Star Wars Battlefront 3 - PC Requirements Listed ( 16GB Memory! )

[ACatWithThumbs]

You've got into it already? 

Yep, got an Early Access code from a DICE developer.

[werto165]

Yep, got an Early Access code from a DICE developer.

Sweet, I'm preloading it atm hopefully it will work, only some games work with my internet at uni, hearthstone being one of them most other games like rocket league or CS don't. 

[EpicNeuron]

tommorow is open beta so we can all test it i am curious though how my hardware will handle it..

[dimitriianghelov]

i wonder how it runs at 4k , shooters are usually decently optimized

[Swndlr]

it is also a way for the industry to make people upgrade..

Far too many PCs run dual cores and GTX Thermi/Kepler/HD 6000 or 7000 series still.... Not that these machines cannot be used to play games. But developers has to try their best to make sure these people also can play... which is why graphics is nerfed in the texture deparment... because you can only have so many copies of a texture before a game becomes excessivly storage hungry... i mean 40-60GB is quite a lot of space, especially given that load times is not getting better and SSD storage space is not getting cheap fast enough to combat the ridiculous storage requirements with newer titles... (most devs dont bother with multi layered files and makes many large files instead of one huge)

I look at it as more of a scare tactic but I see where youre coming from.

[cesrai]

HAH.

I laugh at all those who said "16gb isn't the new minimum". WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?!

Yeah Trik you didn't read did you ?

[Trik'Stari]

Yeah Trik you didn't read did you ?

I did. I am laughing at those who say "the 8gb minimum isn't going anywhere" when it clearly is going away.

 

(I've seen a couple people say this in build suggestion threads)

[ACatWithThumbs]

I did. I am laughing at those who say "the 8gb minimum isn't going anywhere" when it clearly is going away.

 

(I've seen a couple people say this in build suggestion threads)

The minimum is still 8GB only recommended is 16GB...(And the actual game uses 5GB)

[cesrai]

I did. I am laughing at those who say "the 8gb minimum isn't going anywhere" when it clearly is going away.

 

(I've seen a couple people say this in build suggestion threads)

Why do you want it to go away ? what's your problem with 8GB ?

And you know the game specs are always like just over exaggerated.

[Atmos]

Battlefront 3.

You shouldn't judge until the game is out.

 

Someone obviously didn't read what I said.

"Do i think it's going to be a fine game? Yes."

"Do i think it will be a cool addition to star wars? Yes"

But the game has such little in actual likeness to battlefront they have no right to call it that, and no gamers have the right to call it battlefront 3, which is not only WRONG, because that's not the name of the game, but also wrong in that dice has no right to call it "battlefront 'whatever' ." This game is far closer to a Star Wars battlefield than any Battlefront.

 

What makes a battlefront, as set by Battlefront (1) and with the addition of Battlefront 2

• Swappable 3rd Person / 1st Person
• Unmodifiable, swappable classes giving all player equal ground
• minimum 32v32 matches, up to 64v64 (128 player cap)
• Space Battles
• Galactic Conquest gm - Both SP and MP
• Single Player story mode / Offline mode
• Many, many, many unique maps
• Addons allowing players to create mods for the game on PC.
• AI filling empty player slots on both online, and SP games, keeping the action across the map.
• Air Vehicles on some maps, ground vehicles on all larger than 'small' maps 
• Game modes like, conquest, CtF, KotH, TDM, FFA.

There are more there, but let's just leave that for a moment while we look at what this game has to offer.

 

Battlefield: Star Wars Edition, as it compares to the real Battlefronts

• Swappable 3rd and 1st person, 
• AI in offline/coop mode.
• Air vehicles in some maps, ground vehicles on maps.
• Similar game modes.

 

 

Alright, that's not looking very much alike. Only scoring 3.5/11 as what i've just compared to as being battlefront. Now lets look at how it compares to battlefield.

 

Battlefield, as established by Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3, 4, and Hardline.

• First Person - save special situation
• Vehicles on most maps, Air Vehicles on large maps
• Destrucible environments
• Modifiable classes, some loadouts particularly early are not efficient/require lots of play to make work.
• 16v16 normally max in a match. 32v32 in battlefield 3.
• Game modes like, Demolition, Rush, TDM, conquest.
• Bullet Drop / pseudo realistic munitions mechanics
• heavily based on Squad play
• DLC up the ass.
• Battlelog... the nightmare...

Once again, there are more, but those are core to what battlefield is. Now lets look at,

Battlefield: Star Wars Edition

• Swappable 3rd/1st Person
• Vehicles on most maps, Air vehicles on large maps.
• Semi-Destructible environments.
• Modifiable classes
• 16v16 matches
• Game modes like... Demolition, TDM, conquest, otherwise known as, the same game modes, but with different names.
• Pseudo realistic munitions mechanics
• Heavily based on squad play
• ALREADY DLC, AND EXCLUSIVE CONTENT FOR DELUXE PREORDERS
• Very luckily, no shitty battlelog.

Alright, so thats... 8.5/10 on core. Hmm... It's almost like... This game, when to take away the fact that its star wars and you have third person, that this game is almost exactly like battlefield... Hmmmmm.

[Noctus]

Battlefront 3.

You shouldn't judge until the game is out.

 

Still isnt "Battlefront 3" sorry.

 

Have you played Battlefront 3? I have, it isn't battlefield, as someone with 410 hours put into BF4 I can say that.

 

Funny Since there is no "battlefront 3". I've played the new Battlefront game, it feels exactly like what BF3/4 would be in 3rd person with jumpy boost mechanics from CoD. It's basically an extravagant overhaul mod in the guise of starwars, the same way Hardline was. Won't be surprised if the next "Battlefield: Insert Franchise Gimmick Here" is the same.

[Demonking]

Whats the AMD  equivalent to a i5 6600

[Demonking]

Someone obviously didn't read what I said.

"Do i think it's going to be a fine game? Yes."

"Do i think it will be a cool addition to star wars? Yes"

But the game has such little in actual likeness to battlefront they have no right to call it that, and no gamers have the right to call it battlefront 3, which is not only WRONG, because that's not the name of the game, but also wrong in that dice has no right to call it "battlefront 'whatever' ." This game is far closer to a Star Wars battlefield than any Battlefront.

 

What makes a battlefront, as set by Battlefront (1) and with the addition of Battlefront 2

• Swappable 3rd Person / 1st Person
• Unmodifiable, swappable classes giving all player equal ground
• minimum 32v32 matches, up to 64v64 (128 player cap)
• Space Battles
• Galactic Conquest gm - Both SP and MP
• Single Player story mode / Offline mode
• Many, many, many unique maps
• Addons allowing players to create mods for the game on PC.
• AI filling empty player slots on both online, and SP games, keeping the action across the map.
• Air Vehicles on some maps, ground vehicles on all larger than 'small' maps 
• Game modes like, conquest, CtF, KotH, TDM, FFA.

There are more there, but let's just leave that for a moment while we look at what this game has to offer.

 

Battlefield: Star Wars Edition, as it compares to the real Battlefronts

• Swappable 3rd and 1st person, 
• AI in offline/coop mode.
• Air vehicles in some maps, ground vehicles on maps.
• Similar game modes.

 

 

Alright, that's not looking very much alike. Only scoring 3.5/11 as what i've just compared to as being battlefront. Now lets look at how it compares to battlefield.

 

Battlefield, as established by Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3, 4, and Hardline.

• First Person - save special situation
• Vehicles on most maps, Air Vehicles on large maps
• Destrucible environments
• Modifiable classes, some loadouts particularly early are not efficient/require lots of play to make work.
• 16v16 normally max in a match. 32v32 in battlefield 3.
• Game modes like, Demolition, Rush, TDM, conquest.
• Bullet Drop / pseudo realistic munitions mechanics
• heavily based on Squad play
• DLC up the ass.
• Battlelog... the nightmare...

Once again, there are more, but those are core to what battlefield is. Now lets look at,

Battlefield: Star Wars Edition

• Swappable 3rd/1st Person
• Vehicles on most maps, Air vehicles on large maps.
• Semi-Destructible environments.
• Modifiable classes
• 16v16 matches
• Game modes like... Demolition, TDM, conquest, otherwise known as, the same game modes, but with different names.
• Pseudo realistic munitions mechanics
• Heavily based on squad play
• ALREADY DLC, AND EXCLUSIVE CONTENT FOR DELUXE PREORDERS
• Very luckily, no shitty battlelog.

Alright, so thats... 8.5/10 on core. Hmm... It's almost like... This game, when to take away the fact that its star wars and you have third person, that this game is almost exactly like battlefield... Hmmmmm.

Rekted 

[Nup]

Woot 660 master race, 

[UnknownEngineer]

Still isnt "Battlefront 3" sorry.

 

 

Funny Since there is no "battlefront 3". I've played the new Battlefront game, it feels exactly like what BF3/4 would be in 3rd person with jumpy boost mechanics from CoD. It's basically an extravagant overhaul mod in the guise of starwars, the same way Hardline was. Won't be surprised if the next "Battlefield: Insert Franchise Gimmick Here" is the same.

This reminds me of the people who hated Halo 4, simply because it added something to the franchise. "Oh but this isn't a flash clone of halo 2/3, this is shit"

Batllefront 3 might not have space battles and galactic conquest (yes, I realize that sucks), but when it comes to the actual game it is a battlefront game.

It's like saying a new sport themed Volkswagen isn't a Volkwagen any more because it has a larger, more powerful engine and ABS, but lacks a manual gearbox and cup holders.

 

Games chance, they SHOULD change. Don't hate the devs for trying to make something new from the already expired, when all they hear is complaints about everything being the exact same.

 

Battlefield now (3/4/hardline) is an FPS that tries to be many things at once, it is why it is good, it is why it is bad. It is very similar to many games in it's genre, it is no surprise that it would be similar to battlefront 3 as the devs even decided to add some of the things that would work from battllefield.

 

If they had just literally re-skinned battlefront 1/2, without actually adding any of the things that other similar games today have, would you/anyone play the game a few weeks after launch. Even though that is still going to happen because they removed so many things.

[marldorthegreat]

WTF why?

Have you seen it. It looks superb 

[Atmos]

 

This reminds me of the people who hated Halo 4, simply because it added something to the franchise. "Oh but this isn't a flash clone of halo 2/3, this is shit"

Batllefront 3 might not have space battles and galactic conquest (yes, I realize that sucks), but when it comes to the actual game it is a battlefront game.

It's like saying a new sport themed Volkswagen isn't a Volkwagen any more because it has a larger, more powerful engine and ABS, but lacks a manual gearbox and cup holders.

 

Games chance, they SHOULD change. Don't hate the devs for trying to make something new from the already expired, when all they hear is complaints about everything being the exact same.

 

Battlefield now (3/4/hardline) is an FPS that tries to be many things at once, it is why it is good, it is why it is bad. It is very similar to many games in it's genre, it is no surprise that it would be similar to battlefront 3 as the devs even decided to add some of the things that would work from battllefield.

 

If they had just literally re-skinned battlefront 1/2, without actually adding any of the things that other similar games today have, would you/anyone play the game a few weeks after launch. Even though that is still going to happen because they removed so many things.

 

 

Someone obviously didn't read what I said.

"Do i think it's going to be a fine game? Yes."

"Do i think it will be a cool addition to star wars? Yes"

But the game has such little in actual likeness to battlefront they have no right to call it that, and no gamers have the right to call it battlefront 3, which is not only WRONG, because that's not the name of the game, but also wrong in that dice has no right to call it "battlefront 'whatever' ." This game is far closer to a Star Wars battlefield than any Battlefront.

 

What makes a battlefront, as set by Battlefront (1) and with the addition of Battlefront 2

• Swappable 3rd Person / 1st Person
• Unmodifiable, swappable classes giving all player equal ground
• minimum 32v32 matches, up to 64v64 (128 player cap)
• Space Battles
• Galactic Conquest gm - Both SP and MP
• Single Player story mode / Offline mode
• Many, many, many unique maps
• Addons allowing players to create mods for the game on PC.
• AI filling empty player slots on both online, and SP games, keeping the action across the map.
• Air Vehicles on some maps, ground vehicles on all larger than 'small' maps 
• Game modes like, conquest, CtF, KotH, TDM, FFA.

There are more there, but let's just leave that for a moment while we look at what this game has to offer.

 

Battlefield: Star Wars Edition, as it compares to the real Battlefronts

• Swappable 3rd and 1st person, 
• AI in offline/coop mode.
• Air vehicles in some maps, ground vehicles on maps.
• Similar game modes.

 

 

Alright, that's not looking very much alike. Only scoring 3.5/11 as what i've just compared to as being battlefront. Now lets look at how it compares to battlefield.

 

Battlefield, as established by Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3, 4, and Hardline.

• First Person - save special situation
• Vehicles on most maps, Air Vehicles on large maps
• Destrucible environments
• Modifiable classes, some loadouts particularly early are not efficient/require lots of play to make work.
• 16v16 normally max in a match. 32v32 in battlefield 3.
• Game modes like, Demolition, Rush, TDM, conquest.
• Bullet Drop / pseudo realistic munitions mechanics
• heavily based on Squad play
• DLC up the ass.
• Battlelog... the nightmare...

Once again, there are more, but those are core to what battlefield is. Now lets look at,

Battlefield: Star Wars Edition

• Swappable 3rd/1st Person
• Vehicles on most maps, Air vehicles on large maps.
• Semi-Destructible environments.
• Modifiable classes
• 16v16 matches
• Game modes like... Demolition, TDM, conquest, otherwise known as, the same game modes, but with different names.
• Pseudo realistic munitions mechanics
• Heavily based on squad play
• ALREADY DLC, AND EXCLUSIVE CONTENT FOR DELUXE PREORDERS
• Very luckily, no shitty battlelog.

Alright, so thats... 8.5/10 on core. Hmm... It's almost like... This game, when to take away the fact that its star wars and you have third person, that this game is almost exactly like battlefield... Hmmmmm.

[UnknownEngineer]

 

A part of my post was meant address yours, just seems like you didn't read it.

 

The new battlefront is similar to battlefield because the battlefield franchise tries to be everything.

Maybe that din't come across clearly enough, sorry. 

[Jade]

Its recommended, not required. Stop getting your panties in a bunch. Its the same thing with every AAA game we've seen lately, they think you should be balling out on hardware, when you dont need it.

Edit: Ppl also need to understand that 16GB is becoming more or less the standard that 8GB filled years back.

16GB is in no way, shape, or form, the standard. 8GB is still more than enough for 75+% of people.

[Atmos]

A part of my post was meant address yours, just seems like you didn't read it.

 

The new battlefront is similar to battlefield because the battlefield franchise tries to be everything.

Maybe that din't come across clearly enough, sorry. 

 

Yes, with a remodel of battlefront two, i would play the fuck out of it. Update the models, textures, maps, weapons, and mechanics and awesome. But don't remove 2/3rds of the game and dare call it battlefront.

[rcarteraz]

I only plan to play this on my brother's console. woot! lol.

[Guest Kloaked]

Whats the AMD  equivalent to a i5 6600

 

It doesn't exist.

[Fate]

Whats the AMD  equivalent to a i5 6600

There isn't one. The closest would be an FX-83xx or 9590.

[Mr_Troll]

found a video of an alpha gameplay on AMD hardware.... pc specs in description... FX 8350 - stock, 280x, 16 GB RAM ...looks like AMD cpus can run this just fine...

 

[Humbug]

Whats the AMD equivalent to a i5 6600

LOL. Some unreleased 2016 Zen CPU.

But I'm sure it will run very smoothly on AMD's current CPUs. Probably with framerates not as high as Intel though.