They reduced the campaign rewards by 75%, not the overall rewards you get for everything else in the game. So, it's not exactly 'no change'.
Honestly, at this point, aside from remastering the classic Battlefront II, I don't think anyone will ever be happy with a new Battlefront title, and that's more down to that gamers are a varied group of people that like different things.
"What? I have to unlock stuff like most every shooter that's come after CoD4? EA sucks, why can't everything be available from the start like back in the day? This game is pay-to-win!"
"What? The campaign isn't 20+ hours long, even though FPS campaigns usually don't go that long? EA sucks!"
"Wait, the game has the smallest hint of microstransactions? BOYCOTT!"
To be fair, there's been some big red flags for me that EA's done, but the outrage is nonsense at this point. If there's the tiniest thing gamers don't like about something, they make sure to spew and rant about it. I'm sure the game will do fine (BF2015 did fine even though it got lots of grief) and whatever unforeseen issues that are there will get ironed out in a few weeks. Honestly,I thought the biggest point of contention with this game was going to be the cross-era heroes. At this point, that's my biggest problem with the game.
For pete's sake, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, and Battlefield Hardline allow you to buy shortcuts to unlock all the guns and equipment for all the classes. If one wanted to pick that game up today, they could have all the stuff unlocked in seconds. Why didn't anyone ever blow up over that? That nonsense goes all the way back to 2011! Why, six years later, are people just now thinking it's a problem?
People just wanna be mad, yo.
As in it's bad because it happened, or the lowering campaign rewards thing is made up?