I don't play the WWE games, but aren't those the most disgusting version of a Season Pass? They announced EXACTLY what you get. Meaning it is done right now. But that they hid the content behind this pay wall because the $60 wasn't enough. Even if we already payed the devs and spent the time to develop it, we need more from you. At least with games like The Last of Us they just said we got 4 DLC pieces. 3 are for MP and then we have something for SP. Neither is done and we will have more details later. Had they told me this is exactly everything you get, I would be pissed and not buy it because it is already complete. The same can be said of Bioshock, they didn't say exactly what is was. I just think it is unacceptable.
This is the equivalent of subscription based day one DLC.

The same argument can be made against Battlefield 4 Premium. Giving you priority in queues and basically restricting you to a third of the servers once the DLC begins to roll out means that if you don't pay you can't play. At the very least you experience will be extremely tarnished. Believe it or not I think Activision handles the COD DLC much better than EA with Battlefield. Sure, the argument can be made that for the most part they know what the maps will be. they know it will be four packs with about 5 pieces of content. But when you don't own the DLC, you don't have your experience totally ruined. There is no premium that without it comes with delayed matchmaking. You still have the game you bought day one for $60. If that is all you wish to own, that is all you need. The game will still be there and allow for you to have as much fun as everyone else. It won't punish you for not tossing more money their way.

Now with the current state of gaming, with all these crazy season passes and the days of the online pass. I see people complaining about things like Titanfall launching at $60 while offering no single player. Sure, Titanfall will probably have a Season Pass offering. But what is wrong with it being multiplayer only? If you are willing to pay for already completed DLC, why can't you pay for a fully polished multiplayer experience? In years past you have been fine with a game being single player only. Bioshock Infinite has no multiplayer, last about 12 hours, while severely dragging in the middle portion. No one complains demanding a tacked on multiplayer portion. Do you really play COD or Battlefield single player? If you do, isn't it likely you spend a ton more time online than you do offline? I have not touched a single player COD since MW2. Every single military FPS is almost the same. Blah blah blah, America is the best we win! I spend loads more time online, I am sure a great portion of people who play FPS games would agree. If I can get the team to focus solely on polishing the online experience and not waste time tacking on another on rails, cliched, military campaign, i would feel a lot more comfortable handing them $60 on launch day. Knowing that what I get will have gotten all the attention it needs, so that my 80+ hours will not be wasted on a neglected and possibly broken online experience .

With all of the extra things we get charged for. From GTA Online's microtransactions that are almost required due to the highly inflated prices online for things like bullet-proof tires and suppressors. To Season Passes that are already compelted or "Premium" subscriptions that punish players who don't own them, should we really be moaning over a game focusing on multiplayer? We don't complain about games that choose not to include multiplayer. We use excuses like, well it wouldn't make sense to have multiplayer in this game. Yet we feel the need to try and force companies into half assing a story for their multiplayer game so that we feel better about the $60 we are about to spend. I for one would rather spend $60 on this complete multiplayer experience, than to spend $60 on the Season Pass for an incomplete single player game.