PC gaming is much better than consoles.

PC gaming is much better than consoles.

I totally agree with this, but I've found console games to be different than pc games. They aren't as serious and I can jump on them and play for 15 min with no issue. I'm an old school pc gamer and never thought I'd go to consoles, but there is something about them that makes life easier. I find it easier to find friends that also have the same platform.

DLC is imho, one of the worst things to happen to the gaming industry in recent times.

And EA is the king of DLC.

Look at the Battlefield 4, BF:Hardline controversies, if you think this that forum has seen hate, you should see the official BF ones.

I kind of have two minds about DLC. Or maybe more than two.

On the one hand, yes, publishers have been abusing it to implement extremely anti-consumer business models, offering up everything from pay-to-win content to disc-locked content to gated feature sets. It's kind of horrible.

On the other hand, it's also been used to implement a lot of pro-consumer convenience. I can't be the only one who prefers downloadable expansion packs over the old model of having to go physically get the **** thing? And the publishers that have done it right have created an experience that, for me, is so much better than the old way of doing things - I get to buy what I want for a reasonable price point and the game feels like a complete experience without me also paying for a bunch of crap I'd never want to experience anyway.

On the other other hand... it's kind of keeping the whole ship afloat. Games sales just aren't cutting it anymore, and the risk is too high when you have to sell tens of millions of copies just to break even. DLC might allow publishers to bridge the gap between now and whenever a more sustainable solution is found for stopping the skyrocketing costs of making big games.

I will say, Nintendo is doing DLC right. You get great value out of the DLC, but you don't feel you are getting shortchanged with just the base game. Dear god, the Mario Kart DLC is such an amazing value.

PC gaming is better suited to more complex games. Space engineers comes immediately to mind.

PC gaming is much better than consoles.

I totally agree with this, but I've found console games to be different than pc games. They aren't as serious and I can jump on them and play for 15 min with no issue. I'm an old school pc gamer and never thought I'd go to consoles, but there is something about them that makes life easier. I find it easier to find friends that also have the same platform.

Exact opposite for me, they make life harder, especially with all the e.g. X-box live crap. And the bloody controllers. I'd rather watch the holiday special 10 consecutive times than use a bloody console controller.

PC gaming is much better than consoles.

I totally agree with this, but I've found console games to be different than pc games. They aren't as serious and I can jump on them and play for 15 min with no issue. I'm an old school pc gamer and never thought I'd go to consoles, but there is something about them that makes life easier. I find it easier to find friends that also have the same platform.

Exact opposite for me, they make life harder, especially with all the e.g. X-box live crap. And the bloody controllers. I'd rather watch the holiday special 10 consecutive times than use a bloody console controller.

Hey, I totally get you! That's where I was 1 year ago. I got an Xbox One for my kids and I still have my pc game. I had some technical issues that kept me off the gaming pc for several months. I started playing Xbox with the stupid controller. It took me a month, but I got used to it. I have no issues with it now. I utterly refuse to play any game that I've played on the PC on Xbox. It will suck in comparison. So, I only play games that I consider "xbox" games. I'm really enjoying it.

Now, the kids want Battlefront on Xbox as it's their platform. I'll play it with them on it. Not on pc.

EDIT: Xbox Live is just $50 for a year to game online. Yeah, it's a tax, but it's really not that bad.

PC gaming is much better than consoles.

I totally agree with this, but I've found console games to be different than pc games. They aren't as serious and I can jump on them and play for 15 min with no issue. I'm an old school pc gamer and never thought I'd go to consoles, but there is something about them that makes life easier. I find it easier to find friends that also have the same platform.

Exact opposite for me, they make life harder, especially with all the e.g. X-box live crap. And the bloody controllers. I'd rather watch the holiday special 10 consecutive times than use a bloody console controller.

Hey, I totally get you! That's where I was 1 year ago. I got an Xbox One for my kids and I still have my pc game. I had some technical issues that kept me off the gaming pc for several months. I started playing Xbox with the stupid controller. It took me a month, but I got used to it. I have no issues with it now. I utterly refuse to play any game that I've played on the PC on Xbox. It will suck in comparison. So, I only play games that I consider "xbox" games. I'm really enjoying it.

Now, the kids want Battlefront on Xbox as it's their platform. I'll play it with them on it. Not on pc.

EDIT: Xbox Live is just $50 for a year to game online. Yeah, it's a tax, but it's really not that bad.

Yea, I understand you, but I think I'll stick with my nice high-end gaming computer

EDIT: Xbox Live is just $50 for a year to game online. Yeah, it's a tax, but it's really not that bad.

To me games with gold makes it worth it.

To me, DLC is great if there is a real reason for it (e.g. Adding new content to the game from Rogue One, and the next film after that, and so on), or if it is a single player game that it is made clear that rah DLC is an "episode" of a larger story.

However, the DLC / IAPs that you typically see just pisses me off. I am very concerned that the game will make me play with crap weapons hundreds of time to "unlock" the cool stuff like CoD /BF, or buy the "Gold/ collectors" edition for an extra $20 to have it now. That f******* pisses me off and likely you folks as well. How many of you actually have the time to spend 40 hours unlockin the fun stuff?

In the originals, you unlocked the fun stuff while you played on each map. I fear this is no longer the case.

AND, are there boys in the game. I want to play with my friends, and have the choice to play wit others. Will this still be the case?

Finally, the graphics looked great. That means 1 of 2 things. Either they are lying about the footage, or there is NO way my (nor my friends) computer can play that game.

Signed:

A former hardcore gamer that now has family responsibilities.

However, the DLC / IAPs that you typically see just pisses me off. I am very concerned that the game will make me play with crap weapons hundreds of time to "unlock" the cool stuff like CoD /BF, or buy the "Gold/ collectors" edition for an extra $20 to have it now. That f******* pisses me off and likely you folks as well. How many of you actually have the time to spend 40 hours unlockin the fun stuff?

Signed:

A former hardcore gamer that now has family responsibilities.

Me. I find little bits here and there and play to unlock all the stuff. That's part of the fun to me.

I will say, though, that with the latest BF game they haven't really made it that these unlockable weapons are so powerful. You can really do great with the basic ones. It didn't used to be that way, but it's much better than it was. In fact, you could play the basic weapon and get a bunch of cool unlocks for it, if you wanted. You didn't have to have them to be decent at the game, but you didn't have to go for the next level up gun, either.

Getting Gold didn't give you any extra weapons in BF. It let you get the expansions for free and it gave you non-relevant upgrades. These are different camos, or different knifes (that all act the same), or different dog tags. Nothing game related.

I'm also a family man these days. Actually, with my kids getting a bit older, I have a little more time.

Finally, the graphics looked great. That means 1 of 2 things. Either they are lying about the footage, or there is NO way my (nor my friends) computer can play that game.

Signed:

A former hardcore gamer that now has family responsibilities.

I'm waiting to see how the CPU requirements pan out. That's what's holding me back from pre-ordering. But in regards to the footage, they were very clear in the Star Wars Celebration panel that the footage was all done with the game engine and assets. They did some cinematic animation that you wouldn't see in the game, but the rendering and objects and lighting and all that stuff is how it will appear in the game. My PC is pretty old, I got it back in 2007 and it can play The Force Unleashed, but I have a feeling I'll need an upgrade if I want to play Battlefront. I just can't wait until they release the system requirements.

Regarding DLC, don't you guys feel that X-Wing is sort of a DLC-driven game? What makes this different than video game DLC?

EDIT: I found some system requirements:

http://www.gamehotspot.org/star-wars-battlefront-system-requirements-release-date-e3-trailer.html

Minimum

INTEL CPU: Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz

AMD CPU: Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5800+

AMD GPU: Radeon HD 5570 1024MB

RAM: 3 GB

OS: Win 7 64

HDD Space: 15 GB

Recommended

INTEL CPU: Core i5-660 3.33GHz

AMD CPU: APU A6-3620 Quad Core

INTEL GPU: GeForce GTX 560 Ti

AMD GPU: Radeon HD 6950

RAM: 6 GB

OS: Win 7 64

HDD Space: 15 GB

- See more at: http://www.gamehotspot.org/star-wars-battlefront-system-requirements-release-date-e3-trailer.html#sthash.TUI5ZoAO.dpuf

Looks like I meet/exceed the recommended requirements! My CPU is right there on the edge, but I think it's OC'd a bit.

As far as space battles go, look.....they are HARD to get right. I can't think of a single space combat game that feels right. If anyone here played SW:TOR and tried the space PVP, you know it's really awkward and challenging. It's much more fun to feel the physics of gravity affecting combat, and I would think space combat eliminates the option of infantry combat - which is what any Battlefield/Battlefront game is founded upon.

And as for AT-AT's on rails........ frankly, I've never SEEN an AT-AT turn. Have you? It seems like the Empire drops it on the line they want it to go, then slaps it on the ass and says "Giddyup!" And it just ambles that way until someone picks it up again. So I'm a little bummed but not exactly torn up over that one.

Looks like I meet/exceed the recommended requirements! My CPU is right there on the edge, but I think it's OC'd a bit.

As far as space battles go, look.....they are HARD to get right. I can't think of a single space combat game that feels right. If anyone here played SW:TOR and tried the space PVP, you know it's really awkward and challenging. It's much more fun to feel the physics of gravity affecting combat, and I would think space combat eliminates the option of infantry combat - which is what any Battlefield/Battlefront game is founded upon.

And as for AT-AT's on rails........ frankly, I've never SEEN an AT-AT turn. Have you? It seems like the Empire drops it on the line they want it to go, then slaps it on the ass and says "Giddyup!" And it just ambles that way until someone picks it up again. So I'm a little bummed but not exactly torn up over that one.

1: SWTOR's space PvP is decent, but it's challenging because foes take too much concentrated fire to kill, and you can't dodge missiles because you're a good pilot- you have to use an ability. Which sucks.

2: PFFT. That's funny dude.

I'm waiting to see how the CPU requirements pan out. That's what's holding me back from pre-ordering. But in regards to the footage, they were very clear in the Star Wars Celebration panel that the footage was all done with the game engine and assets. They did some cinematic animation that you wouldn't see in the game, but the rendering and objects and lighting and all that stuff is how it will appear in the game.

Hahaha.

No.

The character models, maybe. The vehicles models... eh, they could possibly pull it off without too much downscaling. The frame rate? Impossible. The foliage? Pipe dream. All of that subtle source lighting? Not on this generation of hardware - maybe the next.

Here is a handy trick that anyone can do to figure-out if a publisher is selling you a bill of goods on how good the graphics of their upcoming game is:

METRO: LAST LIGHT

CRYSIS 3

Those 2 games represent the pinnacle of current high resolution graphics. They look gorgeous, but the compromises are clear enough: the grass looks a bit like paper, the curves are just a little jaggy, the textures are just a little muddy, etc. Light doesn't behave quite how it should - the muzzle flashes don't produce any light on the objects around them, for example, or cast new shadows. Most things look like masonry or plastic rather than metal, because metal is just too reflective and that kind of texturing is too process-intensive to handle. Water looks a bit too viscous. Assets are often re-used, and your eye will pick-up on the subtle sameness of a scene. Etc.

The Battelfield trailer looks orders of magnitude better than either of those two games, which represent the absolute Zenith of what you can do in a game engine.

Ergo, the presentation is fake.

I'm waiting to see how the CPU requirements pan out. That's what's holding me back from pre-ordering. But in regards to the footage, they were very clear in the Star Wars Celebration panel that the footage was all done with the game engine and assets. They did some cinematic animation that you wouldn't see in the game, but the rendering and objects and lighting and all that stuff is how it will appear in the game.

Hahaha.

No.

The character models, maybe. The vehicles models... eh, they could possibly pull it off without too much downscaling. The frame rate? Impossible. The foliage? Pipe dream. All of that subtle source lighting? Not on this generation of hardware - maybe the next.

Here is a handy trick that anyone can do to figure-out if a publisher is selling you a bill of goods on how good the graphics of their upcoming game is:

METRO: LAST LIGHT

CRYSIS 3

Those 2 games represent the pinnacle of current high resolution graphics. They look gorgeous, but the compromises are clear enough: the grass looks a bit like paper, the curves are just a little jaggy, the textures are just a little muddy, etc. Light doesn't behave quite how it should - the muzzle flashes don't produce any light on the objects around them, for example, or cast new shadows. Most things look like masonry or plastic rather than metal, because metal is just too reflective and that kind of texturing is too process-intensive to handle. Water looks a bit too viscous. Assets are often re-used, and your eye will pick-up on the subtle sameness of a scene. Etc.

The Battelfield trailer looks orders of magnitude better than either of those two games, which represent the absolute Zenith of what you can do in a game engine.

Ergo, the presentation is fake.

"The presentation is fake?"

That's like declaring that TV advertisements make their product look way more exciting and great than it is in practicality. Yeah..... you gussy up your product and present it in the most appealing way possible. That's how advertising works. And if you played Battlefield 4, you should know that their Frostbite engine was already **** near close to doing what the Battlefront trailer looks like.

Playing through the campaign, it literally looked this good if you could swing it hardware-wise. All DICE does is go crazy with lighting... and no, the game won't be this cinematic in play, but they never said it would. The lead designer did say it'll be 60 FPS on consoles though.

It's nowhere near as good as the trailer looks. Again, look at the foliage; the aliasing in the trailer is simply not possible. Note that the Battlefield ground is very spartan, with little grass to speak of (not even the jaggy sort seen in M:LL or Crysis 3). The tree bark looks a little flat, the twigs of the plants in front of the camera look inorganic, the texturing on the walls is pretty uniform and lacks natural character, etc.

This is fine, but it's not present in the trailer because the trailer is fake . They're using not-downscaled-assets and claiming that those will be in the game (it won't) and that it's rendered in the game engine (it isn't). It doesn't matter that everyone does it or that it's the current norm - it's still fake. If you're confident in your product, you don't need to 'gussy it up'; you know it'll stand on it's own merits. DICE knows that it isn't going to stand out, so they gave us a bunch of bullshot pre-rendered footage. It's no different and no less deplorable than the old Killzone 2 trailer featuring '100% gameplay'.

They've sort of been backing away from that since the Colonial Marines incident. Doesn't necessarily mean what you see is what you are going to get at release. I know there was some kerfluffle over Xenoblade Chronicle X getting a bit of a graphics downgrade over the course of production.

http://ps4daily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/battlefront-features.jpg

Here's a handy little link comparing Battlefront 2 to the new Battlefront. I have yet to hear a single compelling thing about it, or see a single believable thing.

I'm confident it's gonna be trash, and DICE needs to provide something, anything to convince me otherwise.

http://ps4daily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/battlefront-features.jpg

Here's a handy little link comparing Battlefront 2 to the new Battlefront. I have yet to hear a single compelling thing about it, or see a single believable thing.

I'm confident it's gonna be trash, and DICE needs to provide something, anything to convince me otherwise.

I'm sorry, but the image you linked is a lot of crap, it's spin so atrocious Fox News would be ashamed of it. It's based on next to no research whatsoever, and conveniently omits everything the new Battlefront has that Battlefront 2 did not.

And it lies. It lies over at over.

Only 8 maps? Lie. No basis whatsoever, and DICE have explicitly said since this falsehood started circulating that it's not true. Only two heroes? Come on, you're brighter than that. The only heroes in the game are Boba Fett and Darth Vader? Pull the other one.

Galactic Conquest is no major loss and it's easy to see why they left it out, starfighter combat is still in the game, they've just used a planetary backdrop rather than empty black skyboxes.

No Instant Action? Of course there's Instant Action, they just haven't given it the same name. IA is just playing the game normally.

"Loadouts only." Really? REALLY? Battlefront 2 forced you into one of eight classes. Battlefront lets you make your class. Saying "no classes, loadouts only" is spin so atrocious I almost want to vomit.

And the AT-ATs on raids and the 20 players are design decisions, not cutbacks.

Yes, DICE and EA want to big up their game, but the internet hate mob wants to tear it down just as much if not more. And EA is bound by the law not to lie, the internet hate mob will make up whatever crap they want and spread it to ignorant minds. Be careful not to be so apprehensive about EA that you're easy prey for the baying hate mob's fabrications and lies.

Anyway, watch this:

It's somewhat sweary, so don't watch it if you don't like that.

So here's the real question: Will flying be joystick compatible (on PC)? I'd love to mouse and keyboard my infantry, but swap to the stick when I hop in an interceptor.

Probably not, for the same reason it's not on anything really any more except for specialist sims. People just don't tend to have them any more.

Also guys, this has been in development since before E3 2013. If they were going for the "rush out crap" route they'd be making the sequel by now.

After I saw the trailer, I was reminded again that I'm still waiting for another flipping X-wing game. Not one of the those arcade Rogue games but the space flight sim gold that was X-wing, TIE Fighter and X-wing Alliance. Sure, you can now get these classic games through gog.com and they're just as fun, but it would be great to have a new version with new graphics, new story and new characters.

As much as I enjoy the Battlefield games, I didn't realise how unexciting playing a Star Wars FPS in that style would be until I saw the trailer. I never much liked the earlier Battlefront games, they seemed like poor games that were cruising by on the Star Wars branding.

Here's to hoping for a Star Citizen type game sometime in the near future too.

Re: DLC. Someone posted earlier, "what's the difference between DLC and the waves releases in xwing?"

Interesting thought. I've already sunk 200$ into xwing. What's the most Battlefront DLC will run someone? 160$? How much playtime will you get? 100-200hrs? With xwing, i can only play maybe 1x per week for 2 hours. A video game you can play daily for 2-4 hrs.

Everyone hates EA. roger. If the game turns out to be fun as hell, i'm in. If the game is a buggy epic fail, i'm out.

For me, fingers crossed.

You... You can't pilot AT-ATs?

WTF.

Dont worry. They will make a AT-AT driver dlc campaign pack. You must get every achievement in that pack so you can drive the AT-AT in PvP. One achievement is to play the driver school pack for four years real time.

I dont care for EA bull choices like not having space battles, no story, low player population, AT-AT on rails.

Dice / EA also lied about this SW game being the first game too have Sullust. The first SW game too have Sullust in it is the real Star Wars Battlefront 3 / Renegade Squadron. IG-88 D is hired by the IMPs to defend their base from Renegade squadron. Renegade Squadron easily had the best space battles, better ship mechanics and hero starfighters. They also had space stations you could capture and the would spawn assault fighters, TIE Defenders or B-Wings.

The true SW BF 3 and 4, Renegade Squadron and Elkte Squadron easily had the best story modes and maps like the Sithh ome world and Vaders castle world. It sucks that this 8th gen SW BF 5 is easily beat out by two 7th gen hand helds and in alot a ways put down by the 6th gen SW bF 2.