Top
1110°

Battlefield 4 on PS4 & Xbox One – 'We need to compromise in some places,' says DICE

The PC version of Battlefield 4 will look better than the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions, executive producer Patrick Bach has suggested, telling VideoGamer.com that it is "doing as much as [it] can" with the next-gen versions, "but we need to compromise in some places".

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
Septic980d ago

Compared to PC, that is to be expected.

But still, 60FPS and 64 players on consoles will be brilliant.

Christopher980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

If it's 60fps and 64 players on console, it won't be anywhere near 1080p. Maybe 720p. Maybe.

Even with the closed-system design, there's not enough there on either system to push it to 1080p.

GarrusVakarian980d ago

It will be 720p. There is no maybe there.

MasterCornholio980d ago

They did confirm with the PS4 version that it would be in between 720P and 1080P and they would just upscale it to 1080P. Im pretty sure that it will be a lot better than the sub HD versions of previous consoles.

ooquis980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

So since when you working at DICE that you know this?? you ever thought maybe,just maybe the ps4 version is made to be on par with the xboxone??for all you know the ps4 can do 1080p with no effort.

Kleptic980d ago

^yeah the IGN preview dude stated it was not 720p, but wasn't 1080p either...but noticeably down on settings, still...

not worried about it...for Bf3, the game looked like hot trash on both consoles until the day it released...even the beta was pretty awful looking...and the final product was perfectly acceptable...

I'm going with the PC version this time around...but mostly because all my bf3 friends/clan mates are doing the same...I think both consoles will get a great version of it though, with much less compromise than with BF3 (between consoles/PC i mean)...

Christopher980d ago

To further explain my thoughts:

I think the single player and "certain" multiplayer modes may be 720p. I think any multiplayer mode involving 32+ people, though, may not even be full 720p.

Christopher980d ago

@Maninja: Eh, I'm not sure they're going to get that in both single player and multiplayer. I'm happy to be wrong.

And, don't people come and say "Well, you're wrong". None of us know for certain. But, 60fps with 720p and 32 players at once? That's pushing the heck out of the PS4 hardware, let alone Xbox One.

user7402931980d ago

look at kzsf, deep down ect, it could easily do 1080p.

Christopher980d ago

***look at kzsf, deep down ect, it could easily do 1080p.***

1. Deep Down is complete demo mode with no concept of gameplay.

2. KZSF is 30fps limited and estimated at 1080p. But, also an exclusive title, not a multiplatform one.

3. None of those are "easy" considering that BF4 is multiplatform, 60fps aiming, will have more players on the screen at once, more forms of movement/vehicles, and will have destructible environments.

n4rc980d ago

All this frame rate and res talk is amusing...

I remember running counterstrike at 60fps at like 1600x1200 more then 10 years ago... Ans that was with a geforce2 and like a gig of ram..

But back on topic... Look what they acomplished with this gen.. Hardware is peanuts to what we get next gen... Its not out of the question what they are claiming imo

Bobby Kotex980d ago

No one is denying that Captain Obvious.

-Alpha980d ago

Killzone Shadow Fall is 1080p and 60 FPS (for multiplayer).

N4g_null980d ago

The smoke and mirrors are starting early this gen. If 8 cores and 8 gigs of ram can get it done what is the fing point!

KiLLeRCLaM980d ago

BATTLEFIELD 4 WILL BE 720P on consoles..It's been confirmed already!

Deadpoolio980d ago

Oh Jesus there is more than enough "there" as a few morons keep saying for the PS4 and One80 to do 1080p...Until they stop developing for PS3/360 games wont be 1080p.....

BTW the PS3 CAN NATIVELY do 1080p NOW...WITH GAMES....The 360 can't do anything about 720p without upscaling

Blachek980d ago

I wonder if an HD Install like was required on 360 would be a viable option to improve the presentation of the game

awi5951980d ago

@ooquis

No battlefield 3 multiplayer hurts your cpu all the Particles and physics that goes on in multiplayer is crazy. I have a x6 core cpu and i have to overclock it to 3.7gigs in multiplayer to make my game play smooth at 1080P at 80+fps. So these consoles with weak CPU's thats whats holding the game back.

UltimateMaster980d ago

There we go again, another debate over 720 or 1080... bla blah.
is it even really relevant to even argue on a game that isn't even released yet?

Christopher980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

***Killzone Shadow Fall is 1080p and 60 FPS (for multiplayer).***

Can you provide a link that says, explicitly, that it is natively 1080p w/60fps? All I've found are "analysis" posts not official ones.

Edit: Nevermind, found it in a video just released today.

thehitman980d ago

A lot of people wont be able to 1080p @ 60fps on PC either... not on max settings.

GDDR6_2014980d ago

I wonder what PC specs you will need to run it better than ps4. I would think my 3 Tflops 7950 is more than enough, that costs just $250 today, you can certainly build a pc with that for $700-800.

RyuCloudStrife980d ago

@cgoodno

You are just wrong! The dev ALREADY said it'll be above 720p!

Christopher980d ago

@RyuCloudStrife: And I always, 100% trust what a dev says when people who played it said it didn't look 720p!!!!

starchild980d ago

People saying "oh these consoles have plenty enough power to do 1080p/60fps" don't really seem to understand how things work.

Sure, the PS4 and XB1 would have the power to run current gen games at 1080p/60fps guaranteed, but if you are talking about games that are pushing graphics in other areas then it isn't guaranteed or necessarily even possible at all.

Even past generation consoles could have all ran all games at 1080p/60fps, but the games we enjoyed those generations would have been stripped down and wouldn't have been nearly as great in other areas. With fixed hardware something always has to give--there has to be compromises somewhere.

So is that what some of you want? The potential of all our games to be held back (in terms of AI, physics, graphical detail and realism) all so that games can conform to some standard that you think is important?

If you guys really want a guaranteed 1080p/60fps you should be gaming on PC. Consoles really aren't the place to enforce such a standard.

Going from 720p to 1080p uses around 40% more of a GPU's performance, while going from 30fps to 60fps uses 100% more of a GPU.

I don't want games to have to run on a 140% weaker GPU essentially. All that performance can be better put to use creating richer worlds, with more physics based elements, and more complex AI.

If people were smart, they wouldn't be asking developers to shoot for a standard that will be difficult to achieve and will result in games with juddery framerates (as they struggle to keep above 60fps), instead they should be asking developers to shoot for a rock solid 30fps that doesn't suffer from stuttering and screen tear.

A stable frame rate is much more important than a higher average framerate.

In order to achieve a stable 30fps it actually means that 30fps will be the MINIMUM frame rate and the actual frame rate will be going between like 30 to 50fps. Likewise, in order to achieve a solid 60fps, the hardware actually has to be rendering something like 60 to 80fps. That's a tall order.

mewhy32980d ago

Well if they program for the lowest common denominator bone then we in for a very disappointing BF4. If they develop the PS4 version separately and don't get held back by the inferior bone tech then we could be in for something special on the PS4.

turgore980d ago

It runs above 720p...still not native 1080p tho.

Shaaunyb980d ago

@ooquis

No battlefield 3 multiplayer hurts your cpu all the Particles and physics that goes on in multiplayer is crazy. I have a x6 core cpu and i have to overclock it to 3.7gigs in multiplayer to make my game play smooth at 1080P at 80+fps. So these consoles with weak CPU's thats whats holding the game back.
_____________________________ ___________________

Seriously doubt that, considering i'm running an i3 at 3.4GHz and it runs smoothly.

Godz Kastro980d ago

@ooquis

Dude, you really think the ps4 is more than what it is. You will have a slice of humble pie if you don't come back down to earth.

csreynolds980d ago

"Maybe 720p"

People who've played the PS4 build at Gamescom have claimed it currently runs somewhere between 720. Moreover, neither Sony nor Microsoft are going to make a next-gen console that underperforms visually when compared to current gen.

bigtakilla980d ago

Honestly it's a multiplat, so the sad truth is whichever system winds up being the weaker one, it's more than likely going to be optimized for that system and ported over to the other.

tehnoob3980d ago

Yes, it is confirmed to be 720P, but I do not think that this is representative of the consoles' potential. If you recall to the start of this generation, the pinnacle of console graphics was Resistance.

awi5951980d ago

@Shaaunyb

Are you running on ultra with full AA ?????????? I AM.

My Cpu is actually a bottleneck untill i overclock but i dont need to upgrade right now im waiting for the next gen of CPU's to come out.

awi5951980d ago

When they announced these slow CPU speeds i knew this would happen. AMD loves to make lots of cores on cpus but they are weak cores and they are slow. So when your cpu is getting beat by a dual core and you have 8 cores something is wrong.

4Sh0w980d ago

I get it, we want amazing games but sometimes I think we play specs more than games.

Gamer1982980d ago

They said all next gen will be 1080p however they will reduce FPS to 30 in most to get this. So I would expect 30FPS long before 720p.. I think the next wave of consoles means goodbye to 720p. Dunno why people think we will be getting 720p. It may hit 60fps in places unless its locked to 30fps this game or they may do the same tricks as last gen and cover up holes with AA etc..

+ Show (33) more repliesLast reply 980d ago
Bolts980d ago BadLanguageShowReplies(5)
saber00005980d ago

Indeed Septic. In order to play that game with full maxed settings, you would need a high powered gaming machine. Which would cost about $1,500 to $3,000

vulcanproject980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

Really?

http://www.tomshardware.com...

Why not have a quick glance at an $800 dollar PC which is also now 6 months old (same stuff is cheaper now you can get a 7870 for less than $190 when they paid $240) managing Battlefield 3 on ultra @ 1080p with an average well over 60FPS at stock and over 70FPS OCed....

Even if you spend another $150 on a new OS and bits and pieces what you gonna do with the $1500-$3000 dollars you claimed you would need to do that? Buy two of them?

Jazz4108980d ago

Didnt i hear some fans on here say the ps4 and xboxone would do 4k gaming. Lol

saber00005980d ago

@vulcanproject, First off... Those are just charts. Prove to me with a FULL BUILD on HOW much the PC is going to cost? Not to mention, this is BF4, not 3, and not 2. Running full graphic always on 60fps is NOT going to happen. You would be stupid to think so.

I would know this being an IT guy and being that I'm a PC gamer. You can't get

vulcanproject980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

The 'charts' speak for themselves. The cost breakdown is at the start of the article, down to every dollar for the hardware, except you could build that machine easily today for LESS than when the article was written in February.

http://www.tomshardware.com...

$240 for the card? Well heres an even faster one today for $190 shipped: http://www.newegg.com/Produ...

Overclocked that machine will average well in excess of 70FPS on Battlefeld 3 ultra. If you think Battlefield 4 will be so hugely more demanding it couldn't do 50-60FPS I suspect you will get a nasty surprise, at best it'll be an incremental improvement over the Battlefield 3 engine added to the fact its being built for 60FPS on console.

But if you insist, you could even buy a faster GPU for the $240 in the original build. Say....a 7950 boost or GTX670 if you look in the right place.

Or even worse case, turn down the settings a tiny bit. Do YOU think that the console versions will be as good as max settings of PC? I have my doubts they will be even at 720p.

You obviously aren't much of an I.T guy if you think you will need a $1500 PC to run Battlefield 4 lots better than the new consoles. I mean you seen what a sub $800 PC can do if you spent $1500 you would get a monster that could do 60FPS @ 2560 x 1600 LOL!

7970ghz crossfire perhaps? Frankly by the time the game is actually out in a couple months prices of better hardware will only be cheaper......

http://www.techspot.com/rev... heres a taster of 7970ghz crossfire which you could build for $1500 no problems. 93.6 FPS @ 2560 x 1600!!!! Fast enough for ya?

Ju980d ago

We'll see about that. Because I believe this game will have some specs requirements to run [email protected] on a PC as well. A $800 PC won't cut it - else the PS4 could keep up.

I think this project is too ambitious. We'll find out when it'll release. Ambitious in the sense it totally ignores boundaries. Who ever designed this game totally ignored the specs we have today. And it will sure show. Designers these days are a bit off from reality it seems. To keep up with the scope and framerate Dice has to tone down the game so much that it looks worse than last years PS3 version. This can't be the right direction to go.

awi5951980d ago

NO i doubt it. I bet my pc now will play it on high at 60 fps because i crossfire. Dual 7950's at 200 dollars each will run it fine on ultra I bet after the drivers are fixed.

Gamer1982979d ago (Edited 979d ago )

Erm over 10 years an xbox one/PS4 would cost you over $1200. Console $399 plus 1 replacement over 10 years (everybody gets one I had 2 this generation alone!) = $349. So far thats $749. Add on 10 years of PS plus at $500 thats $1250. Thats for PS4 Xbox One is more expensive.

I have a pre-order for watch dogs in UK for my PC for £23.99 the cheapest PS4 pre-order is £49.99. A Differnce for £26. 10 games at that differnce (1 game a year!) is £260 which is another $402 (at current exchange rates).

So whoever says PC is more expensive obviously doesn't know what they are talking about. They just see the initial outlay. Oh and if a piece of PC hardware breaks you just replace that (and it drops in price FAST) so cheap as hell to fix! Not to mention a PC can do a lot more than a console and games are gonna look a LOT better on a $1200 PC compared to Xbox one and PS4 this entire generation.

Consoldtobots979d ago

i dunnoo but this frostbite engine sounds terribly inefficient

saber00005979d ago (Edited 979d ago )

@vulcanproject,

First off, a majority of items inside the PC, are CRAP. For 1, your power supply is going to overheat b/c it's running at 100%. Really? A 550 watt to power both your graphic and your processor? It's like a car engine. What do you think happens when you rev up your engine till it's at the red line for a long period of time? It overheats and dies. And you want to over-clock it?

Second of all, the case is NOT designed to get rid of that heat it produces, ESPECIALLY when overclocking.

Third, your missing the operating system. Seems like your going over budget don't you think?

Forth, PC won't average 60fps on full in multiplayer. Note, in your article test results they were playing JUST campaign. There's a HUGE performance difference in offline mode, and online. Don't believe me? Try single player, than multiplayer. More things to render, more players, more explosions, more visual, etc. I'm sure 90% of gamers buy Battlefield games to play the multiplayer. Being that's what Battlefield franchise is known for.

Dislike all you want, but if you honestly think you can maintain over 60FPS, all the time, on Ultra, 1080p, then you know nothing. The charts listed aren't detailed and looks to ONLY show the HIGHEST FPS, and not the lowest.

Oh by the way, you also forgot tax, shipping, AND an operating system. Crunch the numbers, it's well over $800 kid.

awi5951979d ago

@saber00005

You must be a console fan any PC game can run at 60 fps at 1080P. BF4 when the drivers are mature will run on anything from a 7850 and up fine on high and it will look better than the console version.

Because PC guys will just turn off the AA which BF3 never had a problem with jaggies, or turn down the shadows to medium which i dont care about in multiplayer, Leave the textures and draw distance at max, You may turn down the ground clutter who cares about paper and grass moving around. And when it cones to particles, smoke effects, texture quality leave them at high or ultra and it will look far better than consoles and it would be at 60 fps.

vulcanproject976d ago (Edited 976d ago )

Sorry saber, but I laughed all the way through your rubbish post talking about PC, when at this point in the discussion its pretty clear you know nothing about it as a gaming system.

Why would a 550 watt PSU be maxed out on a single GPU and intel setup? That whole system at max load will NEVER pull down more than 450 watts even overclocked. http://www.legitreviews.com... 289 watts at burn in (253 gaming) so you would have to nearly DOUBLE that to make the system unstable.... So please, actually try and not talk crap here. Even a 7970 pulls down less than 400w in that system.

Heat is simply not a problem. You're talking rubbish. That build is specced with a third party CPU cooler (not crappy stock) and the card I pointed out had a quality non reference cooler. Are you just a bit....thick?

Third- I pointed out the card was cheaper and I mentioned $150 for an OS. You can actually get one for $99. Shame you can't read and missed that bit in my post hey?

Fourth (not forth) it WILL average 60FPS in multiplayer. It'll average more. The multiplayer of most games accounts for a variance in performance and typically tones down assets slightly. Battlefield is no different. The best bit is you can lower settings only slightly to achieve more performance if you desire.

The big deal here is we now know PS4 can only do medium settings! I'll bet that this PC could do better than medium AND 1080p AND 60FPS.

If you can't accept that machine averaged over 70FPS and has a very good minimum then thats just your problem.

I think you'll find that so called existing 60FPS shooters on console such as COD actually don't run 60FPS a bunch of the time, despite aiming for it. Pretty much any COD game you care to pick whether it be PS3 or 360 will run somewhere between 50 and 60 FPS, certainly not locked out to 60FPS as a 'minimum.' Minimum framerates on COD for the consoles is typically 40FPS. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... 360 has the best performance but even it can't help dropping off from 60FPS quite a bit. Any other console you play it on and it crashes even lower...

You could really do with learning a little before you enter this discussion, clueless!

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 976d ago
jjb1981980d ago

I couldn't have said that better. Bubble+

ATi_Elite980d ago TrollingShowReplies(9)
3-4-5980d ago

Yea for BF3, coming from COD, having 24 player battles was awesome, but I know see how most of the maps were designed for 64 players, some are too big for 24 players.

Can't wait for this game.

Funantic1980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

I told a PC gamer at my job about the PS4 and X1. I told him about the specs on both and he busted out laughing. He said they were both weak. He was dying laughing in tears and his face was so red. I was embarrassed. :-(

TKCMuzzer980d ago

The fact that he laughed about it so much says more about his lack of life fulfilment than any thing else.

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

man console that much behind??

Gddr6 coming next year on pc lol.

Should get worse.

Sarick980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

That and RRAM aka ReRAM should be in the market by 2015. This might not make games look better but it'll help with storage and instant on. Even speeding up the system by having a solid state type cache for large games.

Faster loading etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

The thing people forget is gaming consoles are designed in such a way that developer will use there potential until the product is discontinued.

Another thing I've notice is people talking res and FPS. I any developer could create a flat one tone image at 1080p 60FPS. It's the environment, textures, animation, game play, and physics that make a game good. There are more factors then just refresh rate and how many pixels are on the screen.

A lot of things could happen in a few years that make PC evolve more. Most of us know the console we buy will get its fair share of the market interest from the developers even if it's not the latest tech.

DeadlyFire980d ago

I think its more to do with them not getting enough time with the hardware. They have a launch window they need to make. In the next couple of years as they adjust to the hardware expect the next Battlefield on consoles to look alot better than this one. It shouldn't disappoint by any means though unless your a PC diehard. Then just buy the PC version.

SatanSki980d ago

Its expected but as well trully sad. New consoles arent even out, yet they cant handle current pc graphics. Wasnt that bad last gen.

Cernunnos980d ago

It was just the same, but the media did not have the same focus on specs, and the consoles back then didn't have hardware that was easy to compare to PC's, due to the different arcitechtures.

SatanSki979d ago

I am not concerned with the specs, im concerned they cant handle new BF on highest pc details

PeaceKeeper980d ago SpamShowReplies(1)
thezeldadoth980d ago

its not 64 players on the console version

CrimsonSquall980d ago

Next Gen ala PS4/XB1 yes for 64. Current ala PS3/360 no.

trancefreak980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

So what happens in 3-4 years when the consoles plateau? Do we settle for less detailed environments in the sake of 1080p? Or 720P upscaled going to be the norm. I much rahter prefer less effects for a crisper rez of 1080p TBH.

I guess time will tell, and we all know both consoles being in a closed environment will do a lot more when coding is refined, and optimal multi tasked code threading software techniques being applied.

What I really want to know since every time we see these graphical masterpieces being displayed; they are on the latest high end systems in sli. I want to know how well a GTX 680 will run this game. It is possible that Frostbite will be better optimized in the future for consoles(Meaning BF4 1080p would be achievable on these consoles today) just the lack of time and launch window prohibits this capability IMO.

It also is a fact that these PC first games are always showcasing the latest PC GPU in SLI UberWare to get people to purchase the latest GPU cards. From my experience of PC gaming there are always so many games having issues in SLI that sometimes its better to have a more powerful GPU solution. Not always but sometimes.

In closing, I believe these consoles will see incredible graphical leaps in time. Just at this point with such a close launch window games need to get pushed out on time. The Next Gen consoles are fresh technology for developers to grasp and harness all of their capabilities and potential. It will come just like every other console generation we see the the boundless leeps until the console are pegged out which would start another Gen.

fullmetal297980d ago

@Maninja
The Tweet you posted isn't from a Battlefield developer and in fact is just a regular person who makes youtube videos, so it's not creditable in any way.

Syntax-Error980d ago

if I dont see any graphical difference between 360 and X1...IT'S GHOSTS FOR ME. Screw that shit. No one is going to sell me a port and call it NEXT GEN