They say the game will work 720P on Xbox One and 900P on PS4.. :(

so far that is the case. much like BF4, pretty disappointing for an engine that's had over 2 years of optimisation between BF4 and battlefront

60fps and with the visuals and all the stuff going on and the size of it all, it makes sense.
But 720p on X1? what is this, the 360 console but different name? I thought by now they should have atleast 900p like ps4.

But whatever, i rather have 900p/60fps than 1080p/30fps, especially when its a multiplayer focus high FPS is important.

Anyways, not planning on buying it anyways, just free MP demo lol

yes it's 60fps (well, almost :P) but compared to BF4 it has reduced map size, reduced player count, and reduced vehicles. i dunno. maybe my expectations are too high, but i thought 2 years of engine optimisation would have resulted in more.

Well i dont know about map size and player count, but vehicles, barely there.
Maybe you have only seen it from Hoth's view since its a barren place of snow.

But those other levels like Tatooine or that forest level with vegetation...etc. could probably do a difference since it seems to have more stuff going on.

Besides, they may be able to optimize the engine, but the hardware of the consoles cant change so maybe this is the best DICE can do...at 60fps or keep it as steady as possible.

Glad to see that the console version looks great too. So far my only complaint is how bad is the lightsaber fight, I hope that it can improve before the final version.

Why no single player, imagine over the top action in a Star Wars game similar to the single player in COD.

don't recall saying it does. xbone didn't magically become more powerful but kojima managed to get MGSV up to 900p after ground zero's was 720. i figured dropping 20 players, lowering map size and limiting vehicles would free up some resources, and general optimisation (lowing processing requirements for the same or similar effects and rendering solutions) would have bumped up resolution after 2 whole years...maybe DICE just arnt bothering with that stuff at this point? they might get to it later...doubt it.

Frostbite engine is rubbish on consoles as they are just not powerful enough to handle it.

Works great on PS4 in my experience....

Indeed.
Its NOT the engine, its the amount of stuff cramped into one single thing like player count, 60fps, and all the visual effects happening.

You put Frostbite on a single player game like Dragon age or upcoming Mass Effect and it will look gorgeous and run great (probably not 60fps).

720p? Well, no matter how you look at it, that's one WEAK ASS GPU

I'd take higher framerate and more detail, better effects, shadows, etc, etc etc over resolution any day of the week. Of course let's not be ridiculous and go 640x480.

No, your expectations have nothing to do with it. You're absolutely right.

This game does look good, but regardless, 2 years to work on getting your engine to work on a uniform, unchanging piece of hardware shouldnt be this difficult, especially when you consider how well BF4 looked and ran at launch (graphically).

IMO theres no excuse really. The initial footage on youtube of the ''in-game'' renders that they showed for dev-diaries, etc, none of the actual gameplay footage matches those visuals. So in the end, it was toned down--like every other game, and no not just on console--which is a given. PC version doesnt even look as good as what i originally saw either. Its close, but not as impressive.

been playing the ps4 beta...the graphics are great, and I've not noticed any framerate issues yet...they're only shown up by the character models on closer inspection - the world has a realistic tinge to it, character models are lacking finer details (carrying a plastic model look against a realistic looking backdrop). Luckily, the animation is pretty decent for the most part.

What really stands out though is the sound, which may be the best quality sound i've heard in a game.

The addition of AI in the sky box, and smaller maps, makes the game feel fuller...giving a bigger impression of being in the middle of an all out war on the battlefield more so than battlefield itself. And the sound really compliments this too.

What i'm not too sure about is the lack of ability to select what you want on the vehicle side of it. Instead you have to find icons scattered about the map. This is fine on one hand as it gives everybody the chance to jump into a ship in theory...but these icons don't appear to be randomised in their placement...so in effect will likely simply replace the mad dash to copters/jets, with a mad dash to placed icons?...meaning you'll still have the same players dedicated to flying about in limited airspace.

The other thing i'm not sure about is unlocking of weapons (far more limiting than BF games), and the longevity/value as a whole. The maps may be smaller than BF's biggest, in area and variety...but there's also clearly going to be far less offered on the game disc. There's a few different game modes....but "sp missions" results in nothing more than a horde mode...one that I found pretty boring to be honest.

The 900/720p thing i'm pretty surprised about. At a drop to 900p there's not really that much of an impact. I doubt anybody is going to look at the game and consider it a blurred mess. 720p might be a bit harder to swallow. But when you consider smaller player count, lack of level destruction, lack of dynamic elements, and for the majority (going by what's known, and seen so far) sparser levels... I don't think it's unreasonable for them to have gotten a by now well tested engine optimised enough to be able to put out 1080p whilst keeping the 60fps.
It's easy to say "what other games offer this amount of players at this" etc when no other games have been aiming for such...but that doesnt automatically mean the hardware is less capable of offering more at this stage.

I believe a lot of console only players or mostly console players don't realize how underpowered the PS4 and XBO are in certain technical aspects. They are great consoles, but they weren't the most technologically advanced even when they came out, let alone now.

Even the PS4 isn't that powerful when a mid-level gaming PC ($500-600) can surpass it in most games and while I do agree that DICE has been working with this engine for years, if they convert the % gained by engine optimizations and reduced resources into visual effects and physics, the resolution will still stay the same.

What they decide to do with the extra % is what will determine what technical aspects get better, not the fact that they have X% more hardware power/resources available. Just because they have X% more, doesn't meant that everything gets X% better.

I'm not saying that the PS4 couldn't handle this game in 1080p/60fps, but if it came at the cost of many visual effects and physics, would most people really want it to?
And here is another great question, do the game's intended audience - Star Wars fans - care more about a 180p bump in resolution than more better and advanced visuals effects and physics? And who knows, a rock-solid 60fps experience?

Whatever compromises DICE did, I'm sure they didn't do it lightly, no "respectable" developer wants to release a game that isn't all that it could be. They surely had their reasons and we also shouldn't forget this game needs to come out before or during Star Wars Episode 7: The Force Awakens' theater run, so they also have more rigid time constraints than most games - they can't miss this great opportunity if they want the game to be as much successful as posible.

Either way, this is something that has been bothering me for some time now, sometimes it's really hard to take some people's opinions in here seriously. Sometimes resolution matters above anything else to some people, and at other times it almost doesn't matter at all to the very same people. Seems it varies with game, console, fanboyism and etc, independent of genre.

As long as the game is great and fun, resolution shouldn't matter. If some console players are so much concerned with 1080p resolution and 60fps in games, go buy a gaming PC. Some PC games even support 12k resolution and 120/144fps at this point, surely a gaming PC capable of matching or slightly surpassing PS4 quality in most games at 1080p/60fps is very cheap by now.

What is really interesting is to see console players care so much about resolution and framerate this generation when they specifically chose a console, even more if that console was a XBO as every gamer knew it was less technologically capable than PS4. At some point this becomes almost as ridiculous as going into a male gay bar and complaining there's no or not enough women in it. You're in the wrong place, pal/gal.

Consoles have limited resources, even the most powerful super computers have limited resources, so take it as it is and enjoy it on consoles or go buy a gaming PC that can meet your resolution and framerate expectations and use consoles for their exclusives. Sorry, you can't have both most of the time if you're on a console.