DICE Responds To Gamers Disappointed Over PS3 Footage Of Battlefield 3

While most console gamers are more than satisfied with the PS3 footage of Battlefield 3 shown on late night with Jimmy Fallon last night, there are some who say they’re somewhat disappointed in the showing, claiming it’s a downgrade from what we’ve been seeing all along after DICE had promised it’d look the same across all platforms.

Well the developer’s responded to that, making quite clear their intentions.

Read Full Story >>
Pedantic914683d ago

And even i find those complaints stupid as hell.

Seriously, who in there right mind would ever expect the console version to look better than the PC version ?

blumatt4683d ago (Edited 4683d ago )

That pretty much explains it. lol And, more than likely, most of the people complaining are the ones that have a $2000+ PC rig that are trying to make themselves feel better by complaining about the PS3 version's graphics. haha I personally thought the footage shown was excellent for console graphics. I'm getting it on PS3 and I'm about to get a new Mac that could play it on very high specs. Why? Because all my friends are on PS3. (And because I prefer a DualShock to a keyboard.)

Also, the graphics isn't the only thing that's been improved. The destruction looks very well implemented and the ability to help out a fallen foe is certainly a welcome addition.

Well, my statement might have been a bit hyperbolic, but you get what I'm saying. That's still much more expensive than a $300 PS3 console.

Bolts4683d ago

You don't need a $2000 PC gaming rig to make BF3 look better than the PS3. $700 should do it.

DualConsoleOwner4683d ago (Edited 4683d ago )

The game may still be the best looking multiplatform title.Having said that, i don't think they are fully using the power of the cell.

PS3 exclusives like Killzone 3, God of War 3 and Uncharted 2 looks way better than any multiplat titles out there..

I am beginning to wonder if multiplat devs will ever fully use the power of the cell.

whats up with the disagrees??
All i said was game looks great but not as good as existing PS3 exclusives... which is true.

Montrealien4683d ago (Edited 4683d ago )

at least seven people clearly have no idea what it costs to build a good gaming PC since they disagreed with fanboi, and are mad.. I just did mine for 600$ granted I already had a monitor.

and lol @ saying "using the full power of the cell" in 2011

theIMP4683d ago

@ DualConsoleOwner
I think you're going a little far with the "WAY BETTER" thing. Also what exclusive are you talking about that’s doing half of what BF3 is? I really want to know so I can go buy it tonight. Please don't take this the wrong way. I love every game you just listed, but to compare a game like GOW3 where you can't even move the camera to a game like BF 3 that has that much stuff going on at one time is pretty sill if you ask me. Again I love GOW3, hell and 1, 2, Chains of Olympus, and Ghost of Sparta, but they are not even in the same league as this.

Montrealien4683d ago

To be fair, on the PC, Arma 2 does way more then half of what BF3 does, and it looks pretty damn good. Does that count as an exclusive? since it kinda is.

Ve_Chuy4683d ago

dualshock to a keyboard on a shooter hahahahaha u made my day

dyennam4683d ago

@ Ve-Chuy

Dude he was just telling his opinion on what he prefers.

B00M4683d ago

Montrealien - Yeh agree with what you said on Arma 2. I've tried the demo but its just so glitchy and the controls feel horrible. Graphics arent bad but it is a demanding game.

pandehz4683d ago

Misleading horsecrap.

Make statements with logic and facts. Try not to mix em up with ur version of facts.

2000$? Gimme

ProjectVulcan4683d ago

Looks amazing in the PC shots. Perfectly acceptable on console.

Anyone that thinks consoles in the later stages of their lifespan could stand up to a decent gaming PC needs their heads checking.

PC gamers will have paid more and they will get more when it comes to visuals. That is life and that is how it should be

Ulf4683d ago (Edited 4683d ago )

People love to exclude the keyboard, mouse, and OS and when they "build a custom gaming rig for under X $$$", or the coffee table you'd need to set up to use those things (in the livingroom) without a monitor and computer desk as well.

It's pretty tiresome to hear PC fanboys go on and on about how cheap a "good" gaming PC is, when its basically BS, unless you plan on scavenging components from an old PC, pirating a copy of Windows ("re-using" it is actually illegal, you know), and already have a decent monitor, desk, speakers, etc., or plan on setting up your living room to have said gaming PC -- which is a huge irritant for most people.

The PS3 version looks great for what it is. I'm not complaining, and I'm not bothering to get it on PC, despite owning a PC which can give my PS3 a performance beatdown.

DaTruth4683d ago

Although a $700 PC is all you need, he said he is getting a MAC; whatever you can get in a PC will cost you a helluva lot more as a MAC!

ProjectVulcan4683d ago (Edited 4683d ago )

@ Ulf

Probably because a keyboard and mouse are cheap peripherals and you can get them for next to nothing all the way up to uber prices as you choose. As are monitors, when you can use a HDTV same as a console.

PC is a flexible system with many options. Many are obvious and shouldn't need to be explained constantly like i find myself doing to people here who only present one side of an argument. Flexibility is one of the great assets of the system. Table? Stand? You could use a pad or wireless keyboards etc or build a small, discreet, powerful HTPC that fits on a tv stand. Same place where a console might go. Vast options to suit anyone's requirements desiring a gaming PC.

It is tiresome for me too listening to console only gamers forgetting stuff like extra peripherals for their machine, or online subscription renewals or bigger hard drives or games that are always more expensive over the life of their console ownership which would add up to many hundreds of £/$ more than PC versions...

This works both ways. Think. I have owned every major console from every generation since the late 80's and have a nice gaming PC setup. Many people now consider their PC as an essential home item and would not be without one. So i consider it extra value if the PC can also play games besides the other stuff you might always use one for.

People are going to talk about a budget gaming PC which would certainly destroy aging consoles especially when it is in a topic about a special looking PC game such as this. Other people should at least accept that is going to happen instead of launching into a tirade.

Tank_Commander_E64683d ago (Edited 4683d ago )

They're disappointed? Did they expect it to look exactly like the PC version? F***ing idiots.

BF3 looks a million times better than MW3. I can't wait to checkout the rest of the game hopefully we'll get new footage soon.


What the f**k are talking about and why do you awesome it's PS3 gamers that are complaining?

HSx94683d ago Show
gamingdroid4683d ago (Edited 4683d ago )

When I first saw the footage of BF3 at E3, I was like wow, that some seriously good graphics! Until my friend told me, that is PC!

Well, how the heck am I suppose to know it is PC footage if they don't say it and show it during one of the three's console manufacturers conference?

Maybe that has something to do with it? Maybe the marketing department have been talking sh!t up about new engine, Frostbite 2, and people got their expectations up? Combine that with the footage they have shown?

@Ju below:

So the PS3 is actually more similar to PC, as many games requires an installation. KB/Mouse say hello to controller.

I don't think PC will replace consoles in the near future, but they are more similar than you think.

Ju4683d ago Show
HeroComplex4683d ago Show
xTruthx4683d ago (Edited 4683d ago )

All the people who disagreed with this

"You don't need a $2000 PC gaming rig to make BF3 look better than the PS3. $700 should do it. "

Have probably never build a computer part from part

"Well, how the heck am I suppose to know it is PC footage if they don't say it and show it during one of the three's console manufacturers conference"

It was pretty clear it was running on PC when they showed the guy with a keyboard and mouse right at the beginning

Tank_Commander_E64683d ago

obviously I meant to write assume instead of awesome. XD

slayorofgods4683d ago (Edited 4683d ago )

Anyone that believes that it costs 2000 dollars to have a gaming pc is ignorant.

Some of you are sounding ridiculous; PS3 owners on here are acting like the PC gamers are the ones putting down the PS3 version, not true. All they are saying is it doesn't cost 2000 dollars to have a gaming PC. A 700 dollar gaming PC is very realistic, I only paid 500 for my build and it runs most games on very high.

Elwenil4683d ago

I think a lot of people are put off by the whole expensive PC thing. While $2k is a bit much, it's understandable for someone buying a "in the box" PC and not building it from scratch. Personally, while you can build a $700 gaming rig now, it will be damn near useless in a few years so you are probably better off to spend $2k or so to build one so it will be relevant a little longer rather than dump almost a grand every few years. I know my old Pentium 4 rig I'm on now was a compromise when I built it in '05 and now it's next to worthless for new games. I can't hope to run ARMA 3 on it as it barely ran the original ARMA on low settings. I swore my next build would be with the best tech that was available at the time so it would be a little more "future resistant". I'm not talking ridiculous $1k i7 Extreme processors but at least an i7 of some sort and a current generation graphics card and enough RAM to be useful until an upgrade is needed provided the motherboard can handle it. For me, this will require everything new except for the tower case itself, which is a shame since I hate this Ultra POS I have now. My Thermaltake 480w power supply? Useless on a modern rig. My old PATA drives? RAM? 8X AGP graphics card? P4M900 MB? All useless for a modern rig. My monitor is new but my old G15 keyboard and G7 mouse have just about had it so those will need replacing also.

So while you can build a PC for gaming for $700 for some people, you can't logically disagree with other people who say that such a PC will not fit their individual needs. $700 is a drop in the bucket compared to what I will need for my next gaming PC.

lil Titan4683d ago

i thought the game looked decent being that ITS NOT FINISHED YET smh wait until the game releases

AKS4683d ago

Seems like there's a lot of hate being thrown at PC gamers. I game around 50/50 PC and PS3 most of the time (and own a Wii and 360), and I have no problem with the way the PS3 verion looks. I think DICE has done a great jobs making the PC, 360, and PS3 versions of multiplatform games look great.

Aquanox4683d ago (Edited 4683d ago )

We're in the times of sli/crossfire setups (wih each GPU 4x more powerful than the ones on consoles), CPUs that easily overclock to 4.5Ghz and 8GB of DDR3 Ram now, and BF3 will most likely drain every bit of power of those setups. Why in hell wouldn't it look better than the PS3 version?

AKS4683d ago (Edited 4683d ago )


"$700 is a drop in the bucket compared to what I will need for my next gaming PC."

Need or want? You don't NEED to run every game at max. Perhaps you WANT to, so you will spend a lot more than you actually need to?

An overclocked Sandy Bridge i5 ($200) and decent mid to upper mid range card ($200 to $250; here's an XFX 6950 w/ STALKER Pripyat and Dirt 3 for $199 shipped http://www.newegg.com/Produ... ) will play every game on the market at respectable settings, just not always at max with the top end games.

Deputydon4683d ago (Edited 4683d ago )


Okay, and to get HD graphics from a PS3/Xbox 360 you need an HDTV *SHOCK*. So add that into the price of a console I suppose...

If you build your own PC (which is ridiculously easy anyways) you can get a pretty damn capable PC for pretty cheap. I just bought a new PC mainly because of BF3. I honestly have no clue if it will run the final product at 1080p on very high settings, but I'm positive it'll manage on at least high.

Nvidia GTX 560 Ti
Phenom II x4 955 BE (@3.6, easily OCed from 3.2)
8GBs of Ram
Asus M4N98TD EVO Motherboard

The reason people don't include keyboard and mouse. Do you REALLY need to buy new ones? I've used the same keyboard since CS:CZ came out. That's 7 years on the same crappy $8 crappy basic keyboard. I used a $14 Logitech Click mouse for years, best mouse I've ever used for gaming until it broke, about 6 years after I bought it.

Also, 'reusing' Windows is not illegal unless you have an OEM version. And that's because the OEM version is meant for 'system builders.' Which really means, companies looking to build system and sell them. Such as Dell. The serial number gets attached to that motherboard so it can't be reactivated on another motherboard. A RETAIL copy of Windows is free to reuse as much as you want. You just cannot have it activated on more than one computer at one time. Meaning if your household has multiple computers, in order to 'legally' have windows on each computer, you'd have to buy a copy for each PC.

In most cases you can even use the case from your old PC assuming it's not a Dell and is big enough... same with the HDD. Why would you not reuse hardware if given a chance? If the PS4 comes out and it uses the exact same controller as the PS3 just called 'Dual Shock 4' but the PS3 controller will still work on it, are you going to go out and purchase an extra dualshock 4 just because the name claims it's newer? Well, you might, I sure as hell would be happy using the old one. Just like i'm doing with my keyboard, mouse, HDD, and my RETAIL copy of Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit.

Oh, and for the record, I actually think the PS3 version looks pretty good for a console game. Not to mention I'm mainly a PS3 gamer (350+ hours of Demon's Souls). Yeah.

EDIT: I forgot to mention how much I paid for my new PC excluding all the reused things. I bought a new case as well. An Antec 300 for $60. I also bought a new PSU mainly because I wanted to, my old one was 500 watts which would have worked, but I wanted to make sure it was adaptable for the future (buying another 560 Ti for SLI down the road, which will effectively add another 2-3 years for what will be relatively cheap at that point) So I went with a 650 Watt Antec PSU on sale on Newegg for $65 That makes the total cost of my pc about $625. Excluding my HDD, Monitor (Acer H243H), mouse, and keyboard. More expensive than a console? Yes (the same price as a launch PS3 with tax....)and I get superior looking games.

Elwenil4683d ago


Need or want? Well that's sort of the point. I could build a new PC for about $1k to run todays game but, like I said above, I would be back in the same spot I am now in a couple years and have to do it all over again. Keep in mind that I don't overclock my PCs to keep them reliable as I work for a living and can't afford to cut short the life of anything I buy. Also since I am running a 32 bit P4 with XP, I would need a new OS and everything which just ads more to the price. And no, I do not run linux or pirated OS. I use my PC for more than gaming so it has to meet certain reasonable requirements. So is it want or need to have a PC that is relevant for more than a few years? Is it more practical to spend $700-$1k every couple years to update a PC or just spend $2k or more to build one that is good for 5 years or more?

No one can say what fits an individuals needs more than that individual. Sure, a lot of us could get by with less than we "want" but am I not already doing that by getting BF3 for my PS3? I would love to play BF3 with my old squad at Tactical Gamer on PC but $700 or $2k, it's just not in the finances right now. Maybe next year. But either way I disagree with the people saying "all you need is $700 for a gaming PC" since this may apply to someone with a fairly modern gaming rig already that just needs and overhaul or it could be a console gamer with a 10 year old laptop that will need damn near everything. So I would caution people to not criticize others for not agreeing that "all you need is $700".

mrsatan4683d ago

There is no Mac that will play this game at the highest settings. Keep dreaming and get a real gaming PC.

RedDragan4683d ago

You can build a gaming PC for $700, but it would not be anywhere near as good as a gaming PC that costs $2000.

But that is by the by, the thing that matters most is what you want and what you are willing to put up with.

If that means a $300 PS3, $700 gaming PC or a top of the range $2000... so be it. The magic of this world is it is all your choice and nobody can stop you.

ProjectVulcan4683d ago (Edited 4683d ago )

Updating a PC inside a console generation for games is not always needed, it is a choice if your machine is already faster i believe. Once its faster, its always faster than that generation...

This caught my eye from Elwenil : "Is it more practical to spend $700-$1k every couple years to update a PC or just spend $2k or more to build one that is good for 5 years or more?"

I think it is entirely more practical to spend less and update more often. Let me get this clear, i don't believe it NECESSARY, its just choice.

However, because of the speed of the technology you could spend a fortune on a machine, get all top end gear, and then within 2-3 years at very most, cheap lower/midrange hardware is far faster.

I feel it is far wiser to buy smart, buy components that are the best balance of performance and cost with the most chance of a long lifespan. Then upgrade gradually selling older parts to subsidise, and retain parts that can outlast main processors like cases and power supplies etc.

If you spend a lot of money you might find yourself with a machine dated far faster than you had hoped and parts worth far less to sell and replace with newer. This is why $700-1k every couple of years makes more sense to me than $2k every 5 years. You will almost certainly have a much better system more of the time this way.

If you had spent $2k 5 years ago you would have a Core 2 duo and a X1900XTX and still have it. If you had split it over time and spent less you would have had a slower machine then yes, but also now probably upgraded to an i5 750 and say a Radeon 4870. A far better machine.