DICE

[Fenring]

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.

FFDSKSDFSKHD

NO. Consoles have a very nice CPU, better than a bunch of PCs people use, but quadcores are almost 100% going to be more powerful, a GTS250 1gig will out preform both console GPUs at 1080p, which rarely operate above 720p anyways, and consoles don't have much RAM either.

 

[PeePantz]

Alot of people often have there own servers on there computers instead of relying on offical ones. You couldnt really have your own server on consoles or atleast im not sure how it would work on consoles.
It basicly means there far mor servers for pc than there are for console. Yes they could make more servers but the numbers needed would be crazy. lower player base per match means more space on the server for other matches.

Some games (at least on the 360) actually use the player who is "hosting" the match (the first one who gets put into the game) as the server. If the connection is weak (a shit ton of time it is), the "server" will crash and freeze or just boot everyone out. Due to the power of PCs, this isn't a big issue, but for some XBox games, it is.

 

[Zer_]

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?

Don't you thing that EA could make Dedicated servers for the Consoles?

MAG does not feature destructible environments, or any form of advanced colored lighting. All these things take resources, which are extremely limited on the consoles. There's no doubt that MAG is a technical achievement on consoles, but facts are facts. Consoles are not nearly as powerful as PCs are.

It's also worth mentioning that MAG uses a lot of tiled textures, which helps alleviate the memory load. BFBC2 (BF3's predecessor) does not. You find much higher detail in BFBC2 models than you do in MAG models.

 

[Radeonx]

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.

This has nothing to do with personal preference or why you have one over another.
It has to do with you saying that consoles are more powerful, which is false.
My $500 gaming PC can outperform my 360. It isn't that hard to put 2 and 2 together.

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

As someone else has just given you an explanation as to why the PC's are better, I'll leave it at that.
I'll give you an example. Crysis 2's system requirements for PC were lowered quite a bit compared to the first game. Notice how Crysis 2 is on console, while the first one isn't.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

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

I'll bite. My roommate plays Elder Scrolls IV on his XBOX360. I am a PC gamer just by preference unless I use my Nintendo for games I cannot buy on the PC. Putting the two side-by-side, the 360 hiccups on occasion when it loads a new section, however, my PC does not. I don't own a "$5,000.00" system as you mentioned above either. That's just one example of many.

I'm not trying to light a torch against counsels because, like I said, I switch platforms to suit my needs in gaming. It isn't a PC vs. counsel debate. It's just the basics of newer technology versus older technology.

 

[nofear220]

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

Spoiler

My Pc is at least 4 times as powerful as an xbox 360. Granted not many people have a Pc like mine, still any pc with a recent graphics card that costs around $150 and up have more power than any console.

 

[bak00777]

I dunno why this is, but since the 360 version of BC2 was ridiculously awesome anyway I don't much care.

Medics ftw...

Now if only they could learn how to make a proper singleplayer campaign.

ya the campaign wasn't superb, but the multiplayer is still my favorite thing to play online.

 

[Fenring]

I dunno why this is, but since the 360 version of BC2 was ridiculously awesome anyway I don't much care.

Medics ftw...

Now if only they could learn how to make a proper singleplayer campaign.

They did say it would have co-op, which gives me so much hope!

 

[Zaik]

Lack of dedicated servers for consoles. Generally the games are hosted on a console, which might be able to handle 64 people, however the internet connection generally cannot.

 

[im-white]

Why does DICE always make the PC version of the game 10 times better? The computer versions always have way more players than the consoles do. I don't see why they can't let the console versions have atleast 32 players. The 360/PS3 can handle up to 64 players or more guarantee it.

DICE confirmed that Battlefield 3 on the PC will have 64 player games, but the console will only have 24. I don't understand. Consoles are just as powerful.

And I know you PC Elitists are already saying "cONsoLes sUcK anD arE gAy"

I have a gaming PC and I prefer consoles for almost all game platforms, except RTS games.

So why can't DICE make the console versions support more players?

EDIT: Yes Consoles don't compare to High-end pc's. But Don't you think Dice could try to put 32 players into consoles?

Reason is b/c of hardware inside the ps3/xbox360. for instance the xbox360 is using a dual core xenon processor running at 3.2ghz, 512 ddr3 ram, and a gpu roughly comparable to a 7800 nvidia with a processing speed of 500mhz vs a ps3 which uses a cellmicroprocessor running at 3.2ghz, a g70 series ie 7600 gt gpu with 256mb of ram...
To make a long story short, the hardware restrictions on the consoles would cause bottlenecks and the amount of processing pwr would not be enough to allow the engine to be playable using 64 players. the gpu would overload, and you would most likely get 5-8 fps at max which is a slide show... That is why consoles can't get 64 players using the frostbite engine at this current time. Also modern pc's have 2 to 10 fold the performance of current gen consoles and can be built at around 600-700 $ for a gaming machine that should last 3-4 years at the current pace.

 

[dududf]

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.

This has nothing to do with personal preference or why you have one over another.
It has to do with you saying that consoles are more powerful, which is false.
My $500 gaming PC can outperform my 360. It isn't that hard to put 2 and 2 together.

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

As someone else has just given you an explanation as to why the PC's are better, I'll leave it at that.
I'll give you an example. Crysis 2's system requirements for PC were lowered quite a bit compared to the first game. Notice how Crysis 2 is on console, while the first one isn't.

I agree with you, but worth noting that the requirements are lower because crytek refined that ungodly power hungry engine of theirs. The quality should be about the same without completely brutalizing the gpu and cpu.

 

[Elijin]

Without doing any research at all, I'd say dedicated servers and the lack thereof.

64 players doing a p2p connection is.....not good.

Surely EA could give the consoles dedicated servers. They have enough money.

Maybe for the PS3, but I think you'll find Microsoft have some restrictive rules about how XBL works, and isnt a fan of dedicated servers. They like the whole dynamic p2p approach. And they have fairly tight control about how things are done in their neck of the woods.

 

[Zer_]

Why does DICE always make the PC version of the game 10 times better? The computer versions always have way more players than the consoles do. I don't see why they can't let the console versions have atleast 32 players. The 360/PS3 can handle up to 64 players or more guarantee it.

DICE confirmed that Battlefield 3 on the PC will have 64 player games, but the console will only have 24. I don't understand. Consoles are just as powerful.

And I know you PC Elitists are already saying "cONsoLes sUcK anD arE gAy"

I have a gaming PC and I prefer consoles for almost all game platforms, except RTS games.

So why can't DICE make the console versions support more players?

EDIT: Yes Consoles don't compare to High-end pc's. But Don't you think Dice could try to put 32 players into consoles?

Reason is b/c of hardware inside the ps3/xbox360. for instance the xbox360 is using a dual core xenon processor running at 3.2ghz, 512 ddr3 ram, and a gpu roughly comparable to a 7800 nvidia with a processing speed of 500mhz vs a ps3 which uses a cellmicroprocessor running at 3.2ghz, a g70 series ie 7600 gt gpu with 256mb of ram...
To make a long story short, the hardware restrictions on the consoles would cause bottlenecks and the amount of processing pwr would not be enough to allow the engine to be playable using 64 players. the gpu would overload, and you would most likely get 5-8 fps at max which is a slide show... That is why consoles can't get 64 players using the frostbite engine at this current time. Also modern pc's have 2 to 10 fold the performance of current gen consoles and can be built at around 600-700 $ for a gaming machine that should last 3-4 years at the current pace.

Actually the 360's processor is a triple core design, each core running on two threads. Just thought I'd clear that up.

 

[park92]

Why does DICE always make the PC version of the game 10 times better? The computer versions always have way more players than the consoles do. I don't see why they can't let the console versions have atleast 32 players. The 360/PS3 can handle up to 64 players or more guarantee it.

DICE confirmed that Battlefield 3 on the PC will have 64 player games, but the console will only have 24. I don't understand. Consoles are just as powerful.

And I know you PC Elitists are already saying "cONsoLes sUcK anD arE gAy"

I have a gaming PC and I prefer consoles for almost all game platforms, except RTS games.

So why can't DICE make the console versions support more players?

EDIT: Yes Consoles don't compare to High-end pc's. But Don't you think Dice could try to put 32 players into consoles?

doesn't it have something to do with the limited bandwidth developers can work with?

 

[Snotnarok]

Yes they're purposely making the console version worse than the PC versions, that's good marketing.

As everyone has said here, consoles can't handle it. To be blunt the consoles have 256 megs of ram while most PCs have 2+ so that's kind of a jump for them.

And as good as you say it is the PC version isn't as well optimized and it takes more power than it should for the game.

 

[The Hive Mind]

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

DICE is just a PC developer in the same way Valve and Blizzard are (ok not quite in the same way as blizzard). Most developers are massively biased in favour of consoles, so give PC games a chance

Not that I support there being any differences like this between platforms -- exclusives are fucking stupid and ruin gaming.

 

[Fuselage]

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?

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

Without doing any research at all, I'd say dedicated servers and the lack thereof.

64 players doing a p2p connection is.....not good.

This. And on the consoles being as powerful as PC's as OP speculated, no such thing, and I say this after playing black ops on both PS3 and PC, the PS3 version looks like a bunch of playdoh figures.

 

[Fuselage]

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.

This has nothing to do with personal preference or why you have one over another.
It has to do with you saying that consoles are more powerful, which is false.
My $500 gaming PC can outperform my 360. It isn't that hard to put 2 and 2 together.

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

Um... Do you know what Crysis is?

Even on newer, better computers you can't run this game at Highest, I run this game at second highest at best, I'm not being an elitist here but I wanna see your XBOX 360 beat that.

 

[FernandoV]

If companies had unlimited resources and time they could probably make Battlefield to your specifications but they don't. Developers can't satisfy every whim of a gamer because quality takes money and time.