Major geometry "optimization" - there's several places where it's obvious that actual model geometry has been replaced with just applying a normal or displacement map to the model skin. Losing the computer consoles completely was obviously a case of "this is geometry we don't need to render at all, so lose it" The apparent changes to the diffuse texture map, particularly the significant desaturation of its colour palette could be an actual simplification of the texture itself but could also be a shader change. I'm guessing both.
Much of what FD has done here are perfectly ordinary changes that most games featuring highly-detailed surroundings tend to apply before game release. The aggressiveness with which game designers cull out "unnecessary" triangles from the scenes their game must render or shave a few bytes off the size of a texture is positively legendary and is (more than occasionally) a potential point of conflict with the artists who developed and lovingly textured the models in the first place.
IF (and this is by no means a certainty) this was just done on general principles it is a blunder on FD's part because it is a step too far in downgrading the fidelity of the scene without a good reason to do so.
However, DID they have a reason? First off, lets note that by far the greatest amount of geometry they've got rid of is in places where you don't see unless you're looking around - either in headlook mode or using VR. If they noticed a rendering performance issue in VR when looking anywhere but ahead, that could prompt an optimization effort this radical. It's also possible they've got an internal build that has some components of "space legs" already in place and there were issues with that. In the former case they might tell us the reason, in the latter case they will certainly stay quiet.
By far the biggest "gameplay issue' will be the texture changes in the vicinity of the scanner display. Now, this may be simply a side effect. As I noted above they've done a LOT of removal of geometry detail and replacing it with render effects provided by displacement and normal mapping. This is a very efficient way of rendering detail with "acceptable" fidelity without loading your render pathway with tons of small tris. However, it comes with a built-in disadvantage. It's purely a "lighting effect" and on a surface with low specularity that means the only way it shows up is in "shadows" - try it on a particularly dark surface and it renders as precisely zilch. You can't see the effect at all. Instead of getting the lighting effects simulating the presence of the geometry you've removed you get the visual effect of the flat surface. Oops. Easy solution, reduce the colour range of the texture, so that "blacker" bits show up on it! The usual sign that you've gone too far in the geometry optimization is when for your optimized geometry to show properly the texture has to look washed-out. That's exactly what has happened here. It's going to be a big gameplay issue because with the extreme dynamic range of the scene lighting in ED (necessary for rendering "space' with any kind of fidelity at all) there are going to be frequent situations where the scanner will be completely unreadable.
Without a really strong reason for such an aggressive optimization this is a monumental goof on FDs part.