Home / News / Games News / Star Wars: Battlefront runs at 900p on PS4 and at 720p on Xbox One

Star Wars: Battlefront runs at 900p on PS4 and at 720p on Xbox One

Sam Loveridge



The console resolutions for Star Wars: Battlefront have been revealed through the beta, with the game running at 900p on PS4 and 720p on Xbox One.

Some surprising insights have come out of the closed Star Wars: Battlefront beta, in particular the resolution that the game runs at on console.

Although the game is predicted to sell tens of millions of units, at the moment its failing to hit the resolution targets set by its competitors.

The current build of Star Wars: Battlefront runs at 900p on PS4, falling short of the benchmark 1080p full HD set by other cross platform titles.

But at least the PS4 version is doing better than the Xbox One version, which is currently running at the rather disappointing 720p HD. That's currently resulting in blurred edges and a rather unsatisfactory image quality.

To put those figures into perspective, they're the same as what Battlefield 4 offered when it was released back in October 2013.

To make matters even worse, gamers have also started complaining about rubber-banding and disconnection issues on Xbox One. These aren't often issues that occur on Xbox One, so perhaps the PS4 version is taking priority.

Related: PS4 vs Xbox One

Star Wars Battlefront is due to launch on October 27, for Xbox One, PS4 and PC. There's currently a closed beta going on for both consoles, which will run until Sunday night.

Ross Turner

October 8, 2015, 11:09 am

Can u explain how rubber banding is applicable to battlefield? Edit. Ok I will answer my own question. Idiots on battlefield forum are calling Internet lag that results in them or other players being constantly repositioned on an mp map "rubber banding". Then idiots on game sites repeat what idiots on forums say then it becomes a thing. Idiots it's called lag. Lag. Lag. It's because either your local network or the server side network is lagging and has to keep correcting positions. Usually it's caused by crap Internet speed, crap net code, or someone on your network trying to watch Netflix while you are trying to shoot people in the face. There may be a tech term for this but it is not rubber banding. Rubber banding is a term applicable to off line racing games where computer controlled opponents are always kept within a range of the player to keep things interesting and always gives the player a chance to catch up even when they crash 100 times.

Kulti Vator

October 8, 2015, 12:45 pm

"To put those figures into perspective, they're the same as what Battlefield 4 offered when it was released back in October 2013."

...it is running within the same Frostbite engine, so similar results are to be expected.

The best experience for this CPU/GPU-hungry game will definitely be on a beefy gaming PC.

Yan Huang

October 8, 2015, 1:11 pm

That, and it's running on the same consoles and hardware, it isn't going to magically draw out more performance.

Yan Huang

October 8, 2015, 1:13 pm

Sorry Ross, but wrong on both counts. Rubber banding *is* what it's called. It may not have been what it meant many years ago but language evolves with use. Similarly, it's not caused by lag. It's caused by out-of-order packet delivery and packet loss.


October 8, 2015, 1:43 pm

ps 5 or xbox 2 for me. or i could just spend £200 on a graphics card for my pc

Kulti Vator

October 8, 2015, 2:49 pm

In fairness - the effect described is often the result of how a game engine is affected both by latency as well as by packet loss / sequencing issues.

Different game engines handle these real-world problems in different ways which is why some are more prone to 'ice-skating' players gliding across maps at times, whilst others appear to jolt around when network conditions are unfavourable.

Also - it could be argued that 'lag' is a loose term to cover a whole range of issues that result in choppy gameplay conditions online.

Kulti Vator

October 8, 2015, 2:53 pm

It's a shame that the more demanding console games don't allow users the choice between having all of the eye-candy at a lower resolution - or full 1080p with reduced lighting, texture quality, etc.

Also, Cry Engine games on console seriously need a Field of View control - that engine is one of the worst offenders for motion sickness even in these final pre-Oculus Rift days.


October 8, 2015, 3:31 pm

ps4 victory anyone?

Yan Huang

October 8, 2015, 4:58 pm

Yeah I suppose "lag" is used by some as a loose term, for some people it means just about anything deviation whatsoever from smooth uniform gameplay whether it be framerate, monitor, network, or mouse issues.

In relation to just network issues however, high latency on its own rarely causes the issues described in any game engine. With a consistent but high-latency connection gameplay can be perfectly smooth, while also having significant lag, but still be completely free of juttering or "rubber banding".

In the earlier days of online gaming, before broadband became a thing, everyone was playing over 56K or lower analogue modems where 150ms+ latency was the norm. Yet "ice-skating" issues only occurred when the connection was otherwise saturated or unstable.


October 8, 2015, 5:25 pm

If you want that game on a PC. Everyone having the exact same specs is kind of the point of consoles.


October 8, 2015, 5:26 pm

"or i could just spend £200 on a graphics card for my pc"

You forgot the "every 4 months" part. Please, a PC gaming rig is far, far more expensive. And you miss all the console exclusives.


October 8, 2015, 6:46 pm

My last PC and graphics card lasted me 6 years and was still playing all the latest titles I threw at it just fine at 1080p. In fact it was music authoring that prompted me to upgrade the PC, the gaming was still fine.

Just because a new graphics card comes out doesn't mean you need it.

Kulti Vator

October 8, 2015, 6:49 pm

I do game on PC - but is it wrong to have some ability to mildly tweak a game on a console - especially if the tweaks avoid nausea and mid-game chunders for a high number of gamers?

In case you think this is a minor issue - a quick Google for "motion sickness far cry" returns ~111,000 results.

Also, is it wrong to hope that game developers will allow people to express their preference for raw resolution over superficial but computationally-expensive special effects in that triple-A blockbuster that costs more on console than PC?

Kulti Vator

October 8, 2015, 6:55 pm

Yes - Veteran Unreal Tournament player here - a game that handled low bandwidth, high-latency connections brilliantly in one of the fastest & most responsive shooters of all time. 16+ years on and it doesn't feel like everything has progressed the way it should ;-)

Sadly when many of today's titles gets choppy, it's often down to a perfect storm of all the factors listed above - and many modern game engines seem more prone than UT to losing the plot.

Kulti Vator

October 8, 2015, 7:04 pm

You're absolutely right that PC gaming is more expensive - but only pro-level gamers really 'need' the very latest and greatest. The rest of us can have a great time on either a modest gaming rig or a console.


October 9, 2015, 7:27 am

He's wrong actually. The start up price for a PC is more expensive, but throughout a consoles lifetime, the PC ends up saving you a bit of money and you end up with loads more games. You don't even pay extra to play using the internet you're already paying for.
I have finally gotten around to buying a PS4 and it's gonna hurt me so bad to spend £42 on Star Wars Battlefront, just because I want to play it with friends. It's way cheaper on PC and it looks better and I'm still using a 660ti. It handles the game way better than the recommendations make it seem.

Kulti Vator

October 9, 2015, 8:36 am

Depends - there's a lot of variables in the mix. Horses for courses.

If you're the kind of gamer that insists on having an Nvidia Titan X in your rig, it'll take a wee while to claw back savings from online fees and lower game costs ;-)

Matt Geeson

October 9, 2015, 8:40 am

Really, again more fuss about resolutions. Who cares. Does the game play well on both consoles, is it at a constant frame rate and is it fun.

Yes, Yes and Yes.

Resolution numbers are a pointless measure just so fan boy's can say my console is better than yours. Who really see's any difference when running round and shooting at stuff. Just go play and enjoy the experience.

Mark Burley

October 9, 2015, 4:00 pm

Don't sweat it the ad under their site gives it away they're all about product placement independent sites like which may cost but they are unbiased.

Mark Burley

October 9, 2015, 4:03 pm

That's 98% of us but that 2% are very noisy.


October 9, 2015, 4:45 pm

And you know what? You can barely tell the difference. I played the game on both the XB1 and PS4 this morning before work and if there is a visual difference, it's negligible at best.


October 9, 2015, 4:49 pm

Like and agree 100%. I played the beta on both consoles this morning and I honestly couldn't see a difference. Maybe if I had both running and kept switching back and forth between them or had them both running simultaneously on 2 TV's but even then I doubt it would be a noticeable difference. I find this to be the case for this entire console generation so far. Play the games on whichever platform you prefer and the one more of your friends play on because the alleged extra power of the PS4 (trust me I'm a PS4 owner) isn't nearly as big of a deal as fanboys would have you believe.


October 9, 2015, 7:08 pm

Yeah that is true, but an Titan X is so unnecessary 980ti should be more than good enough or wait for something from NVIDIA with HBM2.

Chris Bordeman

October 11, 2015, 9:11 pm

Yup, my gaming laptop absolutely kills either console. And it's a freaking laptop.

So I can cast it to any device (Windows 10) and play with either kb/mouse or XBox One controller. Many game types practically demand kb/mouse.

Chris Bordeman

October 11, 2015, 9:11 pm

If running well below 1080p is a victory, ugh.

comments powered by Disqus