BF3blog.com -- the leading Battlefield 3 fan site, with news, updates, videos, screenshots, rumors, and more.
  
On April 17th, 2011 in News

DICE Patrick BachDICE has always stressed that the main platform for Battlefield 3 is the PC, which will also get some exclusive features, most notably 64 player support (as opposed to only 24 for consoles). In one of his many recent interviews, this time with Nvidia fan site GeForce, DICE executive producer Patrick Bach responded to a question regarding PC versus consoles, and it was clear that Bach and DICE are in favor on PCs at this point.

Asked specifically whether he feels if consoles are holding PC gaming back, Bach replied “Yes, Absolutely”, and added “That’s the biggest problem we have today”. He went on, saying that most games are made for the lowest common denominator (i.e. consoles), and that console games are generally ported to the PC with some higher resolution textures. Bach stressed that DICE is doing the opposite with Battlefield 3 — the PC version is the lead version and the console versions will be scaled down, as opposed to console version being scaled up to the PC.

Despite favoring the PC platform, DICE has always stated that the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions will look just as good as anything on the console market today. Bach also commented on whether the Frostbite 2.0 engine will be licensed out to other developers, which he denied with a firm “No”.



68 COMMENTS & TRACKBACKS

  1. MYname
    April 17th, 2011 at 10:01 pm

    That’s a lot of talk, but we (PC Gamers) haven’t seen BF3 yet. They SAY it’ll be the primary platform, but it’s not just the development cycle that is important for a PC game to thrive.

    We’ll know a year after launch, when we can see how many bugs have been fixed, how well PC gamers are listened to and how many people are still playing the game, and, hopefully at that point, still attracting new players.

    At this point, it’s just talk. It’s talk I appreciate it, but it needs to be validated.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Freeman
      April 18th, 2011 at 1:59 am

      True. They said Bad Company 2 wasn’t gonna imitate CoD. But it did in a lot of ways.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  2. FPSPlayer3000
    April 17th, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    Actually, the biggest problem in the industry today is bad gameplay and rushed developement.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
    • bacix
      April 18th, 2011 at 2:26 pm

      true, true…

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. Ross
    April 17th, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    Thats all well and good, but we dont all have 2k to spend on a decent gaming PC, so a games console for a cpl of hundred is actually far better bang for the buck. I agree, a good PC is great for gaming, but a decent gfx card costs more than an entire console, how is that relative?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
    • Wolliwonker
      April 17th, 2011 at 10:47 pm

      Quality got it’s price.
      Please just ask your question again. The new Nvidia GTX 580 costs more then a PS3 how is that relative?
      Think this over. What kind of crap must be in a ps3 if only a graphics card for a PC costs more. And I’m pretty sure that they don’t give us too high prices.
      Console is good for Beat ‘em Ups and thats all. Console made videogames for everyone payable so Consoles made videogames casual.
      I could talk about this topic for hours.
      The Point is:
      For that Price: How can there be anything usable inside of a console.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
      • haha
        April 18th, 2011 at 12:02 am

        What?

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
      • sg
        April 18th, 2011 at 12:32 am

        I’m on the PC side of things, but this is a terrible argument for them. The fact is that a 580/590s and the amd counterparts are the worst cards you can buy if you are looking for a good cash to performance ratio. In 6 months that card will be half the price and you will have lost 350$ on nothing other than bragging rights (and then embarrassment for having spent close to a grand on ‘old’ tech). When you say you’re ‘sure they aren’t charging too much’ for that new video card, of COURSE they are. If they weren’t, nvidia would be making a billion dollars a quarter! (http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1273782366356.html).

        Buying that top end video card, you are joining the early adopters list, and it seems a lot of ‘gamers’ do this. Thats fine, and keeps the tech industry moving forward, but please dont try to tell us that the 700$ video cards are justified in their cost, theyre overpriced because thats how tech makes its cash.

        Saying that because a console is cheap, it is ‘crap’ is also a huge over simplification. Not everything in tech is crap just because its cheaper. Otherwise that 70″ TV that costs 9x the price of that 42″ TV would be 9x the size. But its not. Costs is not directly related to quality or performance. If you’re a sucker, go ahead and buy that 10k 60″ LED. In a year you’ll be cursing because its 2k at the local walmart.

        Consoles are cheap because they are mass produced, there are established supply lines for the hardware in them, and the parts are older tech at this point. However, comparing a console to a single component of a PC is pointless. You need to look at how consoles work and how much more efficient a consoles hardware is compared to a PCs for the task of running games. Theres no OS running hundreds or thousands of non-game related tasks in the background of a console, just the task of running the game.

        All this is not to say I prefer consoles or like the games on them. I have an xbox. I use it for streaming movies and tv shows because its a cheap media center. I cant stand it for gaming due to terrible controller mechanisms and a general feeling that every fps (which seems to be all that the platforms are geared to now) feels identical, with different buttons assigned to the ‘shoot big gun’ button.

        What I am saying is that you cant say PC’s are better just because they cost more. They’re better because they have exceeded the level of power the current console generation can cope with, they have a better control interface, and they’re far more flexible in the things you can do with them.

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
      • Jack
        April 18th, 2011 at 12:33 am

        @ WOLLIWONKER “For that Price: How can there be anything usable inside of a console.” Well if you didn’t know, when a console is released, the compenents inside of the console are state of the art, and it is common knowledge that when you buy a new console (when it is first released) the tech inside of it is 6-10 months more advanded than what is currently the top line technology available to the market at the time. Consoles makers give their customers a product that can stay relevant and competitve graphics wise for about a year at which point PC’s go back to being the overall better performer. Now, back to the cost issue. When I buy a new console for $4-500, console makers like sony and microsoft are losing hundreds if not thousands of dollars. They wont start making money off the console themselves until a 1 and a half to 2 years down the road. They subsidize that lose through accessory and game sales. Now as for PC’s. yes we all know that a PC, for the most part, will always outperform a console a year or two after the consoles release, since you are able to upgrade your pc. But like ross was saying, buying say a new graphics card, can cost hundreds of dollars and thats just for a top of the line graphics card. So as a pc gamer, the question becomes; do I want to spend thousands of dollars over the course of 5-7 years, the typical life span of a console, or do I spend 500 during that time for a console? Furthermore, if the debate is truly whether or not consoles are holding back pc’s, I feel thats a false statement. consoles have introduced millions of gamers to the industry and if anything have helped the gaming become insanely popular. If anything is holding the PC market back, its PCs themselves. As the article said, “most games are made for the lowest common denominator” meaning that If I am to make a game for a PC, it has to be able to be played on any PC on the market. Meaning if pcs are out there that are operating on ten year old hardware, then the game has to run on that. BOOM.

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
      • LaneWeaver
        April 18th, 2011 at 12:59 am

        The problem with your logic is that (1) console makers make most of their money through software, not hardware (2) graphics card companies make basically all of their money through hardware. Nvidia and AMD have nothing to sell to you besides hardware, so they’ll have to sell these at a profit. Sony, Nintendo and MS don’t, because games will provide most of their income. In fact, Sony and MS have indeed sold their consoles at a loss, at one point or another.

        Besides, if there’s nothing useful inside a console, how do you get pretty games (e.g. Gran Turismo) to run? Trolls..

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
      • JA
        April 18th, 2011 at 1:22 am

        I’m not even a gamer, but everyone knows consoles are sold at a loss price, with the profit coming from selling games. If you were paying their real value the price would be way higher.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
      • angerZen
        April 18th, 2011 at 1:53 am

        That is probably the dumbest comment I’ve read in a while. You obviously have no grasp on manufacturing costs and the economy of scale. You also have no idea what components make up a console, or apparently that consoles are initially sold at a LOSS (i.e. less than what they are manufactured for).

        Lastly, you also seem to be ignorant of the fact that when the current-gen consoles came out, the graphics processors in them (ATI in the 360, NVidia in the PS3) were *newer* technologically than anything available for PCs at the time. This changed relatively quickly as ATI and NVidia released newer cards, but the point stands.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
      • Bunchies
        April 18th, 2011 at 2:25 am

        They sell them at a loss in order to grab a larger market share. As huge corporations, they can take the financial hit for the long term gains.

        When you’re talking about a gaming PC, which is built by a gamer, or by a small scale company with dozens of competitors, it’s much more difficult to absorb that cost. It gets passed on to the consumer.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • Nick
      April 18th, 2011 at 1:05 am

      If you’re genuinely convinced that you need to spend 2k on a gaming PC, I really don’t know what to say to you.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
    • Tuttle
      April 18th, 2011 at 1:09 am

      What gaming pc are you building for 2 grand? 0.0

      A core i5-2500k CPU, mobo, 1TB harddrive, 4GBs of RAM, and a case is $400 on tiger direct. Add a $200 Graphics card. That’s $600 for a decent gaming rig.

      Or use an AMD Phenom, half the ram, half the storage, a mobo and a case for $200. And a $200 Graphics card. $400 dollars for a decent gaming rig.

      Add on 100 dollars for a 20-22″ widescreen monitor.

      For a console, you have to buy the console (A xbox 360 lets say) for around $300 (yes, with the harddrive). And then add on how much your TV cost (200-400 for a 32″ 1080 Vizio for example). that’s in the $500 range already. So for the cost of your console and TV, you could have a PC and a Monitor.

      Most modern Monitors can double as a TV. A decent PC can double as a gaming console. No modern console (thanks to Sony nerfing the Linux capabilities of the PS3) can double as a PC.

      Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
      • dcdcccd
        April 18th, 2011 at 5:25 pm

        I got my pc last november for a grand total of 600 dollars, it runs every game currently out maxed out with 30fps at least. That includes bad company 2, gta4, crysis 1, metro 2033, shogun 2. It has 8gb ram, 90gb SSD, 3.2 phenom II quad core, Nvidia gtx 470. all for 600 bucks, for something I also use for my work extensively. Anyone thinking they need to spend anymore than 1000 dollars on a pc to get top performance out of their games is a friggin idiot. Don’t but the newly released hugely overpriced tech, get the stuff thats been out at lesat 6 months and you easily save 1200 dollars.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
      • Ross
        April 18th, 2011 at 7:58 pm

        @Tuttle, I’m not an all out console gamer, I have a console and a semi-gaming PC, as well as several other PCs not used for gaming, I built everything except the console myself using the same companies that supply shops, and I’m trained to degree level in forensic computing! (Sorry to everyone else, I’m not trying to be arrogant in the slightest, I just want to get my point across) Dont assume because I said consoles are much better value for money that means I favour consoles, I’m not as ignorant as you clearly are!
        My gaming rig as very similar to the first one you mentioned, and it was outdated before I even built it a year ago, its nowhere near as good as a decent gaming PC should be, and to all those people saying 400-600 will get you a good gaming computer are just plain deluded, theres no way you’re seeing a PC game for what its worth at that price!
        I agree that it’s ridiculous to spend top dollar for brand new tech, you should wait a while, but that just backs my point! Consoles were built solely for gaming, they dont have the overheads of a full PC OS, leaving memory free to focus on the game, yes, they are outdated within a year or two, but the point of the article above is that they design the game for top of the range machines then downscale from there, so yes, 2k for a good gaming rig is a reasonable assumption.
        As for buying a TV separate, dont you own a TV already?
        As for Gene’s comment about a good gfx card being a bonus, not mandatory, sorry my friend, but I think you’re the one stuck in 1998, if you dont have a good gfx card, you dont have a gaming PC, it doesnt matter how much ram you have, or how fast your cpu is, a rubbish gfx card is not going to hardware render good graphics no matter whats backing it.
        Sorry guys, but if you think you have good gaming PCs, you’ve clearly never seen a good gaming PC.

        Game Over, you reached level 1, press any key to continue!

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
        • paba
          July 27th, 2011 at 11:07 am

          It depends on what a “gaming rig” is. One person may be happy just running the game even though it looks like crap. Id hardly call that a gaming rig, and most people wouldnt either as it wouldnt run future games if it can barely keep up with current games (speaking in general).

          It really depends on what kind of graphics you are looking for. Top of the line graphics in the most graphic intense games will need a $1000+ computer to play, and thats scrounging. A phenom is not gonna cut it, you need a 2500K and the mobo which is $300 rounded down, memory $50 (4GB, youre NOT getting away with 2), a case $50 for a cheap one, a hard drive ~75 depending on what size and speed you want, the OS (which a lot of people seem to forget, what are you running linux on your gaming rig?) $100, youll want at least SLI 470s (and thats pushing it low end for some high end games, especially for future games) or the AMD equivalent ~$500, a PSU to power it all $150. We are already over 1000 and we have not included a screen, mouse, and keyboard (lots of people reuse old ones to save money, but if you plan on using your old computer as a second one and dont have any spares that adds more) and any other miscellaneous stuff like a CPU cooler and any case fans to keep your stuff cool. Thats what I call a gaming rig. A phenom rig is not going to cut it for much longer.

          Even if we built a middle system using a Phenom it would come out to about 600 at least to play games on medium settings (Im talking really demanding games, maybe high on some lower ones). A 200 GPU, 200 CPU/mobo thats 400, then you need the case, PSU, OS, HDD, thats easily over 200 right there. Anything less than a 200 GPU is not going to cut it unless you lower the resolution a lot.

          Yes, the tech in consoles is outdated, but people fail to realize that coding for static hardware is a LOT easier than coding for a huge range of hardware found in PCs. Others have mentioned that OS and background apps take up resources, but on top of that developers know what hardware they are coding for and that makes it SO much more efficient than comparable PC hardware. PCs have more raw power, but consoles are a LOT more efficient using the hardware that they have. On top of that, console games are usually the focus for devs because that is what brings the money in. PC gaming is tiny compared to consoles, so the majority of games are made with consoles in mind, then if they do well are ported to PCs. They are not going to remake the game from scratch, so they use the console base and make it run well on a PC. Of course they want to spend as little money doing that as possible, so it will not be optimized for the PC anywhere near the level that it was on consoles (which means the level of hardware needed to get the same results nearly doubles, all things taken into account).

          Also, I wouldnt call 30 FPS “maxxing out.” All consoles play at 50-60FPS (depending on region, and with a few exceptions). I am not a console fanboy. I dont own a console and rarely play on my brothers consoles, and much prefer PCs, but that is the truth about PC vs console hardware and design.

          Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
    • Matt
      April 18th, 2011 at 1:13 am

      I see this statement all too often. The fact of the matter is, you do not have to spend 2k for a “decent” PC. Will you need to spend more for a gaming PC than a console? Of course. Just not thousands of dollars. You can build a computer capable of running Crysis 1 on high setting for around 700 dollars; multiple PC journalists have done so and put out guides. I believe Maximum PC made one for around $500. 2,000 dollars is going to give you something damn near top of the line, which is great, but not needed to play games.

      I feel that it’s also important to point out that you get a lot more out of a PC than you do a console. A console’s primary purpose is to play video games, whereas a computer has a vast amount of practical uses. You’re definitely making a better investment when you’re buying a computer over a console.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • SHUTUP
      April 18th, 2011 at 1:19 am

      You are an idiot, just shut up with the “HURRR IT REQUIRES 2,000 DOLLARS FOR A GOOD COMPUTER DURP.” A sandy bridge system with SSD and a nice videocard can be had for under $900.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • gene
      April 18th, 2011 at 1:34 am

      Here we go again. PC gaming rigs costs about $400-500, and will run games 2x better than consoles. Thats really cheap considering its a COMPUTER + a gaming machine.

      I’m not sure if you’re stuck in 1998 or something, but expensive graphics cards are just a bonus, and are not mandatory to run games, and in a way, thanks to consoles, you don’t have to upgrade every year anymore.
      I’m still using the same gaming rig from 3-4 years ago, and it runs every game just fine.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
    • Leadcatcher22
      May 10th, 2011 at 12:46 am

      A “good” Gaming PC can be had for about $1200.
      A console is fine for the casual gamer “couch potato”.
      You don’t need to have the top of the line video card and the Oh so overpriced “intel” cpu to have a pc that can max out any of todays games.
      here is a fine example of a 2 year old system that will max out BC2.
      And play BF3 at high settings
      AMD Phenom II x4 955 ~$140
      ATI 5850 1GB ~$180
      G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 ~ $95
      MSI 890FXA-GD65 AM3 AMD 890FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard ~$150
      OCZ ModXStream Pro OCZ700MXSP 700W ATX12V V2.2 / EPS12V SLI Certified CrossFire Ready Power supply ~$90
      RAIDMAX SMILODON Extreme Black ATX-612WEBP 1.0mm SECC Steel ATX Mid Tower Foldout MB Computer Case ~$90

      Thats only $745 add in your DVD burner or blueray and a card reader for another $100. thats about $950… Now add a set of 5.1 surround sound or a kickass gaming headset $75… Thats $1025.. hell add a top of the line 24″ led monitor for $199.00
      Thats $1200 for a kickass rig that will play anything maxed out at 1680 x 1050 ……
      So please keep your argument that it takes $2000 for a gaming PC.you could actually spend less and still be able to play at high settings and also have a complete home entertainment pc….

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Nick
      October 18th, 2011 at 9:02 pm

      I agree, If you have the money for that 2 grand PC go for it, I started back with 1942 and it has always been PC. But to drop what… now 250 for a ps3 and be able to still have fun, and at the same time still have money. Just my opinion though…….. :)

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Opetich
    April 17th, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    Thank you!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. stygyan
    April 17th, 2011 at 10:42 pm

    Hey, sure, consoles are holding PC Games back. Listen to this: if I wanted to see realistic water reflections and the highest quality grass textures in the world, I would go to the park.

    What I want you guys is to give up on the first-person-shooters for once and for all and try to innovate.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
    • Deages
      April 18th, 2011 at 12:44 am

      You’re trying to tell me that we shouldn’t have more detailed surroundings…because we can have them in real life?
      Well christ, let’s go back to the days of doom then – I’m ready!

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
    • skyrous
      April 18th, 2011 at 12:55 am

      If you want innovation try minecraft not the greatest looking game but easily the most imaginative game to come out in years. And made by a by an independent European developer.

      And next time the President of Activision says PC gaming is dead take heart in the fact that 4 years they’ll be making there own minecraft clone.

      In the last decade the only innovations to come from the consoles are guitar hero and waggle controllers. The next great genre will come from one of the hundreds of lone wolf PC developers releasing their games on steam.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
    • Stu
      April 18th, 2011 at 1:33 am

      Indie games are that-a-way ~~>

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  6. Duran
    April 17th, 2011 at 11:58 pm

    Well it’s pretty easy to see who’s a console gamer here.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  7. Joe A
    April 18th, 2011 at 12:35 am

    Consoles ftw… pc gaming is too expensive… I dont have a grand to drop on a new pc.. 300 on a console.. sure.. but barely… Plus.. despite pc having better graphics, I still get much more enjoyment from console games..

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
    • butch
      April 18th, 2011 at 2:19 am

      just because you’re a dirt poor peasant doesn’t mean that console gaming is in any way comparable to pc gaming. consoles are the macs of pcs.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
      • oh
        April 18th, 2011 at 3:29 am

        what is this comment.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
    • skyrous
      April 18th, 2011 at 2:51 am

      The initial cost is high but after the initial expense the yearly up keep of a computer isn’t much more than a PS3 on Launch day. Actually less then a PS3 on launch day.

      4 years ago I built a new gaming rig for my brother and it cost $2500, a year later I built a twin to that system for my friend and it cost $1500. shortly after that I rebuilt two other computers (recycled the case. power supply, etc) but otherwise the same specs as the first two. I got the cost down to $500. Less than a PS3 on launch day. 3 years later those core 2 quad processors still aren’t obsolete. $300 for windows 7 and dx11 video card and those systems will be several orders of magnitude faster and support dx11. Drop another $300 on motherboard and processor in 2013. After the initial expense you can spend a few hundred every few years and maintain a good performing gaming PC.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. The Soup
    April 18th, 2011 at 12:48 am

    I gotta agree with stygyan… I don’t think their point is relevant to all of gaming, I think the scope of their argument is pretty much just “first-person shooters” which is the only genre that anyone really seems to argue about. What I don’t think people realize is that in recent years, the FPS genre has been so absolutely stale (save for a few more innovative games) that developers have tried to make up for lack of creativity and innovation with insanely high-quality graphics.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  9. Hc792
    April 18th, 2011 at 1:43 am

    If we’re talking about a purely graphical and performance standpoint? Sure. But regarding content of gameplay and the quality of the game itself, it would be silly to blame the consoles.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
  10. Simplejack
    April 18th, 2011 at 1:56 am

    A new gaming console costs 300 dollars or more and people who own gaming consoles probably own computers which are about 500 new they also own tvs which will probably be atleast $200 if you did not buy a console you could use the extra 300 to buy an $800 pc which is very good for playing most games.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  11. Anon Duck
    April 18th, 2011 at 2:03 am

    An executive producer means NOT a game developer. Executive producers don’t go near code with a 50 foot pole. Perhaps this guy is just trying to sound knowledgeable. Graphics don’t matter as much as gameplay.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  12. Damiel
    April 18th, 2011 at 2:03 am

    Sounds much like Crytek on Crysis 2 and we all know how that went

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  13. Dan
    April 18th, 2011 at 2:22 am

    PC ftw, xbox rrod on me.. so i looked into getting a new one.. cost like 399 for a xbox with a 250gig hdd, so im going pc now.. can make a decent one for pretty cheap

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  14. Scorch
    April 18th, 2011 at 2:26 am

    Think about blizzard and valve. Without blizzard games and steam where would pc gaming be atm?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Leadcatcher22
      May 10th, 2011 at 1:00 am

      Steam ??? lmao Steam is not used by more than 35% of pc gamers.
      Most hardcore PC gamers hate steam due to the issues it has…PC gaming is driven by People like myself… We want a more detailed game, we want more controls,more interaction, more intense gameplay. We like the fact that if we built a rig to play on, that the game allows us to have a better experience and better graphics than a console.
      PC games are more involved, they take more time to master… I can remember buying Battlefield 2 and it taking over a month to be able to master the aircraft and all the vehicles… And it taking longer to become a great player.
      Console games are too easy…they lack the need for skill based play.
      I mean if your a 12 year old..hey , sure it will be fun to play a game that doesn’t take any time to master…
      PC games are more than that.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  15. Captain Obvious
    April 18th, 2011 at 2:31 am

    Tough shit. I’m not giving up my consoles to benefit PC users.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  16. Guy who Builds PCs for a Living
    April 18th, 2011 at 2:41 am

    For the bickering over console vs. PC.

    They cost the same morons!

    Decent gaming PC: 800 dollars including monitor (look it up, i5 system with a 5770 amd gpu.) You dont need the latest generation and an i7 in ur machine to play games. I was on a single core until last year.

    Console: 400 dollars for console (correct me if I’m wrong) + 600 dollars for a decent tv. (note that computers can do anything so dont complain that the tv is used for other stuff, I dont own a TV, i watch it all on my computer)

    So PC’s are actually cheaper than consoles at this point, the difference? PCs require more knowledge.

    Oh, and those of you who say the monitor will be smaller than that 40 inch tv? monitors take up the same amount of space in your field of vision since they’re made for you to sit closer to them. They have faster responce times, and you can get a highdef 23″ monitor for under 200 bucks

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  17. Mr Pink
    April 18th, 2011 at 3:12 am

    Ok, I think everyone just needs to chill out. Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages. I prefer console because it can function as a cheap entertainment center and gaming center. Also, I view PC’s as being something I mainly use for work and personal info (like financials), while the console is a separate thing for me to relax and entertain myself with. Also, a console is basically a PC built for gaming that I don’t have to assemble myself.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  18. neotoy
    April 18th, 2011 at 3:44 am

    Want to know the ultimate Console vs. PC argument? It’s not about price, hardware or games…

    A console can basically do one thing well. A PC can do dozens of things. No matter how you compare the two platforms the console automatically loses because it can only do a fraction of the things a PC can do.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  19. Tag
    April 18th, 2011 at 3:44 am

    I saw them play the game at PaxEast and they played it on a big-rig PC. I almost forgot I was watching gameplay it looked so good.

    Sure, the mass market is in the console arena, but the best technology is obviously going to be in the PC market. Some companies will continue to produce for the PC, and others put it as a 2nd priority. That’s not going to change. I would hope that DICE is being honest that they will put PCs first from now on since that is where designers can show what they are really capable of.

    As for costs, yeah, PCs are more expensive and hardware advances at a ridiculous pace. Consoles are usually sold cheaper than they are produced and have to make up for it in charges to developers and game sales. That’s how they can cram PC hardware into a console and sell it for a few hundred dollars. They take a risk that pays off over time by waiting for years before releasing the next system.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  20. taavi
    April 18th, 2011 at 6:57 am

    Yeah Crytec also said that PC version is the lead when it comes to Crysis 2, look where that got us…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  21. fapoo
    April 18th, 2011 at 8:54 am

    Battlefield 3 eh?…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  22. call of halo
    April 18th, 2011 at 9:45 am

    It’s okay. Console lovers can have their consoles. We PC lovers will just have our superior games like TF2 and BF3 while console lovers play halo and cod

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  23. Nomad
    April 18th, 2011 at 9:46 am

    Actually I feel consoles end up being more expensive than PC.

    If I was to go and get a console the following is what I will end up spending on:
    - a HD tv for the extra big view
    - a good sound system , since you already have a nice TV you want that better sound
    - A good sofa/space in your room/living room
    - Additional peripherals – e.g. kinnect for the xbox
    - A PC – cause you need a PC anyways.

    In contrast, I prefer to have a PC which I pay a little more for the graphics card and use that one system for everything.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  24. IronFixXxeR
    April 18th, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    Keyboard + Mouse > Controller

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  25. Jason
    April 18th, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    I couldn’t agree more that Console are holding PC games back. You needn’t look further than DragonAge 2 for absolute proof of that.

    The consolization of games is a terrible move that I hope isn’t becoming a trend.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>