Battlefield 3: 30FPS on Consoles, Dice Explains Why 60FPS Not Possible

New information has surfaced today about how the game will run on home consoles and it has been confirmed the game will not hit 60 frames-per-second. Instead the game will run lower due to technical restraints of the current technology level of the home consoles.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
NYC_Gamer2470d ago

new hardware is needed for this reason and many others

Abash2470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

I'd rather have nice looking visuals than dated tech running at 60 fps (Modern Warfare 3). I'm sure DICE worked as hard as they could to get the game looking like that on consoles. If Battlefield fans want 60 fps and 64 player matches, they should shell out the cash for a PC that can handle it

MitchGE2470d ago

God Of War III runs at 60fps and looks a lot better than Battlefield 3 on consoles. Hell it's still the best looking console game out there in my eyes.

gamingdroid2470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

I would rather have faster response time i.e. 60 fps, as I care more about game play than visuals.

Then again, 30fps is still decent if it maintains that.

meetajhu2470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

Rage looks and runs better in 60fps and its a sandbox game.

console footage:

not every one is john carmack

St02470d ago

You can see they had to reduce texture resolution for the consoles to achieve 60fps on Rage though

mtm59252470d ago

60fps is nothing to to with low res textures in Rage.

media storage is the only limiting factor in virtual texturing.

flankhim2470d ago

Yet it is possible for call of duty. Take that BF fanboys!

St02470d ago

Ofcourse texture resolution makes a difference to framerate lol. Your also right about disk space though

Angels37852470d ago


Thats because MW3 is running on ancient tech and is not even in the same graphical league as BF3.

Newtype2470d ago

MW never ran at 60FPS on console.

mtm59252470d ago

@St0 You're right on static or dynamic texturing, but not on virtual texturing.!/ID_A...!/ID_A...

Inside_out2470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

WoW, since E3 it's excuses and more excuses. First Johnny boy at EA was like Booby Kotick thinks that the E3 footage was PC then he is in real trouble, then it was console footage would be shown on the Jimmy Fallon show for the first time...O_o...then all the excuses of why the PS3 footage looked no different than an Xbox 1 game from 2004. Now it's something else, 60 fps is to hard and resource

Some games will run better at 30fps than others and the same for 60 fps. Where 60 fps really pays off is in very fast moving scene's and action like in Forza 4 or GT. MW3 is all about fast, explosive action and the devs from the get go wanted 60fps and in that case it really paid off as there is a clear advantage in COD over the wannabes. Another area is in all the in game cines that look so great in MW3 and Battlefield 3 like when they were running down that alley with the dog barking in the background behind the fence...extremely smooth. That scene and others like it will have to be cut scenes to maintain the same level of fidelity. Lately, motion blur has come to the forefront as a way to try and blend the background and make things appear smoother at lower frame rates. KZ3 and Gears 3 are a couple fantastic examples.

As more and more information comes out as the final release date nears, people will see that big mouth Dice, while calling all other devs lazy, will be shown to be no different. They are gimping the console version and everybody suppose to pay $10 more for the privilege.

ProjectVulcan2470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

St0 - Texture fillrate is kinda important...

In the case of framerate, its all about getting your frame rendered and output to the front buffer in time. The more you add to it, the more complex it is, the more passes you add, the more difficult it is to fit it inside that 1/60th of a second on console hardware for 60 frames.

Most console games start out with a budget of 1/30th of a second for 30 frames and i think they will continue to do so, exceptions being where developers value a fast response over better visuals. This is still mostly racing simulations on console, with the odd shooter.

In the end it is a developer's decision, and developers might feel that console gamers care more that their title looks good compared to competing games rather than how much quicker it responds- which isn't something you can easily convey in screenshots or videos. This is why most would still choose 30 frames.

As for the COD games, we know how they make 60 frames, and it is by compromising elsewhere. Most signifcantly for me is the resolution where the titles run only about 67 percent of the res of a 1280 x 720 title on console.

AAACE52470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

It's starting to feel like DICE are saying..."F*ck console gamers, no matter which system they own!"

Why even show the footage to us if that's not what we're getting?

I guess they are trying to get us to buy high end PC's! I am starting to downgrade this game in my day 1 buy list!

ALFAxD_CENTAURO2470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

Even at 30FPS, BF3 still looking better than the rehashed COD in every way.

COD is using the same engine over again. BF3 is a Generation above MW3.

NBT912470d ago

MitchGE - God of War 3 is an irrelevant example in comparison. It is a different genre for one, and an exclusive for another.

Ducky2470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

"Why even show the footage to us if that's not what we're getting?"

They're showing you footage of a game that you can get. They never state that the game you buy will look like that, only that it can look that good, and anyways, it doesn't make much sense to be showing an inferior version of a game in order to promote.

BeOneWithTheGun2470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

@mitchge In all fairness, GOW 3 does not have destructible environments and is really linear. If Kratos was able to interact with all that stuff going on in the background, in a non-scripted event, then there is no way they could have kept it locked at 60fps.

Shackdaddy8362470d ago

@mitch God of War is a completely different type of game.

Lifendz2470d ago

I'm beginning to feel like how a non-hockey fan in Vancouver must have felt following the recent riots. Guys, I don't get why so many of you are outraged over this game. Every story to come out about this game thus far have resulted in nerd rage and I don't get it.
1) Pre-order exclusives. No biggie to me but you would've thought BF3 said no DLC for a console.
2) Live-footage of the PS3 version not looking as good as the PC version. Seriously, who expected it to. Still looks better than MW3.

and now we're upset it's not 60 fps?

evrfighter12470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

hopefully by now DICE is sick of the console community and starts pushing EA to let them get back to their pc roots.

and cod is not even hd lol

Theonetheonly2470d ago

Dude consoles got the benefit with every other game for the last 6 years, the only reason the pc version didnt look miles better is because they didnt go there and left out uneccessarry detail.

Now we finally get one of our favorites who took the time (From Our OWN DAMN developer and sub-genre nonetheless) and you all bitch about it?

I say its about time we didnt get the shaft.

i think its pretty meniacal that anyone thought any of that 60 fps 1080 6k textures would come out of this.

come on think realistically

socomnick2470d ago

Yup 60 fps is way more desirable for shooters.

60 fps means lower controller input lag.

This is why people often feel like cod has the best shooter controls out there.

Its the super smooth fast controller input lag that is a direct result of 60 fps.

snipes1012470d ago

The whole console community is starting to look like a bunch of petulant children. WE'RE GETTING THE GAME < why can't we just look at the good in that? I wouldn't blame Dice for saying fuck it and never giving us console gamers a game again the way we're acting about this.

I swear for all the good this generation brought to the gaming community it seems that all anyone can talk about anymore is the stupid tech. Why can't we talk about how the damn things play anymore?

lil Titan2470d ago

@flankhim when the company has the same engine since 2007 i wouldnt be surprised that they could do it.

Everyone needs to give Dice a break i mean throw darts at them if they cant hit 60fps on Bad Company 3 but for Battlefield 3 they still getting used to the tech people i mean even Killzone 2 as amazing that game looked was 30fps its only until Killzone 3 that they hit 60fps

evrfighter12470d ago

so console gamers want 1080p and they want 60fps...

im trying to contain my laughter here. they got a taste of what pc gaming is and now they don't wanna go back.

can't blame em

starchild2470d ago

lil titan, you don't know what you are talking about.

Killzone 3 does not operate at 60fps. It actually fluctuates between about 20fps and 30fps...mostly between 25fps and 30fps.

The only shooters that I can think of that run at 60fps on consoles are The COD games and the upcoming Rage.

The vast majority of console games run at 30fps or lower.

Battlefield 3 is one of the best looking games on consoles, has destruction unlike any other, and runs at the same frame rate the vast majority of console games run at. What's the problem again?

Shepherd 2142470d ago

Is everyone here somehow forgetting that Battlefield 3 supports a full-on destructible environment system? Maybe that's why 60FPS is impossible for BF3 to achieve but Rage, COD, and GOW3 can do it? And lets not forget that the console version of BF3 is no slouch in the graphics department either.


dgroundwater2470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

Rage won't have near the onscreen carnage of a typical BF3 scene in SP or MP either. The player cap alone prevents a 60FPS load on an old console.

Voxelman2469d ago

God of war 3 actually fluctuates between 30-60fps they gave up on 60 before the game shipped...

+ Show (26) more repliesLast reply 2469d ago
Enate2470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

New tech to soon will result in only a slight increase and it will be outdated instantly. Leaps must be made in all avenues in order to warrant a new console. It is not a PC with incremental upgrades. PS1 to PS2 to PS3 were all huge steps not just giving you the ability to play at a higher resolution. It takes much more then that an a slight increase all around.

When new consoles come out or at least Sony's it has always been a leap from the predecessor. There are so many things to consider when bringing out a new console I don't think a lot of people consider. If you look at what it takes to run every game on PC 1080p 60fps max settings its far to expensive. Sandy Bridge is a leap look at the $225 i5 2500k next last gens 980x $1000 processor. An you will understand what a leap is. Cost met power and performance this must happen in every aspect for a new console to come out. Graphics cards have still yet to meet a jump like that with cost and performance.

Enate2470d ago

Yea ok 8 disagrees but not 1 reply they really need to make it mandatory to reply if you wish to disagree. I would love to see why all these people seem to disagree.

arjman2469d ago (Edited 2469d ago )

I can't tell you how wrong you are about pc gaming being expensive, a decent mid range card can max out most games of today at 1080p 60fps. Also, pretty much any tri or quad core processor can reach the magical 60fps (with the right gpu), you just listed the most expensive processor you can think of, a phenom 955 can max out most games today and thats dirt cheap.

You don't need to spend thousands of dollars to see how much better pc games look...

Enate2469d ago (Edited 2469d ago )

arjman You fail to realize I said all games for a reason. Some is such a vague word. The reason I say all is because the next step people seem to expect nex gen to go is 1080p. Quite a few people today still need to upgrade to keep the latest games 60fps 1080p max settings. Unless you dropped a grip on your current graphics card.

RBLAZE19882470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

I still am dumbfounded that developers have to explain why it's 30 fps and not 60 fps...The graphics push the console there is no way that most games out now can do 60 fps on consoles. The only way that the COD games can do it every year is because everything in those games is prerendered...pre-rendered shadows, lighting, etc...There is nothing that is dynamic and interactive in terms of graphics and that's why cod can run at 60 fps. Most graphics engines today support dynamic graphics techniques like global lighting and illumination, SSAO and dynamic soft shadows...If people are going to bitch they should at least research what they're bitching about before opening their mouths.

RankFTW2470d ago

Developers have to keep explaining this because most people are thick. It was pretty obvious from day 1 that this game would not run at 1080p or 60fps on consoles.

hiredhelp2470d ago

First few ppl start moaning not same as PC
Then its a fuss about it being in 720p
And now frame rate holly *****

Xavy2470d ago

True that, but we will have to wait a bit. Surely both sony an MS want to sqeeze every drop of $ from there consoles.
BF3 loooks nice thou =)

50Terabytespersec2470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

DUHHHH DEE DEE DEE , did we really need an explanation for this/??
IF PS3 HAD 2GB of Expandable RAM this wouldn't be an issue!!!
PC Cards have more RAM and that is the MAJOR game changer!!!
How many frames and polygons and textures can you fit into measly 256MB or 512 ??? sound Physics all that!!
I will not buy a Next Gen console unless it has a Minimum of 2GB VRAM!! Dedicated FAST RAM
for a CPU that is starving
the Bandwidth and the small Ram combo is useless it hit it's RAM Max years ago and Bluray has so much data to offer (F' you cheap Sony!!). devolpers are constantly coping with ram limited BS!!

Organization XII2470d ago

couldn't said it any better myself! +Bubs

showtimefolks2470d ago

i am all for new hardware but RAGE is doing 60fps so its possible to do so on these consoles with amazing graphics that RAGE is showing it can be done.

sarlucic2469d ago

Do rage have the destruction that bf 3 have? The same lightning? And so on. And on top of that, if you ever been involved in game development you would know that they start with deciding how many fps they want the game to run at, and then build the game around that. It is not something easily changed afterwards, and higher fps always comes at a cost. They write large documents of several hundred pages of every single item in the game, with all props, down to a little brick. The poly count, texture size, texture bits, and how many draw calls every item cost. And after that they sit in profilers and look at graphs to make changes that take days just to get 0.3 fps more.

and so on. Fact is, this game look amazing on really old hardware, and the destruction is a technical wonder.

showtimefolks2469d ago

and where did i say Bf3 doesn't look good my point was to the other person that if someone wants to achieve they can make a game run 60fps

BF fanboys are just as bad as COD

AKS2470d ago

WTF is going on with these articles informing us of what just about everyone has known for years. No, the consoles aren't going to have a game as demanding as BF3 running at 1080p. Cranking everything and trying to do 1080p and above could be challenging for many PCs.

What's next with these lame articles? "Console Versions Can Not Match Crossfired 6990s" "Console Versions Do Not Feature 32x TSAA" Yeah, I already knew that. Anyone with a bit of common sense could predict the stuff they keep rambling about.

Enate2470d ago

Thank you AKS that's what I've been saying. This game 1080p max everything is going to take quite a rig to run at 60fps locked.

Dude4202470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

For the record, God of War 3 is not, I repeat, NOT constantly 60fps. It's very noticeable when there's a lot going on. It's 60 fps when there's no action. However there are exceptions, some battles in small areas are 60 fps, but places with no action but a lot of detail can have frame rate drops as well

t0mmyb0y2469d ago

Are lots of people actually complaining about BF3?? I keep seeing these articles, but why not about other games that aren't "1080p and 60 FPS". What is this world coming to?

subtenko2469d ago

GOW3 was 60fps.... point made...

There are other ps3 games that are 60fps so when I read the title of this article I was like wtf...

I know I remember of the specs for ps3 exclusives being 60fps when I was reading up on certain games.

So its possible and its done.

Aarix2466d ago

-_- as said above god of war was not locked at 60fps during most battles with alot going on the framerate goes down. If Kratos was able to interact with all that stuff going on in the background, in a non-scripted event, then there is no way they could have kept it locked at 60fps.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 2466d ago
Kon2470d ago

People are having such high expectations for the console version. What did you guys expected? 60FPS ,1080p, 64players?

Ser2470d ago

You act as if 64 players can't be done on consoles. :P

-Alpha2470d ago

Not with total real time destruction and some other tradeoffs

vsr2470d ago

@ Kon
As a PS3 gamer I expect 1080p 60fps (like GT5/wipeout)

64 players like resisence/mag

what did xbox guys expected ?

soundslike2470d ago

I believe DICE said they didn't try to make a trade off for 64 players because it wasn't in "demand", not because it wasn't possible.

But I take that as a "we could, but you probably wouldn't like the result"

Scroticus2470d ago


Dude, I'm sorry....But PS3 doesn't run many 1080p games either.

Mag? Runs at 720p Maximum.
Resistance? 720p as well.

What do them console guys expect? PC?

Dude4202469d ago (Edited 2469d ago )

@ vsr

I thought GT5 ran at 1280x1080 during races? That's not real 1080p, that would be 1920x1080.

Edit: Ah yes that's what I thought, quote from Digital Foundry.

"The game still renders at native 720p with 4x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) when your XMB is set to 720p mode, while the resolution shifts to 1280x1080 with 2x quincunx (QAA) when the 1080p mode is engaged. So we're not seeing anything like native 1080p resolution here, but you are getting a 50 per cent increase in the number of pixels rendered."

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2469d ago
RedDead2470d ago

Sony said it would be the norm, even advertised it on the back of their box.

fireplace2470d ago

They also advertised SA-CD and Linux.

Ser2470d ago


My bad, lack of clarity on my part. I meant that 64 players is way more realistic than native 1080p and 60fps.

I'm speaking for all console shooters, not just BF3.

jdfoster002470d ago

Don't forget MAG wasn't a 64 player game... It was a 128 player game... (1 side) ....(If you count both sides it adds up to 256 people online) Yes MAG was capable of delivering 256 players with super visuals (No real time destruction though)

BeOneWithTheGun2470d ago

@jdfoster. Super visuals? MAG? I respectfully beg to differ. It looked like Homefront.

DirtyLary2470d ago

Sorry Jdfoster00 MAG textures were low also.

tmoss7262470d ago

Yeah seriously, I think they're doing a good job for 5-6 year old hardware. People expect the game to look the same as PC.

subtenko2469d ago

the Playstation 3 game MAG has 256 player. xbox fans said it would lag but there is no lag at all,lol. I love Sony 1st party servers <3

biggest fps out there. I will still get BF3 tho, just to add to the diversity. MAG, BF3, KZ3. eh...I wanna add UT3 one plays the mods online for some strange reason..

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2466d ago
lazertroy2470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

360 version not PS3. I guarantee you both version will look Identical which means only one thing.

DirtyLary2470d ago (Edited 2470d ago )

No they wont. Bc2 PS3 and XBOX were completely different looking. Zoom in a tree and you'll see how they dumbed down the visuals on the xbox vs the ps3. Past it's prime hardware.

Gunshot2470d ago

We need new consoles, current gen is getting a bit long in the tooth.

waltyftm2470d ago

No we dont, No they aint.