Let's say Battlefield 3 get's consolized, what then?

I know I know Dice says that PC is there main focus. Didn't Crytek say the same with Crysis 2?

CB4McGusto

Yep, because i see no reason to buy the ''real version''

Sandvichman

Aside from better graphics and player count, custom servers, less lag and more accurate controls?

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

If the PC lacked buyers then there would not be PC gaming.

tenaka2

if lite you are implying console version.I am, for many social,space and financial reasons. and im sure others on here and around the world are the same and arent totally driven by zomg big maps and like we put lighting in your lighting so we can give you more lighting type stuff.

Save for a Car or new PC for battlefield isnt a hard choice tbh.But i need to get my sleeve tat booked in for sessions and get a start on that first :P

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

1.It would make the game better.
2.Hermits would claim Consoles are ruining pc gaming instead of pc gaming ruining pc gaming *throws large sheet over roaming band of pirates*

tenaka2

When all else fails play the PC pirates card. DO you have any other arguments?

Lets look at the history here:

Sales: Battlefield 2, a PC exclusive, sold 2.25 million in a year, whereas the console exclusive Bad Company took nearly two years to match that number accross all the platforms it was on. Bad Company 2, the PC version sold more than the PS3, and only slightly less than the 360 version.

How does that factor into the argument that they would get little sales from focusing on the PC version?

DICE treatement of PC versions: Mirrors edge DICE went out of their way to implement the Physx effects system, Bad Company 2 came out with DX11, and more player for the PC version.

Even in their console oriented games, DICE still give the PC version special treatment. Yet you don't think they will do this on BF3, the return to the true PC franchise of Battlefield. :?

Players: The PC version of Battlefield Bad Company 2 has more online players than the console versions do, and Battlefield 2 from 2005 is still heavily populated and extremely active. Even 1942 the original Battlefield has an extremely active player base

Battlefield series on PC has extreme staying power and longetivity.

Seriously, if BF3 gets consolized we'll just do little flamewar and then go back to playing PC-centric MP shooters, because 2011 is a first year in a long time where there's a lot of promising PC exclusive online action games coming out.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] Yep, because i see no reason to buy the ''real version''

tenaka2

Aside from better graphics and player count, custom servers, less lag and more accurate controls?

more players = mess, slightly better graphics dont make the game more fun, custom servers mostly suck and console controls are fine. as for lag, how will pc version have less lag?

"consolize" :roll:..... BF3 is being developed for the PC first so no scaling back or anything. Idk why cry baby hermits whine so much when the developer chooses to not make the PC its main platform.Sp4rtan_3

Sigh.........sometimes PC gamers can be such stubborn mule's "NO NO NO DICE SAID NO IT WON'T, SO NO TO CONSOLIZATION" "DICE IS NOT OUT TO MAKE MONEY BUT TO GIVE US PC GAMERS WHAT WE WANT" :roll:CB4McGusto

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] Yep, because i see no reason to buy the ''real version''

Harisemo

Aside from better graphics and player count, custom servers, less lag and more accurate controls?

more players = mess, slightly better graphics dont make the game more fun, custom servers mostly suck and console controls are fine. as for lag, how will pc version have less lag?

If you have to ask why custom dedicated servers have less lag it would take me to long to educate you on the matter.

I know I know Dice says that PC is there main focus. Didn't Crytek say the same with Crysis 2? Anyways let's just be open minded here because in this day in age of gaming it is very possible for this highly anticipated once PC exclusive franchise could be dumb down(what PC gamers call it) for consoles. I mean think about it, Dice is a developer who's sole purpose in the industry is to make money first and innovate later. You can't release a multiplatform fps around the same time a COD game comes out and expect to take away it's shine. I remember the first COD being praised to high heavens when it came out on PC and what did IW do? They put it on console and made hella $, more of which to compensate for the high cost in making and marketing it's game. What makes you think Dice won't follow suit with it's beloved Battlefield franchise? What makes you think EA(publisher out here doing the same as Activision) won't make them follow suit?

CB4McGusto

Call of Duty didn't have the explosion of sales on consoles until CoD4. At cod4's release PC gamers didn't hate cod yet so we can assume the sales would be considerably higher than the recent cod games, cod black ops sold around 1.2 million on the PC. Cod is a very casual shooter now that does not appeal to PC gamers that much, it's like the wii fit or farmville of shooters. Bad Company 2 on pc sold around the same as the 360 version of the game yet it was a console focused shooter. Not only did they sell similarly to the 360 but per sale the profits are over double what they are on consoles and Dice got royalties from the dedicated servers.

more players = mess, Harisemo

I agree, 2 is the ideal number for multiplayer games as anything more is a mess.

It won't so there is really nothing to truely discuss here.

DICE has only shown the PC version, they have said it's actually benifiting the consoles to push the PC version first.

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Aside from better graphics and player count, custom servers, less lag and more accurate controls?

tenaka2

more players = mess, slightly better graphics dont make the game more fun, custom servers mostly suck and console controls are fine. as for lag, how will pc version have less lag?

If you have to ask why custom dedicated servers have less lag it would take me to long to educate you on the matter.

i thought you meant pc version will have less lag no matter what server.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] Yep, because i see no reason to buy the ''real version''

Harisemo

Aside from better graphics and player count, custom servers, less lag and more accurate controls?

more players = mess, slightly better graphics dont make the game more fun, custom servers mostly suck and console controls are fine. as for lag, how will pc version have less lag?

You have no clue what you are talking about and just a persistent troll, Bf2 and 2142 was awesome with 64 players, bf2 was only a nade spam cause what each player started with like 7 nades, it had nothing to do with the amount of players. LOL custom servers suck? hahah. Keep crying or buy a pc. Sounds like some consolite is just butt hurt that they have smaller maps and less players, then you guys go back to arguing which whether the ps3 or 360 has better multiplatform games when the differences are marginal.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] Yep, because i see no reason to buy the ''real version''

Harisemo

Aside from better graphics and player count, custom servers, less lag and more accurate controls?

more players = mess, slightly better graphics dont make the game more fun, custom servers mostly suck and console controls are fine. as for lag, how will pc version have less lag?

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

more players = mess, tenaka2

I agree, 2 is the ideal number for multiplayer games as anything more is a mess.

depends on the game imo, 24 is perfect for a game like BFBC2 and 16 for CoD and TF2.

You have no clue what you are talking about and just a persistent troll, Bf2 and 2142 was awesome with 64 players, bf2 was only a nade spam cause what each player started with like 7 nades, it had nothing to do with the amount of players. LOL custom servers suck? hahah. Keep crying or buy a pc. Sounds like some consolite is just butt hurt that they have smaller maps and less players, then you guys go back to arguing which whether the ps3 or 360 has better multiplatform games when the differences are marginal.

NanoMan88

so u admit BF2 is a nadefest? i dont think nade spam is "awesome" but maybe hermits do like nade spamming so what can i say? well have fun nade spamming while I enjoy the crap non-nadefest version :)

[QUOTE="NanoMan88"]

You have no clue what you are talking about and just a persistent troll, Bf2 and 2142 was awesome with 64 players, bf2 was only a nade spam cause what each player started with like 7 nades, it had nothing to do with the amount of players. LOL custom servers suck? hahah. Keep crying or buy a pc. Sounds like some consolite is just butt hurt that they have smaller maps and less players, then you guys go back to arguing which whether the ps3 or 360 has better multiplatform games when the differences are marginal.

Harisemo

so u admit BF2 is a nadefest? i dont think nade spam is "awesome" but maybe hermits do like nade spamming so what can i say? well have fun nade spamming while I enjoy the crap non-nadefest version :)

Well it depends on the map and settings, if its strike at karkland IO then yes most def nade spam. I love how you sidestepped around the point though of more players =nade spam, next time back up ur trolling with evidence.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

more players = mess, Harisemo

I agree, 2 is the ideal number for multiplayer games as anything more is a mess.

depends on the game imo, 24 is perfect for a game like BFBC2 and 16 for CoD and TF2.

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I agree, 2 is the ideal number for multiplayer games as anything more is a mess.

SAGE_OF_FIRE

depends on the game imo, 24 is perfect for a game like BFBC2 and 16 for CoD and TF2.

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="NanoMan88"]

You have no clue what you are talking about and just a persistent troll, Bf2 and 2142 was awesome with 64 players, bf2 was only a nade spam cause what each player started with like 7 nades, it had nothing to do with the amount of players. LOL custom servers suck? hahah. Keep crying or buy a pc. Sounds like some consolite is just butt hurt that they have smaller maps and less players, then you guys go back to arguing which whether the ps3 or 360 has better multiplatform games when the differences are marginal.

NanoMan88

so u admit BF2 is a nadefest? i dont think nade spam is "awesome" but maybe hermits do like nade spamming so what can i say? well have fun nade spamming while I enjoy the crap non-nadefest version :)

Well it depends on the map and settings, if its strike at karkland IO then yes most def nade spam. I love how you sidestepped around the point though of more players =nade spam, next time back up ur trolling with evidence.

evidence? you just admitted yourself BF2 is nade spam

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I agree, 2 is the ideal number for multiplayer games as anything more is a mess.

SAGE_OF_FIRE

depends on the game imo, 24 is perfect for a game like BFBC2 and 16 for CoD and TF2.

whats so funny? TF2 is a complete mess with 32 players.

aww, the trolls are angry that they are gonna play the 20 fps version that looks like horsecrap and has less than half the players.

sad really.

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]

depends on the game imo, 24 is perfect for a game like BFBC2 and 16 for CoD and TF2.

Harisemo

whats so funny? TF2 is a complete mess with 32 players.

[QUOTE="NanoMan88"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

so u admit BF2 is a nadefest? i dont think nade spam is "awesome" but maybe hermits do like nade spamming so what can i say? well have fun nade spamming while I enjoy the crap non-nadefest version :)

Harisemo

Well it depends on the map and settings, if its strike at karkland IO then yes most def nade spam. I love how you sidestepped around the point though of more players =nade spam, next time back up ur trolling with evidence.

evidence? you just admitted yourself BF2 is nade spam

You credited it being a nadefest to the high player count, when he clearly disproved it staying the only reason is the ridiculous amount of grenades people start with. You're obviously not addressing his point, and continue to just say, "lol nadefest."

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"] 16 perfect for Tf2? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA SAGE_OF_FIRE

whats so funny? TF2 is a complete mess with 32 players.

16-20 players is perfect, more than that is a mess imo

Nothing. Never liked the Battlefied series and I doubt BF3 will change my mind.

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="NanoMan88"]

Well it depends on the map and settings, if its strike at karkland IO then yes most def nade spam. I love how you sidestepped around the point though of more players =nade spam, next time back up ur trolling with evidence.

bleehum

evidence? you just admitted yourself BF2 is nade spam

You credited it being a nadefest to the high player count, when he clearly disproved it staying the only reason is the ridiculous amount of grenades people start with. You're obviously not addressing his point, and continue to just say, "lol nadefest."

He's just mad he has to play an inferior version with less players, worse gfx, smaller maps etc, these kind of people will say anything but at the end of the day their only fooling themselves.

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]

whats so funny? TF2 is a complete mess with 32 players.

Harisemo

16-20 players is perfect, more than that is a mess imo

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="NanoMan88"]

Well it depends on the map and settings, if its strike at karkland IO then yes most def nade spam. I love how you sidestepped around the point though of more players =nade spam, next time back up ur trolling with evidence.

bleehum

evidence? you just admitted yourself BF2 is nade spam

You credited it being a nadefest to the high player count, when he clearly disproved it staying the only reason is the ridiculous amount of grenades people start with. You're obviously not addressing his point, and continue to just say, "lol nadefest."

less players = less nades. is this seriously an argument or are you just trolling now?

[QUOTE="bleehum"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

evidence? you just admitted yourself BF2 is nade spam

Harisemo

You credited it being a nadefest to the high player count, when he clearly disproved it staying the only reason is the ridiculous amount of grenades people start with. You're obviously not addressing his point, and continue to just say, "lol nadefest."

less players = less nades. is this seriously an argument or are you just trolling now?

[QUOTE="bleehum"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

evidence? you just admitted yourself BF2 is nade spam

NanoMan88

You credited it being a nadefest to the high player count, when he clearly disproved it staying the only reason is the ridiculous amount of grenades people start with. You're obviously not addressing his point, and continue to just say, "lol nadefest."

He's just mad he has to play an inferior version with less players, worse gfx, smaller maps etc, these kind of people will say anything but at the end of the day their only fooling themselves.

why are you arguing with me then?

Oh the irony.bleehum

i know it is quite sad people calling me a troll for stating my opinion are the ones actually trolling

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"] Depends what map. The game is perfect when played with 26-28 people. SAGE_OF_FIRE

16-20 players is perfect, more than that is a mess imo

imo it is

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]

16-20 players is perfect, more than that is a mess imo

Harisemo

imo it is

Well, let's see what DICE has to say...

"What we're showing on PC might look better than on console," said DICE executive producer Patrick Bach to VideoGamer.com in an interview, "but what we'll show on console doesn't look worse than any other game out there. It's probably even better than every other game out there on console."

Bach explained how he feels people will react when they finally see Battlefield 3 running on 360 and PS3. "Most people will be very positive because they might be afraid that it won't look as good as other games and it will, and some people will of course be disappointed that it doesn't look like the PC version."

What will the console versions lack, then? "The higher resolution, the higher framerate, the anti-aliasing, the motion blur, stuff like that. We can't have it to the same quality on the console," says Bach.

soooo...

BC2 comparison

Consolized am confirmed?

Don't worry. It's pretty much guaranteed that it "might look better".

[spoiler] :D [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"] No it's not...SAGE_OF_FIRE

imo it is

but people play and its actually fun

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]

imo it is

Harisemo

but people play and its actually fun

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]

imo it is

Harisemo

but people play and its actually fun

Dont consolize it for lords sake.

Raging Hermits will be like, "DONT WUANT! DONT WUANT!!!11"

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"] It's just your opinion because no one would agree with you. A class based game with 9 unique classes shouldn't be played on servers that only support 8 slots per team. SAGE_OF_FIRE

but people play and its actually fun

it does make it better though because 32 players is a mess and not fun at all.

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]

whats so funny? TF2 is a complete mess with 32 players.

Harisemo

16-20 players is perfect, more than that is a mess imo

You have you ever played with more than that?

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"] Depends what map. The game is perfect when played with 26-28 people. Espada12

16-20 players is perfect, more than that is a mess imo

You have you ever played with more than that?

yes i play TF2 on pc sometimes

if that really did happen 90% of the hermits would commit suicide and the rest would convert to console gaming :D NWA90s

yes i play TF2 on pc sometimes

Harisemo

Then that makes me wonder how you could still think 16-20 was perfect for this game. 24-26 is probably the best player count for TF2...