DICE

[Assassin Xaero]

Consoles aren't as powerful as PC's, though.
And given your ignorance on that, I highly doubt that you have enough knowledge to give your guarantee any weight.

Ignorance? What am I being Ignorant to?

You don't really know what you are talking about.
You're making statements without any facts, and your lack of knowledge on the power of consoles and why the game can't hold as many players could be considered ignorance.

Consoles are stronger than what you think. Now compared to a $5000 dollar gaming PC, ofcourse not. Consoles are a cheap alternative to High-End PC gaming. If I had a super-expensive PC like an AlienWare Aurora then yes PC games would be awesome. But since most of my friends have 360's then I prefer the cheaper option.

My $1000 PC blows consoles out of the water. Alienwares are super expensive because of the name, just like Macs. Anyway, probably programming and capability issues. And, maybe, they just don't want to? I've heard how bad the 360 community is, and I can't imagine 64 of them in one room...

Fun fact: 360 uses 256mb DDR3 GPU, which is pathetic. My PC has a 1280mb DDR5 GPU.

 

[Woodsey]

Although high-end PCs are a cut above consoles, mid-level ones are pretty much on the same level in terms of power.

No they aren't.

A PC that was mid-range 2 years ago is easily more powerful than either console.

"I don't understand. Consoles are just as powerful."

See above.

OT: If you make it for the PC and then scale back for the consoles, all's good for everyone. If you make it for the consoles and try just moving it to the PC, everyone isn't happy.

 

[teebeeohh]

at this stage(the current console generation being a few years old) developing for the PC and then downgrading for consoles just works better, unless you want to do specific things with the ps3 hardware

 

[Macrobstar]

God you pc gamers are so desperate to prove your platforms the best, I'm starting to think you guys are a bit insecure

 

[CroutonsOfDeath]

I am mixed on this subject. As a hardcore PC gamer, I am glad that we are finally getting a sequel to a PC exclusive title that doesn't skimp out on its PC oriented audience. I have been feeling like we've been getting the short end of the stick for awhile now, HOWEVER - I am not an elitist who goes around saying consoles suck.

I have always believed there should be balance. As happy as I am that the PC is coming first again, I know that DICE can do better to accommodate console players. The PS3 and 360 are perfectly capable of at least having 32 players, and dedicated servers. I've seen dedicated servers on a few early 360 games and I see them somewhat frequently on PS3 games, just because Matchmaking is "popular" doesn't mean it should be the only option. I.E. - I hated how Gears 2 used matchmaking only, when the first game used the sweet jump in and play server system.

I will be thankful we don't get the short end of the stick this time - but it sounds to me like DICE is going to throw a slapdash port together; plus, what if they keep the same maps designed for large scale battles? The game will seem barren and not as much fun when you have such a limited number. Just saying they can do better to strike a balance - I know it.

 

[Zer_]

God you pc gamers are so desperate to prove your platforms the best, I'm starting to think you guys are a bit insecure

Umm, no. It's just facts. As a platform, PCs are almost always ahead of their console counterparts in terms of power. Don't get me wrong man, the 360 and PS3 are fun as hell to play, some games I wouldn't even think of playing on the PC, but facts are facts man.

I don't think it's insecurity, it's just the idea that those of us who build our own PC systems have a great deal more technical knowledge than the average console gamers; and it sucks to see them ignore facts. Just a hypothesis, though.

 

[Macrobstar]

God you pc gamers are so desperate to prove your platforms the best, I'm starting to think you guys are a bit insecure

Umm, no. It's just facts. As a platform, PCs are almost always ahead of their console counterparts in terms of power. Don't get me wrong man, the 360 and PS3 are fun as hell to play, some games I wouldn't even think of playing on the PC, but facts are facts man.

I don't think it's insecurity, it's just the idea that those of us who build our own PC systems have a great deal more technical knowledge than the average console gamers; and it sucks to see them ignore facts. Just a hypothesis, though.

I don't think people are ignoring them, there are just a lot of bonuses to consoles that people seem to forget, like all the games that dont get ported to pc

 

[Zer_]

God you pc gamers are so desperate to prove your platforms the best, I'm starting to think you guys are a bit insecure

Umm, no. It's just facts. As a platform, PCs are almost always ahead of their console counterparts in terms of power. Don't get me wrong man, the 360 and PS3 are fun as hell to play, some games I wouldn't even think of playing on the PC, but facts are facts man.

I don't think it's insecurity, it's just the idea that those of us who build our own PC systems have a great deal more technical knowledge than the average console gamers; and it sucks to see them ignore facts. Just a hypothesis, though.

I don't think people are ignoring them, there are just a lot of bonuses to consoles that people seem to forget, like all the games that dont get ported to pc

The only game I want to play that's a console exclusive (or will be) is L.A. Noire. RDR would be nice too, but that's just Rockstar Entertainment. Can't really complain, because we have our on set of awesome exclusives.

 

[DeadEy3]

PCs are far superior in the RAM factor. It may be that the console, while handling the effects and physics of the game(with it's powerful processor and GPU), can not handle the amount of mayhem generated by 64 people with it's limited RAM.
256mb dedicated and 256mb system for the PS3 and 512mb shared for the 360.

 

[Macrobstar]

God you pc gamers are so desperate to prove your platforms the best, I'm starting to think you guys are a bit insecure

Umm, no. It's just facts. As a platform, PCs are almost always ahead of their console counterparts in terms of power. Don't get me wrong man, the 360 and PS3 are fun as hell to play, some games I wouldn't even think of playing on the PC, but facts are facts man.

I don't think it's insecurity, it's just the idea that those of us who build our own PC systems have a great deal more technical knowledge than the average console gamers; and it sucks to see them ignore facts. Just a hypothesis, though.

I don't think people are ignoring them, there are just a lot of bonuses to consoles that people seem to forget, like all the games that dont get ported to pc

The only game I want to play that's a console exclusive (or will be) is L.A. Noire. RDR would be nice too, but that's just Rockstar Entertainment. Can't really complain, because we have our on set of awesome exclusives.

I suppose then the smart thing to do would be to get both

 

[Davey Woo]

I tend to find larger games less fun anyway. I know the size of maps on Battlefield is generally a great deal larger than other FPS multiplayer maps but still 12 v 12 is sometimes too many for me.

Anyway, you say you have a gaming PC so just get BF3 on the PC and play the larger games, what's the problem?
I'd rather play any Battlefield game on the PC because the sensitivity on the console versions is just horrendous.

 

[TerranReaper]

Consoles are gay and PC are superior in every way /sarcasm

OT: Well, from what I heard, Frostbite Engine 2 is supposed to be a lot better than the first one, which means it will demand better hardware in order to run it perfectly. I don't really know enough to say anything about the technical details, but Battlefield maps tend to be fairly big in size. The two Bad Company games maps were medium size at best, with the Heavy Metal map being the largest and equal to a "small" map on the older Battlefield games. That being said, the Bad Company games were still good because they were focused more on infantry. A lot of people will use MAG as a game to ask why consoles can't handle 64 players on BF3, and while I don't know if consoles can or can't handle 64 players, MAG itself had to cut down on the visuals significantly just so it can run on a smooth framerate and even then it did have quite a bit of lag.

Anyways, that being said, I'm glad that DICE decide to build a game specifically for PC considering we kinda got screwed over with the Bad Company games, what with poor optimization and all.

 

[BENZOOKA]

Consoles aren't as powerful as PC's, though.
And given your ignorance on that, I highly doubt that you have enough knowledge to give your guarantee any weight.

That's such a nicely put post, representing my thoughts as well.

I'm not going to say 'this'. I'm going to put it on my wall.

 

[Savagezion]

I don't understand. Consoles are just as powerful.

Nnnnnnnnnnno they're not.

The 360/PS3 can handle up to 64 players or more guarantee it.

Are you by chance a programming engineer/tester at DICE for your guarrantee to hold any weight whatsoever?

MAG could support 256 players. Why can't Battlefield 3?

Because MAG was specifically built for that. Battlefield uses the resources that MAG has tied up for lots of people for cooler, more interesting things, like super destruction, and looking really nice.

This. Battlefield is going to have a lot more shit processing at any given moment on just the environment than MAG did. The consoles just can't do it.

 

[The Lost Big Boss]

Im going to sound completely elitist here, but just be glad you are getting BF3 on consoles in the first place. You got Bad Company made for you, we have Battlefield 3 made for us.

 

[5t3v0]

If you build it yourself, you can get a high end PC that is far more powerful than a console for something like 800.

My friend paid around that much for his PC. It uses an I5 quad core with 2 crossfired ATI 5770's with 4-8 gigs of ram (I think. Its been a while since I asked him). I plan to do the similar, but might try a hexcore AMD processor instead.

Basically, PC gaming is not as expensive as many people make it out to be. From what I have heard on the forum which I am prettymuch navite to (Total gaming network... PC gamers... go there bitchez!) Alienware is the last company you should use when thinking about the PC as a platform. Apparantly, the idea that PC gaming is expensive is their propaganda, as in "PC gaming is expensive... but its "not" from us". If you shop around you can get some great deals on stuff that can oulast consoles

and another misconception, you dont have to upgrade your PC EVERY year. Only every few. Hell, you could probably get away with upgrading about a year after each console is released if you can stand going on mid-settings. If you want premium graphics all the time you only really need to upgrade you PC every 2 years anyway. Hell, S.T.A.L.K.E.R Clear sky probably blows every single console game out of the water made last year...*Sigh* all those sunshafts would make me wet... If im not only using a dual core PC with 2gigs of ram and a single ATI 5570... *sigh* /TL; DR

 

[Korten12]

I don't understand. Consoles are just as powerful.

Nnnnnnnnnnno they're not.

The 360/PS3 can handle up to 64 players or more guarantee it.

Are you by chance a programming engineer/tester at DICE for your guarrantee to hold any weight whatsoever?

MAG could support 256 players. Why can't Battlefield 3?

Alright, With the way Battlefield is going its going to have state of the art graphics, Destrucability. MAG..Does not have these things, The developers had to get rid of a whole bunch of textures and stuffs so it looks like a last-gen game, I don't think DICE Is going to get rid of some graphics to get 64 players on console.
BTW, Dedicated Servers cost money, You think DICE will pay for you?

MAG may not have the best graphics, but its easily better then a last gen graphics game.

 

[ethaninja]

Wish I could help you out but I play singleplayer games. However you could always download bot mods...

 

[Israirie]

How so? What games do you play on the PC that outperform the 360 in every way?

My PC is three years old. It cost me $2800 to build in 2008. Every cross platform game I've ever played on it has looked far better than the console counterpart(s). Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, Mass Effect 1 & 2, Dead Space, Bad Company 2, and a multitude of others. I don't buy titles for all four platforms but my friends have the console versions of all of these games. I do own all three consoles and have done direct comparisons out of curiosity, especially on fallout 3 where it was really night and day. A modern PC of the same price could pull off two to three times what mine can. That answer your question?

TL;DR - Consoles have been unable to run cross platform/PC games at their maximum settings for friggin ages. This has nothing to do with fanboism, PC elitism or anything of the sort. It's just the reality of things.

 

[Fisher321]

How so? What games do you play on the PC that outperform the 360 in every way?

My PC is three years old. It cost me $2800 to build in 2008. Every cross platform game I've ever played on it has looked far better than the console counterpart(s). Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, Mass Effect 1 & 2, Dead Space, Bad Company 2, and a multitude of others. I don't buy titles for all four platforms but my friends have the console versions of all of these games. I do own all three consoles and have done direct comparisons out of curiosity, especially on fallout 3 where it was really night and day. A modern PC of the same price could pull off two to three times what mine can. That answer your question?

TL;DR - Consoles have been unable to run cross platform/PC games at their maximum settings for friggin ages. This has nothing to do with fanboism, PC elitism or anything of the sort. It's just the reality of things.

See, $2800. Compared to a $300 console