So I've played about 1.5 hours so far - obviously not enough to make a good judgement of the game, but enough for some comments:
1. MSI afterburner's overlay doesn't work. Obviously not BF4's fault, but it's annoying. (any ideas?)
2. The FPS seems all over the map. I've managed to tweak the settings so that the FPS is acceptable... most of the time. I played mostly the smaller, 32p, map, but even there the FPS wall all over the board. At some times (mainly running forward) it felt like a good 60-70fps, where as turning, or generally fighting inside brought that down to about 45. Unfortunately, because MSI AB doesn't work, I can't tell if it's FPS, net-code or what.
3. The game-play is generally good. This was expected. It's based on BF3, and it had good game-play. The problem is, there isn't that much that's new or fresh. Yes, the cover-ish system is good, as was the interactive map stuff (mall lockdown, etc.). But really, there's nothing that changes the game dramatically - which is a bit disappointing seeing as they've had so long.
4. There are balance issues everywhere. I'm not sure who's idea it was to spawn god-tier weapons on the map, but it's horrible. I got the USAS and basically went on a 20+ kill-streak (iirc 22), because no one could touch me (and that thing has range). Same goes with the sniper. Surprisingly, the 6-barrel GL isn't that OP.
5. Destruction is weak. There really isn't that much. Windows break, a few walls break... and that's about it. Somehow, the destruction still isn't on-par with Bad Co 2. I'm really not sure how that's possible, seeing as it's FB1.5 vs. 3. All I want is Crysis 1 level destruction in MP. Blow up an entire building, have the debris remain AND still be interactive. Have fully destructible forests, etc. Bad Co 2 got close to that. BF3 is about 20 miles away.
6. The graphics aren't all that great. Because I can't measure my FPS (I think there's a console command - i'll try it later), I can't tweak fully. Right now my settings are equal to BF3's, and I'd argue the game looks about the same.
7. I'm worried it's turning into CoD version 2. Yes, I said it. But that's where I'm afraid the BF series is heading. If you look at as a whole, there really isn't anything THAT dramatically new. Look at BF2 to BF3 - the change was INSANELY huge. Now look at BF3 to BF4; it's very similar with a few choice tweaks. Now look at the target audience; they'll buy it because: 1) it looks cool, and 2) because everyone else is. It's not a case of it being a true sequel that we've waited 5-6 years - or a sequel where the changes are so dramatic that it makes the old one look ancient (BF2 vs. 3). It's a slight evolution on the series.
Now, this isn't bad by itself. I'm not expecting them to take 5-6 years to make a new game. There wasn't going to be the dramatic change between BF2 and 3 because there hasn't been that much time between the two. What worries me is what EA has done. Firstly the game is $60. Expected, but it's still a good chunk of money. Now, before the game was even playable by the general public, EA asked for an ADDITIONAL $50 for premium - DLC to a game that isn't even in beta. Not even a discount for pre-ordering.
This is money-grabbing 101. It just is. True DLC is planned (beyond, "hey, we'll do DLC) POST-LAUNCH. This was planned - in detail - LONG before release. It was also sold LONG before release. This is what BF fans should be worried about. It's not a game because "we want to make a great game", it's a game because "we want more money". While there isn't a new game every year, they effectively make the profit OF a game every year through premium.
Once a game switches from art to profit, it's quality decreases. It's just a fact.
In any event, the beta looks decent. I'll keep playing it for the time being. Still not sure if I'll buy it.