Starting to worry about the console version...

#1 Edited by gold_n_eye (82 posts) -

After reading an article on the current state of Battlefield 3 still running on pre-alpha on consoles, I am starting to worry that Dice might rush the game on consoles since the game is due in 3 months. Is 3 months enough time for the developers to polish the game and deliver the same quality game as Bad Company 2 was when it came out 2 years ago on consoles? Do you think they will postpone the release of the game for the console version or will they release all 3 versions of the game on October 25th?
 
Since I don't have a high-end PC capable of running this game, I was planning to buy Battlefield 3 on Xbox 360 but I am now  thinking of holding off buying the game on Day 1 and see how the game turns out on release day. 
 
Thoughts?  
 
@ Spoonman671: Yes I was referring to IGN's article. Here is the article for those who are interested: http://m.ign.com/articles/1182903

#2 Posted by Spoonman671 (4555 posts) -

Are you referring to IGN's article?  It does seem strange that there would be missing textures and whatnot, and they would still show the game off to the press.  It's hard to say how the console versions will shape up, but a lot developers will tell you that the last 10% makes the biggest difference.
 
If I have to, I guess I'll just get the PC version, although I don't care much for online competitive games on PC.

#3 Posted by mnzy (2911 posts) -

Shooters still by far make most of their money on console. I wouldn't worry.

#4 Posted by Vexxan (4615 posts) -

If the game was starting to fall off its schedule I'm sure EA could just add some more people to work on it, no way they'd postpone it.

#5 Posted by Vinny_Says (5686 posts) -

It would be so hilarious if it sold better on consoles than PC...

#6 Posted by gold_n_eye (82 posts) -

I agree, this late in the game, it does seem strange that they haven't had all the textures and destructive environments in place. What about the supposedly beta promised for those who bought Medal of Honor. Will the console version of the game ever get a beta especially when the game ships in 3 months?

#7 Edited by gold_n_eye (82 posts) -
@Vegsen: I remember hearing something like that a couple of months ago. They actually canned Battlefield 1943 on PC so that the developers working on the PC version of Battlefield 1943 could help develop Battlefield 3. Out of curiosity, how many people are actually working on Battlefield 3? I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than 300.
#8 Posted by Akrid (1356 posts) -

If it's in a playable, presentable state, they're likely 80% of the way there. And I've been getting a feeling that they're trying to craft "pre-alpha" in to some marketing buzzword instead of it's intended meaning... You can't really have a pre-alpha beta.

#9 Posted by corruptsaves (214 posts) -

I have a console but I continue to add games to the "when i finally get a new PC list" which I think BF will sit nicely on. Looking forward to Rage and it's 60 fps though, I have to ration these games out because there's only so much stuff I can shoot before I want to play a different type of bloody game. 

#10 Posted by Stonyman65 (2591 posts) -

It's Battlefield. Amusing your PC can run it, don't even bother with the console versions.

#11 Posted by Spoonman671 (4555 posts) -
@gold_n_eye:  EA recently sent me an email that claimed that the beta will begin in September.  I bought the PS3 version of Medal of Honor, though I don't know if that's relevant.
#12 Posted by Irvandus (2818 posts) -

Considering its still in alpha it does give me some worries considering proper console focused games like reach were wrapping up at that time.

#13 Edited by JoxxOr (53 posts) -

Dice is a world class developer that have done great games before on consoles. Their engine team especially are top-class and while i think the general public dont understand this, the polishing phase is way easier for everyone if the graphic engine is developed in house. I would actually suspect that the inconsitencies in its current alpha build running is way lower compared to other high commercial games currently being developed

Whatever reports on where the game is current is irrelevant, Dice have made awesome games for their whole existence and none of their game have lacked polish. Its their biggest product yet, in the franchise that made them what they are today. I doubt that they would not have solid milestones to reach that october 25 goal

#14 Posted by Zzzleepy (162 posts) -

@blacklabeldomm: It will probably do just that, that's the state of the market.

#15 Posted by Masha2932 (1241 posts) -

I'm worried as well

#16 Posted by Sourceguru (17 posts) -
@Masha2932 said:
I'm worried as well
Why worry?  Day 1 patch if it does have any problems.  
#17 Edited by jmrwacko (2443 posts) -
@Spoonman671 said:

@gold_n_eye:  EA recently sent me an email that claimed that the beta will begin in September.  I bought the PS3 version of Medal of Honor, though I don't know if that's relevant.

Medal of Honor owners will get early beta access, according to what I've heard.
 
@JoxxOr said:

none of their game have lacked polish. 

This is totally not true. I'm assuming you didn't play BF1942 or BF2 on their release dates.
#18 Posted by Nocall (353 posts) -
@gold_n_eye said:
  I was planning to buy Battlefield 3 on Xbox 360 but I am now  thinking of holding off buying the game on Day 1 and see how the game turns out on release day. 
 
Just hold off and wait for the reviews--not having it the second it comes out isn't going to hurt, and, besides, it'll be a huge game so it's not like any competent store won't stock a ton of copies. Pre-ordering it seems silly in your case.
#19 Posted by scarace360 (4828 posts) -

Hold on there making a console version?

#20 Posted by Riddell (342 posts) -
@rebgav said:

@gold_n_eye said:

After reading an article on the current state of Battlefield 3 still running on pre-alpha on consoles, I am starting to worry that Dice might rush the game on consoles since the game is due in 3 months.

The build that they are showing is "pre-alpha," that has no bearing on the build they're working on currently. That said I wouldn't expect the game to be perfect on day one, dice's games never are.

Yeah, you can pretty much guarantee you won't be playing multiplayer in the first 48 Hours. " We never anticipated this much server traffic!" Really DICE? Really?
#21 Posted by MattBosten (497 posts) -

They can afford to delay it a week at most. Anything beyond that and they're releasing along side/after MW3 which would be an absolute disaster for them.

#22 Posted by Wuddel (2079 posts) -
#23 Posted by Jimbo (9772 posts) -

@rebgav said:

@blacklabeldomm said:

It would be so hilarious if it sold better on consoles than PC...

It's bound to sell better on consoles because anyone with a PS3/360 can run it. It would be less "hilarious" and more "fucking obvious."

Quite. Well said.

#24 Posted by buft (3301 posts) -

its entirely possible for a developer to show older versions of games because maybe the current build is more prone to crashes

#25 Posted by Wuddel (2079 posts) -

@rebgav said:

@blacklabeldomm said:

It would be so hilarious if it sold better on consoles than PC...

It's bound to sell better on consoles because anyone with a PS3/360 can run it. It would be less "hilarious" and more "fucking obvious."

Plus, it won't be on Steam.

#26 Posted by Bollard (5248 posts) -
@blacklabeldomm said:
It would be so hilarious if it sold better on consoles than PC...
It almost certainly will... 
 
@gold_n_eye said:
I agree, this late in the game, it does seem strange that they haven't had all the textures and destructive environments in place. What about the supposedly beta promised for those who bought Medal of Honor. Will the console version of the game ever get a beta especially when the game ships in 3 months?
The beta is probably coming in September, so they can do some last minute gameplay tweaks and balance shit before it comes out late October. I think they've been aiming for then all along.  
 
Also, I don't know if anyone here has seen those leaked Alpha screenshots that came out a while back, on PC, cause there were missing textures in that too. Also, the current stage of the Alpha is missing destructability on quite a lot of stuff, just have a look at the Youtube videos... Quite frankly the description in that article in the OP sounds exactly like the PC one is anyway, just with a lower FPS. Also since when did PC games run at a "maximum" of 60fps? Anyway, I don't understand what anyones worried about - it's an alpha, it clearly wont be complete.
#27 Posted by Yanngc33 (4496 posts) -

Isn't the version that is shown to the press older than what they're currently working on? Because there is no way they can still be in pre-alpha right?

#28 Posted by Declarius (180 posts) -

@Yanngc33: Almost certainly, the build being shown is probably the latest stable build. That could be from a week ago or months ago.

#29 Edited by Meteora (5787 posts) -

Well, BF3 is kinda intended to be made on the PC version... 
 
I'm sure they'll do something about it anyways, the console is where the money is at nowadays.

#30 Posted by Declarius (180 posts) -

@Meteora said:

Well, BF3 is kinda intended to be made on the PC version... I'm sure they'll do something about it anyways, the console is where the money is at nowadays.

For sure, they are probably much further along solely because the PC version is the main SKU. They've been using it to market, and they know there will be a large uproar if they mess up the sequel to BF2.

#31 Posted by TobbRobb (4579 posts) -

It'll probably turn out perfectly fine, though if it doesn't, I can finally let off some of the PC-gaming bitterness I have been building up over all of the halfassed consoleports we have to put up with.

#32 Posted by Liber (648 posts) -

Dirt 3 had "Pre-alpha code" written all over its footage untill it came out , and that game is fucking awsome.

#33 Posted by big_jon (5709 posts) -

I hope it doesn't suck...

#34 Posted by kingzetta (4307 posts) -

well stop it

#35 Posted by ShaneDev (1696 posts) -

Bad Company 2 was a pretty unpolished game when it came out and kinda still is. BF3 will be fine on consoles and be better than BC2, not sure I would actually want to buy it on console but I doubt my PC could run it very well either.

#36 Posted by Mikemcn (6955 posts) -

They want it to do best on consoles, so I should hope they'll make sure it's functioning.

#37 Posted by damnboyadvance (4059 posts) -

I'm also worried. My PC is a pretty good one, but I don't believe it's capable of running Battlefield 3 smoothly, which is why I plan to get the console version. I hope they don't screw console owners with a bad port. I'm sure DICE is above that, but still...

#38 Posted by warxsnake (2635 posts) -

3 months is a lot of time for polish phase, depends on the relative size of the game but yeah.

#39 Posted by Mentalnova (139 posts) -

As cool as it looks, I won't be pre-ordering squat until I see the 360 version running smoothly and will also probably wait till reviews.

#40 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

@mnzy said:

Shooters still by far make most of their money on console. I wouldn't worry.

That might be true but if BC : Bad Company 2 and the Vietnam unlocks proved anything, it was that the console audience for BF games pales in comparison to the PC audience. Where do you think DICE will concentrate its efforts? This question is especially poignant in light of Origin and the lack of BF3 on Steam.

#41 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

@Mentalnova: I'll be buying it day one, because I trust the developer.

The only time a Battlefield product ever burned me, console or PC, was Battlefield 2: Modern Combat on the Xbox.

#42 Posted by Lnin0 (146 posts) -

Read this over on Joysiq today.  

According to Bach, compromises had to be made in order to create the best possible experience on consoles. One such compromise is the 24-player limit we learned about earlier this year.

Another compromise, he said, is the construction of more "compact" maps. Maps will be smaller than their PC counterparts, though he assures players "it's not that we have cut them in half," but rather compacted them "slightly to keep the action up." 


I can understand the compromise if they blamed memory constraints but the fact he said 'to keep the action up' sounds all to much like an appeal to COD players.

#43 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -
@Vegsen said:

If the game was starting to fall off its schedule I'm sure EA could just add some more people to work on it, no way they'd postpone it.

They can always do VIP-program-style staggerin' release of MP content. Starting-off with SP campaign and Co-op campaign and few MP maps (guessing 6-8). Releasing new 'free' content as it gets ready. Then there's 'Back to Karkand' which will hit 'for free' pretty soon after release too.
 
EA/DICE will release BF3 in October and no matter what, we will get our money's worth for sure - even if not everything's ready right then and there.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.