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."
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.
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.
@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.
I just really hope this game doesnt have a delay. I want it NOW!
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
Im not worried Dice im liking what im seeing. Getting the game day one on PS3.
Not worried at all day 1 for ps3
Yes, very happy. Even more happy adding BF3 to that list.
I'm not worried these people dont gimp the other version unlike *cough Treyarch cough*.
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.
am i seeing wrong or did neonlight45 reply to you four times? lol.
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.
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.
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
only 6 SPEs can be used for gaming.
It's bandwidth standards that MS and Sony dictate that limits the game to 24 players, not processing power.
@letros Ya games like Homefront and MAG totally don't exist.
@Battle Torn theres a reason why Mag looks like a ps2 game.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
1 is disabled and one is used for the xmb.
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
All BF games on consoles are run via EA's own ded. servers. Sony has no restriction when you pay for your own stuff.
Oh, you wanted proof Persistanthug? It's pretty common knowledge. http://forum.ea.com/eaforum...
EA polices their own servers....not Sony.
Not worried at all.... since I'm getting it on pc lol
bacon > PC