• 66 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

Was anyone still expecting any different after seeing the latest console multiplayer footage? Well just in case anyone had a shiny little sliver of hope, Dice stomped on it, and twisted their heels into the dirt.

The PC version of Battlefield 4 will look better than the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions, executive producer Patrick Bach has suggested, telling VideoGamer.com that DICE is "doing as much as [it] can" with the next-gen versions, "but we need to compromise in some places".

Discussing the differences between the PC and next-gen versions of Battlefield 4, Bach said that "from a CPU/GPU perspective, no, [PS4 & Xbox One cannot match PC].

"PC will always be... You can just add more to a PC. There's always more. The game supports to a big extent better hardware, but not completely, so it won't be night and day."

But does he wish they offered more?

"Of course I do. I want PCs to be twice as fast as well. I think [PS4 & Xbox One] will do what they are supposed to do. They will move console gaming farther. It will take console gaming into a new generation. Then the question is, could they have done more? Yes. Would it cost the same? No. It would be twice the price. Would that be a reasonable thing to sell to consumers? Probably not.

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/battlefield_4/news/battlefield_4_on_ps4_and_xbox_one_we_need_to_compromise_in_some_places_says_dice.html

The gap between PC and consoles this generation is going to be big. The "good news" is they have to deal with a lot of diminishing returns....so it will take at least 3-4 years for PC games to start ditching rasterized graphics in favor of ray tracing. Then we can cry.

#2 Edited by Warfare (1632 posts) -

No shit.

#3 Edited by spraynardtatum (2118 posts) -

They should tell Scott Lowe at IGN.

#4 Edited by Video_Game_King (34588 posts) -

Combined?

#5 Posted by Athadam (638 posts) -

Yeah but can the same PC (the one that runs BF4 better than PS4/XB1) out do the consoles, 4-6 years from now?

I don't think anyone actually believes that consoles could ever graphically beat PCs, but it comes down to a value proposition for most people.

#6 Posted by cloudnineboya (691 posts) -

Better than the cloud?, gosh.

#7 Edited by EXTomar (4121 posts) -

Will a PC built 4-6 years from now run BF4 better than a PS4 and XB1? Probably.

In the end these comparisons are not that meaningful because they are apples and oranges. Let alone future apples and past oranges.

#8 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@extomar said:

Will a PC built 4-6 years from now run BF4 better than a PS4 and XB1? Probably.

I'm pretty sure one built today will too.

#9 Posted by HerpDerp (133 posts) -

I don't see why this statement needed to be released, it's pretty no brainer information.

#10 Edited by natetodamax (19136 posts) -

I'm less inclined to care since it runs at 60 FPS and has 64 players, which is really all I could ever ask for from the performance of a Battlefield game.

#11 Edited by Seppli (9734 posts) -

Well - that's not entirely true. It won't run or look better on my PC. It certainly will run and look better on somebody's PC. It certainly won't run and look better on a 399$ PC.

What's most important to me is a smooth framerate and 1080p rendering resolution and 64 playercap. I guess they're targeting 60 FPS, and 64 players are confirmed, wonder about the resolution though.

That said, I prefer the 24-48 player Bad Company format. It's just lends itself better to more intimate personal combat, and more player empowering balance, and I'd rather have increased fidelity on destructibility anyways. Hopefully that's where Battlefield goes next time. There's just too many folks who foolishly equate *more players* with *more fun*. Past 32 players, there's a lot of diminishing returns and lots of new problems arise, especially in terms of map design. Too open, and it'll have pacing problems. Too tight, and it will be congested. And so forth.

#12 Edited by mano521 (1202 posts) -

As long as its got the 64 players, 60fps, and still look as good as they claimed earlier, i dont mind one bit. seems like common sense

#13 Posted by GnaTSoL (778 posts) -

doesnt B4 mp on PC offer more than 64? I thought it was in the hundreds..... Am I crazy?

Having not really played much Battlefield, 64 doesnt sound like it would fill up the gigantic levels properly. IDK....

#14 Posted by mosdl (3223 posts) -

I'm less inclined to care since it runs at 60 FPS and has 64 players, which is really all I could ever ask for from the performance of a Battlefield game.

pretty sure the consoles are 30 fps even for nextgen for BF.

#15 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@mosdl said:

@natetodamax said:

I'm less inclined to care since it runs at 60 FPS and has 64 players, which is really all I could ever ask for from the performance of a Battlefield game.

pretty sure the consoles are 30 fps even for nextgen for BF.

All I've heard on that front is from forum-goers and not anything official. Like a clear statement saying "Look, it's just gonna be 30 fps, dammit" and not vague stuff like "We're shooting for 60anywayhaveapizza"

#16 Edited by Flacracker (1386 posts) -

For some reason I get the feeling DICE is saying this stuff just to please the PC gamers because console players don't really give a shit and will buy it anyway. But DICE knows that by pandering to the PC gaming market they can get more sales. I know your game DICE and I'm not getting hoodwinked again.

#17 Posted by Bollard (5022 posts) -

@seppli said:

Well - that's not entirely true. It won't run or look better on my PC. It certainly will look better on somebody's PC. It certainly won't run and look better on a 399$ PC.

What's most important to me is a smooth framerate and 1080p rendering resolution and 64 playercap. I guess they're targeting 60 FPS and 64 players are confirmed, wonder abou the resolution though.

I will be incredibly impressed if it hits all 3.

@mosdl said:

@natetodamax said:

I'm less inclined to care since it runs at 60 FPS and has 64 players, which is really all I could ever ask for from the performance of a Battlefield game.

pretty sure the consoles are 30 fps even for nextgen for BF.

Nah I think some games like BF4 and TitanFall have come out and said they want to do 60, and I think that's a good thing to be honest. I'd rather console developers come out and make a stand that 60 is more important than a few more lens flares.

#18 Edited by RandyF (126 posts) -

Regardless of the graphical quality, I want to be able to use a mouse when playing a first person shooter.

#19 Edited by TyCobb (1924 posts) -

It better considering a lot of PC gamers spend more money on a single video card than an entire console.

#20 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@herpderp said:

I don't see why this statement needed to be released, it's pretty no brainer information.

Probably because MS and Sony keep going around talking about their consoles being supercharged PC's. PC graphics cards and game makers probably don't like that very much. You could almost consider attempting to insult everyone's intelligence.

Dice still has to sell their game to the PC gamer.

#21 Posted by ajamafalous (11591 posts) -

OH GOSH WHAT A SURPRISE

#22 Posted by Cirdain (2957 posts) -

OH GOLLY GOLLY GOLLY GOSH!!!

close this topic

#23 Edited by Clonedzero (3719 posts) -

@herpderp said:

I don't see why this statement needed to be released, it's pretty no brainer information.

Probably because MS and Sony keep going around talking about their consoles being supercharged PC's. PC graphics cards and game makers probably don't like that very much. You could almost consider attempting to insult everyone's intelligence.

Dice still has to sell their game to the PC gamer.

What? How is it an insult? MS and Sony saying "hey our consoles are powerful" isn't an insult to anyone.

Man, PC gamers have fragile egos eh?

#25 Posted by Alexander (1720 posts) -

PC Master Race wins again.

#26 Edited by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@clonedzero said:

@alexglass said:

@herpderp said:

I don't see why this statement needed to be released, it's pretty no brainer information.

Probably because MS and Sony keep going around talking about their consoles being supercharged PC's. PC graphics cards and game makers probably don't like that very much. You could almost consider attempting to insult everyone's intelligence.

Dice still has to sell their game to the PC gamer.

What? How is it an insult? MS and Sony saying "hey our consoles are powerful" isn't an insult to anyone.

Man, PC gamers have fragile egos eh?

Yeah, consoles are gonna be powerfull "PC". Just very closed, right?
Same hardware and yadayada like every other console ever.

Maybe "Supercharged"(doesn't mean a damn thing) was just a weird way of saying it.
I'm a PC guy first and consoles close second but even I can admit that the consoles have some power under their hoods because I'm not blind or a luddite

#27 Posted by Corvak (567 posts) -

PC will never beat PS4/XONE in performance per dollar. It just won't happen, and don't wait for it.

I build and upgrade my gaming PC because I love doing it. I love messing with settings and overclocking and putting hardware together. Modding cases and tweaking for that little bit of extra is a hobby for me, and I consider my PC more than just a box that plays video games.

You can break down the costs to favour the PC or the console but it comes down to the simple fact that PC gamers like playing on PC, and console gamers like playing on consoles. Nothing will change that, no matter how many videos we tear apart frame by frame, or how many games we compare side by side in the name of justifying our purchasing decisions.

The fact that my PC can make Skyrim look better and play faster than any console is completely irrelevant to someone who loves the experience they get playing games from their couch.

#28 Edited by Vinny_Says (5630 posts) -

@mosdl said:

@natetodamax said:

I'm less inclined to care since it runs at 60 FPS and has 64 players, which is really all I could ever ask for from the performance of a Battlefield game.

pretty sure the consoles are 30 fps even for nextgen for BF.

All I've heard on that front is from forum-goers and not anything official. Like a clear statement saying "Look, it's just gonna be 30 fps, dammit" and not vague stuff like "We're shooting for 60anywayhaveapizza"

Didn't mr Sweden get on stage at E3 and say: "watch this footage of BF4 running at 60fps on the xbox one"? I'm pretty sure those words came out of his mouth on that microsoft stage. Unless he was only talking about the singleplayer :(

#29 Edited by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@vinny_says said:

@zeforgotten said:

@mosdl said:

@natetodamax said:

I'm less inclined to care since it runs at 60 FPS and has 64 players, which is really all I could ever ask for from the performance of a Battlefield game.

pretty sure the consoles are 30 fps even for nextgen for BF.

All I've heard on that front is from forum-goers and not anything official. Like a clear statement saying "Look, it's just gonna be 30 fps, dammit" and not vague stuff like "We're shooting for 60anywayhaveapizza"

Didn't mr Sweden get on stage at E3 and say: "watch this footage of BF4 running at 60fps on the xbox one"? I'm pretty sure those words came out of his mouth on that microsoft stage. Unless he was only talking about the singleplayer :(

Yes but wasn't it also confirmed that most of those showings were from Devkits running other hardware than the consoles actually would have in them?
Hell, some of them even ran on PCs instead of consoles if I remember correctly.

Not like that's anything new, that's been going on for ages at those events.

But still, all I'm hearing these days are "We're aiming for 60" all the time and that just means nothing.
"Man, we were aiming for 60 and got it... but only at 720p"
Or worse "We were aiming for 60 but.. 'sighs sadly' .. here's 12"

#30 Edited by Seppli (9734 posts) -

@mosdl said:

@natetodamax said:

I'm less inclined to care since it runs at 60 FPS and has 64 players, which is really all I could ever ask for from the performance of a Battlefield game.

pretty sure the consoles are 30 fps even for nextgen for BF.

DICE definitely targets a locked 60. Been confirmed and re-confirmed lots of times. Personally, I'd prefer 40-50, if it means we'd get the 1080p rendering resolution (which thus far isn't confirmed yet). Everything just looks fucking grungy rendered in 729p.

#31 Posted by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@gnatsol said:

doesnt B4 mp on PC offer more than 64? I thought it was in the hundreds..... Am I crazy?

Having not really played much Battlefield, 64 doesnt sound like it would fill up the gigantic levels properly. IDK....

Used to be more than 64 when you could mod the game.

#32 Edited by Seppli (9734 posts) -

@mosdl said:

@natetodamax said:

I'm less inclined to care since it runs at 60 FPS and has 64 players, which is really all I could ever ask for from the performance of a Battlefield game.

pretty sure the consoles are 30 fps even for nextgen for BF.

DICE definitely targets a locked 60. Been confirmed and re-confirmed lots of times. Personally, I'd prefer 40-50, if it means we'd get the 1080p rendering resolution (which thus far isn't confirmed yet). Everything just looks fucking grungy rendered in 720p.

#33 Posted by HerpDerp (133 posts) -

@vinny_says said:

@zeforgotten said:

@mosdl said:

@natetodamax said:

I'm less inclined to care since it runs at 60 FPS and has 64 players, which is really all I could ever ask for from the performance of a Battlefield game.

pretty sure the consoles are 30 fps even for nextgen for BF.

All I've heard on that front is from forum-goers and not anything official. Like a clear statement saying "Look, it's just gonna be 30 fps, dammit" and not vague stuff like "We're shooting for 60anywayhaveapizza"

Didn't mr Sweden get on stage at E3 and say: "watch this footage of BF4 running at 60fps on the xbox one"? I'm pretty sure those words came out of his mouth on that microsoft stage. Unless he was only talking about the singleplayer :(

Yes but wasn't it also confirmed that most of those showings were from Devkits running other hardware than the consoles actually would have in them?

Hell, some of them even ran on PCs instead of consoles if I remember correctly.

Not like that's anything new, that's been going on for ages at those events.

But still, all I'm hearing these days are "We're aiming for 60" all the time and that just means nothing.

"Man, we were aiming for 60 and got it... but only at 720p"

Or worse "We were aiming for 60 but.. 'sighs sadly' .. here's 12"

That's a pretty pessimistic attitude you got there, is there a real reason why you think they're never gonna have 60fps on consoles?

#34 Posted by Spoonman671 (4371 posts) -

This thread is dumb.

#35 Posted by Seppli (9734 posts) -

@herpderp said:

I don't see why this statement needed to be released, it's pretty no brainer information.

Probably because MS and Sony keep going around talking about their consoles being supercharged PC's. PC graphics cards and game makers probably don't like that very much. You could almost consider attempting to insult everyone's intelligence.

Dice still has to sell their game to the PC gamer.

Architecture-wise, it's bound to be true. Component-wise? Not so much.

#36 Edited by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@herpderp said:

@zeforgotten said:

@vinny_says said:

@zeforgotten said:

@mosdl said:

@natetodamax said:

I'm less inclined to care since it runs at 60 FPS and has 64 players, which is really all I could ever ask for from the performance of a Battlefield game.

pretty sure the consoles are 30 fps even for nextgen for BF.

All I've heard on that front is from forum-goers and not anything official. Like a clear statement saying "Look, it's just gonna be 30 fps, dammit" and not vague stuff like "We're shooting for 60anywayhaveapizza"

Didn't mr Sweden get on stage at E3 and say: "watch this footage of BF4 running at 60fps on the xbox one"? I'm pretty sure those words came out of his mouth on that microsoft stage. Unless he was only talking about the singleplayer :(

Yes but wasn't it also confirmed that most of those showings were from Devkits running other hardware than the consoles actually would have in them?

Hell, some of them even ran on PCs instead of consoles if I remember correctly.

Not like that's anything new, that's been going on for ages at those events.

But still, all I'm hearing these days are "We're aiming for 60" all the time and that just means nothing.

"Man, we were aiming for 60 and got it... but only at 720p"

Or worse "We were aiming for 60 but.. 'sighs sadly' .. here's 12"

That's a pretty pessimistic attitude you got there, is there a real reason why you think they're never gonna have 60fps on consoles?

I never said that it would never happen, stop trying to put words in my internet mouth you.
All I said was "we're aiming at hitting 60" and what that could mean.
In the end it could mean "We tried, but no" or "We did it, but only 720p" or even "Hey we did it, in 1080p for now WOO!"

Not once did I say "IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!"

#37 Edited by HerpDerp (133 posts) -

@zeforgotten: Jeesh, sorry duder, I'd best step down.

@spoonman671 said:

This thread is dumb.

I agree, I'm leaving. See you guys.

#38 Edited by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@herpderp: It's ok, just try not to make stuff up :P

#40 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@corvak said:

PC will never beat PS4/XONE in performance per dollar. It just won't happen, and don't wait for it.

I build and upgrade my gaming PC because I love doing it. I love messing with settings and overclocking and putting hardware together. Modding cases and tweaking for that little bit of extra is a hobby for me, and I consider my PC more than just a box that plays video games.

You can break down the costs to favour the PC or the console but it comes down to the simple fact that PC gamers like playing on PC, and console gamers like playing on consoles. Nothing will change that, no matter how many videos we tear apart frame by frame, or how many games we compare side by side in the name of justifying our purchasing decisions.

The fact that my PC can make Skyrim look better and play faster than any console is completely irrelevant to someone who loves the experience they get playing games from their couch.

Never? PC and laptop prices drop pretty fast. Especially since all 3 manufacturers decided to stop or at least heavily scale back on designing loss-leaders at launch. That was one of the biggest draw of consoles before. Now all that's left is gaming line-up.

You can plug in a PC or better yet, a laptop, into your HDTV and a controller and get the same experience. Two years from now you'll even be able get Kinect. And an ultrabook or tablet are also portable.

Something's going to need to change for consoles to still make sense 8 years from now. More and more gamers love the idea of plugging in a controller into a PC or laptop. This has been an ongoing trend for awhile now. The gap between the PC gaming experience and convenience of the console gaming experience has lessened and lessened over the years .

#41 Posted by Zlimness (504 posts) -

Well that's not really surprising. Even if the new consoles are much more powerful, developers haven't had the time to learn them yet. It would be much more interesting to learn what sort of compromises they're talking about and why.

#42 Edited by KittyVonDoom (445 posts) -

lol. Not paying thousands just to play a game that looks slightly better than the version designed for a £350 platform.

Who are they trying to convince anyway? This is game desperately chasing that Call of Duty audience, who will be buying their game (CoD, or CoD and the other FPS) on consoles. It's also a fair prediction that the best selling version of Battlefield 4 will be the console version. Pandering to your PC friends who are more proud of their video card than they are to not torrent your game is the reason you are second banana :)

Besides, the best Battlefield games have been of the Bad Company series, and they were designed for consoles. Whatever you guys.

#43 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@extomar said:

Will a PC built 4-6 years from now run BF4 better than a PS4 and XB1? Probably.

In the end these comparisons are not that meaningful because they are apples and oranges. Let alone future apples and past oranges.

Are you implying it will take 4-6 years for PC to eclipse BF4 on PS4 and the Xbox One?

If so, you should be a comedian.

I'm excited for the PS4, but I'm not kidding myself when I say my PC will run Battlefield 4 better. It's looking like it doesn't even run at 1080P on the new consoles.

@corvak said:

I know. If only you could connect the most open platform in the world to a TV or something, or use a controller with it.

That would be nuts!

#44 Posted by GreggD (4441 posts) -

lol. Not paying thousands just to play a game that looks slightly better than the version designed for a £350 platform.

Who are they trying to convince anyway? This is game desperately chasing that Call of Duty audience, who will be buying their game (CoD, or CoD and the other FPS) on consoles. It's also a fair prediction that the best selling version of Battlefield 4 will be the console version. Pandering to your PC friends who are more proud of their video card than they are to not torrent your game is the reason you are second banana :)

Besides, the best Battlefield games have been of the Bad Company series, and they were designed for consoles. Whatever you guys.

Bad Company was the best? Are you fucking crazy? I mean yeah, I love Hags and Sweetwater and those guys, but the multiplayer doesn't exactly compare.

#45 Posted by Andorski (5107 posts) -

#46 Posted by Zekhariah (694 posts) -

@alexglass: My guess would be 2015, where high-end setups go for 4k as the default, ends up being the "PCs look way better than consoles...." thing again. If this generation lasts for 8 years it going to look rather worn out in the back half.

E.g. Some of the less costly LCD manufacturers (Innolux, Chi Mei, etc rather than LG / Samsung) are tooling up 4k toward the end of this year. That said - until a reasonable videocard can handle 4k I can definitely see a console purchase being sensible right now in terms of apparent visual quality.

#47 Edited by Zekhariah (694 posts) -

@alexglass: My guess would be 2015, where high-end setups go for 4k as the default, ends up being the "PCs look way better than consoles...." thing again. If this generation lasts for 8 years it will look rather worn out in the back half.

E.g. Some of the less costly LCD manufacturers (Innolux, Chi Mei, etc rather than LG / Samsung) are tooling up 4k toward the end of this year. That said - until a reasonable video card can handle 4k I can definitely see a console purchase being sensible right now in terms of apparent visual quality (frame-rate advantages, faster load times from superior IO, and 2560x1600 on monitors not withstanding).

#48 Edited by TheHBK (5407 posts) -

PC will always be better for a game like this because on consoles they set it to 30 fps, on PC, you can get it to 60 fps by lowering the settings and that is what matters.

#49 Posted by bluefish (371 posts) -

I just want to say that it is a launch title. Games will look WORLDS better on XB1 and PS4 over the next few years. BF4 doesn't mean shit. PC's will be better, but really, good for them. Journey is still the best looking game I've played in my life.

#50 Posted by MegaLombax (381 posts) -

I'm not surprised. Did anyone expect any different?As long as it looks good and functions as good, I'm game.