they was this neat little PS3 game called MAG that could have up to 256 players simultaneously, so don't go on about what console servers can or can't do.poiumty said:
DICE
- Thread starter Fisher321
- Start date
Recommended Videos
One clarification I'd like to make is that every Battlefield game that has come out on consoles has used dedicated servers for multiplayer, not P2P
They were... four years ago.Fisher321 said:
I don't think you quite understand the CPU crunching it takes to track more than a few inputs. The 64-player arenas are going to be pretty laggy, and will bring many, many computers to their knees, begging for mercy.
The four-year-old Xbox would just explode. Welcome to the ever-advancing technology wall.
Umm, I can't physically buy the equivalent pieces of an Xbox 360 any more to build a computer with at my local component store. Literally ANY build-it-yourself PC (including the $200 ones) have the potential to blow a console out of the water.Fisher321 said:
All the PC community was still in recoil over the travesty of BFBC2 since that was a shite version of the battlefield series of which it was a sequel to BFBC1 which was a console exclusive.
Now they are focusing on the PC where the series originally came from and which the game style suits more and rightly so tbh
Now they are focusing on the PC where the series originally came from and which the game style suits more and rightly so tbh
Yeah three years ago. It's worth a few hundred bucks now tops.Fisher321 said:
What's that got to do with your topic anyway? We're talking about the reasons DICE make the console and PC versions different. The cost of a PC is irrelevant.
Any reasonable PC will outperform a console these days. Thus you will just have to accept that the console versions won't be able to keep up in every respect. I mean what do you want from the developers? To limit the PC versions only to what the consoles can handle, just to make it fair? 'Cause it's so unfair that newer technology can accomplish greater things right? Fuck it let's all become Amish.
The game is not limiting the console. The console is limiting the game, mate. We can't sit on old tech forever. I've personally witnessed 7 generations of consoles come and go; this scenario is not new.
Thats what happens when a person makes an ignorant statement against an extremely twitchy fanbase.Macrobstar said:
Not you, the OP.
Personally I'm not a PC "fan". I play all the consoles. I'm just a person who doesn't like to see ignorance go by unchecked. People complain that their game is being limited compared to the PC version, but refuse to accept the perfectly reasonable explanations for it because their beloved 5 year old console is magically infallible or something. THAT is fanboism.Soviet Heavy said:
First of all, a 5k USD gaming PC is... mind-boggeling. That's a completely crazy comparison.Fisher321 said:
Consoles aren't a cheap alternative. The games are more expensive, and the value-for-money isn't even all that great compared to a PC builder who's done some research on where and what to get. And the V/M gets more and more favourable for the PCs the more time passes.
Bottom line, I own an X360 and a PS3, plus I've built PCs for myself and friends for a couple of years now, and I see no fact or sense in what you're saying here, nor in your OP.
I should also note that when I started building, I knew jack shit. I didn't study IT or anything like that, I just asked around my friend-base, in stores and on the net. Ended up getting a great result on that first build, ´so it's not like it's a massive undertaking.
Think of gaming PC's like cars.Macrobstar said:
Console gamers all bought Honda Civics stock.
PC gamers all bought Honda Civics and tricked them out, put LED lights on them, customized the interior to our liking, bought a new transmission to our liking, retimed the spark plugs and polish them with silk clothes. So why not be proud of what we have?