Top
560°

DICE: Don’t worry about Battlefield 3 on console

VG247: "Battlefield 3 executive producer Patrick Bach has told VG247 that, while the shooter’s PC version is graphically “better” than its console siblings, gamers should stop worrying about the console editions."

The story is too old to be commented.
waltyftm2178d ago

Don't worry about us console owners, we got Uncharted 3, Gears 3 and Resistance 3 single/multiplayer to keep us occupied, and no doubt VERY HAPPY.

Pixel_Pusher2178d ago (Edited 2178d ago )

There's no way in hell I'm going to miss out on nextgen/photorealistic games just because MS, Sony have these little notions that hardware should only be upgraded every 10 years or so.

I'll keep my PS3 for the exclusives but everything else I'll get on PC.

@Dartower
Absolutely agree with you. Apple should delay their next product just so you can feel good about having the latest version of a gadget.

DarkTower8052178d ago (Edited 2178d ago )

@pixel_pusher, "these little notions" lol. I hope Sony and MS never follow suit of companies like Apple who release new versions of ipad, iphone and ipod every year. I'm perfectly happy with my PS3 this gen, and PS4 will come out soon enough.

Imagine how rediculous it would be to have to upgrade a PS3 to play a new game.

Theonetheonly2177d ago

I just really hope this game doesnt have a delay.

I want it NOW!

Lazy_Sunday2177d ago (Edited 2177d ago )

I understand, yes, but it's been more than a year since the PS3 was released. In fact, we're going on 5 years for the PS3, and 6 for the 360. When did we start the last console gen? Oh yeah, in 6 years.
Not that I'm insinuating we need a new console every year. No, far from it. In fact, I suggest we follow the Apple policy in a slower manner. We make PS3.5's, since everyone's got to bitch about how they're totally okay with the fact that they're running on five year old crap machines my Macbook Air can sadly match performance-wise.
Think about this: some people aren't okay with the fact that their console games run at 600p instead of 1080p. Some people aren't content with 25FPS dropping frequently, they want a solid 60FPS without buying into PC gaming (since it sucks community-wise). Well, consoles could simply deliver a new device every 3 years that matches the standard today, and allows us to reach the height we want. That way, all you stubborn "investors" out there get your money's worth and can play your games at crappy resolutions, and the people who actually beg for their games to have some graphical clarity can get it from a branded source. The games will still run at the same 29FPS crap they have forever on the old shit, the only difference is that people who want the next big thing can get it and it will play better. There will then be so many versions of the PS-whatever that there will be no need for graphics comparisons, since the 360 would follow suit, and they'd be constantly out-doing each other.
This is my solution. There will be no need for backwards compatibility because it will remain "Playstation," much like the iPhone 1 can still run iPhone 4 games, vice versa. It just works, and it keeps moving forward.

Yes, it's essentially a PC. But I can guarantee you that's what a LOT of people want to spend their money on. But I don't want to sit back while we start hitting 20FPS gaming. Faster graphics=less vlag. Less vlag=better gameplay. Better gameplay=better experience.

nickjkl2177d ago

you are so right we should upgrade our consoles every 3 years

and have to start an entire new library of games

i believe that's called pc gaming except you get to keep your library of games

why do all these people want to force a pc life cycle on consoles

Substance1012177d ago (Edited 2177d ago )

Most of my friends only use consoles for exclusives anything else is bought on pc, hence we dont really care about the console version of a multiplat, its known there almost always is a compromise. In this particular case the gap is just wider.

pinkyxyz2177d ago

If you have a pc then good for you, but what does that have to do with consoles? Get real, we have been upgrading consoles every 5-6 years since the nes days and not only is it fiscally responsible for the company but it also allows developers to optimize their code in their games (something that is rarely achieved on pc's because of yearly turnovers. Consoles aren't holding your battlefield experience back, because its all up to you whether you purchase it on the pc or not.

Ju2177d ago (Edited 2177d ago )

"why do all these people want to force a pc life cycle on consoles"

I don't understand that either. If the PC is that great, why not just stick with it.

I do not want a console to be a PC. It is too much PC like already. Well, I think it could have more of an app store at some point, but installing games? While I don't really mind, I'd rather get rid of the feature ASAP. Instant play, that's what I want. And Zero configuration is a must.

I hope the next gen will be available when the tech tops off (sort of) and will last forever, tbh. Every cycle should add some more years. Glad the current gens stretch that time already, next gen should last even longer.

You can play a game from 2005 and the latest and greatest from today without needing to worry if your driver won't break that damn thing.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2177d ago
TBM2178d ago

Im not worried Dice im liking what im seeing. Getting the game day one on PS3.

chriski3332177d ago

Not worried at all day 1 for ps3

Ju2177d ago

Yes, very happy. Even more happy adding BF3 to that list.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2177d ago
Dart892178d ago

I'm not worried these people dont gimp the other version unlike *cough Treyarch cough*.

DarkTower8052178d ago (Edited 2178d ago )

Really? How many players does the console vs pc version support again?

Don't get me wrong, the console version will be good, but only as good as console tech can allow. There is no choice but to gimp the console version down.

2178d ago
2178d ago
2178d ago
2178d ago
vyke32178d ago

am i seeing wrong or did neonlight45 reply to you four times? lol.

Ser2177d ago

There's nothing gimped about the console versions.

Lower player count = gimped? I don't consider that a gimp.

I'm pretty sure Dart86 was talking about PS3 vs 360, not console vs PC. Of course the PC will have a larger player count - there's more to work with on a PC. DICE did all they could on consoles, and to me that means nothing was gimped.

Hardware limitations =/= gimped game.

What Treyarch did with the PS3 version of BlOps is an entirely different can of worms. THAT'S a game that was gimped.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2177d ago
ATi_Elite2178d ago (Edited 2178d ago )

Worry? Hell I haven't thought about it one bit!! lol

we've seen the PS3 version which looked good and i'm sure the 360 version will be fine.

Pl4sm42178d ago

im a little worried .... because 24 players is very low , im 100% sure that the ps3 can do 34 players (if they use the 8 cells).... the xbox on the other hand would be left out and microsoft would cry and cry then the ps3 and xbox are getting 24players ...on a side note .... Im glad this gen is almost over .... 1 - 3 more years and the ps4 would be the most powerfull gaming machine out there ..........again

kaveti66162178d ago

only 6 SPEs can be used for gaming.

Letros2178d ago

It's bandwidth standards that MS and Sony dictate that limits the game to 24 players, not processing power.

BattleTorn2178d ago

@letros

Ya games like Homefront and MAG totally don't exist.

The_Claw2177d ago

@Battle Torn
theres a reason why Mag looks like a ps2 game.

dantesparda2177d ago

It could be MS' fault, since they want parity across all platforms and you barely see more than 24 players on the 360. Which is funny cuz the first game i went online with on the 360 did 32 players online (PDZ)

JellyJelly2177d ago

If you look at what's going on in Battlefields multiplayer with fully destructible environments, land/sea/air vehicles etc compared to games like MAG, Homefront and others you'd understand why.

Ju2177d ago (Edited 2177d ago )

Yeah, real performance measures would be interesting. Socom4 is also a Zipper game - assuming the net code is the same - and that tops off at 32 players. The visuals heavily improved over MAG, though. Killzone 3 is down to 24 players (but KZ2 managed to have 32).

We'll see where BF3 will end up. I am curious to see if they can top UC3/KZ3 visually. I would be surprised if they can with there very first attempt (harnessing the PS3 power - BC2 was different tech; not sure if that counts). If they do, thouhg, 24 players is quite OK, IMO.

I prefer smaller maps and player count without the need to run across the whole battlefield all the time. With jets and tanks that might be a bit different; and more would be nicer for a full blown war scenario. Still, should be good. Can't wait.

Ser2177d ago

Why worry? Have you played Bad Company 2 on consoles? It's totally enjoyable with only 24 players.

I still play it to this very day.

Pl4sm42177d ago (Edited 2177d ago )

i love the disagrees ... keep at it lol ..........@brakblack .. 24 is fine ... but the thing is that the xbox keeps downgrading the multyplat games like crazy ... and there is nothing to stop it until the next gen comes

_Aarix_2177d ago

1 is disabled and one is used for the xmb.

cloak3652177d ago

How is 24 players very low? Hell my friends list never really has more then 6 people on at the same time on the same game

Persistantthug2177d ago

All BF games on consoles are run via EA's own ded. servers.
Sony has no restriction when you pay for your own stuff.

Letros2177d ago

Oh, you wanted proof Persistanthug? It's pretty common knowledge.

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum...

Persistantthug2177d ago (Edited 2177d ago )

EA polices their own servers....not Sony.

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 2177d ago
user8586212178d ago

Not worried at all.... since I'm getting it on pc lol

latinalover2178d ago

bacon > PC