No there isn't. 

The season pass offers you .. three exclusive skins. All of which suck and can't be destroyed. All the maps you get in the pass? They're free for everyone, all you get is early access. So yea, there's no  value to the season pass.

And lot's of content? Not really. Did you know that every time they add new maps to the game they take away the same amount of the maps from the rotation? That means the entire point of having microtransactions(so that they can make a profit off cosmetics while still deliviring free content to the community) is ruined, because you aren't REALLY getting more free content, you're getting the same amount of maps it's just that some maps are taken out. Which means that there's no point in adding more maps, since that means the only time you can enjoy all the maps is in  private exclusively. What would be the point in that? And since the only other thing updated for free in which other content isn't deleted or taken out to make place for it is unironically microtransaction packs and optional cosmetics, it means there was no point at all to have a microtransaction system. For the people(the majority) who play Matchmaking, the content you get day one is the same amount of content you get after the free updates. 

Oh - and where's Arcade mode for the Campaign, Capture The Leader, etc. Offline horde? What's that? Oh and the funniest thing is - even without the microtransaction system the unlockables suck ass. So we get one bald baird but we get 30 color blast skins and a few shitty zombie skins? What? 

Kudos, it looks like you've done your homework to find anything negative about Gears.

Regardless, its a package with significantly more value than the typical game. It has basically everything people argue like a campaign, split screen, PvP, co-op, and it does it all very well.

Please name me the games that do everything Gears 4 does as well and/or better. I have a feeling this is gonna be a short list. This is why I'm comfortable calling Gears 4 a total package.

Actually not really. I'm a huge Gears fan and I expected this to be a great game and there's some great things about it. So don't try to go for the "oh you're just a hater" argument. You're completely trying to negate the fact that this game rips people off for 40$, and tells you that the cosmetic microtransactions are worth it when you aren't getting anything at all for them really. 

I think you're being a little unfair here. I don't lower my expectations by generation. I don't lower my expectations about content or settings or fairness from a company simply because "hey, other games are worse this gen, right?" That's such a linear anti-consumer way of thinking of things, so yes if you want to go that route Gears of War has more content than most games this generation, but when you consider than Sony and Nintendo mostly focus on single player experiences, and that most games don't have splitscreen on a priority list, it's easy to see how even with the generation being as bad as it is your argument is still faulty. 

So yea, there's not many games that have Split screen, but there's A LOT of games that have campaign, co-op and pvp. So it's really just the split screen that's stopping me from making a long list of better games. A bit unfair when you consider you don't have offline horde mode, a dedicated campaign matchmaking, or really that much content besides the core things that every game should have anyways.

Actually not really. I'm a huge Gears fan and I expected this to be a great game and there's some great things about it. So don't try to go for the "oh you're just a hater" argument. You're completely trying to negate the fact that this game rips people off for 40$, and tells you that the cosmetic microtransactions are worth it when you aren't getting anything at all for them really. 

I think you're being a little unfair here. I don't lower my expectations by generation. I don't lower my expectations about content or settings or fairness from a company simply because "hey, other games are worse this gen, right?" That's such a linear anti-consumer way of thinking of things, so yes if you want to go that route Gears of War has more content than most games this generation, but when you consider than Sony and Nintendo mostly focus on single player experiences, and that most games don't have splitscreen on a priority list, it's easy to see how even with the generation being as bad as it is your argument is still faulty. 

So yea, there's not many games that have Split screen, but there's A LOT of games that have campaign, co-op and pvp. So it's really just the split screen that's stopping me from making a long list of better games. A bit unfair when you consider you don't have offline horde mode, a dedicated campaign matchmaking, or really that much content besides the core things that every game should have anyways.