DICE on Battlefield 3 PC as lead platform: “people don’t understand that the PC is more powerful”

DICE general manager Karl Magnus Troedsson has been talking to Eurogamer about why the PC is the lead platform for Battlefield 3.

[iamnsuperman]

"Console players have been concerned about the fact that the footage and screenshots of Battlefield 3 have mostly come from the PC version so far.

“I have to say that this discussion is a bit over the top because people don’t understand that the PC is more powerful than a console – they haven’t looked under the hood and in detail,” says Troedsson."

I hope that isn't the relation. Console owners get concerned because if all you show is the best platform which happens to be the PC then how can the consumer make any judgement. PC are really powerful. We know that. It doesn't mean we do not understand because we complain at lack of console footage. We want to see something we can buy

[gamingdroid]

That's what I said last time, but then I got gazillion disagrees. The BF3 hype was in full effect.

I suppose reality is hitting gamers now....

[iamnsuperman]

Since BF was unveiled I was one of those questioning what the console version would look like because I knew it wasn't going to be the same quality. It doesn't mean I do understand how powerful a PC is like DICE is suggesting. You and me are the ones who wanted to see the console footage because we knew it would be different. The reality hit a lot of people when DICE came out and said it a while backand this is where the increase of remarks like "why no console footage" has arisen from

[Theonetheonly]

“I have to say that this discussion is a bit over the top because people don’t understand that the PC is more powerful than a console – they haven’t looked under the hood and in detail,”

Stealth Insult haha. Nice

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[slayorofgods]

Dice nailed it as far a pc being the lead.

I have seen some console footage, of course console owners need to have footage in order to know if the game is going to be good..... But Dice is not in the wrong to showcase their lead platform more, after all this is going to be one of the best looking pc games of all time. A lot of PC footage. Damn straight!

[Lazy_Sunday]

That's because console fanboys don't flock to articles about Battlefield 3 when they're in sentiment to the PC. Disagrees are mainly in ignorance of fact, not in truthful, whole-hearted understanding of a point. If you look at the Late Night footage of the PS3 version, you'll see very quickly that there is no field of view, no motion blur, and I'm pretty sure that there aren't any shadows, since consoles aren't powerful enough to handle actual high quality shadows--most of them are just subbed for low quality spectral maps. I could be wrong about that last one, but I know for a fact their alpha build on PS3 had yet to acquire motion blur or FOV. You have to have one or the other--or both--almost every successful shooter does. Opting out on these features will make BF3 much less visually desirable, since it operates on console at 30FPS, which is usually 29FPS with framerate drops. Hopefully the game keeps a constant framerate--and if it does, everyone wins. Especially me! Who will buy the game on PS3 and PC.

I am saying this not to make anyone fret--not to get anyone down, just to look at the precaution behind great looking shooters that have disappointed from attempting visual superiority in the past. Look at Crysis 2--great visual experience, but it barely 'ran' on consoles (which means at LEAST a constant 25FPS). I don't want to worry anyone, but then again we haven't seen console footage in months, and it's coming out in almost a month.

[Kleptic]

^^what are you talking about with 'Field of View'?...do you mean 'depth of field'?...I'm assuming you do, because you keep talking about it next to motion blur...in which they are linked...

I assure you that the console versions have a FOV...because if they didn't...there would be nothing but audio...?...not trying to pick at you, it was just a confusing comment thats all...

In either case...I'm not sounding any personal alarms just yet...but I have to admit its getting a little troubling with iffy beta info...relatively bad PR from DICE...and what you mentioned; no new CONSOLE footage...

the PR issue is the most annoying...with DICE saying 'we don't want BF3 to be seen on a crappy youtube video'...yet is simply unwilling to put up an actual console trailer of any kind so far...I don't know what this guy is talking about; we all know PCs are more powerful...just as they know the console versions are going to sell double that of PC entirely...so show us the damn console versions!!!!!

[finbars75]

I would have to agree with you.I'm not a PC gamer at all he'll I don't even own a PC yet but I do relize that there's no way in a he'll that a console could possibly look as good as a PC where it has no limits.I'm still going to buy it for my console but doesn't mean that I'm going to sit in every room that pops up about how BF3 is going to look as good on a console to a PC and actaully believe this.I'm no dreamer or am i stupid enough to think that its going to happen and defend it.I'm Still going to try it on the new PC that I have ordered to see what the major difference is.I'm not going to lie and say that I'm not nervous because like I said before I have never PC gamed before and I have never used a keyboard and mouse.but the anticipation does build for this game period for at least I Can experience BF3 in both worlds of console and PC.

[Lazy_Sunday]

Yes, depth of field, not field of view. Been getting all confused since the release of Minecraft has allowed me to play Doom style, haven't said "FOV" in a long time xD

[evrfighter]

I would agree with you if battlefield was ever aimed at console gamers. I'll give you bad company but battlefield is made for pc gamers first and foremost.

Because of that I expect my battlefield gameplay and trailers to be on pc first and foremost.

You console gamers don't have to buy the game. You aren't the target audience here. Bf2 sold 1.5 million in its first month it would be fine even if it didn't come to consoles.

[iamnsuperman]

I am sorry but I disagree. Yes the old target audience was the PC as it never came out on consoles but the are trying to maximise profits. We have every right to request what the console footage looks like. I can see why they did release the PC footage because it looks better. We are the target audience as well. EA did a tactic that some fell for and release footage saying this is the game we made and people assumed it meant consoles as well. Its called marketing. BF 2 sold just over 2 million by 2006. For a PC game that is good for a multiplatform game that comes out on three platforms that isn't so good

[Christopher]

***Because of that I expect my battlefield gameplay and trailers to be on pc first and foremost. ***

No one is saying it shouldn't be on PC first or foremost. What people are saying is that they need to show all consoles for the game rather than just selling the best view.

Not everyone plays on the PC and, whether you like it or not, this game is going to sell just as much if not more on consoles as the PC.

Just because it originated on the PC doesn't mean that only the PC matters.

[slayorofgods]

I think the developers want to showcase the pc version more just because of the sheer amount of work that was put into the graphics. I'm not sure if everyone is really appreciating just how good these graphics are in comparison to games on the market today. The console graphics are there, but they still face the ceiling of the consoles hardware and will be comparable to all games on the market. This isn't a bad thing, but why not market the version that has some of the best graphics ever seen.

I'm not trying to knock console owners, I know I'm out numbered on this site, but as a pc owner I really want this game to succeed on a pc level. Console gamers get a lot more as far as gaming goes, let Dice offer something for us pc gamers for a change. They are offering a game that actually takes advantage of a pc, this isn't done very often this generation.

[Kleptic]

evrfighter...thats the most ancient argument you could possibly come up with...

the market is very different than it was back when the last full blown PC BF game released...two relatively powerful consoles are now available both with their own multiplayer networks built in...

and BF2's 1.5 million its first month on PC?...BFD...MW2 did that OVERNIGHT with the 360 alone, selling nearly 5 million copies in 24 hours across 3 platforms (not trying to bring up COD, but its relevant as these are the numbers EA is after)...there is NO chance the PC as a platform will keep up with 360 sales of BF3, and the way that audience buys military shooters...the PC may stay on par with the PS3 version, but that is before you factor in piracy and all the other BS...

as a sales platform...PC is dead last as a target...I agree that BF3 is 'targeted at PC'...as in DICE is not holding development back because of consoles...but the consoles are where they are guaranteed money...PC is where they are guaranteed 'zomg the graphIx' and the hype because of it...and that is exactly how the ad campaign/PR for BF3 has played out so far...

[radphil]

" Console owners get concerned because if all you show is the best platform which happens to be the PC then how can the consumer make any judgement. "

They stated PC was the lead platform. That right there in itself causes judgement for the consumer.

[radphil]

Really getting tired of people randomly disagreeing without any sort of response.

[Pjuice]

i get what your saying but i think that the main point of the article is on why the pc version of bf3 is the lead, you see more and more console footage everyday and it will keep going that way until it launches.

[radphil]

@Pjuice

To be honest, i'm just tired of internet consumers thinking that gaming companies have to bend over backwards on what they do, and then turn around and backlash at that same company when they DO bend over backwards.

It just makes it seem like people are trying to strong arm them into focusing on consoles, when they explicitly stated that they're focusing on PC.

The funny thing, is that on PC oriented articles on this site, i see people heckle other PC users about "All you guys care about is graphics", and then yet I see an article on this, and people are hounding at "Where's the footage on console?". In fact, there's many comments down below chastising the original statement.

It's kinda ironic when you look at it.

It also makes you wonder if the companies are greedy, or are we?

[gamingdroid]

***It also makes you wonder if the companies are greedy, or are we?***

Both! Companies are made up of people too! :D

Reality is that causes a certain amount of balance on pricing.

[monkeymagik]

Because alot of console owners, only buy consoles. And do not and have ever built pc's or bought them. Or maybe they were sold some crap ones.

I'm sure it'll still be an excellent game on PS3/360.

[lorianguy]

Only a few PC owners will take the time/trouble/cost of building a PC capable of gamplay like the trailer. Players on console and lower-end PCs will still get a great game, but won't be able to see what they're buying until the beta due to the lack of footage on anything but high-end PCs.

[limewax]

I don't know about that, I remember Dice saying before that one of the video's we were shown (possibly the first) was run off a single GTX580.

I'm not saying that isn't high end, a good 580 will cost almost as much as the PS3 at launch. But it isnt Enthusiast territory. And it still means people with 480s and 570Tis will get those settings but might see the occasional drop to 50fps

[gamingdroid]

It's enthusiast to me.... $300 for a graphics card is a lot. Makes you wonder what the other parts cost.

In a world when a respectable PC cost less than $400 with a lcd, it's hard to justify the $300. I suppose the good news is, that $400 probably has the specs to handle the GTX 580 with little to no bottlenecks.

[limewax]

Actually the other parts are significantly cheaper, The processor is half the price of the GPU (same high end territory) then half that again for a motherboard on par too. No it isn't cheap, but you are within supercomputer range there with a bit of SLI. I wont try and tell you that you can build a cheap gaming PC that blows away current consoles. to do that costs a lot.

But what I will say, is the PC gamer has a comfort, a $400 setup from a shop won't compete for years and years to come, but most importantly, if you have many hobbies PC can help you with. Well a setup like that will run almost anything. I use PC's for audio engineering and video editing too. So I guess what I am saying is value is subjective. To you, your PC is of good value and suits your needs, mine does for me too and we're both happy customers.

Don't know why some N4G PC gamers can't just see the same point

[BlackKnight]

@gamingdroid

The graphics card is the most expensive part of a well balanced gaming PC.

CPU ~ 100-200
4GB RAM ~ 50
Mobo ~ 100-150
HDD ~ 50
PSU ~ 90
Case(if previous one isn't wanted) ~ 50
Win 7 ~ 90
Wireless KB/M (If you don't already have a set) ~60

With this kind of PC with a 250 dollar video card like the 560ti, you could play BF3 at 1080 DX11 with max settings and get around 55FPS average:

http://www.mybattlefield3fo...

That is how well BF3 runs AND looks. Amazing.

"Only a few PC owners will take the time/trouble/cost of building a PC capable of gamplay like the trailer"

Time trouble and cost? It is not that expensive, less than $900 it looks like, to max BF3 at 1080P and 60FPS. If a gamer can't take the time to build a PC and wants to just throw in a disc, they are just lazy. People have some WAY harder hobbies that take so much time. PC's take maybe a couple hours or maybe 3 to build and install windows and update. And boom you have a killer gaming machine. 3 hour hobby? Auto update drivers? PC gaming is a JOKE these days when it comes to difficulty. Any gamer who says PC gaming is too hard is just lazy/has no ability AT ALL to challenge themselves. It isn't even a challenge anymore these days...

[gamingdroid]

@limewax:

I think I might have worded that wrong, but my point is if you are spending $300 on a graphics card it wouldn't suprise me that you would be the type to spend more on the other parts as well.

You don't need a 580 to surpass a PS3/Xbox 360 and in fact, far from it.

Wonder why I'm getting so many disagrees?

@BlackNight:

***If a gamer can't take the time to build a PC and wants to just throw in a disc, they are just lazy.***

I disagree that because you don't want to build a PC it makes you lazy. Maybe people don't care enough to build a PC, constantly update drivers/software and tweak it. They just want instant gratification i.e. pop a disc in, and play.

Personally, it is actually hard for me to sit at a computer and not think about work.... My PC is for work, my TV is for entertainment! I suppose you could hook your computer up to your entertainment system, which I do, but I still prefer the console.

[BlackKnight]

@gamingdroid

I already said in my comment that drivers auto update themselves these days, there is nothing to tweak or worry about. ANd you don't NEED to build a PC, it is just the cheapest, you can still buy decent rigs easy. And PCs arent the only ones that get updates....consoles get their firmware/dashboard updates and the games getting updates happens too...It is NEVER instant if it's an MP game. It seems like everytime I boot my PS3 there is a long ass firmware update that I MUST install to be allowed online. At least on PC you can stop auto updates for windows and still get online and game...

Wait, you say you hook up your PC to your entertainment center but you can't help think of work??? What is the difference? On the couch with a controller to the PC playing on the big screen or on the couch with a controller to the console on the big screen...I don't get it, how do you still think of "work".

I work at a computer too, and I LOVE coming home to a PC that works great and is full of games and movies and whatever and not some shit work computer...

[gamingdroid]

@BlackNight

In theory, yes drivers do update themselves in some instances, but that isn't always the case. Not only that, but on occasions I have found incompatible games with drivers and in some instances you end up editing config files when there are other issues:

http://www.gameinformer.com...

***Wait, you say you hook up your PC to your entertainment center but you can't help think of work??? What is the difference? On the couch with a controller to the PC playing on the big screen or on the couch with a controller to the console on the big screen...I don't get it, how do you still think of "work".***

I don't want to d!ck around with Windows updating patches or use the mouse/keyboard to navigate the desktop. Wait about a 2-3 mins for it to boot and etc. It's just general tweaking. I even had the fortunate experience of overheating PC, it would randomly shut itself down. I never noticed it, before because it was primarily used for work so had a lower load.

Consoles do have updates, but most of the time it is mindless and rather quick updates. It's focus is on instant.

Doesn't mean PC isn't good, I just don't want a PC experience in my entertainment area. I d!ck around with PCs all day at work.

I just want quick easy gaming and I'm fine with the lowered graphics.

It's just fits better with me, but it hardly makes me lazy!

[DigitalAnalog]

"In a world when a respectable PC cost less than $400 with a lcd, it's hard to justify the $300."

I think the expression "The value is the sum of all it's parts" can be applied here. Yes, the PC may in itself can cost nearly double the consoles, and seeing that it can not only double or even triple the resolution and frame-rate (in some instances), one can argue you are literally merging the power of 2 consoles in itself.

The fact that many people are multi-console owners or repeated buyers due to faulty hardware shouldn't have issues with this. Best of all, STEAM sales can actually show you how valuable you PC is. In retrospect, with all these elements combined, the PC is the cheapest gaming device on the planet. I have over 60 games on steam (majority are current-gen) and have spent only 1/3 of the budget of my entire gaming collection of 30 games on the PS3. That, and I get a full 1080p and 60fps target gameplay.

Now that really makes you wonder.

-End statemnet

[gamingdroid]

***I think the expression "The value is the sum of all it's parts" can be applied here. Yes, the PC may in itself can cost nearly double the consoles, and seeing that it can not only double or even triple the resolution and frame-rate (in some instances), one can argue you are literally merging the power of 2 consoles in itself.***

I think you are missing the point I'm getting at. Consumers (like me) don't care about "value" in the terms you defined, nor are we interrested in investing into PC. It doesn't mean we/I don't see it. It's just not important to us, because we value something else more....

***In retrospect, with all these elements combined, the PC is the cheapest gaming device on the planet.***

Technically speaking, there are cheaper gaming devices. You might not be interrested in the types of games available on it though.

I do own a PC and I do game on it occassinoally. In fact, I own a gamer motherboard nForce 680i with a C2D E8500 and 8GB RAM, but have a measly GT 240 to play Starcraft 2.

I think it is a moot point to argue "value" when value really is defined by preference. If you define value by some metric, like RAM, resolution, CPU speed etc... it still doesn't mean it meets my need or desire. That is what people seem to miss, gazillion features, but if those aren't important to me, it doesn't matter. It's not value to the consumer. It has to be features consumers want.

That is why a PS3 arguably has more features than an Xbox 360, cost almost the same, yet sell less.

-End of Story

[BattleTorn]

Oh no; we get it.

but we choose to play on consoles.

[Ingram]

Oh, for christ's sake...here we go again.

PC is the best, to be precise, YOUR PC is better than mine, your thing is bigger than mine, and your GF is the prettiest in the world, and your country rules, and your dad is gonna buy you a hummer.

WE
GET
IT <---Neon lights

S-T-F-U.

[Semir]

PC Rules!!!!

[Undeadwolfy]

XD

[Ingram]

Really? I haven't noticed PC's are superior, why didn't anybody on this site told us yet about how awesome they are?

/S

[Getowned]

I wish my dad would by me a hummer ;/

[NovusTerminus]

*Shakes head*

Really? Again? I am getting sick of this, WE KNOW!

The PC is more powerful then consoles, but what the hell does that matter if I have none of the games I want to play on PC?

All the power in the world and yet I have no games to play on it because I hate FPS, RTS, and strategy games. Yes My PC can play some games. I have TF2, and Civ 5. They are alright.

I have Devil May Cry 4 and you know what? Keyboards suck for it!

All the power in the world and yet I would have no games to play, does not seem like a fair trade for me.

[BlackKnight]

"I have Devil May Cry 4 and you know what? Keyboards suck for it!"

Um.....plug in a controller dude...

[NovusTerminus]

Eh... I did, but you know what? All I have is the 360 controller for the PC and I prefer my PS3 and I cannot seem to find a good software to use those.

[BlackKnight]

There are some drivers you can download for the PS3 controller.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

You can also buy controllers that are built similar to PS3

http://www.newegg.com/Produ...

http://www.newegg.com/Produ...

http://www.newegg.com/Produ...

Point is though is that you have freedom on PC, which is great for the consumer/gamer.

[JonnyBigBoss]

I understand. Consoles are currently years old while PC hardware has continued to advance. With that said, the game looks and plays great on all platforms.

[Shackdaddy836]

...
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

"great" is an understatement...

[JBSleek]

People understand how powerful a PC can be. The general consumer would rather play on a console which is more accessible and where all there friends play. In this economy everyone doesn't have time to go buy a high end PC when you can put $800 to something a little more useful.

Also, BF3 will probably sell more on each console compared to PC so shouldn't you put more effort into the platform that bring you more money?

[blaktek]

A developer should take advantage of every platform's strengths.

And what amount of effort should they put in the platform that brought them where they are ?

[Christopher]

That's bad business. You put the same effort on all platforms since all customers are equal.

[Pro_TactX]

It could be argued that because all customers are equal, all customers deserve a product that takes advantage of the strengths of whatever platform they use.

Although I question that equality concept. If all customers were truly equal then we would not have DLC packs released on one platform a month before all the others. (I am looking at you Bethesda and Activision.)

[Dojan123]

I think BF3 will be the first multi-plat game that sells more on the PC. Not combine but Xbox or PS3 alone will not beat it. We are going to see some people who recall BF 2 and come back to the PC.

[maxqubit]

So the xbox came out in 2005, and it took DICE 6(!) years to say PC is leading platform. And pc guys cheer like its the 2nd coming lol

Of couse the pc platform should be leading and of course it outshines the console version. It has to when you have a 6 years hw advantage.

But a dev with REAL guts would make a pc ONLY game, that would be a statement. A statement like 'consoles are dead' But EA/DICE do not make that statement, no because perhaps the combined console sales will outperform the pc sales.

But at least DICE makes 1 statement, and that is the 64p maps exclusively for pc. If that is too awesome I have to migrate to pc. Sure. Then you get the situation that you have to migrate to another platform 'just' for this 64p multiplayer, because up to 24p you can play equally well on console (albeit with slightly lesser gfx, who cares)

So, MY main point with BF3 is this 64p multiplayer. I'm very curious how this will turn out (in the reviews etc.)

[maxqubit]

Lol at the disagrees.

Crysis1 was a statement. You had to buy a high spec'd PC to play that shit. But BF3 is not a statement. You can play it on all platforms. Let's face it EA/DICE don't have to guts to tell 'Look guys, if you want to play/enjoy BF3 you HAVE TO go pc' Nope they want to sell it to console audience too, because they obviously need the money and the console audience was very good to EA/DICE with the Bad Company games!

[_LarZen_]

I think most gamers are playing on consoles so they dont care much about pc being lead plattform.

Im a pc and console gamer and yes the pc version wil oblitirate consoles when it comes to gfx. But in the end I bet it is the consoles that makes the big money for Dice.

[HeavenlySnipes]

I made a comment like yours on a PC article (I think it was about PC gaming being alive and kicking) I lost a bubble lol. Times have changed I guess.

[gypsygib]

I think people understand that PC is more powerful, they're just willfully ignorant of the limitations of 5 year old consoles.

[divideby0]

dugh... PC is in a diff league than consoles... it costs more, upgradeable overtime.
consoles are great for what they do, but cant compete with a high end PC
you get what you pay for and comparing the 2 is like comparing the BMW with my honda

[FlashBack]

In my country it's worst. Because games do poorly in their crappy pc's , games are worst on the pc, Hell, one guy in my class says Xbox 360 is the most graphically powerful platforms. Now talk abou that.

[yewles1]

“'people' don’t understand that the PC is more powerful”

I'm sorry, WHY do I wanna' buy your game again?...

[thebudgetgamer]

who thge hell are these people? is there really a nedd to say it over and over.

[zero_gamer]

I am buying this on PC. The BF series is geared toward the PC crowd anyway.

[CrzyFooL]

lolwut?

[DFresh]

So, far I have the limited edition pre-ordered on PS3.
When my PC is finished being built and EA gets their heads out of their asses and releases their games on Valve Steam again then I'll buy it for PC.
Until that happens I'll be playing it on PS3.
Edit:
I really hope EA Origins fails because their online agreement is bull shit and to me Steam = PC Gaming.

[Bladesfist]

Then your not a PC gamer. PC gaming was here long before steam. But I agree steam is great and has really helped PC gaming out

[TitanUp]

Corsair XMS3 4 GB Memory amazon 26.99

im pc gamer used to have 360 ps3 and wii only thing the 3 have is exclusives pc has all the features.

[artdafoo]

Maybe we don't want to spend $200 every 9 months to keep a PC up to date.

[HAF912]

maybe we dont either. No one forces you to upgrade... but why analyze facts when you can just pull numbers out of your ass and propogate the same misconceptions that have been repeated hundreds of times over?

Here is the cold hard truth: Consoles are more expensive to own than gaming PCs. If you dont believe me, sit down and do a cost analysis of owning both devices.

Dont forget to take a look at xbox live fees, 10$ extra per game for consoles (hmm how much extra is that per console gen), oh yeah and also the redundancy cost of separating the console and pc into 2 distinct devices instead of just using PC for gaming by adding a few hundred extra ( cost of buying a new pc for work every 10 years or so when you wouldnt have to do this if you had a gaming rig).

Count em up champ. You are paying more and getting less.

not to mention the million things a pc can do better than consoles.

[DigitalxPiracy]

You don't have to. Do people just think PCs magically crap out and have to be upgraded all the time? The components in them are far superior to the shit in consoles yet they have lasted 6+ years. Don't be ignorant.

[Dojan123]

I upgrade some parts every 2 years and it it is only graphics and maybe CPU/mother board every third. I could hold out longer but choose not to.

[fullmetal297]

Maybe we don't wanna spend $200 on overpriced accessories and lame motion-controlled gimmicky.

[thespaz]

We know the PC is powerful!!!

We just want a decent game.

I wish DICE would shut up about the different reasons why the console version will suck.

[Undeadwolfy]

They would shut up if all those who are angry that the console versions aren't on par with PC versions would shut up.

We know why the PC version can do things that the console versions cant, but those that complain are either ill-informed, ignorant/lazy or trolling.

[yabhero]

We gamers know the PC is-expensive- uh I mean powerful. The true beauty of PC graphic lies in the more expensive PC's.

[qwertyz]

lol not true. here is a $265 pc that is 10-12x more powerful than ps3/360 in real world performance.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

that was in 2010. you can even build a more powerful pc for the same price or even less today.

and console games cost $60 while pc games cost $50 or less at launch and still look better than their console versions lol console gaming is more expensive when you look closely and with pc you can do far more than just gaming you can do pretty much anything; develop mods, do homework, trans-code movies and music, develop software and games(all console games are first made on pc) etc

PC>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>consoles

in fact most multiplatform games that have made it to pc over the past few years look better than ANYTHING on consoles including gears 3, uncharted 3, RAGE and all the other console graphics "powerhouses" lol

a modern day single gpu you can build for $900(something like 4gb ddr3,i5 2500k, gtx570/ati hd 6950, 1tb hdd,500w power etc) at newegg is about 35 times more powerful than ps3/360 so thats 35 times the horsepower for about 3-3.5 times the price LOL consoles cost more than they are worth from a horsepower standpoint they should cost only $30 :/

[spektical]

consoles dont just play games anymore.. what a about blu ray player? multi media machine out of the box.

the ps3 is price right for what it offers.

gaming pc's are expensive and will always be. i was looking to build my 2nd tower, and the minimum of what i want is running me at $600. and this with AMD 2 processor. LOL... not even phenom.

-- all from newegg or frys

[Ninjamonkey82]

Devs running scare tactics to help out the gfx companys that are paying for the advertising tbh. I run the alpha on my 460gtx fine with no hassles at all everything highest settings.

I know a alpha does not repesent final code etc but i always find a game will be very playable come release if you can play the alphas and betas without any hassles.

You have to remember its in the interest for the graphic card companys to push there highest end gfx cards.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

Dear Dice, I fully get and respect the power of the pc. However, I am a console gamer not a pc gamer. So when you announce a game coming to pc AND consoles I expect to see console footage regardless of what sku was lead. Thus why I as well as many other console gamers were justifiably concerned by the lack of early footage.

[veChuy]

I was just playing BTF:BC2 on my pc at 2560x1440, 4AA, all graphics setting set to high, Vsync on 50-60 stable fps
My pc cost me 870$ and remember Pc isnt just for games.

Processor: intel 2500k = 220$
Motherboard: Msi P67A-C43 = 120$
Video Card: EVGA GTX 560 Ti = 260$
Hard Drive: Samsung 500gb = 40$
Memory: Corsair 4GB = 30$
Case,Mouse,Keyboard,Psu = 200$

I had bought so many high quality games throw steam deals for Just 20$, 30$ and some others greats games for less than 10$!! like Team fortress 2. This has saved me alot of money. There is to alots of Free games on the Pc thats is just crazy is insane and alots of then of high quality,

I own the 3 platform ,but for me PC wins, it is more than just for games, Lan Partys are amazing this is my best expirience as a gamer, Pc is more Social and more useful than a console for example I can play games while im checking Facebook, Messenger, doing my Homework, alot of thing I just need to press ALT+TAB :D, Graphics are so much better that is insane im fan of amazing Graphics, I just hate play shooter with my ps3 and xbox controller keyboard and mouse are better, I love strategy games I cant play this on my consoles, There are so much better things in pc than in console that i could be writing here all night. This is my opinion. And for someone that wants buy a cheap and a good pc with this can run everything without problems http://bit.ly/hmAABM at decent 1680x1050, full setting, full Directx 11 effects, 2AA for just 500$, Rembember that consoles games run at a poor 1280x720 noAA, and just Directx 9 effects.

[jetlian]

you get games cheap like everybody else who waits years later. 870 today isn't equal to 300 6 years ago.

[Bladesfist]

except PC games are £10 cheaper on launch and still £10 cheaper years later. if you buy 10 games a year you saved £600... Sorry but PC gaming is cheaper.

[jetlian]

10 games a year you save 100 not 600. My point was that 870 pc would be more than 870 if you got it the same year 360 came out!

No way a pc that cost 870 today cost the same or less 6 years ago. Also pc doesn't get all the games.

[Bladesfist]

100 x 6yrs

Plus we have more games and more exclusives than both consoles combined. Also are exclusives have sold way better than any console exclusive look at the charts. Sims, starcraft ect

[jetlian]

sims and starcraft you can keep that And i'm not sure how many either of those sold.

[jetlian]

sims and starcraft you can keep that And i'm not sure how many either of those sold.

And by the time you get those 60 games we would have moved on

[thespaz]

Here's a question for you PC gamers.

Can I buy a PC that boots up into full screen game browser that is controller-friendly so that I never have to hook a mouse and keyboard to it?

If so, then I'd just get a PC and hook it to my TV, turn it on, navigate to the game I want to play and play it.

The thing is... consoles are just easy and have low maintenance. I can turn it on and 3 seconds later be booting up my game. Also, I love not needing key codes and messing with computer updates.

By the way, I'm a Mac user so I really wouldn't use my "PC" for anything except gaming.

[Pjuice]

there is software to do this, ill look for the software, if you use it you have to use there controller while using it though, ive seen this program it makes browsing so easy with controller it looks like allot like xbox live gui, other options other than that you can buy a windows remote control and browse with that and use a 360/ps3 controller once your in the game. a remote or mini wireless keypad with touch pad can be found for around 20-30 same with as cheap windows remote, logitech/harmony makes some with lcd's built in which can go up to $350 i think and you can use them on your t.v and other things also so you don't have to switch remotes while on the couch playing games or whatever, ill look for that software i mentioned at the top though it never really took off cause how many ppl would use that for pc gaming most mainstream gamers have no clue about the pc sides of things and those are the ppl that would use it, most pc gamers rarely use controller like when there laying in bed playing some multi plat or sports games, when competitive gaming hits you just can't use a controller or you will get owned. btw it might not boot up like this either, ive never used it but you might have to launch the .exe then go from there......

[Shackdaddy836]

I think Windows 8 will have a GUI you can switch to that's compatible with controllers.

I know it will have two GUIs you can switch back and forth and I know that one looks like something from windows phone. Windows 8 will also be connected to xbox live(w/o a monthly fee). So, it seems like it would be compatible with controllers...

[Pjuice]

yea windows 8 has shown things like that for touch screen don't know if it supports controller but it def could.

[Pjuice]

.

[SuperSaiyan4]

Ive been gaming a lot more on my new rig that I built not because the graphics are better but i just have.

I can never see in the near future where consoles will be equal or be ahead of PC's. New PC parts come out ever few months and it would be upsetting for someone to have spent tons of money on new hardware upgrades for their pc when a couple hundred games console can match that would be plain stupid.

So all in all PC games will always look better however personally the graphics are not a night and day difference from what i have noticed.

More so that most developers never get the chance to work on one type of system on the PC whereas they can get a lot more out of a console because they get to work on that platform that never changes for years.

Graphics are still very good on consoles, considering how old the machines are you have to admit the visuals are still impressive depending on the developer and their tools.

If the difference was night and day and there was a HUGE difference then fair enough however I still cannot see any game that has a HUGE difference over a console version when in theory it should.

[Jacobite]

That because consoles are holding back PC gaming as console only do DX9 and most devs work on consoles first and sadly port to PC when it used to be the other way, win for consoles loss for PC unless its a good dev that still cares about PC gaming. The only good thing now is that you can update your PC every 3 years + rather than every year lol