DICE: "We Aren't Stupid"

"It's not that we are evil or stupid, we did not choose not to have more players -. we would make love to 64 players on the console, but then we would have to cut away so much. Otherwise the players would get upset that the console version looks much worse and worse playing. Moreover, one would need to remove the vehicles. The cards will also turn out a little more compactly: If we say that they are smaller does not mean that we have halved it."

With the ridiculous amount of consolite posts accusing DICE of "not understanding console hardware" they finally released a statement about their choice to 'limit' the console version.

Turn out ... it wasn't much of a choice, but a reality of OLD HARDWARE.

I feel bad for DICE, they are brilliant devs, and it seems that people with a fundamental misunderstanding of how technology works are trying to 'tell them their business'

I don't even care about having less players.

Well, yeah. Old hardware is old.

Couldn't care what happens to the Battlefield 3 console version, they could turn it into a my little pony game for all I care, as I will be getting it on the PC. That's the sytem it was meant to be played on. :P

Its people that dont understand tech that make these stupids claims over the devs word. Most of them are on here....

i don't care anyway.

massive battle games were a fad five years ago that nobody cared about for longer than a few weeks.

why do you guys think mag never made so much as a ripple when it dropped into the pond of online shooters?

32 is still alot...

i don't care anyway.

massive battle games were a fad five years ago that nobody cared about for longer than a few weeks.

why do you guys think mag never made so much as a ripple when it dropped into the pond of online shooters?

Riverwolf007

Joke?

BF2/BF2142/BC2/BFHeroes/Planetside

All played constantly, in large numbers.

32 is still alot...

TrapJak

Agreed. But its 24 on console. Still fine, on the smaller maps.

i have no clue who they areelbert_b_23

Where are these 'consolite' posts? And that's incredible, I'm not sure how dumb you'd have be to think that consoles somehow have infinite power, and then to tell DiCE how to make a game...Inconsistancy

EA BF3 forum primarily.

Consoles every other game I play. PC BF3

Cant wait for this game.

i don't care anyway.

massive battle games were a fad five years ago that nobody cared about for longer than a few weeks.

why do you guys think mag never made so much as a ripple when it dropped into the pond of online shooters?

Riverwolf007

That's all up to opinion, MAG is still a great game IMO and I can always find a match, so that tears apart your argument that it "Never made a ripple when it dropped into the pond of online shooters"

[QUOTE="TrapJak"]

32 is still alot...

ehussein1379

Agreed. But its 24 on console. Still fine, on the smaller maps.

[QUOTE="elbert_b_23"]i have no clue who they areLto_thaG

What :|

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

[QUOTE="TrapJak"]

32 is still alot...

TrapJak

Agreed. But its 24 on console. Still fine, on the smaller maps.

Consoles are capped at 24 (12v12)

Confirmed.

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"][QUOTE="elbert_b_23"]i have no clue who they areMograine

What :|

It's the people who really want to make it happen, who are hurt by criticism. And criticism never seizes to exist. Especially on the internet it can be vile. You need a certain mentality to deal with it. I'm not good at it either.
This is the right way of dealing with criticism. Explain why you do things. It does wonders. There isn't a lot of really good criticism for BF3 out there. There were some great suggestions though, like my own.
As a developer times change and you have to respond quickly to the community and take them seriously, even if they for the most part don't make sense. The feelings of the consumer have a great impact on sales in the long run. So you just have to keep at it and be honest to yourself. If you're honest then these criticisms and discussions can never hurt you, only your faith in humanity.

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

[QUOTE="TrapJak"]

32 is still alot...

TrapJak

Agreed. But its 24 on console. Still fine, on the smaller maps.

"It's not that we are evil or stupid, we did not choose not to have more players -. we would make love to 64 players on the console, but then we would have to cut away so much. Otherwise the players would get upset that the console version looks much worse and worse playing. Moreover, one would need to remove the vehicles. The cards will also turn out a little more compactly: If we say that they are smaller does not mean that we have halved it."

With the ridiculous amount of consolite posts accusing DICE of "not understanding console hardware" they finally released a statement about their choice to 'limit' the console version.

Turn out ... it wasn't much of a choice, but a reality of OLD HARDWARE.

I feel bad for DICE, they are brilliant devs, and it seems that people with a fundamental misunderstanding of how technology works are trying to 'tell them their business'

ehussein1379

Couldn't care what happens to the Battlefield 3 console version, they could turn it into a my little pony game for all I care, as I will be getting it on the PC. That's the sytem it was meant to be played on. :P

ABCarmine

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"] The studio behind Modern Warfare 3.kris9031998

What :|

He's joking.

Wait, OP made a post that doesn't stupidly attack consoles? Am I in the right System Wars?

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

[QUOTE="TrapJak"]

32 is still alot...

TrapJak

Agreed. But its 24 on console. Still fine, on the smaller maps.

[QUOTE="kris9031998"][QUOTE="Mograine"]

What :|

EliteM0nk3y

He's joking.

That´s not Dice fault that next gen consoles are taking longer than they should to come out :(

Well, yeah. Old hardware is old.

DarkLink77

Mmhmm. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of tech could have told you that.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

i don't care anyway.

massive battle games were a fad five years ago that nobody cared about for longer than a few weeks.

why do you guys think mag never made so much as a ripple when it dropped into the pond of online shooters?

ehussein1379

Joke?

BF2/BF2142/BC2/BFHeroes/Planetside

All played constantly, in large numbers.

i went back 2 days later and the total amount of comments about the big unveiling of the most popular massive battle game of all time had a grand total of 65 comments.

i can't think of anything that backs up my observation about the faddish nature of massive battlers that that.

the battlefield games support what? 64 players? i don't really call that a massive battle game on the scale of like planetside or mag.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Well, yeah. Old hardware is old.

psn8214

Mmhmm. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of tech could have told you that.

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Well, yeah. Old hardware is old.

DarkLink77

Mmhmm. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of tech could have told you that.

dont crush my dreams....

Well, yeah. Old hardware is old.

DarkLink77

It was known from the get go that the console version would be far less players in MP.

Not quite sure why this is a surprise to anyone, when there's already been 2-3 BF games on consoles.

[QUOTE="ABCarmine"]

Couldn't care what happens to the Battlefield 3 console version, they could turn it into a my little pony game for all I care, as I will be getting it on the PC. That's the sytem it was meant to be played on. :P

noxboxlive

there you go :P

Funny how I see hermits doing more complaining about dice then the console gamers. I think this is just another sorry post to try and make console gamers believe the PC is the only good game platform.

the real answer is they don't want 32 snipers vs 32 snipers, which pretty much what happened with the first battlefield game on consoles...well when ever I played

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

i don't care anyway.

massive battle games were a fad five years ago that nobody cared about for longer than a few weeks.

why do you guys think mag never made so much as a ripple when it dropped into the pond of online shooters?

Riverwolf007

Joke?

BF2/BF2142/BC2/BFHeroes/Planetside

All played constantly, in large numbers.

i went back 2 days later and the total amount of comments about the big unveiling of the most popular massive battle game of all time had a grand total of 65 comments.

i can't think of anything that backs up my observation about the faddish nature of massive battlers that that.

the battlefield games support what? 64 players? i don't really call that a massive battle game on the scale of like planetside or mag.

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

i don't care anyway.

massive battle games were a fad five years ago that nobody cared about for longer than a few weeks.

why do you guys think mag never made so much as a ripple when it dropped into the pond of online shooters?

Riverwolf007

Joke?

BF2/BF2142/BC2/BFHeroes/Planetside

All played constantly, in large numbers.

i went back 2 days later and the total amount of comments about the big unveiling of the most popular massive battle game of all time had a grand total of 65 comments.

i can't think of anything that backs up my observation about the faddish nature of massive battlers that that.

the battlefield games support what? 64 players? i don't really call that a massive battle game on the scale of like planetside or mag.

Funny how I see hermits doing more complaining about dice then the console gamers. I think this is just another sorry post to try and make console gamers believe the PC is the only good game platform.

WarTornRuston

Funny, I have only seen one "hermit" complaining about BF3 and plenty of consolites claiming the console versions will be just as good or that there won't be any difference graphically.

Tunnel vision much?

24 players is good with me, less snipers.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="ehussein1379"]

Joke?

BF2/BF2142/BC2/BFHeroes/Planetside

All played constantly, in large numbers.

Kan0nF0dder

i went back 2 days later and the total amount of comments about the big unveiling of the most popular massive battle game of all time had a grand total of 65 comments.

i can't think of anything that backs up my observation about the faddish nature of massive battlers that that.

the battlefield games support what? 64 players? i don't really call that a massive battle game on the scale of like planetside or mag.

i won't touch cods crappy run and gun gameplay.

i like to hunt.

i'm saying those huge 120 something per side shooters didn't work years ago and hardly anyone plays them for over a few weeks because they don't work and are not fun.

It was known from the get go that the console version would be far less players in MP.

Not quite sure why this is a surprise to anyone, when there's already been 2-3 BF games on consoles.

Blue-Sky

Funny how I see hermits doing more complaining about dice then the console gamers. I think this is just another sorry post to try and make console gamers believe the PC is the only good game platform.

WarTornRuston

Yes, you're observations are obviously the one's we should go by. Not that DICE has seen growing concerns from parts of it's fanbase, and has thus decided to comment on it.

Seriously, why would they try to ostracize their market, and make it seem like people on consoles are getting an inferior product... After all, it is a large chunk of their market :?

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

It was known from the get go that the console version would be far less players in MP.

Not quite sure why this is a surprise to anyone, when there's already been 2-3 BF games on consoles.

yellosnolvr

i don't care anyway.

massive battle games were a fad five years ago that nobody cared about for longer than a few weeks.

why do you guys think mag never made so much as a ripple when it dropped into the pond of online shooters?

Riverwolf007

24 players is good with me, less snipers.

Chris_Williams

Nothing worse than playing BC2, and having half your team using Recon as solely ****ing snipers :x

Get in there :P