Released today for Americans , we have to wait until the 20th :-(
Digital Foundry frame rates for the PS4 and Xbox One versions - PS4 is basically solid 60 FPS the whole way - the Xbox One occasionally has some stutters
The beta was impressive - the launch code is even better.
Star Wars mania is in full effect this year, making 2015 the perfect time for a rebirth of the beloved Battlefront series. This time the Battlefield veterans at DICE are taking point, hoping to deliver an experience that avoids the plethora of issues that plagued the release of BF4 two years ago. Based on what we've experienced thus far, the firm seems to be on the right track - Battlefront's showing during its beta phase was impressive, but the evidence suggests that the final game features an even smoother level of performance.
We have direct feed capture of both console versions of the game, and can confirm that while frame-rates are improved on both systems, the resolution differential remains unchanged. As with Battlefield 4 and Hardline, Battlefront operates at 1600x900 on PS4 while Xbox One is limited to 1280x720. In both cases, improved anti-aliasing does a better job of masking upscaling artefacts resulting in a soft, yet cleaner overall look. On PS4, the 900p resolution combined with the excellent anti-aliasing solution results in something that manages to look surprisingly clean for a sub-native game. Even in the foliage-rich world of Endor, the game remains temporally stable in a way that Battlefield 4 does not. However, similar to its showing during the beta, Xbox One does not fare as well on this front.
While the improved anti-aliasing technique clearly helps, the resolution is just too low to fully appreciate the detail in the game. That said, it still manages to look cleaner than both Battlefield titles as a result of improved image treatment - but there's still the sense that DICE is packing too much detail into some scenes for the limited framebuffer to fully resolve it: foliage and specular highlights in particular shimmer heavily, leading to some scenes looking a little unattractive. There are gameplay implications too - for example, when fighting on Endor in particular, with its lush forest environments, it can be difficult to pick out enemies at a distance as a result of the lower resolution.
Onto performance then, where we have some impressive metrics for both console versions - albeit captured in different circumstances. On PlayStation 4, our video was acquired at DICE's review event in Stockholm, where we were limited to 30 players rather than the full 40. It's not quite the full stress test we were hoping for, but performance hiccups in the beta seemed to be GPU-related, whereas the full complement of online players is much more likely to affect the CPU.
Regardless, the results in this situation are promising: looking through all of our captured footage, we have just a small number of dropped frames in total - Star Wars: Battlefront manages to deliver a very steady 60 frames per second for the vast majority of the duration. Even when particle effects are filling the viewport, the game just doesn't slow down. It's a level of performance on par with the likes of Halo 5 and Metal Gear Solid 5 - no mean feat.
On Xbox One, we were able capture footage with gameplay at the 40-player limit, thanks to full access to final code via EA Access. In this case, performance is somewhat less stable than PlayStation 4 but ultimately still very smooth - and a substantial improvement over both Battlefield titles. Areas that gave both consoles issues in the beta, such as the hangar bay on Hoth, continue to challenge Xbox One with dips into the mid-50s. However, there's still a positive to take from this - looking back at our footage from the beta, the minimum recorded frame-rate was in the 40s - something that we never ran into in the final game, no matter how much we tried to stress it.
Aside from resolution, one of the clear sacrifices made to achieve this level of performance comes from its level of detail system. Battlefront aggressively culls objects and crumbs from view while level geometry is dynamically adjusted based on proximity - a situation that applies to both console versions of the game. It can appear distracting at times, particularly with a higher vantage point, but it's the kind of trade-off necessary in order to hit the target frame-rate. We saw many of these same limitations in the aforementioned Halo 5 and Metal Gear Solid 5 as well, it's just the reality of targeting such a stable level of performance.
In closing, we should stress that this is a preliminary analysis with more to follow, but we can confirm that performance and visual quality are looking highly impressive in the final code. We're impressed to see DICE continue to optimise and improve the game right up until launch, when there was already little to complain about in the beta. The only question remaining is how well the netcode and servers will hold up given the inevitably extreme pressure likely during the launch window.
BF4 was well known for its connectivity issues, but our experience with Battlefront on Xbox One in a live environment has been positive thus far. Outside of a brief empty period early on Sunday, we've been able to quickly find full games to play with no problem, and no signs of network instability in-game. Of course, only Xbox One owners subscribing to EA Access are able to play the game right now, which means a much lower overall player base - not exactly a full stress test then. We won't really know more about this aspect of the game until it officially launches in all territories, but netcode stability during the beta stress test was good - so fingers crossed that this will extend into the crucial release period.
Am I right that they have announced the DLC content of the season pass? (checks before posting) Yes, they have. 16 new maps for 50 dollary-dos. Presumably it'll be about the same price for the UK. Also, presumably, they will be drip fed 4 at a time over 12 months like CoD.
12 maps ship on the disc, by the way.
That's about £100 for one game. This game. Which apparently hasn't got much long term appeal according to a fair few reviews.
Really slow installation process again for this - it does give you something to play while your waiting (you play as Vader and hunt rebels in their base on Hoth) but it was maybe around 30 minutes or so from putting the disk in to being able to play the main game.
It does push you through one training mission to make sure you know the basic controls and then you can either do more or dive straight into the multiplayer , I did not notice much difference between this and the Beta - so if you've played that you should be able to just pick up and continue.
I played maybe 3 or 4 matches - unlocked a blaster and the basic grenade and that was it - its Battlefield with a Star wars skin which was what I expected to get.
I've preordered this like a muppet, because I'm having a hard time at work and some nostalgia may help me through. The season pass/content stuff is a debacle though - and I feel guilty for supporting the choices they made.
It makes for a frustrating review – trying to balance the amount of enjoyment I’ve had versus the overbearing money-grubbing that’s going on from a company that’s only pulling this shit because it can, not because it needs to – effectively exploiting the power of the Star Wars name and abusing the loyalty of its fandom in a way that’s not even vaguely subtle.
Electronic Arts has been shameless in its behavior, but again, I can’t stress enough how much of a delight the game itself has been – at least during its launch period. That I’m not just slapping a five or lower on the score should be taken as a sign of just how high the quality is. That I cannot give it higher than a seven, conversely, speaks volumes of how overwhelming a shadow has been cast by its DLC.
The best way to describe Star Wars Battlefront, I feel, is to call it what it is – a good game that was deliberately designed to not be a great one.
I don't find $50 season pack for the maps excessive to be honest. That's not dissimilar to when we played MW2 and BLOPS in terms of longevity, and the amount we played that game, c £7 a month isn't that high a price over time. And both of those games only got a fleeting attention from me.
Would far rather have this scenario than be forced to buy the Hearthly edition on release for £100 and then decide it was shit before the first DLC release.
I'm not turning up yesterday to play a game I wasn't allowed to play yesterday. Do you mean tomorrow?
I'll be online tonight from about 9ish. And tomorrow.
So for me this shows as
Star Wars Battlefront 20/11/15 8:00 PM See more / join up
Turning up: zaphod79
So tomorrow (20th) - when I put it in originally it kept giving me the GTA invite for yesterday - the invite should be for battlefront and should be for tomorrow evening (so if you bought digitally or the physical disk it would be unlocked and playable)
Oh wait, its the calendar page that's fucked. I didn't read the 20th, but when I clicked the calendar it is down as Wednesday.
Problem identified - when IE is using a non maximised window it shrinks the calendar to 5/4 columns, but not the days of the week which stay as column titles. But if you significantly reduce the window width then it populates the day into the individual dates.
Going out Friday night (I think) but please keep me in mind for future games. If you see me online and I don't respond it's just my Wife using the account.