Star Wars Battlefront Beta Open to All

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Star Wars Battlefront Beta is now open to everyone. The beta includes both multiplayer and single player content. Head on over to Blue's for all the news.

The beta testing of Star Wars Battlefront expected next month will be open to all, announces Electronic Arts, saying this will apply to the Windows, Xbox One, and PlayStation 4 editions of the Star Wars action game. Word is: "Now that we have officially announced the beta, most of you are just itching to know how you can get in. Well, we're excited to say that the beta is open to everyone!
 
Sweet, can't wait to try it. Never played a Battlefront game.
 
played the alpha on pc. it was very 'ok'. Just felt like a bf4 starwars mod. When you get into a tie fighter you just appear in it, you dont walk up to it and get in it.
 
nvgrim said:
played the alpha on pc. it was very 'ok'. Just felt like a bf4 starwars mod. When you get into a tie fighter you just appear in it, you dont walk up to it and get in it.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's no different than some BF maps that don't have an airfield. You spawn in jets in a lot of those maps as well.
 
I don't have such high hopes for this after the rushed release of BF4, and the worthless game that was Hardline.

I DO give credit to them making this an open beta, not just a "bonus" for pre-orders of another game :rolleyes:
 
HockeyJon said:
Yeah but that's no different than some BF maps that don't have an airfield. You spawn in jets in a lot of those maps as well.
Click to expand...

didnt think about that, even that is very disconnecting to me. Plus hoth got boring and it was just white every where. Honestly i see this game being big for a few months and then no one talks about it.
 
Cool, at least I get to try it. Cancled my preorder when I heard about the no server browser, even at the $44 price point the game wasn't worth the risk without a server browser.
 
This will be worth checking out. Haven't played many recent "battle" style games, so I may be disappointed if I am thinking an experience like we had 10 years ago!
 
Ragenrok said:
Cool, at least I get to try it. Cancled my preorder when I heard about the no server browser, even at the $44 price point the game wasn't worth the risk without a server browser.
Click to expand...

I always try to keep entertainment costs into perspective.

A movie is what $10 for about 2 hours? Since I am entertained by movies for the most part I think entertainment has to be at least $5 per hour.

So if I end up playing a game for 12 hours and it wasn't the worst 12 hours I ever spent than it at least was of value.

If I play a game for 20 hours and had a pretty good time (which is likely considering I spent that much time) I consider even at $60 a good value.
 
dandirk said:
I always try to keep entertainment costs into perspective.

A movie is what $10 for about 2 hours? Since I am entertained by movies for the most part I think entertainment has to be at least $5 per hour.

So if I end up playing a game for 12 hours and it wasn't the worst 12 hours I ever spent than it at least was of value.

If I play a game for 20 hours and had a pretty good time (which is likely considering I spent that much time) I consider even at $60 a good value.
Click to expand...


+1 10/10
 
dandirk said:
I always try to keep entertainment costs into perspective.

A movie is what $10 for about 2 hours? Since I am entertained by movies for the most part I think entertainment has to be at least $5 per hour.

So if I end up playing a game for 12 hours and it wasn't the worst 12 hours I ever spent than it at least was of value.

If I play a game for 20 hours and had a pretty good time (which is likely considering I spent that much time) I consider even at $60 a good value.
Click to expand...

I think that's a pretty flawed way to look at it. Movies and games are just too apples and oranges to compare directly though the result is entertainment (in theory). It's not the same qualitative kind of entertainment.

Most people don't go to see movies very often, and when you do, you are going to watch a story. Movies are also always going to be limited to 2 hrs or so for obvious reasons, so no matter how good a movie is, your time entertained per dollar is going to be limited. And then you would have to say being entertained with one movie is the same 'amount' of entertainment you would get with a better movie.

Let's say I bought an average game for like $30 on Steam and it somehow managed to entertain me for around 10 hours before I finished it. Using your metric, that's 10 hours for 30 dollars, or 3 dollars per hour to be entertained.

If you compare that apparent "value" to a movie such as Lord of the Rings or some other kind of blockbuster that you really enjoyed, it's going to be 5 dollars per hour at the very least. According to the metric you're using, the average game is a better value. But how many people would trade the experience of that movie for the one with the game? In that scenario the more expensive per hour entertainment is a much better value overall.

Now some games can be movie-like in how they entertain but others, especially the ones where you would really be raking in the hours on it, tend to be competitive multiplayer type games or autistic singleplayer MMO shit like Skyrim (come at me bros).

So yeah, where do you draw the line... dunno. I just don't think it's really useful information to compare the two like that.
 
Kinsaras said:
'Star Wars Battlefront' Won't Have A Server Browser

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...have-a-server-browser-and-gamers-arent-happy/
Click to expand...

That sucks.

Programmers please chime in...I've done very minimal coding but doing something like a server browser or interface...that's REALLY simple for a professional programmer right? I mean, there's no gameplay or engine problems to balance, few assets to worry about, and the data already exists you are just displaying it. Am I being naive?

I understand differentiation (like having a DLC on PC and not putting it on console) could piss off console massmarket gamers. But would they really bitch about PC having a server browser?
 
didn't get into the Alpha so it'll be fun to try out the beta...seems like there's an overall negative vibe about the game...I'm sure the game will sell very well regardless (especially with Force Awakens opening a month later)...the issue for me is that Battlefront comes out 1 week after Fallout 4 and there's no way I'm going to finish F4 in a week
 
What has me worried is the constant rehash of Frostbite engine. Battlefield was obvious, but then they took it too far and gave us Hardline which is an epic sales failure if you look at constant player count on any given time.

Now Battlefront. From what Ive seen it looks very simple and basic. Shoot a guy here, capture a point here and then maybe you will come up on a rocket launcher or a jetpack boost. I mean really, what is this? Why dumb the game down to such simple mechanics?

Then you have the Air mode. There is no take off, you just magically get transported into the pilots seat. That screams simplicity for the sole purpose of having to design less. You no longer have to design a big transport ship where you get to leave out of.

To me that screams lazy. The only thing positive so far is the shiny engine enhancements and sounds. There is no single player to speak of and multiplayer is simple as hell.
If you dont think thats bullshit then you very easy to please. The fact that EA is offering a Beta means very few people pre ordered the game. This is your time to decide if you want it or not, that way EA has a way to lure some people in vs. none at all. They wouldnt offer it otherwise.

What they have shown so far is 2 maps, thats it...I mean really? For a game being releases in less than 2 months?
All I am saying is dont fall for their trap..."its a trap"
Hardline + Premium was a laughable offer, hopefully Battlefront wont be.
 
Igroock said:
Now Battlefront. From what Ive seen it looks very simple and basic. Shoot a guy here, capture a point here and then maybe you will come up on a rocket launcher or a jetpack boost. I mean really, what is this? Why dumb the game down to such simple mechanics?

Then you have the Air mode. There is no take off, you just magically get transported into the pilots seat. That screams simplicity for the sole purpose of having to design less. You no longer have to design a big transport ship where you get to leave out of.

To me that screams lazy. The only thing positive so far is the shiny engine enhancements and sounds. There is no single player to speak of and multiplayer is simple as hell.
If you dont think thats bullshit then you very easy to please. The fact that EA is offering a Beta means very few people pre ordered the game. This is your time to decide if you want it or not, that way EA has a way to lure some people in vs. none at all. They wouldnt offer it otherwise.

What they have shown so far is 2 maps, thats it...I mean really? For a game being releases in less than 2 months?
All I am saying is dont fall for their trap..."its a trap"
Hardline + Premium was a laughable offer, hopefully Battlefront wont be.
Click to expand...

Not sure how they're "dumbing down" when this isn't a Battlefield game. They're attempting to recapture the past Battlefront games so a comparison to those are more apt.

And no, the fact EA is offering a beta isn't because "very few preordered" - its pretty standard marketing these days. Apparently you weren't around for Hardline, BF4, BF3, BFBC2, etc if you think a marketing-demo "beta" a month before release is something new on a DICE game.

In any case, no need to download or buy it - problem solved on your end.
 
nvgrim said:
didnt think about that, even that is very disconnecting to me. Plus hoth got boring and it was just white every where. Honestly i see this game being big for a few months and then no one talks about it.
Click to expand...

With no server browser, that's what's going to happen to it on PC
 
grunwald said:
I think that's a pretty flawed way to look at it. Movies and games are just too apples and oranges to compare directly though the result is entertainment (in theory). It's not the same qualitative kind of entertainment.

Most people don't go to see movies very often, and when you do, you are going to watch a story. Movies are also always going to be limited to 2 hrs or so for obvious reasons, so no matter how good a movie is, your time entertained per dollar is going to be limited. And then you would have to say being entertained with one movie is the same 'amount' of entertainment you would get with a better movie.

Let's say I bought an average game for like $30 on Steam and it somehow managed to entertain me for around 10 hours before I finished it. Using your metric, that's 10 hours for 30 dollars, or 3 dollars per hour to be entertained.

If you compare that apparent "value" to a movie such as Lord of the Rings or some other kind of blockbuster that you really enjoyed, it's going to be 5 dollars per hour at the very least. According to the metric you're using, the average game is a better value. But how many people would trade the experience of that movie for the one with the game? In that scenario the more expensive per hour entertainment is a much better value overall.

Now some games can be movie-like in how they entertain but others, especially the ones where you would really be raking in the hours on it, tend to be competitive multiplayer type games or autistic singleplayer MMO shit like Skyrim (come at me bros).

So yeah, where do you draw the line... dunno. I just don't think it's really useful information to compare the two like that.
Click to expand...

I think you're analyzing it to much. There isn't a entertainment formula, I didn't mean for my post to sound like there was.

I just mention and think about relative costs per hour to other forms of entertainment to keep my expectations into perspective.

I think many rage on a $60 game they played for 20 hours MORE than say an equally craptastic movie they went to that cost technically cost more per hour (or what ever 2 types of entertainment ones likes). They do this not because they knowingly value one form over another, but rather due to sticker shock and not thinking logically about their expectations in relation to anything else.
 
nvgrim said:
counter strike?
Click to expand...

Exactly, a well-made multiplayer game that has at least some effort to fix it after release is popular for a long time.

I mean, just look at what a fuckup the BF4 launch was, but there are still people playing it because they actually fixed the lag issues within 6 months. And besides that, most of the play balance was much better than BF3 at launch. And they had a real server browser, even if it wasn't inside the game :D

We'll see if they can make an attractive enough experience to make this new Star Wars Battlefront interesting and give it replay value :D
 
I did watch the demo whilst in the game shop, looked pretty good if like most other fps. flying a tie fighter looks cool :)
 
DPI said:
Not sure how they're "dumbing down" when this isn't a Battlefield game. They're attempting to recapture the past Battlefront games so a comparison to those are more apt.

And no, the fact EA is offering a beta isn't because "very few preordered" - its pretty standard marketing these days. Apparently you weren't around for Hardline, BF4, BF3, BFBC2, etc if you think a marketing-demo "beta" a month before release is something new on a DICE game.

In any case, no need to download or buy it - problem solved on your end.
Click to expand...

Did I strike a nerve with you? Seems like it. Let me clear it up for you.

I wasnt comparing Battfield and Battlefront, I was talking about the engine itself. Compared to what BF4 offers and what Battlefront offers right now is a joke in terms of scope. The game doesnt even have a single player experience, which would call for a MUCH deeper multiplayer experience. I am not seeing that - and the game is 2 months away from launch...

Ill make a decision whether I buy it after beta or not, dont worry about that.
 
dandirk said:
I think you're analyzing it to much. There isn't a entertainment formula, I didn't mean for my post to sound like there was.

I just mention and think about relative costs per hour to other forms of entertainment to keep my expectations into perspective.

I think many rage on a $60 game they played for 20 hours MORE than say an equally craptastic movie they went to that cost technically cost more per hour (or what ever 2 types of entertainment ones likes). They do this not because they knowingly value one form over another, but rather due to sticker shock and not thinking logically about their expectations in relation to anything else.
Click to expand...

Your idea sucks man because it doesn't actually measure entertainment. It is just a ratio of time doing some activity per dollar spent. Entertainment itself comes in different degrees and qualitative values.

As for Battlefront, well anyone with some intelligence will see this game will be an extremely dumbed down casual derp game made to appeal to the lowest common denominator for a long enough amount of time to sell some DLC.

Dice isn't making a good game here. This is going to be aa game purposely designed with a shelf life and to make as much money as quickly as possible.

That means making the learning curve basically flat and pretty forgiving so that those initial first impressions within the first minutes are going to likely be good even for the worst players imaginable.

But becausw of a lack of gameplay depth, this game is not going to last like actual good games do, because when your game is that good, it's harder to sell people a new one, especially if modders are already giving what people want for free.

So this is a multiplayer game that will have zero competitive value. You aren't going to be going to see this shot dethroning CS or DotA on Twitch.

In short, this game is a classic pump and dump with the added mill factor of having the SW IP as well as releasong alongside the hype of the new movie.

I'm sure this will make EA a pretty penny, but this will definitely go down in history as a forgettable cash grab like the other Battlefronts.

And to the person saying "derr this isnt Battlefield this is Battlefront," well if history is any indication thats a pretty bad sign because the prior games had so Iittle appeal that after the SW movie hype died after ep 3 they ended up canning the first "BF3". Those games sucked and this one will too. But I'm sure the whiz bang ghee whiz pretty Star Wars shit factor will carry this title long enough to be pretty profitable.

That open beta is when the shitstorm of complaints will hit. And to you future and current BF/Dice apologists, I'll be there with knuckles cracked ready to write another wall of text on why the game you fanboy is bad.
 
defaultluser said:
I don't have such high hopes for this after the rushed release of BF4, and the worthless game that was Hardline.

I DO give credit to them making this an open beta, not just a "bonus" for pre-orders of another game :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Huh? Bf4 is the best shooter out there. And Hardline is just, fun. I respect your opinion tho. I play both, hardline more though, because the matches are much shorter than bf4 which can be a grind on CQ.
 
Charlie Hustle said:
Huh? Bf4 is the best shooter out there. And Hardline is just, fun. I respect your opinion tho. I play both, hardline more though, because the matches are much shorter than bf4 which can be a grind on CQ.
Click to expand...

Please. It's totally cool and generational to say 'Hardline sux!'
 
Charlie Hustle said:
Yeah, im beginning to see the trend..
Click to expand...

It's not really a "trend", the PC crowd has always been much pickier about what they'll spend their money on and how much they'll spend when they do. Some of the more fervent supporters of Hardline are mad because other people don't share their opinion, I guess. It's hard to say that it's just a "vocal minority" saying Hardline was no good when it gets about 1/10th as many people playing it every day as BF4 does. If you like Hardline, great, enjoy playing it. I didn't enjoy it enough to spend $60+ on it, so I didn't.
 
DPI said:
Please. It's totally cool and generational to say 'Hardline sux!'
Click to expand...

It would have been ok as an add on to bf4 or like a $20 DLC but not a full blown game. Hardline does suck as a standalone game,but its concept is good. And Bf4 is far from the best shooter out there.
 
I liked hardline but yea I feel it would have been a better expansion than a standalone, just wasnt enough meat in there for a full game in my opinion. I do love bf4 though, good game. Not as awesome as bf2 was but whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top