7/10 is what I was expecting and that's fair to be honest. 7 isn't even a bad score IMO.
It's not a bad score, but nowadays with the average high scores reviewers give to games it actually is a really bad score. If it stays around 7, that means it is in the same category as games like Zombi, Just Dance, Mad Max, Ride, Grow Home, etc.
That's just not fair.
While I admit that content wise it could have been better, it is really not that light on content.
If you compare the game with the most recent shooter, Call of Duty: Black Ops III:
- They both have 12 maps, Battlefront has even 14 in two weeks
- Yes Black Ops III has more weapons, but it's not that all the weapons feel so different. If the game had 15 weapons instead of 40, you would barely notice it. And still, how much variety do people expect from 'laser weapons'?
And please don't come talking that black ops III has a zombie mode (that's only 1 map...) or the terrible singleplayer campaign.
And ow yeah the upcoming Rainbow Six Siege has if I am not mistaken 11 maps and not a decent singleplayer campaign. Will people also complain about the lack of content with that game?
Battlefront isn't going to be a multiplayer game that you play hundreds of hours, but it still provides fun for dozens of hours, even without the DLC. I also don't get why Battlefront gets an bad score because of content, but a singleplayer only game with 8 to 10 hours of gameplay gets a free pass and great score.