It's in both lists, in fact. Great dedicated controller, btw, to recreate a rough equivalent with non proprietary components you'd need at least two joysticks and a gaming keyboard, and even then you'd need a game with very widely customisable controls, like Mechwarrior 2 series, to make fully use of such setup.

It wasn't a secret that it was multiplayer only. should have thought about that before buying it. it's like complaining about buying a toy that says batteries not included big and bold and then complaining about no batteries like a brat as if you didn't know when you picked it off the shelf.

It's not half a game, it's the whole games as advertised. you didn't have to buy it. Looking at your avatar op I assume you for one would have known before hand exactly what you were buying into.

I really don't know how you can be disappointed. The meaning of the word generally is to feel down because something didn't go how you expected it to.

Were you expecting a single player campaign after months of saying it wasn't gonna happen? 

I didn't check the list, I was referring to Hawken and Titanfall :)

The proprietary controller (and difficulty) were an integral part of Steel Battalion, Microsoft was fucking stupid for not continuing that series after people ponied up the $150 for the game/controller.  My friend Nate still has the whole setup.  Absurd that they tried (or succeeded?) in making a Kinect version, where you have to go and buy...you guessed it, another $150 proprietary device.  Not sure if they ever actually made that game, or if they were just blowing sunshine up our asses.  But, it was a huge mistake imo.  Steel Battalion's my favorite mech game of all time, by a fairly wide margin.

I'm going to argue the exact opposite. More games should be multiplayer only. I paid $50 for Battlefield 2 back in the day and that game was rich and full of content. The fact that EA has seen fit to add a garbage single-player campaign to BF3 and BF4 instead of using those resources to add maps or more importantly POLISH THE GAME makes me furious.

I've paid for BF2, MAG, and many other multiplayer only games and I enjoyed them til the very end. It crushes me to see some of these go but I'd rather have a fleeting but better multiplayer experience than have a horrible, tacked on single-player addition.

The only problem is that by ditching the SP, resources will not be allocated to MP.

You are still only going to have the same number of maps. All it means is that there will be a yearly release and more DLC packs.

Its not a negotiation of any sort.

If this were 10 years ago, pre-360/PS3 era, I'd completely agree with you.  However, until Sony/Microsoft pull their heads out of their collective asses and start allowing mods, map making, and stand alone/local server options on console (and ffs, the PS4/X1 have enough resources, adopt Punkbuster, or give users Admin control on servers), we'll always be at the mercy of these companies and when they decide it's time to close down servers.  That won't happen though, because people are still more than happy to pay $20 bucks for 4 maps.

So you're saying that out of all the things they pulled from BF3 like commander mode, titan mode, air supriority, command rose, mods, bots, etc., there wouldn't be a single thing they could have brought back? Even though they eventually brought some features back for BF4 which implies BF3 either lacked resources or time? I have a hard time believing that instead of hiring people to build a single player campaign and distracting executives with single player related problems, they wouldn't hire just one more person or devote even a single minute more to multiplayer. In fact, they've gone out and said explicitly that the reason bots weren't included was specifically because of the single player campaign.

I don't know if you can tell but I really hate BF's campaigns. If just a little bit more effort could be given to multiplayer for those games instead of the awful campaigns, I would have taken it.

If things happen like you say, sure I agree. It would be awesome having tons more maps, guns and attachments.

But you have to factor in that its EA that we are talking about. I really dont think they would spend much more time on MP than they already do. The sacrifice of SP would be for nothing.

Yes, but fairly speaking, in which do you think there were more resources invested? in the roller couster rigth, so it makes sense that you pay something like US$60, but why pay US$60 on the parking lot? they made very little invesment, but on top of that they will charge US$10 for each map, is a slap in the face, they barely spend money making the game, even the license for the engine should be one of the cheapest, and yet they are charging very high.