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

The clarify for those who are misunderstanding my "slightly better graphics" comment, I was not referring to the gap between consoles and PC's, that gap is glaringly obvious. I am referring to the gap between a good gaming PC and the hundreds upon hundreds of dollars that will be spend improving those PCs just to run the VERY few games that push hardware like this on max.

edit. lol cheese and rice get off the console vs pc pedestal for a second, I am PERFECTLY aware that gaming PCs run games better, I'm not clarifying a third time that I am referring to the gap between a gaming PC and the ridiculous waste of money that will be poured into upgrades just to run rare games like this at max and then come chest thumping on system wars about it.

[QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] Even on medium settings the game will be better than consoles. Just because it has a high maxing requirement doesnt mean that it will not be playable by anyone unless you have a super computer. DICE isnt that stupid, all it does is cut off a large part of the PC gaming community. 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

The clarify for those who are misunderstanding my "slightly better graphics" comment, I was not referring to the gap between consoles and PC's, that gap is glaringly obvious. I am referring to the gap between a good gaming PC and the hundreds upon hundreds of dollars that will be spend improving those PCs just to run the VERY few games that push hardware like this on max.

WreckEm711

[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.

oldkingallant

I had to do it, and all of it is true.:D

this is true

because only 5-7% of players on Steam have DX11 cards (i think)

dont go out buying a $1000 PC, because you wont need one, if you can max out crysis/metro 2033 in 1080p and get 30fps, you can max out BF3

The clarify for those who are misunderstanding my "slightly better graphics" comment, I was not referring to the gap between consoles and PC's, that gap is glaringly obvious. I am referring to the gap between a good gaming PC and the hundreds upon hundreds of dollars that will be spend improving those PCs just to run the VERY few games that push hardware like this on max.

edit. lol cheese and rice get off the console vs pc pedestal for a second, I am PERFECTLY aware that gaming PCs run games better, I'm not clarifying a third time that I am referring to the gap between a gaming PC and the ridiculous waste of money that will be poured into upgrades just to run rare games like this at max and then come chest thumping on system wars about it.

WreckEm711

[QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

The clarify for those who are misunderstanding my "slightly better graphics" comment, I was not referring to the gap between consoles and PC's, that gap is glaringly obvious. I am referring to the gap between a good gaming PC and the hundreds upon hundreds of dollars that will be spend improving those PCs just to run the VERY few games that push hardware like this on max.

oldkingallant

I clarified three times afterwards, and still people responded to those with bantering on how much better it will be than consoles :P If you aren't the type then I wasn't referring to you, as I said, actual gamers spend money on games, but there are MANY in these forums that spend hundreds upgrading to bleeding edge for the FEW games that even push hardware and then come and baw over it :P I stand by that being a gross waste of money for slightly better graphics *OVER REGULAR GAMING PCS* (Just in case someone coming in to this in the middle didnt see my above clarifications :P

The clarify for those who are misunderstanding my "slightly better graphics" comment, I was not referring to the gap between consoles and PC's, that gap is glaringly obvious. I am referring to the gap between a good gaming PC and the hundreds upon hundreds of dollars that will be spend improving those PCs just to run the VERY few games that push hardware like this on max.

WreckEm711

[QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

The clarify for those who are misunderstanding my "slightly better graphics" comment, I was not referring to the gap between consoles and PC's, that gap is glaringly obvious. I am referring to the gap between a good gaming PC and the hundreds upon hundreds of dollars that will be spend improving those PCs just to run the VERY few games that push hardware like this on max.

MrSelf-Destruct

How many games since Crysis have truly pushed the hardware? Crysis was a BEAST when it came out, as they're hyping BF3 up to be, and yet for all those who spent hundreds upgrading for Crysis on max, how many games since then have made it worth it, when its been four years since it came out and its STILL the graphics king? It gets to a point where its not even about gaming anymore, its about nothing but graphics

[QUOTE="MrSelf-Destruct"][QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

The clarify for those who are misunderstanding my "slightly better graphics" comment, I was not referring to the gap between consoles and PC's, that gap is glaringly obvious. I am referring to the gap between a good gaming PC and the hundreds upon hundreds of dollars that will be spend improving those PCs just to run the VERY few games that push hardware like this on max.

WreckEm711

How many games since Crysis have truly pushed the hardware? Crysis was a BEAST when it came out, as they're hyping BF3 up to be, and yet for all those who spent hundreds upgrading for Crysis on max, how many games since then have made it worth it, when its been four years since it came out and its STILL the graphics king? It gets to a point where its not even about gaming anymore, its about nothing but graphics

[QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

[QUOTE="MrSelf-Destruct"] Yeah, I got what you were saying there, and what you should understand that a lot of people were going to make those eventually anyway. If they go ahead and upgrade to max out this one game they'll be able to go years without having to even think about upgrading again. Consoles will likely already be well into a new generation before such an upgrade becomes necessary. So its basically, upgrade now to max out BF3 or upgrade later to catch up with the times.MrSelf-Destruct

How many games since Crysis have truly pushed the hardware? Crysis was a BEAST when it came out, as they're hyping BF3 up to be, and yet for all those who spent hundreds upgrading for Crysis on max, how many games since then have made it worth it, when its been four years since it came out and its STILL the graphics king? It gets to a point where its not even about gaming anymore, its about nothing but graphics

Because for all that money spent, its still playing the exact same game at slightly higher graphical levels. Sure you can max out anything else, but you could have run most games at very high settings except for that ONE game and it was worth hundreds of dollars for? It's money spent on an extremely small list of games that actually push the hardware, when a significantly less expensive gaming pc can run most games on max with the exception of.... Crysis, metro, and bf3? :? At that point it's no longer about a gamer playing games, its about nothing but graphics, which leads back to my original statement.

[QUOTE="MrSelf-Destruct"][QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

How many games since Crysis have truly pushed the hardware? Crysis was a BEAST when it came out, as they're hyping BF3 up to be, and yet for all those who spent hundreds upgrading for Crysis on max, how many games since then have made it worth it, when its been four years since it came out and its STILL the graphics king? It gets to a point where its not even about gaming anymore, its about nothing but graphics

WreckEm711

Because for all that money spent, its still playing the exact same game at slightly higher graphical levels. Sure you can max out anything else, but you could have run most games at very high settings except for that ONE game and it was worth hundreds of dollars for? It's money spent on an extremely small list of games that actually push the hardware, when a significantly less expensive gaming pc can run most games on max with the exception of.... Crysis, metro, and bf3? :? At that point it's no longer about a gamer playing games, its about nothing but graphics, which leads back to my original statement.

[QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

[QUOTE="MrSelf-Destruct"] You're missing the point. Crysis is actually an excellent example. I build my rig specifically so I could max out Crysis. Since then I've been able to max out everything else I've touched and should even be able to give BF3 a pretty good run for its money. I upgraded once for the sake of maxing that one game and I haven't upgraded in the three years since. I can probably go a couple more years at least playing some excellent looking games (maybe not maxed out but still better than average) and even when I do have to upgrade it may cost me another $200 or so. So how am I wasting money because of these games? They're simply pushing me to go ahead and do the inevitable. MrSelf-Destruct

Because for all that money spent, its still playing the exact same game at slightly higher graphical levels. Sure you can max out anything else, but you could have run most games at very high settings except for that ONE game and it was worth hundreds of dollars for? It's money spent on an extremely small list of games that actually push the hardware, when a significantly less expensive gaming pc can run most games on max with the exception of.... Crysis, metro, and bf3? :? At that point it's no longer about a gamer playing games, its about nothing but graphics, which leads back to my original statement.

Because had you not upgraded to run max on crysis, what is there that you would have to upgrade for? There is NOTHING since 2007 that has challenged Crysis as graphics king until now, and most likely you are going to have to upgrade to max it. So you upgraded a pc to max out one game, so four years later you can upgrade to max out a second game. The point is that for hundreds and hundreds of dollars less, people can put together pc's that can run almost ALL games on max with the exception of VERY FEW GAMES without needing to upgrade often. It's unnecessary excess. It's easy to say "the games are coming" but they aren't. Four years after Crysis and still there is nothing pushing the hardware to that level, meaning those hundreds of dollars spent to max that ONE game were just that, hundreds of dollars spent on one fifty-sixty dollar game when a significantly less expensive gaming PC can run just about every single other game maxed out.

this is true

because only 5-7% of players on Steam have DX11 cards (i think)

dont go out buying a $1000 PC, because you wont need one, if you can max out crysis/metro 2033 in 1080p and get 30fps, you can max out BF3

HaloinventedFPS

[QUOTE="MrSelf-Destruct"][QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

Because for all that money spent, its still playing the exact same game at slightly higher graphical levels. Sure you can max out anything else, but you could have run most games at very high settings except for that ONE game and it was worth hundreds of dollars for? It's money spent on an extremely small list of games that actually push the hardware, when a significantly less expensive gaming pc can run most games on max with the exception of.... Crysis, metro, and bf3? :? At that point it's no longer about a gamer playing games, its about nothing but graphics, which leads back to my original statement.

WreckEm711

Because had you not upgraded to run max on crysis, what is there that you would have to upgrade for? There is NOTHING since 2007 that has challenged Crysis as graphics king until now, and most likely you are going to have to upgrade to max it. So you upgraded a pc to max out one game, so four years later you can upgrade to max out a second game. The point is that for hundreds and hundreds of dollars less, people can put together pc's that can run almost ALL games on max with the exception of VERY FEW GAMES without needing to upgrade often. It's unnecessary excess. It's easy to say "the games are coming" but they aren't. Four years after Crysis and still there is nothing pushing the hardware to that level, meaning those hundreds of dollars spent to max that ONE game were just that, hundreds of dollars spent on one fifty-sixty dollar game when a significantly less expensive gaming PC can run just about every single other game maxed out.

[QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

[QUOTE="MrSelf-Destruct"] Dude... how are you still not getting it? I'm aware that there are few games that push the hardware, but there will be more games that do. When they release I will be ready. I don't have to rush out and upgrade again. Thanks to Crysis I am already prepared for the next wave of heavy hitters. You see what I'm saying? If I didn't upgrade to max out Crysis I would be needing to upgrade here pretty soon. But I don't.... thanks to Crysis. And beyond that, there is nothing wrong with having an overpowered machine. Not ever. Because as long as you have a lot of power overhead you'll never have to worry about fps drops. MrSelf-Destruct

Because had you not upgraded to run max on crysis, what is there that you would have to upgrade for? There is NOTHING since 2007 that has challenged Crysis as graphics king until now, and most likely you are going to have to upgrade to max it. So you upgraded a pc to max out one game, so four years later you can upgrade to max out a second game. The point is that for hundreds and hundreds of dollars less, people can put together pc's that can run almost ALL games on max with the exception of VERY FEW GAMES without needing to upgrade often. It's unnecessary excess. It's easy to say "the games are coming" but they aren't. Four years after Crysis and still there is nothing pushing the hardware to that level, meaning those hundreds of dollars spent to max that ONE game were just that, hundreds of dollars spent on one fifty-sixty dollar game when a significantly less expensive gaming PC can run just about every single other game maxed out.

lmao...... it clicked that time.

We can go ahead and delete all of our posts to save me the embarassment of others seeing this :P (To be fair its 3am and I'm terribly tired) Appreciate the patience btw, never looked at it like that before having never been in a position of gaming PC ownership :P

[QUOTE="MrSelf-Destruct"][QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

Because had you not upgraded to run max on crysis, what is there that you would have to upgrade for? There is NOTHING since 2007 that has challenged Crysis as graphics king until now, and most likely you are going to have to upgrade to max it. So you upgraded a pc to max out one game, so four years later you can upgrade to max out a second game. The point is that for hundreds and hundreds of dollars less, people can put together pc's that can run almost ALL games on max with the exception of VERY FEW GAMES without needing to upgrade often. It's unnecessary excess. It's easy to say "the games are coming" but they aren't. Four years after Crysis and still there is nothing pushing the hardware to that level, meaning those hundreds of dollars spent to max that ONE game were just that, hundreds of dollars spent on one fifty-sixty dollar game when a significantly less expensive gaming PC can run just about every single other game maxed out.

WreckEm711

lmao...... it clicked that time.

We can go ahead and delete all of our posts to save me the embarassment of others seeing this :P (To be fair its 3am and I'm terribly tired) Appreciate the patience btw, never looked at it like that before having never been in a position of gaming PC ownership :P

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

Awesome. We need more games like this.

Ah no... not another made up number ... lol

BTW does anyone have the specs for maxed out?

Why do I have a feeling that there will be one option that will murder everyone FPS. the dreaded.... Ambient occlusion. That one mean setting, almost any game I have been able to 60FPS has been murdered when I try and use this feature.Jynxzor

[QUOTE="JuarN18"][QUOTE="mythrol"] lmao. wut? The techniques used in CGI movies also takes months to render. Making them completely useless for REAL TIME VIDEO GAMES. Dice is pushing forward video games, not movies.mythrol

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.

Anyway, BF3 pushes forward real-time graphics.

[QUOTE="WreckEm711"]

[QUOTE="MrSelf-Destruct"] Ok, dude. I don't know how to make it any simpler to understand, but I'll try just ONE more time. I don't have to upgrade yet. When the time comes that I have to upgrade it will be because there are MORE POWERFUL games than Crysis on the market. Every game out for the next two years can be just as powerful as Crysis and I can still go that entire two years without having to upgrade. If in the next two years after than all the games are more powerful than Crysis I can still play them on average settings without having to upgrade. So with a machine I built just over 3 years ago I could potentially continue to playing for another 4 more years. That's 7 years worth of gaming without having to upgrade a single time. How did I waste hundreds of dollars? If I didn't upgrade to max Crysis I would have to do it when those other powerful games do come out. But I don't... yet again... thanks to Crysis. If you still fail to see my point then simply respond with: "MrSelf-Destruct, you're a complete fool" and we'll just leave it at that. ;)MrSelf-Destruct

lmao...... it clicked that time.

We can go ahead and delete all of our posts to save me the embarassment of others seeing this :P (To be fair its 3am and I'm terribly tired) Appreciate the patience btw, never looked at it like that before having never been in a position of gaming PC ownership :P

I was tempted to start my post with that as a joke, but in my embarrassment I decided against it :P

So this is basically the next Crysis?.

[QUOTE="Jynxzor"]Why do I have a feeling that there will be one option that will murder everyone FPS. the dreaded.... Ambient occlusion. That one mean setting, almost any game I have been able to 60FPS has been murdered when I try and use this feature.MrSelf-Destruct

[QUOTE="MrSelf-Destruct"][QUOTE="Jynxzor"]Why do I have a feeling that there will be one option that will murder everyone FPS. the dreaded.... Ambient occlusion. That one mean setting, almost any game I have been able to 60FPS has been murdered when I try and use this feature.Jynxzor

Ah no... not another made up number ... lol

BTW does anyone have the specs for maxed out?

Bebi_vegeta

So even though nearly 100% of the hermits on these boards are constantly saying how great the glorious PC experience is, only 7% of them actually get to live that experience to the fullest.

The other 93% of you can get off your high horses and come back to earth:P

I find what consolites say about this quite humorous.

I would imagine some of you PC gamers remember what it was like when BF2 released. It too was a graphical beast for its time and only the top hardware back then could max it out. Clearly DICE is trying to repeat history here. It was no mistake for them to try to make sure their game's max visuals would stand for some time.

The issue here is people not coming to terms with the game not running at max and still looking better than anything else on the market, which is highly likely. I would rather they push beyond my hardware's capabilities than to hold back and just make what could end be considered medium settings as the max visual output. That just gives more gratification the next time I upgrade my hardware.

GOOD. I want an excuse to purchase another GTX 580 and upgrade my power supply unit. :P Oh, and upgrade my CPU/mobo as well. DOH!

BF 2 did the same thing, and so did Crysis.

Lmao @ console fanboys that think running it at MAX is the ONLY way to play it.

And also DICE did not say it. Ya'll console fanboys doing selective reading now? Sad.

I can run it on medium, 1080p, and still look significantly better than the horrifyingly inferior version on consoles. I've got a choice, i've got freedom. (words that do not exist in the console's vocabulary). And years later, just like Crysis, it'll still look better than console games. Win:Win situation.

And like Crysis before, it'll chew up and spit on the outdated blurry messes of visuals found on the HD twins, yet again.

On Topic: I intend on being one of them.

OT: LoL at console fanboy getting owned. Don't get me wrong, I certainly have my preference of console, but talking down on PC is over-tired. There are even drivers and devices for legacy consoles on PC. It is the one ring that rules them all, forever and always.

"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

The author just made that up, but don't stop people from creating fake posts.

Nice. I'll probably will be in these numbers, and I'm expecting the new 28 nm cards from Nvidia and AMD just for the BF3 times of release.

They are quite spot on considering the Harware survey

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

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

When I read stuff like that it reminds me why I stopped being primarily a PC gamer.

WilliamRLBaker

Even if these figures were accurate, what's the big deal?

1) PC games are scalable to your systems capabilities.

2) It's 2011, you won't need to max the game to beat the console version.

I can only assume the people spinning this as bad don't understand PC gaming. A 8800GT, a bang for your buck card from 2007, will max most well optimized console games at above console settings. That was 2007, it's 2011, PC hardware has come a long way since then.

I'm glad there is a game coming out that will only max on the best hardware. It provides a good experience for the high end, and future proofing for everyone else.

So even though nearly 100% of the hermits on these boards are constantly saying how great the glorious PC experience is, only 7% of them actually get to live that experience to the fullest.

The other 93% of you can get off your high horses and come back to earth:P

mztazmz

Wow, even if you don't play on PC, you should know better.

What is it with this all or nothing attitude? Either you can absolutely max a game, or you might as well go console. Do console gamers really believe the gap between PC and console is so small, that one setting down from a enthusiast PC; would be the console version?

That is really good news :3 Any game that pushes tech is something any gamer benefits of, nomatter thier platform.

BTW: Im kinda lucky that Im building a new rig at the end of this year :3 my 4 year old one would have a heart attack as soon as it saw BF3 I think :3 Oh wait, it allreadi did see it... I can hear a soft whimpering from the case :\

Hard to really distinguish what they mean by this. Is it 5-7% of PC worldwide specs or 5-7% of gamers with gaming PCs (ie dedicated GPUs). Thats a pretty big difference. Either way, Im pretty sure if you have a DX11 card your in good shape.

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 already have HD 6970. So, I am within the 5%-7% bracket. I will just have to wait and see how it runs on my HD 6970. If it doesn't run it maxed out, I have the option of Crossfiring it with another modded HD 6970. By then prices will be cheaper. This is the beauty of PC gaming. We have OPTIONS. And I also get benefits of having a HD 6970 in not just BF3 but in another games like Dirt 2 DX 11 + Tesselation, which looks stunning, easily the best looking racing game, as well as better frames in FULL HD 1080P in other games too.

But that's beside the point, I for one commend DICE for trying to raise the bar in graphics and starting off in DX 10/11 as a baseline. It's about time a company did this instead of being lazy.

So even though nearly 100% of the hermits on these boards are constantly saying how great the glorious PC experience is, only 7% of them actually get to live that experience to the fullest.

The other 93% of you can get off your high horses and come back to earth:P

mztazmz

No, it's only talking about this game. The other 100% still runs games at settings and resolutions that consoles can only dream of. :P

[QUOTE="mztazmz"]

So even though nearly 100% of the hermits on these boards are constantly saying how great the glorious PC experience is, only 7% of them actually get to live that experience to the fullest.

The other 93% of you can get off your high horses and come back to earth:P

Xtasy26

No, it's only talking about this game. The other 100% still runs games at settings and resolutions that consoles can only dream of. :P

How is this a good thing?II_Seraphim_II

It's called having "high standards". And pushing "new technology".

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

If you went and bought a $1000 gaming PC today it won't max out BF3 when it comes out. That's what I mean.

If the upgrading is fun and makes you happy then awesome.

ChubbyGuy40

If BF3 can be maxed out on a single GTX 580, then you definitely can. especially by the time it comes out.

Yes but what resolution were they running it at? Was it in FULL HD 1080P. Resolution plays a HUGE ROLE in how a game runs.

wow PC is holding back PC now

Harisemo

It's more like " PC is raising the bar AGAIN" and setting a "higher standard AGAIN".

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

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

When I read stuff like that it reminds me why I stopped being primarily a PC gamer.

WilliamRLBaker

Only major hole argument is that even running at medium settings, it will TRASH anything on consoles. Just like Crysis running on High trashed anything on consoles.

Why is it so many console gamers in this thread seem to lack a understanding of the basic PC trait of scalability? A lot of them seem to be adopting a all or nothing mentality, with these claimed figures being "evidence" that only a minority of gaming PCs can surpass consoles.

Please tell me they aren't actually suggesting consoles are close to enthusiast level 2011 hardware?

Why is it so many console gamers in this thread seem to lack a understanding of the basic PC trait of scalability? A lot of them seem to be adopting a all or nothing mentality, with these claimed figures being "evidence" that only a minority of gaming PCs can surpass consoles.

AnnoyedDragon

Because they don't understand PC gaming. Over a year ago, AMD stated that they sold 2+ million DISCRETE DX 11 Gaming GPU's. Millions have been sold then both by AMD and nVidia. That's hardly a minority. As I stated even if it's running on Med/High settings on DX 11 it will easily trash anything on the consoles.

Please tell me they aren't actually suggesting consoles are close to enthusiast level 2011 hardware?

AnnoyedDragon