Which has more content), thanks to Steam and while multiplayer was deactivated we still can play online through servers masterlists (we have a server on one of those) or using VPN like Gameranger or Tunngle.
    3- Origin is a big barrier for most PC players, I myself like to concentrate all my games on Steam and its been years since I last entered Origin. If it was on Steam it could sell more., obviously.
    4- They took much time to put the servers location option. Until then, people where locked to their region. And the already low number of players got even lower because people got tired of never finding any games, there was a bunch of guys who even refunded the game, I understand them because the game is ONLY multiplayer and the multiplayer part wasn’t working.
    5- We are also noting an increase on hackers on the game, a lot of people are complaining about players never dying, people shooting at the floor and killing people, etc there seems to be a lack of anti-cheater in the game.
    6- I never played it, never was interested, but it seems that the cards can be combined to give an overpowered and unbalanced combat advantage. That drives players away too, specially considering that PC players are known for exploiting this kind of thing.

    And in my personal opinion, the game is a HUGE letdown, it fails to capture the massive battles we had in Battlefront II, the player cap os laughable and the lack of bots only increase the feel of emptiness.

  • MadGolem PCGaming

    absolutely deserved. Karma had to work against EA somehow for this lazy cash grab.

  • Honk Honk

    that was the last good battlefield i played. it still gets a healthy number of people playing it on steam.

  • A_Alhazred

    Bought Battlefront a week ago. Finding games was a pain, and when found most where half empty. The most common scenario was ending up waiting for players to join a new one and have them leave because nobody was willing to wait.

    I decided to ask for a refund after a day of that. Game looked pretty and the gameplay was fine, but the lack of players killed it for me. In EA’s defense: The refund was really quick.

  • Chris Anderson

    That’s a great perspective to add to the discussion here. Thanks for sharing!

  • giygas

    The lack of a server browser doomed this game from the start.

  • John

    Not in my timezone though, they’re all gone to BF4. I can only play on servers with 300+ ping. It’s not fun i can tell you that much.

  • Kev Lew

    titan fall had the gameplay and robots but no depth, evolve had the monster but no anything else, star wars: EA has an engine but no battlefront. In every case a lightweight game with no play past the first week was rushed out with no mod support but trying to pre-sell season passes that demand money on top of full game price to add content into a 1/4 complete shallow at-launch multiplayer-only game.

    rainbow 6 siege looks well worth playing, but has the unfortunate circumstance of being on uplay while also being stuck with ubisoft servers, this one I actually want to play. Except, ubisoft servers. . .

  • Zeldain

    What you core gamers don’t get is that the game wasn’t designed for you. Not everything is for you, when we are in an era of casual players playing core games. That doesn’t mean they play them for the same reasons core players do.

    Battlefront is a resounding success at what it was intended to do, and that is be an awesomely immersive Star Wars game.

  • Orion Pax

    PS4 WON, bigger community on BF4, BFH and SWB

  • Johnny Precog

    The numbers on swbstats.com seem to be correct ever since release.
    And yes, this moneygrabbing, franchise riding, shallow graphics whore deserves nothing more than to get every single decision maker at DICE and EA fired.

  • Johnny Precog

    The actual problem is that BF wasn’t designed for gamers of any kind. It’s a ridiculously shallow, empty, money-grabbing, franchises-riding graphics testbed for the next big DICE game.
    Since COD back in the day went down the drain to cater to more casual players, we’ve now hit rock bottom where AAA devs cater to the braindead.

  • Rumble Red

    As someone whose only interest in Battlefront is the Star Wars angle, I’d be a lot more awesomely immersed if the game had more planets and a single-player campaign.

  • Zeldain

    But it wasn’t designed with that in mind, at least not 1.0. It established new visual and immersive standards that can now be built on.

  • Johnny Precog

    Congratulations to the king in the kingdom of disappointing games.
    You know who the realy losers are? Gamers.

  • Zeldain

    For me, it’s the best Star Wars game I’ve ever played as far as feeling like I’m part of that world… and that’s what they were going for.

  • Johnny Precog

    Well, the ignorant and gullible are EA’s best customers.
    It’s honestly good to see that their numbers are dwindling.

  • coboney

    The issue here is that even casual gamers are going to have an issue finding players with the declining populations – especially if they bought it on PC where the numbers are routinely on a daily basis under 10k peak according to SWBStats.

    There’s room for a lot of different types of gamers and games out there in my opinion and no game can really appeal to everyone. This idea that games need to imo is part of why we sometimes see feature lists that look like they are just giant bullet points. So – I hope it is able to do well appealing to a different crowd because in the end, more people being able to enjoy themselves is great but right now the numbers are showing that people who bought it might be having troubles with that.

  • Aaron Owens

    it doesnt just take a data sheet to see this problem. i have the game on both ps4 and pc, and trust me, it is MUCH harder to find a game on pc. it was easy when it first came out, but now whenever i try the pc version, i sit around waiting while the game struggles to find any available servers that have people on them. when i play the ps4 version i have no problems getting into a game. the game looks better on pc, but frankly i prefer playing with a game pad, and of course when playing against pc players who are using a keyboard and mouse, i just cant really play against them. on the ps4 the game is more balanced for people like me because everyone is playing with the same format, same controllers, ect. this is actually the reason i ended up buying the ps4 version. i simply have more fun with it. the pc version is definitely lacking in online players though.

  • durka durka

    won what? pc is bombarded with games, you think pc gamers got time for the latest turdjob coming out of ea’s butt?

  • durka durka

    What you dont get is that the game is lacking content and depth. Plus high price

  • durka durka

    “t’s the best Star Wars game I’ve ever played”

    You are the type of moronic consumer they designed this trash for.

  • Sand Ripper

    The Bad Company games had legitimately enjoyable single-player campaigns too. I hope they make another one.

  • Nemesis

    PC sales are TERRIBLE

    PC online TERRIBLE. Hackers, aimbots…

    Next gen multiplayer games = Console Exclusive

  • Barry Harden

    Not surprised. The damn game comes with what? 5 maps!?? Maybe an extra 2 if you play certain game modes. Ridiculous.

    Then the horrible season pass pricing. Seems like another EA cash grab.

  • Orion Pax

    you want disappointing games? have you heard of “pc ports”? now that’s some sad disappointing shit right there

  • Orion Pax

    all i see is damage control

  • Orion Pax

    but they have time fro every fuckshit moba game right? lmao

  • Chris Anderson

    Wut. Battlefront is multiplatform, Titanfall was, Rainbow Six Siege is…

    What exactly are you referring to here?

  • Chris Anderson

    Maybe try and not insult people for liking something you don’t like? You and me both agree that Battlefront isn’t even close to rivalling the fun of the older entries in the series, but Zeldain is right about one thing: it does immersion incredibly well. Don’t think I’ve ever heard or seen a game that looks and sounds like the movies.

  • ParasiteX

    Immersion? Like seeing Luke Skywalker in his black outfit.. on icy cold Hoth?
    Or check out those cool fucking animations as you get into a x-wing…. oh wait… tokens..
    Sorry, but when it comes to immersion. Battlefront fails resoundingly.

  • ParasiteX

    It fails on PC, because PC gamers have a hell of a lot more other games, far better than the turd that is Battlefront.
    But hey, have fun shining that lovely turd of yours.

  • coboney

    His point is that these multiplayer only games have basically only succeeded on console other than maybe Rainbow Six.

  • Reptile

    So Dota2, League of Legends, Team Fortress and Counter Strike haven’t succeeded?
    We should tell those 50k playing Team Fortress 2 now, Those 400k playing CS:GO and those 1.000.000 playing Dota 2 now.
    What a bunch of bummers, don’t they know multiplayer only games only suceeded on console? -sarc

  • Reptile

    Elight me, which MOBAs are big hit other than Dota2 and League of Legends?

  • Reptile

    Shhhhh. let he happy feast on his pile of turd.The kid never tasted anything better anyway.

  • Reptile

    You talk about Battlefield Hardline as if this is something to be proud of, you have no say on “disappointing games”.

  • Reptile

    Nooo noo, the game isn’t designed to players who want to play don’t you see? it is designed for people who like to stare at a lobby screen. -sarc

  • Reptile

    It doesn’t matter for who the game was designed, bad design is still bad design.
    Content behind paywall, server location lock (at least at launch, they changed it now at least), Difficulty to find servers, unbalanced gameplay.
    It can be designed for dogs whatever, if it doesn’t work it will not work.

  • Zeldain

    None of that matters to who the game was designed for – casual players playing core games (because they grew up as core gamers) who want the best Star Wars experience possible. And that’s what it is.

  • coboney

    Not what I meant – I meant the new generation $60 entry shooters from AAA titles. There’s a bigger competition on PC – thus you have to battle off all of those games to get somewhere on PC. The PC marketplace for multiplayer heavy titles is much harder to get in on as you have a greater degree of old shooters, free to play games and various other things. On console, because of the more walled garden atmosphere any AAA launch has a much safer multiplayer realm just because there’s less competition that it has to go against. You aren’t going against League, WoW, Counter Strike, Quake, Unreal Tournament, nad others on the XBox One, you are only going against Battlefront, Titanfall, Rainbow Six, and CODs on that platform. All of which are also on PC.

  • coboney

    I’d say Smite is a big hit there. Heroes of the Storm is doing pretty well too.

  • Reptile

    I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter at all.
    I’m saying that it doesn’t matter when it doesn’t work as it should.
    Or are you saying to me that paying a full game price again for more content is a casual thing? Or not being able to find any game to join?
    Casual, hardcore, my parrot, it doesn’t matter when the multiplayer part of a multiplayer game doesn’t work properly, or you make content hard to access (like behind a paywall).

  • Zeldain

    I’m suggesting that while people don’t like to throw money away, the audience for this doesn’t see it that way, and in fact have disposable income… players in their 30s and 40s don’t really worry about 50 bucks if they are entertained. Most of these same people spend (more than) that on a movie night with their spouse that lasts 4 hours.

    You have to reset your expectation that all games are designed for core gamers and kids without money.

  • Reptile

    It depends on the game, most of, like Dota or CSGo, there is a ranking system so that new players play against new players instead of high ranking system, that is balancing, also some even have team balance based on skill / level of players, putting high skiller players with less skilled players so the match isn’t unfair.
    And your last point, so you’re basically saying that console games play those because they don’t have any more option, while PC has more and better games to choose from?

  • Orion Pax

    smite? hots? it doesn’t need to be a “big hit” they have a big player base still, that’s why pc gets trash ports, because everyone is playing on that free to play gay shit instead of playing AAA games

  • Orion Pax

    all i see is damage control, so now battlefield is a turd? funny, that’s not what the pc gaymers were saying when 3 released

  • coboney

    I’m saying the PC market is a lot more competitive there – whether its better games I’d say is up to the individual to decide what they prefer.

    As for ranking and matching that way – that takes having a large enough base to do that reliably. It’s part of the death spiral that can hit online heavy games – no one’s playing so no one wants to play, or bad matchmaking leads to people leaving because there’s not enough people playing, leading to worse matchmaking etc.

    Online heavy has its upsides from a business perspective but it also has a lot of risks, costs and other things as well.

  • coboney

    I’d say the numbers disagree with you there. A lot of units sell of AAA games and there’s been bad console versions as well. What’s happening though is that more developers who aren’t used to PC dev are doing it – and the PC platform doesn’t have the quality control department microsoft and sony implement on theirs. Realistically while I killed Tales of Symphonia for it’s port and will kill others we are seeing a general rise in solid versions and more games coming to the PC then before.

  • Reptile

    So you’re saying to me that restricting so much the playerbase of a game they are doing good?
    Sure people are willing to spend, that doesn’t enter the question, Battlefront sold millions congratz to EA but the problem is that people aren’t playing it.
    Restricting the playerbase with paywalls and shitty server system will only take people away from the game, making it more and more empty over time, Since most casual players, will not be waiting 5 to 10 minutes to start a game, they will switch the game and move on at the first obstacle between them and the gameplay.
    Look, Battlefront sold almost its target of 13 million, but how much people do you see playing it? There is 50k people playing right now, but lets see one of the few peaks I saw there was 400k. That is 3% of total sales, are you saying to me that there is no problem with the gameplay, that it is just “to whom it was designed”? When only 3% of people who bought the game play it (at peak). Even if there was 1.000.000 people playing it would be less than 10%, that 3 months after launch, people’s interest is fading away, and with such a broad space between DLC releases (another content wall) will only make things worse.

    This is not a goddamn target audience question, this is a game design and management question that is driving people away from a game.

    About “Muh yu think games only fur core n kids” I’ve learnt this 4 years ago at digital games graduation. But you don’t see to know that there is a difference between target audience and playerbase. You can target your game to any group, it will not matter if people don’t play it because you are imposing obstacles between them and the game content.

  • Reptile

    And complementing, casual players do not have the patience that hardcore players have, while hardcore players may spend 2 to 4 hours learning how EVE Online works, for example, casual players “feed” on easyness to play, that is why mobile games are such a hit among casuals, it just uses the phone screen, while games like flight simulators have so much keys and variables that only diehard hardcore players / pilots will be able to get most of the game.

    That said, casual players will leave if they can’t find any game on Battlefront or can’t play the content, making the playerbase smaller…making it harder for people to find games, those who will leave…repeat. See the problem now?

  • Orion Pax

    the witcher 3 is not decent on pc? because it sold triple on consoles

  • ParasiteX

    Considering the low metacritic scores for PC version and sales compared to console version. It would seem PC gamers have a far better eye for avoiding shitty games than console peasants like yourself.
    And please, enlighten me to how Battlefront is not a turd?
    Because all i see is a watered down Battlefield with a Star Wars skin.

  • Reptile

    So… what is your point? That PC ports sucks (because you just proved yourself wrong with The witcher 3 right now) or that it sell less?

  • Orion Pax

    so the witcher 3 is a turd right? since it sold 3 times more on consoles than pc

  • Orion Pax

    can you read? i asked if the withcer 3 is a god port on pc since you said that bad ports don’t sell well, well, the witcher 3 sold 3 times more on consoles, so it was a bad port on pc? or what’s your next excuse? please, keep damage controlling

  • Reptile

    Oh right, I thought first you meant competitive because of multiplayer’s competitive nature, but yeah, there are more multiplayer games that release on PC, making the market competitive sure.

    And about the death spiral, it is the problem with battlefront, you can’t call 50k people on all 3 platforms good numbers when they’re braggin about selling 13 million copys. People are playing it less and less over time, the space between DLCs and the obstacles to be able to join online only worse its situation. Specially if you compare and note that this number is the same of Team Fortress 2 players, which is a PC only game and is almost 10 years old.

    The game sold bazillions, cool, but people aren’t playing it, that means people will lose interst in a possible sequel or even DLC (killing the purpose of DLCs). Meaning that in a long run, EA will lose costumers.

  • ParasiteX

    Why are you bunching up all console platform vs PC? They are seperate platforms. When compared to the Xbone and PS4 individually PC hold up fairly well.
    Besides the PC version requiers pretty hefty system reqs, which limits the amount of sales. Yet it still managed to beat xbone by just the steamspy statistics. But that’s not even counting the sale numbers from gog.com. Which offers a DRM free version. PC sales are fairly hard to accurately track. As online sales are not published.

  • ParasiteX

    Also. 3 times as much? Did you pull those numbers out of your ass?
    It’s 30/70
    http://gamerant.com/the-witcher-3-sales-pc-consoles-125/

  • ParasiteX

    No it did not. You need to recheck those numbers of yours. It sold comparatively to the other console platforms individually.
    The game is available for 3 platforms. And PC covered a third of those sales. That’s pretty damn good sales figures.

    Battlefront on the otherhand, seemed to have sold abysmally low on PC compared to consoles. Says a lot about the standard of gaming quality in PC gamers compared to console gamers.

  • Reptile

    “Damage control” of what? Its clear that console sell more because they need to sell more because it is more expensive to launch and console, you have costs like shipping, product displayment, and packing, thus marketing is focused highly on console with big exclusive kits etc.
    Also first you were bragging about PS4, now you must put XONE on the count to prove your “muh is better” shit?

  • ParasiteX

    Plus the profit is generally higher on PC, because most PC sales nowadays are digital.

  • MadGolem PCGaming

    *4 Maps. I hope this fact has made you feel better. Oh it hasn’t. has it?

  • Smoky_the_Bear

    Especially given the F2P market on PC. We can play FPS until the cows come home for little to no cost.

    Without a decent single player offering as well, games like Battlefront and Titanfall find themselves in limbo. Not involved or competitive enough for the serious players who spend their time on CS. Also not enough for more casual FPS players like me because I can go play something like Dirty Bomb (or indeed CS) for no cost, as well as having my backlog of titles which console players don’t have as they probably lost their ability to play older stuff when they switched to current gen.
    Stuff like Battlefront and Titanfall would be “maybe in a sale” purchases for me, but EA seems adamant that it will keep these games at ridiculous prices (when you consider the season pass especially) until long past the point where the player base is all but gone meaning a multiplayer shooter holds zero interest at that point regardless of price.

  • Smoky_the_Bear

    You keep stating this. Source? Also love how you need to group “consoles” together to try and prove your point.. Big bag of fail all around there dude.

  • Smoky_the_Bear

    Yep simply this. PC gamers are less tolerant of shiny graphics money grab garbage that console owners lap up as “the next big thing”. I just have too many good games to play to waste time or money on crap like Battlefront.

  • Smoky_the_Bear

    http://www.dsogaming.com/news/the-witcher-3-out-of-its-4-million-sold-copies-1-3-million-were-from-the-pc-version/

    Do you understand basic maths. This pretty much shows PC sales at one third of overall sales. So one third on PC, one third on XBox, one third on Playstation. Nice attempt at trying to twist things around though.

  • Smoky_the_Bear

    This.. The main reason I didn’t buy it. Casual or not makes no difference, what they were offering simply was not worth the money when you factor in the price of the dlc. We’ve seen even with relatively more successful pc releases like BF4, that just buying the base game means you will be left with the option of a handful of servers once the dlc starts coming out and I refuse to pay £100 for a multiplayer shooter… Ever.

  • GrimFate

    I definitely agree with the Origin thing. Since giving up on Titanfall, I haven’t been back, except for the free games they give away now and then. Same thing with UPlay. I bought a Humble Bundle bundle that was completely UPlay games without realising it, and so I gave the entire bundle away to friends for free because I don’t want to use anything other than Steam on PC. I didn’t even consider buying Battlefront because it wasn’t on Steam. (The fact it is made by EA, and the bad reviews it got put off too.)

  • morzinbo

    This isn’t a core game. This is a casual game for casual gamers.

    Battlefront is a resounding success at what it was intended to do, and that is to not sell well on PC for being a steaming pile of crap.

  • Kade

    As a European player I start to take US East coast in morning and on peak hours European side. Usually I get games. But sometimes yes, its bit hard to get to Supremacy. Then other times its easy. Turning Point seems to have most players in PC.

    I’ve played Titanfall too and the lack of content question is true and not so true. If I compare to Raibow Six Siege they are different genres. Titanfall and Battlefront are good if you are casual player that wants some challenge. Repetition should not be be problem since opponts change all a time. Thats the point in fps I think and in pvp: not the surroundings.

    Basically most fps have common thing that if you stand in wrong place wrong time you die. There can be variations how you die, but its not really more complex in practice. How complex and challenging game is mostly depends on the opponents and your side ability to use all that is.

  • 1- Server Browser non-existant. Game leaves you wainting for whatver ammount if time it wants. Having to wait on the lobby for hours is not fun.
    2- No way of knowing in which mode the people is playing, you have to search for every mode, wait, search, wait, search and be thankful to god that the feaking game allows you to actually play.
    3- Horrible matchmaking, OP teams agasint newbie teams and they wont ever swap places, either you kill them all because you equip an OP weapon and then feel like a miserable ashole or you get killed so many times in a row that you want to delete the game and never touch it again.
    4- can’t be played with friends, either you enter into a match after 45 minutes or your friend enter into a match and each time you have to make it your friend AND THEN make it your partner and THEN pray the game allows you to play with together. Who was the idiot that design this thing?
    5- OP weapons. You don’t win or loose by your skill level. You do by the weapon you use. How bad can the gameplay be?. Battlefront gameplay is worse than all of those horrible games in the last 10 years combined. It’s like making a AAA movie effects with a 10 minutes short comedy script.

    I feel buyers remorse, for buyiing this game full price to my son and not being able to play with him not even once. It’s a horrible game, I hope it dies fast, it deserves all the bad critic.

  • My Name is Not Earl

    As a hardcore Star Wars kid of the 80’s I was excited to play every aspect of Battlefront when it first came out. But no server balance or server scramble of players , stupid trait cards and lack of effort to improvise a good Anti-Cheat engine … soon turned my enjoyment to frustration. Seems to me Devs got lazy and decided to go with COD style “trait cards / perks” instead of being original.- What a disappointment to the older generation of Star Wars fans.

  • Eric Lammertsma

    I’ll just quote Ars Technica for you with some actual numbers. Argue against those all you want:

    PC gaming is “an undervalued platform… contrary to the amount of attention that is generally paid to mobile gaming, total revenues from the PC gaming market is larger ($32 billion) than that of mobile ($25 billion).”

    For some additional context, the worldwide market for console game software (which is still largely dependent on retail disc sales) was estimated at $25.1 billion, according to a NewZoo report. Even combining three major hardware platforms, console software still can’t match the revenue-generating potential of PC games.

    Credit: Ars Technica’s article from Jan 27th, 2016 – “Don’t look now, but the PC is the world’s biggest gaming platform”

  • Justin

    Its a lack of a single player. You need single player people to convert to multiplayer.

  • Graeme Willy

    What pisses me off is that I recently bought the Season Pass to play the new Rogue One inspired map, but now I have a bunch of DLC maps that are virtually unusable in anything but a couple gameplay modes. For instance, you will not find squadron matches on any DLC map. The only gametypes that seem to have availability on the new maps is Cargo Run and maybe Conquest(or whatever they call it in Battlefront). You can’t even find a good old fashion Team Deathmatch(Blast) gametype on any of the new DLC. IF you are a new comer to the game, being sucked in by its new low price, just by the vanilla game, where the few still play. The game suffers from Season Pass syndrome, where, once a game ages, hardly anyone plays the extra content and the population is divided between vanilla game players and DLC owners. Halo 5 has the best model because all the content is free and everyone has no reason, but to download and own all the extra content. So you’re not filtering out people who only bought and enjoyed the vanilla game, and DLC owners don’t have to worry about the day they can’t find matches for their investments.

  • No server browser means no community on PC.