i dont know, I m really looking forward for it, but not coz i was a huge fan of BF2 or DICE, instead so far what i have seen and read BF3 reminds me Warhawk on PS3, which i believe was an awesome multiplayer only game

Actually that is a very good comparison. It does sound a lot like Warhawk..... EA 8 years behind confirmed!

i'll still buy it, but i agree everything i have heard about this so far has been dissapointing. also 2 years since announcement, 7 months to release and still no gameplay footage......

I'm keeping my distance, super disappointed that AT-AT's will be on rails/scripted, back in BF2 you could control two of those on Hoth and recreating the battle scenes with a snowspeeder felt amazing but it;s not going to feel the same here.

Also DICE and EA haven't really got a solid track record with their other games, they canned C&C generals 2, fucked up BF3, fucked up BF4 and spent a practical year fixing it and with BF3/4 they milked it with DLC, now we've got an article of them claiming they won't Delay for DLC but who's to say they aren't already planning DLC and cutting it from the game ebfore it comes out?, imo dlc should be planned at least half a year after launch and not straight after launch day or the days before it, the latter has been happening so far when it comes to EA/DICE so I'm not getting my hopes up, not with a track record like that, the information we're already seeing just shows that it;s better to wait until weeks to months later when the game will be fixed because it will be a buggy mess since their last handful of games were a mess on launch day and the months that followed.

I couldn't care less about the campaign part, BF1-2 didn't exactly have stellar storytelling and even then they were just multiplayer battles within the same conditions with the exception of killing a specific person or army, nothing really important and even then this game is going with the new trilogy which I'll mainly be watching the movie for anyway than playing the game to watch the movie.

All I want is space battles, contrallable AT-AT's, more maps and online working day 1 or at least day 7 and the price not to be so ridiculous because it's basically an online game like Titanfall.

i dont get it a mp only shooter for fullprice isnt something new, many good mpFPS of the past  had very limited singleplayer, the god bfs, UT,Quakearena,cs, the old battlefront.  but those games were not cut for DLC and had mo support...

And 200 million spent on marketing and devolopement would you then call it still a sucess? Star wars licence is not cheap. I hope it bombs because its EA. You allready can read that this will be another shady cash grab from EA

Of course not. EA is pulling the strings here. Expect connection issues, bugs and glitches, corners cut on design and a stream of DLC of things that should have been in the game like indeed space battles and more planets and battlefields. Disney should never have gone with EA.

EDIT: Reading Chazore's post above makes it even more laughable and I agree fully with Ruler.

There's something that worries me. When they've showed that we can play as Darth Vader and Boba Fett, doesn't that make anyone feel disappointed that such important characters will be used on many modes? Would that take off importance out of them in the game?

I loved space battles and while the campaign was never my favorite part of the game I did enjoy it.

They're most likely saving gameplay for E3