DICE Explains Differences Between BF3 PC and Console

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
To be perfectly honest, I like the way the conversation here is all about scaling a PC game down for console compatibility and not vice versa. I like my console games as much as anyone else (maybe more) but it should always be PC gaming first, everything else second. :D

"It's not that we are evil or stupid, we did not choose not to have more players -. we would make love to 64 players on the console, but then we would have to cut away so much. Otherwise the players would get upset that the console version looks much worse and worse playing. Moreover, one would need to remove the vehicles. The cards will also turn out a little more compactly: If we say that they are smaller does not mean that we have halved it."
Click to expand...
 
PC version has more options than console version. And all was right with the world.
 
cant wait for the nerdrage when all of these obvious console port issues are going to show up after launch on PC.
 
Like a quick flash of "Do not turn off your console" message that you wouldn't even see unless you FRAPS it and then pick it apart frame by frame?
 
I finally broke down and bought a console because they wouldn't make some of the games they have there for the PC.

Black Ops came with my console, and well, it was truly terrible. The side scroller bonus made it not a complete travesty.
 
For once I wish they would just stop explaining and babying the console kiddies and their way outdated hardware / GFX and just be vocal about the PC version kicking ass and leaving it at that.

For once just say, yeah, the PC version will pwn you and not hold the hands of the console tweeners and make them feel all better about their dated version.
 
Now all we have to do is hope the hype actually lives up to quality game.

I have a funny feeling the game will be a little "disappointing" - not because it won't be good but because the hype is simply off of the hype-o-meter.
 
On the PC, gamers can customize the experience with fantastic user-created mods, from the tiniest server map adjustments to prevent cheaters or cheap players all the way up to total conversions like Desert Combat and Project Reality! Well...

Well, players will have dedicated server software instead of having to rent them like in BC2...right? No?

Ok, players will have a large selection of DLC packs to choose from. I guess.
 
SixFootDuo said:
For once I wish they would just stop explaining and babying the console kiddies and their way outdated hardware / GFX and just be vocal about the PC version kicking ass and leaving it at that.

For once just say, yeah, the PC version will pwn you and not hold the hands of the console tweeners and make them feel all better about their dated version.
Click to expand...

I totally agree i wish stupid people would come to the realization that the PC version of games will always be better because we can always upgrade our equipment to match the games demand on performance rather than dumb down a game to make it playable on a console.
 
can't wait for bf3, gonna have a new pc by then too, a reasonably awesome machine, still wondering what to buy to play this game nicely
 
No Dedicated server = Me not playing it.

There is a reason that I'm still playing Counter-Strike 11 years later. (granted, in its newer Source form, but still). Dedicated servers and mod availability really make a gaming community come together and give the game lots of replay value....


...and suddenly it all makes sense...

How are companies going to make money off of their customer base if they sell them one game that they will still enjoy playing in 10 years?

They have to limit it somehow, so they play it for a few months, and then buy another game, and play that for a few months and then buy another...

They can't possibly give the players what they want, cause then they won't buy another game, and they'll instead have to put real work into making future games, and they wouldn't want to have to do that...
 
Wirth'sLaw said:
Now all we have to do is hope the hype actually lives up to quality game.

I have a funny feeling the game will be a little "disappointing" - not because it won't be good but because the hype is simply off of the hype-o-meter.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when there is ONE game in an entire year that may be cause for the PC community to roll out new rigs
 
This is kind of a slap for the PS3, didn't MAG handle 64 nicely way back when?

I'm not suggesting that DICE should have taken the massive amounts of time necessary to sort out everything for the cell, I'm just pointing out the the dead weight in the XBOX. Well that and the extreme difficulty of writing cell code for the PS3.
 
For once I wish they would just stop explaining and babying the console kiddies and their way outdated hardware / GFX and just be vocal about the PC version kicking ass and leaving it at that.

For once just say, yeah, the PC version will pwn you and not hold the hands of the console tweeners and make them feel all better about their dated version.
Click to expand...

Yes because shitting on 95% of the market place is a good business practice. Face it "l33t"PC gaming is an extreme miniority. All of the extremely successful (Blizzard games are a good example) run on a wide variety of hardware.

No Dedicated server = Me not playing it.

There is a reason that I'm still playing Counter-Strike 11 years later. (granted, in its newer Source form, but still). Dedicated servers and mod availability really make a gaming community come together and give the game lots of replay value....


...and suddenly it all makes sense...

How are companies going to make money off of their customer base if they sell them one game that they will still enjoy playing in 10 years?

They have to limit it somehow, so they play it for a few months, and then buy another game, and play that for a few months and then buy another...

They can't possibly give the players what they want, cause then they won't buy another game, and they'll instead have to put real work into making future games, and they wouldn't want to have to do that...
Click to expand...

YOU MEAN ***GASP*** GAME DEVELOPERS WANT TO MAKE MONEY....

unpossible... i swear you elitist spend more time bitching and tweaking your games than actually enjoying them.
 
XvMMvX said:
YOU MEAN ***GASP*** GAME DEVELOPERS WANT TO MAKE MONEY....

unpossible... i swear you elitist spend more time bitching and tweaking your games than actually enjoying them.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the consumer be more concerned with quality vs. how much the dev/publisher wants to make?

What's wrong with tweaking and bitching, if that's what we like?

That said... I'm not in a rage over BF3. I still have hope it will be good, possibly great.
 
rihno13 said:
This is kind of a slap for the PS3, didn't MAG handle 64 nicely way back when?
Click to expand...

MAG has absolutely no physics based destruction. This is where a lot of people are missing Dice's point. They chose to keep the destruction and vehicles in the game, but they had to sacrifice player numbers for it.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Shouldn't the consumer be more concerned with quality vs. how much the dev/publisher wants to make?
Click to expand...

Actually, while its a very good argument for us to care about quality, you have to remember that in order to keep delivering us games, they need to make money.

Its sad how some gamers just completely seem to forget that the gaming industry is still a business, and its core, games, developers, and publishers have to be in black ink at the end of the year to remain in business and keep making games for us.

If it was up to hardcore elitist gamers, the game industry would have died many years ago with their unreasonable expectations and demands.

I'm not saying that its impossible for quality & profit making to be in perfect harmony, its dam near impossible because you'll always have to piss off a group of people to please another, you just gotta make a choice who ends up giving you the most money, which as of right now are console gamers, not PC.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037556250 said:
No Dedicated server = Me not playing it.

There is a reason that I'm still playing Counter-Strike 11 years later. (granted, in its newer Source form, but still). Dedicated servers and mod availability really make a gaming community come together and give the game lots of replay value....


...and suddenly it all makes sense...

How are companies going to make money off of their customer base if they sell them one game that they will still enjoy playing in 10 years?

They have to limit it somehow, so they play it for a few months, and then buy another game, and play that for a few months and then buy another...

They can't possibly give the players what they want, cause then they won't buy another game, and they'll instead have to put real work into making future games, and they wouldn't want to have to do that...
Click to expand...

Valve is proving that theory wrong with TF2. Part of me wishes they would try it with CSS as well.
 
You can say dice cares about pc gamers all you want but ask yourselves why are they making love to 64 console players and zero pc gamers?????
 
I don't have any of the newer consoles, but I do have quite a few consoles.. that I hardly every use anymore.

NES
SNES
N64
Gamecube - also have the gameboy adapter.
Gameboy Advance SP

Playstation 2

Sega Dreamcast and true VGA adapter- travesty that they didn't market it better.

NEC Turbo Grafx 16 with CD add-on and Arcade Card Pro. - I have almost 100 original carts and CDs for this system with a whole bunch of burned CDs as well. Out of the games I have for this system, there are only maybe 3 that I don't like. Try that with ANY other system ever made.

It is a huge travesty that they didn't market this system better in the US. If they had, there would be an even huger library of games for this system.

IMHO consoles are good for:
RPGs
side and vertical shooters
certain multiplayer games, like mario cart, smash brothers, multiplayer RPGs, and fighters.

FPS games plain SUCK on consoles. They always have and unless something drastically changes with the next release from MS and Sony they still will.
 
Dark-Colonel said:
Actually, while its a very good argument for us to care about quality, you have to remember that in order to keep delivering us games, they need to make money.

Its sad how some gamers just completely seem to forget that the gaming industry is still a business, and its core, games, developers, and publishers have to be in black ink at the end of the year to remain in business and keep making games for us.

If it was up to hardcore elitist gamers, the game industry would have died many years ago with their unreasonable expectations and demands.

I'm not saying that its impossible for quality & profit making to be in perfect harmony, its dam near impossible because you'll always have to piss off a group of people to please another, you just gotta make a choice who ends up giving you the most money, which as of right now are console gamers, not PC.
Click to expand...

^ this

look at how many studios have been closed down recently, and we're talking studios that had successful games. As soon as guitar hero became irrevelant, its studio shutdown. i absolutely loved the PGR racing games, but its studio is gone. for many years i've wanted to a job in the gaming industry, but with how volatile it is, i'd pass on it now.
 
Killzone 3 was really the only console FPS I felt I had not a single complaint about, and I played it with the pad, loved the multiplayer, hope to see something like it on the PC some day rather than modern era military shooter X, retroshit Y and über-realism Z.
 
XvMMvX said:
YOU MEAN ***GASP*** GAME DEVELOPERS WANT TO MAKE MONEY....

unpossible...
Click to expand...
I'm not one of their stockholders or their employees, so I don't care how much money they make. I'm a customer, so I care about the quality of the products I buy. Good on em for wanting to make a buck, but it doesn't mean we have to cheer those business practices on.

You should thank people who complain, because we've already gotten you a better product. Their original stance on the merchant-exclusive DLC was that buying through the merchant was the only way to get it. People went ballistic and it paid off. Now they say it will be available to everyone. The more we demand, the more they supply.

The one language they understand is money, so vote with your wallet and your voice. And do not defend them or excuse them when they could give you more but don't.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037556250 said:
No Dedicated server = Me not playing it.

There is a reason that I'm still playing Counter-Strike 11 years later. (granted, in its newer Source form, but still). Dedicated servers and mod availability really make a gaming community come together and give the game lots of replay value....
Click to expand...

Absolutely, 100% agree. However...

...what do you mean "no dedicated servers"? Last I checked, they're allowing dedicated servers, just no private servers.

Zarathustra[H];1037556250 said:
...and suddenly it all makes sense...

How are companies going to make money off of their customer base if they sell them one game that they will still enjoy playing in 10 years?

They have to limit it somehow, so they play it for a few months, and then buy another game, and play that for a few months and then buy another...
Click to expand...

Not to sound like a "conspiracy theorist", but I actually feel you're onto something with those statements... it is starting to "come together", looking at the situation.

I'm not saying it's some "master plan", nor that when a good dev makes a good game, that they don't want to "give it their all", but the way things are going, it does seem like they're almost just continuing to feed a starving man small bits of bread to lead them along down the path to more of it in the future, forcing them to take each piece to lead them to the next.

In terms of the statement about "scaling-down", however, luckily it seems that they're only talking about the amount of online players and not the visuals. He specifically said "or they'd have to scale-down the visuals", which means they don't want to do that, which means they're not doing that... instead, scaling-down the number of online players. Fine with me, since I've been strictly a PC gamer for the last decade, having given-up on consoles years ago (with some exception here-and-there).
 
How would people feel about this then. Companies leave the core of used game sales alone, charge the $10 if a game registered already is resold after a time for online play, and do the whole TF2-like thing with having lots of micro transactions that are available. Developer is happy because they are getting paid even long after original has sold on secondary market as well as DLC, consumer happy because he buys game used and spends money on DLC if s/he wants to.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037556250 said:
No Dedicated server = Me not playing it.

There is a reason that I'm still playing Counter-Strike 11 years later. (granted, in its newer Source form, but still). Dedicated servers and mod availability really make a gaming community come together and give the game lots of replay value....


...and suddenly it all makes sense...

How are companies going to make money off of their customer base if they sell them one game that they will still enjoy playing in 10 years?

They have to limit it somehow, so they play it for a few months, and then buy another game, and play that for a few months and then buy another...

They can't possibly give the players what they want, cause then they won't buy another game, and they'll instead have to put real work into making future games, and they wouldn't want to have to do that...
Click to expand...

I agree, this kind of process just stifles creativity and almost puts an artificial (yet very real, nonetheless) limit on what they are willing to give us, and don't forget, the rest results in DLC, actually, you could make a great case that the very reason DLC exists isn't solely to make money, but to ensure that if they DO make a game worth playing long after it came out, they can continue to make money off of it.

XvMMvX said:
Yes because shitting on 95% of the market place is a good business practice. Face it "l33t"PC gaming is an extreme miniority. All of the extremely successful (Blizzard games are a good example) run on a wide variety of hardware.



YOU MEAN ***GASP*** GAME DEVELOPERS WANT TO MAKE MONEY....

unpossible... i swear you elitist spend more time bitching and tweaking your games than actually enjoying them.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with gamers having standards, whether they are "l33t" or "elitist", otherwise, we'd have regurgitated crap like Black Ops, Bioshock 2, and Dragon Age 2 to look forward to, oh wait . . . .

LeninGHOLA said:
Shouldn't the consumer be more concerned with quality vs. how much the dev/publisher wants to make?

What's wrong with tweaking and bitching, if that's what we like?

That said... I'm not in a rage over BF3. I still have hope it will be good, possibly great.
Click to expand...

I agree, not having mod tools = just another way for them to force you to buy DLC, and CoD MW2 was the most craven example of this, no map packs = you can't play with your friends unless you buy them.

Dark-Colonel said:
Actually, while its a very good argument for us to care about quality, you have to remember that in order to keep delivering us games, they need to make money.

Its sad how some gamers just completely seem to forget that the gaming industry is still a business, and its core, games, developers, and publishers have to be in black ink at the end of the year to remain in business and keep making games for us.

If it was up to hardcore elitist gamers, the game industry would have died many years ago with their unreasonable expectations and demands.

I'm not saying that its impossible for quality & profit making to be in perfect harmony, its dam near impossible because you'll always have to piss off a group of people to please another, you just gotta make a choice who ends up giving you the most money, which as of right now are console gamers, not PC.
Click to expand...

Diablo 2, Starcraft, Half Life, TF2, CS Source, Dragon Age, Oblivion, Fallout 3, ALL those games made millions, if not billions, and they don't require you to sell out to make that kind of money, a good game should be one that you want to play and possibly return to after beating it? Otherwise, what's the point of buying games full price that are just single servings? There's little incentive to buy it untill it's in the bargain bin or Steam sales.

bacon said:
Valve is proving that theory wrong with TF2. Part of me wishes they would try it with CSS as well.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, and no, but don't forget that CSS was done by Turtle Rock Studios who Valve bought it, I'm not sure what the money split is, but that's a possible reason, but what really could you do with CSS? Different looking avatars? That'd be a cool idea to be honest, but not practical, because it would be a clusterfuck to tell who the good guys and bad guys are.

fattypants said:
I'm not one of their stockholders or their employees, so I don't care how much money they make. I'm a customer, so I care about the quality of the products I buy. Good on em for wanting to make a buck, but it doesn't mean we have to cheer those business practices on.

You should thank people who complain, because we've already gotten you a better product. Their original stance on the merchant-exclusive DLC was that buying through the merchant was the only way to get it. People went ballistic and it paid off. Now they say it will be available to everyone. The more we demand, the more they supply.

The one language they understand is money, so vote with your wallet and your voice. And do not defend them or excuse them when they could give you more but don't.
Click to expand...

I agree, people seem to not grasp the concept of the purpose of mentioning the faults and flaws in not just the game development process, but also the process of getting the product in the customer's hands and the support that exists (or not) after the product launches.

Without that, there would be no amelioration for gamers.

Indeed, we should be thanked, even if we are a minority, we sure as fuck are a vocal one, how can you be heard if you say nothing?
 
rihno13 said:
This is kind of a slap for the PS3, didn't MAG handle 64 nicely way back when?

I'm not suggesting that DICE should have taken the massive amounts of time necessary to sort out everything for the cell, I'm just pointing out the the dead weight in the XBOX. Well that and the extreme difficulty of writing cell code for the PS3.
Click to expand...

MAG supports 16v16(32) 32v32 (64), 64 vs 64 (128), and 128v128 (256)

Lacks Physics but that's not exactly that bad of a thing considering MAG is one hell of a shooter IMO (Still playing it. Have been playing sense Beta) and still one of the best shooters on console.
 
EA and DICE are currently running an alpha trail of Battlefield 3 to select people who sign up via EA Origin. Furthermore, DICE published a FAQ on the alpha trial, where they answered a few questions, including the recommended system settings for the alpha trial (not the full game). The recommended Battlefield 3 system specs for the alpha trial are:

Windows 7 or Vista (SP1)
EA Origin
CPU: quad core 2.0 GHz or faster
RAM: 4 GB or more
Hard Drive: 7.25 GB free disk space
Video RAM: 512 MB or greater
DirectX 10 or 11 compatible video card with latest drivers (AMD 11.5 or later, nVidia 275.33 or later)
Sound: DirectX 10 or 11 compatible card
Internet: broadband connection


http://bf3blog.com/2011/07/battlefield-3-alpha-trial-and-recommended-system-specs/
 
Zarathustra[H];1037556454 said:
I did read that TF2 went free to play... How are they making money off of it now? DLC? Ads?
Click to expand...
Micro transactions that braindead 12 year olds with their parents CC gobble up. Same as 90% of the MMO's out there now.
 
kinjo said:
You can say dice cares about pc gamers all you want but ask yourselves why are they making love to 64 console players and zero pc gamers?????
Click to expand...

Because there are a lot more console players....?
 
Emission said:
Because there are a lot more console players....?
Click to expand...

Its not as unbalanced as the charts would have you believe. For one, STEAM doesn't report sales figures, and that is a HUGE chunk of PC gamers. Secondly, everybody always lumps the 3 (or at least the 2) consoles together, vs the PC.

If you take them one at a time I'm pretty sure the PC holds its own, even with the incorrect current figures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top