DICE: Only 5%-7% of PC Players of Battlefield 3 will be able to run it MAXED out

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

[QUOTE="Raymundo_Manuel"]

What's wrong about it?

It'd be like complaining that the 360 and PS3 play games that the 100+ million PS2/Xbox owners couldn't play at the start of this gen. We need to advance sometime you know?

I'd rather see the advancement of games than see the same old engine, and graphics reused over and over again and again on the consoles/PC.

edidili

The advancement of tech doesn't translate into better graphics only.

No but this particular "advancement" shows more signs of cramming code into certain confinements than it does of advancing anything.

[QUOTE="lawlessx"][QUOTE="mitu123"] It depends on the res as well, if you go at 1080p or above then I'll know it'll take more hardware.

mitu123

No.

The percentage that the commentator pulled out from his back side was probably ONLY about DX 11 specific features like Tessellation.

NOT performance/resolution, etc.

[QUOTE="edidili"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

youd rather see the useless advancement of graphics instead of the advancement of good gameplay, good storylines...etc?

Cranler

The advancement of tech doesn't translate into better graphics only.

You left out the vast players count and big maps. If that is not advancement of gameplay than what is?

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="lawlessx"] I just don't understand why people are making abig deal about this including Console fanboys. You don't have to be able to run a game with all settings on High or at the highest res to enjoy it :? lawlessx

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="lawlessx"] I just don't understand why people are making abig deal about this including Console fanboys. You don't have to be able to run a game with all settings on High or at the highest res to enjoy it :? Kinthalis

No.

The percentage that the commentator pulled out from his back side was probably ONLY about DX 11 specific features like Tessellation.

NOT performance/resolution, etc.

[QUOTE="Raymundo_Manuel"]

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]How is this a good thing?WilliamRLBaker

What's wrong about it?

It'd be like complaining that the 360 and PS3 play games that the 100+ million PS2/Xbox owners couldn't play at the start of this gen. We need to advance sometime you know?

I'd rather see the advancement of games than see the same old engine, and graphics reused over and over again and again on the consoles/PC.

When did I ever mention gameplay, or storylines?

[QUOTE="lawlessx"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] I know High is good enough, but the % is mostly referring to really high res, I know we can max this out below 1080p. 1280x720 and 1440x900 are easily doable.mitu123

Thats proably more than GTA 4 on PC lol

I hope this is true. We need companies constantly pushing graphics forward. This has nothing to do with Graphics King and everything to do with graphics progress. mythrol

[QUOTE="mythrol"]I hope this is true. We need companies constantly pushing graphics forward. This has nothing to do with Graphics King and everything to do with graphics progress. JuarN18

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

WHOOO! That's great. I get to buy a game that I have to wait a year to play at it's fullest potential.

Why is this a good thing again?

Technoweirdo

Because we want old games to look good by comparison as years pass by? :P I don't know.

Quick edit: It's all about choice. You can choose to have your favourite graphics-related things in extreme quality and have other things at just high quality. That is what PC gamers promote, right? Choice? :P

PC games can be future-proofed unlike consoles as hardware changes all the time so if they start pushing hardware a little too far, they don't have to completely scrap the effort they put into their ridiculously high polygon count models or whatever it is that's causing framerate issues. Leave them in but create less hardware demanding versions as well.

I'm all for kick ass games that puts a boot in the ass of a lot of hardware out there, but it isn't done nearly enough in comparison to how fast the video card market evolves.

[QUOTE="Technoweirdo"]

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

WHOOO! That's great. I get to buy a game that I have to wait a year to play at it's fullest potential.

Why is this a good thing again?

heretrix

Because we want old games to look good by comparison as years pass by? :P I don't know.

Quick edit: It's all about choice. You can choose to have your favourite graphics-related things in extreme quality and have other things at just high quality. That is what PC gamers promote, right? Choice? :P

PC games can be future-proofed unlike consoles as hardware changes all the time so if they start pushing hardware a little too far, they don't have to completely scrap the effort they put into their ridiculously high polygon count models or whatever it is that's causing framerate issues. Leave them in but create less hardware demanding versions as well.

I'm all for kick ass games that puts a boot in the ass of a lot of hardware out there, but it isn't done nearly enough in comparison to how fast the video card market evolves.

It's stil the industry leader after after Crysis 2 turned out to be Fear 3.

The apologists must be insane when downplaying this.

The thing about it is that Crytek were never VERY clear about "pushing hardware" before and after they released Crysis. When devs do something like this they need to say something blatant like- "You're crazy if you think you're going to max out this game 1080p on an 8800GTX"

LOL can it play Crysis?

Battlefield 2 was sort of the same way. So was Crysis. We're talking MAX'd here. It's about time games are surpassing the hardware, cause TBH it was never worth the money to upgrade over a GTX 260 for years and years.

[QUOTE="JuarN18"]

[QUOTE="mythrol"]I hope this is true. We need companies constantly pushing graphics forward. This has nothing to do with Graphics King and everything to do with graphics progress. mythrol

Haha, and people saying PC gaming is cheap. I'm glad the games I enjoy are excellent without being a ridiculous power hog.Mr_Cumberdale

You obviously don't know what you are talking about, now that I think about it you also said Starcraft 2 is an MMO, why do you think anyone would take you seriously?

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

wow PC is holding back PC now

SAGE_OF_FIRE

[QUOTE="mythrol"][QUOTE="JuarN18"] what's this game pushing forward? the techniques used in CGI movies are years ahead in comparisonJuarN18

Again. The methods they use are completely useless for real time video games. Someone needs to actually take what CGI movies are doing and devise a way to make them run in real time. CGI doesn't push graphics cards forward at all.

How is this a good thing?II_Seraphim_II

How are console generation advances a good thing?

Since we're at it, how are raising the standards and evolution good things?

This is why hermits get so upset when talking with console gamers :(

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

WHOOO! That's great. I get to buy a game that I have to wait a year to play at it's fullest potential.

Why is this a good thing again?

GreenGoblin2099

Alternatively you could buy it on console and never *really* play it ....

Yeah because "really" playing a game means having ubber graphics...

[QUOTE="JuarN18"]Polygons, HDR lightning, bump mapping all those things we have for granted didn't started with videogames, but in the 3D rendering areamythrol

Again. The methods they use are completely useless for real time video games. Someone needs to actually take what CGI movies are doing and devise a way to make them run in real time. CGI doesn't push graphics cards forward at all.

MW3 will be easily to max, and I bet it's gonna be better (and sell way more).IronBass

Lets see what they can do.

[QUOTE="mythrol"]

[QUOTE="JuarN18"]Polygons, HDR lightning, bump mapping all those things we have for granted didn't started with videogames, but in the 3D rendering areaJuarN18

Again. The methods they use are completely useless for real time video games. Someone needs to actually take what CGI movies are doing and devise a way to make them run in real time. CGI doesn't push graphics cards forward at all.

"Sources suggest that maybe only 5% to 7% of the PC players of Battlefield 3 will have the hardware capable of pushing the PC version to the max when Battlefield arrives this fall."

DICE didn't say that.

ferret-gamer

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

"Sources suggest that maybe only 5% to 7% of the PC players of Battlefield 3 will have the hardware capable of pushing the PC version to the max when Battlefield arrives this fall."

DICE didn't say that.

devious742

Shhh don't ruin it ;)

This is pretty cool if true, Battlefield 3 might be the next benchmark instead of Crysis, I'm sure many people will go back to it when they upgrade their PC's and see the difference in power, and have some more fun with the game of course :)

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

"Sources suggest that maybe only 5% to 7% of the PC players of Battlefield 3 will have the hardware capable of pushing the PC version to the max when Battlefield arrives this fall."

DICE didn't say that.

devious742

Weren't people complaining that there's no more high-end PC games pushing hardware anymore? When one arrives people start complaining, make up your minds already. And based on videocard sales, those 5-7% outnumber every current gen console sold, so it isn't really a stretch given how many PCs there are in the world.

Weren't people complaining that there's no more high-end PC games pushing hardware anymore? When one arrives people start complaining, make up your minds already. hypoty

Weren't people complaining that there's no more high-end PC games pushing hardware anymore? When one arrives people start complaining, make up your minds already. And based on videocard sales, those 5-7% outnumber every current gen console sold this gen, so it isn't really a stretch given how many PCs there are in the world.

hypoty

Well I'm one of those 5% - 7% who can run it maxed so I'm a happy.

[QUOTE="hypoty"]

Weren't people complaining that there's no more high-end PC games pushing hardware anymore? When one arrives people start complaining, make up your minds already. And based on videocard sales, those 5-7% outnumber every current gen console sold this gen, so it isn't really a stretch given how many PCs there are in the world.

Guppy507

I guess you're right, I read the first half-dozen posts and there were a lot of haters there. People just don't stop and think before they post anymore.

Sooo...with all the talk about how pc gaming destroys console gaming...there doesn't seem to be a shortage on games that many pc gamers can't even play to their fullest potential. Congrats! Welcome to the "Console Club." :) Enjoy your stay.TheMoreYouOwn

The only problem with your argument is that even at settings that mid-end PC GPU's that will run BF3 it will easily TRASH the console version.

I for one like a company that pushes tech. Because you know why with PC's we can do a little thing called "upgrading". With consoles...O wait.

AWESOME news. For those of us with the beef the game is going to look amazing (given it scales down to consoles even mid-range gaming machines will be A-OK).

EPIC!

Basically this sums up why DICE rocks right now - they are developing new technology and pushing hardware, instead of using nasty old UE3 or something.

haberman13

You summed up my thoughts really well. :)

[QUOTE="edidili"]

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

So it's like wasted potential, uh??

GreenGoblin2099

Why is it wasted? The game will not stop existing 2 years later. It's future proof, like Crysis. 4 years later you can still start the game and it will not feel dated at all.

Well, have fun waiting 2 years waiting to play it maxed out.

You really don't have a clue about PC gaming hardware, do you? You think Crossfire 6970's or HD 6990 won't be able to handle BF3? Not to mention the upcoming GPU's from nVidia and AMD this fall.

WHOOO! That's great. I get to buy a game that I have to wait a year to play at it's fullest potential.

Why is this a good thing again?

heretrix

Uh no, you don't. You just have to get a good GPU. It's a good thing because they are pushing PC gaming tech.

Grats, now you get to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars just to play a fifty dollar game at slightly higher graphics levels. No wonder we see such a flood of "BUT TEH PC IS BETTER" threads, obvious overcompensation for a gross waste of money that actual gamers would be spending on games.

Grats, now you get to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars just to play a fifty dollar game at slightly higher graphics levels. No wonder we see such a flood of "BUT TEH PC IS BETTER" threads, obvious overcompensation for a gross waste of money that actual gamers would be spending on games.

WreckEm711

Grats, now you get to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars just to play a fifty dollar game at slightly higher graphics levels. No wonder we see such a flood of "BUT TEH PC IS BETTER" threads, obvious overcompensation for a gross waste of money that actual gamers would be spending on games.

WreckEm711

Sooo...with all the talk about how pc gaming destroys console gaming...there doesn't seem to be a shortage on games that many pc gamers can't even play to their fullest potential. Congrats! Welcome to the "Console Club." :) Enjoy your stay.TheMoreYouOwn

[QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

Grats, now you get to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars just to play a fifty dollar game at slightly higher graphics levels. No wonder we see such a flood of "BUT TEH PC IS BETTER" threads, obvious overcompensation for a gross waste of money that actual gamers would be spending on games.

mitu123

The point sailed over your head completely

[QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

Grats, now you get to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars just to play a fifty dollar game at slightly higher graphics levels. No wonder we see such a flood of "BUT TEH PC IS BETTER" threads, obvious overcompensation for a gross waste of money that actual gamers would be spending on games.

Iantheone

I'm aware that it will be playable, which is why I said "at slightly higher graphics levels" ;) I wasn't referring to the gap between consoles and PC, if thats how you took it

Grats, now you get to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars just to play a fifty dollar game at slightly higher graphics levels. No wonder we see such a flood of "BUT TEH PC IS BETTER" threads, obvious overcompensation for a gross waste of money that actual gamers would be spending on games.

WreckEm711

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

Grats, now you get to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars just to play a fifty dollar game at slightly higher graphics levels. No wonder we see such a flood of "BUT TEH PC IS BETTER" threads, obvious overcompensation for a gross waste of money that actual gamers would be spending on games.

WreckEm711

The point sailed over your head completely

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

Grats, now you get to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars just to play a fifty dollar game at slightly higher graphics levels. No wonder we see such a flood of "BUT TEH PC IS BETTER" threads, obvious overcompensation for a gross waste of money that actual gamers would be spending on games.

WreckEm711

I'm aware that it will be playable, which is why I said "at slightly higher graphics levels" ;) I wasn't referring to the gap between consoles and PC, if thats how you took it

Grats, now you get to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars just to play a fifty dollar game at slightly higher graphics levels. No wonder we see such a flood of "BUT TEH PC IS BETTER" threads, obvious overcompensation for a gross waste of money that actual gamers would be spending on games.

WreckEm711