The game is coming to PC on Origin, though. Modding runs the risk of getting you banned just by playing offline. The new "Battlefront" has no offline mode aside from maybe Missions and I doubt that'll be moddable. So, figure you make a mod, the only way to use it is online which'll automatically trigger their anti-cheating software and ban your account.

The best bet if you aim to mod is to wait for a pirated version, copy their online framework through extensive knowledge of C++ (I'm assuming they use that since it's very simple and would be time-effective), download SQL, create a repack of the data the game sends to the server, use that data to create a server using SQL, choose your launcher from the variety out there, launch your new private server. From there you could actually create simulated offline instant action with 32 vs 32 player matches, creating Galactic Conquest would be difficult, but doable, too. By difficult, I mean you'd need to write an entire AI if->then process with situational purchase and usage of the consumables and dynamic unit purchasing to fit certain scenarios, you'd probably want three or four different behaviours attached to a four-value RNG to create some randomness so you can't always stonewall them.

I'm extremely excited for it... And I know everyone has been bashing the idea of it possibly being a FPS/Battlefield type game.. But has their ever really been a Star Wars FPS war game? I think it would be awesome to trudge it through the blizzards of hoth in a massive FPS with your modified laser blaster, charging at heavily fortified Rebel defenses.

fhatton7 wrote:

I'm extremely excited for it... And I know everyone has been bashing the idea of it possibly being a FPS/Battlefield type game.. But has their ever really been a Star Wars FPS war game? I think it would be awesome to trudge it through the blizzards of hoth in a massive FPS with your modified laser blaster, charging at heavily fortified Rebel defenses.

Press V in Battlefront 2 on PC. Bam, FPS and 3PS Star Wars game with more content.

Sounds like the game is shipping with 12 maps, with 2 more coming via free DLC: http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/04/star-wars-battlefront-features-12-multiplayer-maps

So, still 21 less than Battlefront 2, 6 if we don't count the Space maps? Still a pathetically low number for a "Next-gen" title.

What was that other game that came out roughly 2 years ago that had 10 maps at launch and a DLC about a month after release that came out early to certain parties? I want to say the title had Battle in it, maybe followed by an 'f' with no spaces. And it was released by a subsidiary of EA, something that involved luck, COIN, ROULETTE, DICE. DICE, that's it! It had a large group saying that they didn't trust DICE with the product and that they were going to boycott them. The launch turned terribly and the online worked better than the offline and even that was almost unplayable with bugs. It took them a year to fix it. BATTLEFIELD 4! That was the name... Wait a minute, isn't that the game that they Specifically said Battlefront would not copy?

Around 10 maps? Check. DLC around a month after release? Check. Said DLC coming out early for certain parties? Check. Large amount of people worried about DICE screwing up the franchise? Check. Large number of people boycotting? Check. No. Definitely not a Battlefield clone at all...

I don't entirely agree with that argument.  Its not exactly even ground that you're comparing.  The amount of time/resources that goes into building a map in a current-gen/next-gen game is exponentially higher than what it took to make something like BF2, which is like... a PS2 game.  

Bioware said it best when they said that some individual zones in Inquisition (Hinterlands being a good example of this) have more space, geometry, etc going on than all of the world spaces of the entire Dragon Age 2 game combined.  There's a vast difference between the tech used to make DA2 and Inquisition, but its nothing compared to the difference between BF2 and the new game.  

If Battlefront was doing something like... 12 maps + 12 more as paid DLC! I would totally get the argument/frustration.

People need to play the game and judge it on its own merits, IMO, instead of auto-hating it because some of the numbers doesn't match up with a game from like 10 years ago.

Tesvixen wrote:

I don't entirely agree with that argument.  Its not exactly even ground that you're comparing.  The amount of time/resources that goes into building a map in a current-gen/next-gen game is exponentially higher than what it took to make something like BF2, which is like... a PS2 game.  

Bioware said it best when they said that some individual zones in Inquisition (Hinterlands being a good example of this) have more space, geometry, etc going on than all of the world spaces of the entire Dragon Age 2 game combined.  There's a vast difference between the tech used to make DA2 and Inquisition, but its nothing compared to the difference between BF2 and the new game.  

If Battlefront was doing something like... 12 maps + 12 more as paid DLC! I would totally get the argument/frustration.

People need to play the game and judge it on its own merits, IMO, instead of auto-hating it because some of the numbers doesn't match up with a game from like 10 years ago.

It is, by no means, harder. If you're going to argue resources, DICE Stockholm, who passed the Battlefield baton onto DICE LA, has around 500 employees, Pandemic at its peak had around 240, you can also bet the DICE has a substantially larger budget than Pandemic did. Time is also not a constraint, if Pandemic could put together 33 maps with only one major bug on the Death Star that cause Rebels/Republic to lose double the tickets per death in one year, DICE's doubled manpower and tripled time should allow them to put out substantially more content. It took a buddy and I roughly 48 hours to build a map on UDK that could hold 64 players or bots and was large enough to not be crowded, neither of us has education in the field of game development and we used the free version with limited functions. Figure it took the two of us 48 hours on one map, multiply the work force, and since they don't have offline, all of their staff should be working on online, it'd take approximately 6 minutes of everyone at Stockholm working on the map to finish it. So, no, resources are not a constraint.

If you want to argue technology, do you really think using one of the drawing pads that they use on a computer with either four or eight times more processing power with all of the information in a shared cloud drive is harder than using a mouse and keyboard on multiple independent 2GB processor computers that don't have a shared cloud drive? Back in the day, if you wanted to change the master version, you needed to wait for the main computer to become available and even then you don't know whether or not the guy before changed the same thing you're going to change or if the guy after you will overwrite your information. So, again, no, technology is not a constraint either.

There has never been an easier time to make a game. Higher budgets, more employees, more time.

It's not auto-hate, it's fact-based hate.The fact that they've stripped content that was added to a game on a console a decade ago that were expanded on and that worked on a system with a 222 MHz processor, and somehow, we're to believe that a console with 13 times the processing speed can't handle those same mechanics? They even managed to make multiplayer with bots work over Bluetooth. And then people defend it with "It's their take on the franchise" or "It's harder to make games now." The former excuses nothing, the latter is false. If their take on the franchise is to strip the key mechanics out of the franchise, it's not their take, it's a new franchise. They literally took the "Star" out of Star Wars, half of all of the movies take place in space and the game has no space combat.

I do not mean this rudely or toward you as a person. But your entire argument is flawed at best, wrong at worst.

Throwing more people at a problem doesn't automatically make it easier to solve. Blizzard for example, their World of Warcraft team is twice the size that it used to be, and they admit that they still struggle to create content at a pace that satisfies them (or their players) because of exactly that.

You can't just throw 100 artists at something and say 'yay easier!' That's more quality assurance, more consistency to check, more micromanaging.

And to say that games are easier than ever to make is just an outright farce. They are vastly more expensive, which is in and of itself a huge hurdle for many studios, and the technology is more complex than ever. There is more animation data going on in the face of a single character in a current COD title, than in an entire screen of stuff happening in a game from 10 years ago. You are suggesting that building a game with an engine like Frostbite is easier than making a PS2 game... no. That is absolutely not correct, on any level, and no amount of employees changes that fact.

Even speaking as a modder... it is childs play to rig a model from a 5, 6, 7 year old game compared to a modern game like Inquisition, which is much more time consuming. NPC behavior and scripts in Skyrim - which only uses a slightly upgraded version of the same engine as the Fallout titles - are significantly more advanced than in those games.

I fully understand that you're unhappy with the game, you have every right to be as a customer of their products. But some of your argument for that - at least, in that most recent post - is outright nonsense.

And let me stress, I am not attacking you personally - you seem to be a nice person from most of the posts I've seen. But you really need a better understanding of game development before you make the kinds of arguments you're trying to make.

One name: Zipper Interactive.

MAG was their first foray into large number of players supported in PvP. They took the general ideas of Battlefield and put it on an exponentially larger scale. I played that game until Zipper closed and I only once encountered a major bug. They had less development time than Battlefront 3 and people still have not replicated their 256 player games. They also had a smaller budget than Battlefield 4.

The 6 minutes thing was me assigning a value to the variable of time per worker.

Games cost more because they have a larger staff than before and computers with the capability needed to design the games cost more. Just paying DICE's staff would cost double that of paying Pandenics staff simply due to numbers.

I'd gladly take a game with nornal graphics to have more content. We have 12 maps and 3 speculated modes. Give me BF4 graphics with Battlefront 2's content and more and I'd be fine. But 12 maps with no offline is bullshit. No, missions does not count as offline. Galactic Conquest was one of my fondest memories of Battlefront, having a buddy on the couch next to me seeing who was truly the better player. But that's gone, too. Even vanilla BF4 had more than two sides to add some variety.

When two people can use an outdated, limited, engine to support 64 players, a company with trained staff should have no problem. There's even a Battlefront 2 mod that adds space-to-ground combat, but only on one new map. When the fans are adding more complex mechanics than the triple A developer, something's wrong.

Look at the indie games out there. A lot of them were six or so people over half a year or so. Game design isn't hard, it's just tedious work.

Not to mention jkdsh, Dice isn't trying to copy Battlefront II, they said they want this to be their own thing. And when they said they weren't going to copy Battlefield they meant gameplay mechanics, weapons, maps. Not number of maps, dlc, dlc release date, and people BOYCOTTING. People BOYCOTTING is 100% out of Dice's control.

gav07NewVegas wrote:

Not to mention jkdsh, Dice isn't trying to copy Battlefront II, they said they want this to be their own thing. And when they said they weren't going to copy Battlefield they meant gameplay mechanics, weapons, maps. Not number of maps, dlc, dlc release date, and people BOYCOTTING. People BOYCOTTING is 100% out of Dice's control.

Firstly, boycotting is entirely in their control. That' kind of the purpose of boycotting. You don't boycott just to boycott, you do so when something needs to change.

Battlefield's practices are also pretty unique to Battlefield. I don't think I've ever seen a company release a map pack DLC a month after launch from anyone but DICE.

You literally said exactly what I said excuses nothing. If they're building Battlefront as its own franchise, don't call it Battlefront. But they know they can pull in the suckers that loved Battlefront 2 by riding that nostalgia.

jkdsh wrote:

I'd gladly take a game with nornal graphics to have more content. We have 12 maps and 3 speculated modes. Give me BF4 graphics with Battlefront 2's content and more and I'd be fine. But 12 maps with no offline is bullshit. No, missions does not count as offline. Galactic Conquest was one of my fondest memories of Battlefront, having a buddy on the couch next to me seeing who was truly the better player. But that's gone, too. Even vanilla BF4 had more than two sides to add some variety.

A few things popped in my head
-Get Battlefront 2 for the PC and Get some Mods for it if that is all you want
-What if they have something new and better? If the gaming community hates repetitive games so much, why to the loathe change so much?
-No offline is bullshit? This is modern gaming...sorry to break the news, but games are really only made for their single or multiplayer, yeah some games have both, but the focus was put on one or the other.
-"Even vanilla BF4 had more than two sides to add some variety" it had 3...and Star Wars is a set universe, they can't add new factions, they don't have the license
-If you think you can do better than them: Go get a loan, Buy the licenses, Hire a team, Produce your masterpiece, and satisfy everyone.
-Or you can just hate this game cause they don't have something you had when you were a kid, and don't buy the game

blivit270 wrote:

-What if they have something new and better? If the gaming community hates repetitive games so much, why to the loathe change so much?

Okay this is the best statement I've ever heard[/quote]

blivit270 wrote:

jkdsh wrote:

I'd gladly take a game with nornal graphics to have more content. We have 12 maps and 3 speculated modes. Give me BF4 graphics with Battlefront 2's content and more and I'd be fine. But 12 maps with no offline is bullshit. No, missions does not count as offline. Galactic Conquest was one of my fondest memories of Battlefront, having a buddy on the couch next to me seeing who was truly the better player. But that's gone, too. Even vanilla BF4 had more than two sides to add some variety.

A few things popped in my head
-Get Battlefront 2 for the PC and Get some Mods for it if that is all you want
-What if they have something new and better? If the gaming community hates repetitive games so much, why to the loathe change so much?
-No offline is bullshit? This is modern gaming...sorry to break the news, but games are really only made for their single or multiplayer, yeah some games have both, but the focus was put on one or the other.
-"Even vanilla BF4 had more than two sides to add some variety" it had 3...and Star Wars is a set universe, they can't add new factions, they don't have the license
-If you think you can do better than them: Go get a loan, Buy the licenses, Hire a team, Produce your masterpiece, and satisfy everyone.
-Or you can just hate this game cause they don't have something you had when you were a kid, and don't buy the game  

1. I play Battlefront 2 almost daily.

2. Something new and better? Like removing everything that made Battlefront different from CoD or Battlefield? That's definitely new and better...? Oh, I bet you mean the fraction of the content that the PSP games had on a processor a thirteenth of the power of a PS4? No, it has to be the removal of Galactic Conquest, that's new, right? New and better would be building up, not releasing a bare-bones game.

3. I don't even know where to begin on that one. CoD (They actually recycled animations from Modern Warfare on Ghosts) includes online, campaign (Although shitty, they're better than dealing with squeakers), and some form of offline survival that you can play with a friend.

4. The three factions were enough for me to not lose my mind always listening to the same voice actor in the same accent saying "Enemy spotted," or "Sniper!" or "I need meds." Really? There aren't more factions in Star Wars than the Empire and Rebels? Really? Bounty Hunters? People that want their planets to stay independent? Remnants of one of the old Sith Empires out on the fringes of space (Disney kept TOR as canon for a reason)? The remnants of the Galactic Republic? Honestly there are too many factions in Star Wars to only have 2.

5. EA has all of the rights for the next decade. And now you're just being pedantic.

6. I must be insane to expect a game in the same franchise to maintain some similar mechanics. The game literally has "Star" in the title, but all we get is ground combat, nothing out among the stars.

But we should just let them do whatever they want and never have any qualms with them. They are perfect gods, after all, that could never make a mistake, right? When the vast majority of people say that the "Reboot" of a franchise is lackluster at best, maybe there's the possibility of a chance that there may be some merit to what's being said?

jkdsh wrote:

6. I must be insane to expect a game in the same franchise to maintain some similar mechanics. The game literally has "Star" in the title, but all we get is ground combat, nothing out among the stars.

Does every Star Wars game have space combat?

I sincerely hope the game isn't littered with micro-transactions like that battlefield four battle-pack bullshit.

gav07NewVegas wrote:

jkdsh wrote:

6. I must be insane to expect a game in the same franchise to maintain some similar mechanics. The game literally has "Star" in the title, but all we get is ground combat, nothing out among the stars.

Does every Star Wars game have space combat?

Let's go down the list:

Not space combat but stuff happens in space:
Every Jedi Knight game has at least one mission on a ship, usually doing what you'd try to do in Battlefront's space combat.
Republic Commando also had a mission trying to destroy a space ship.

With space battles:
Galaxies
KoToR
KoToR 2
Empire at War
SW:ToR
X-Wing
Rogue Squadron
Rebel Assault
Starfighter
I think the Lego games had some space combat as well
I'm also thinking that all of the Star Wars games that were the movies in game-form had space combat

So, aside from The Force Unleashed, the weird Kinect game(s?), Republic Heroes, and Bounty Hunter.
Battlefront 1 didn't come with space battles, but modders added them (Something the game coming on Origin will disallow).

Literally every Star Wars game that I know of, with the exception of 5, had included space combat or missions trying to destroy a ship from the inside.

Let's just talk about the one on that list that surprised everyone with its space combat: SWTOR. It started off including space missions that were guided with rails and then added PvP dogfighting. You can choose from a handful of different roles for your ship, you can even customize your ship, then you can play all kinds of modes with a full team. This is a function included in an EA product that's also an MMO. So, an MMO can pull off dogfighting, but a game developed by a team that made a game mode that is literally just jet dogfighting can't include a function like that?

gav07NewVegas wrote:

jkdsh wrote:

6. I must be insane to expect a game in the same franchise to maintain some similar mechanics. The game literally has "Star" in the title, but all we get is ground combat, nothing out among the stars.

Does every Star Wars game have space combat?

His just angry the Reboot franchise is different and has less content the old games but this is a reboot so there's no need to have high expectations

I'm not getting my hopes up for this game. This game offers less than what Battlefront 2 offered, I mean come on, no space battles, really? Not to mention there are only going to be 4 planets as far as we know including this has no Clone wars era.

What's next EA, Are you going to make the space battles and the Clone wars era a paid DLC content that should of been in the game in the first place? My lord EA pisses me off with this bullshit.

I'm not excited at all for this game. All we've been shown is a "in-engine" trailer, and we all know the game will never look like that. EA being the publisher is also a huge warning sign, you just know that they will exploit it for DLC as much as they can. And as Player147 already mentioned, it features less content than Battlefront 2 and no space battles.