"...Not for PC to have some exclusive content, or the even more absurd exclusive mainstream game. You want there to be new Battlefield games right?..."
Let's put this another way (this would never happen, but bear with me for the sake of argument): Let's say that Bungie announced that the next Halo game would be a multi-platform release, coming out on both PC and Xbox. I think it's pretty safe to say that the Xbox players would feel the same way about that as we do about Battlefield 3. Halo belongs on the Xbox. Well, Battlefield (the core series) belongs on PC.
No, its not that the game belongs there at all. If Halo was brought back to the PC again it would not cause the Xbox version to suffer, they would not have to cut features and simplifiy things so that it would work on PC hardware. I wouldnt care if Battlefield 3 went multiplatform IF consoles were more powerful and had better input methods, then the PC version would not suffer so the game would work on consoles. And dont even get PC(and Mac) gamers started about where Halo should belong! Bah, stuff like this gets me ranting, alot of console gamers dont seem to understand that we dont want to keep the game from you, but releasing it on them is vastly lowering the games potential. There i go, almost started to go on another rant, need to leave now. "
OK, the Halo example wasn't the best, but it's really hard (nigh-impossible) to come up with a counter example for this. If someone can, by all means, do. Kudos to you in that case.
That is a very good analogy. Even if you haven't played the Civ games, you can see the differences in the Civil Service: The Road to Civ V video with Ryan and Vinny.
Basically, we want Battlefield 3 to be the Civ V of the Battlefield series. A game with the same or similar gameplay and new features and graphics. We (or most of us anyway) aren't saying consoles shouldn't get a version of it in the future. It's just that the PC version should come first so they can later streamline it (not dumb-down) for consoles, because the PC doesn't have the same limitations that consoles have.
The current ESRB rating scale is as follows: Abbreviation - Full name (appropriate for this age group)
EC - Early Childhood (ages 3+) E - Everyone (ages 6+) E10+ - Everyone 10 and older (ages 10+) Not sure why exactly they made a distinction between these two, but whatever. T - Teen (ages 13+) M - Mature (ages 17+) Stores should be asking for ID if the customer doesn't look old enough, and make sure that parents know what they're buying for their 12-year-old. AO - Adults Only (ages 18+) These are basically porn. RP - Rating Pending (not yet rated)
All you're doing is adding unnecessary confusion to an already easy to understand system. Using A for Adult and AO for Adult Only isn't enough of a distinction as M and AO are currently. To use the movie rating analogy again, you're basically lumping the R rated movies with the NC-17 rated movies. Most of the problems stem from parents not heading this system or are, for whatever reason, uneducated in it. But that again is why stores should make sure parents know what they're buying and educate those that don't.
"...Not for PC to have some exclusive content, or the even more absurd exclusive mainstream game. You want there to be new Battlefield games right?...
Why is this a problem? What's wrong with a PC exclusive? The PC is still a very viable platform.
Because it's not as viable as you think. Sure there are still big PC-only hits (Sims 3, Starcraft 2, WoW, and Civ V will be, I'm sure), but a lot has changed in the last 5 years. The cost of games development has increased greatly. Maybe they'd recoup their losses, but there's a good chance they wouldn't. It's not a matter of what fans of a series of platform think, it's about what brings the money. You should be glad they're still making Battlefield games, because they stopped making entries in a lot of series I enjoyed a long time ago. "
There are far more PC exclusives that that (out now and forthcoming). And the PC as a gaming platform is as viable now as it was five years ago.
Saying there's no money in a PC exclusive is a pretty weak argument. Look at Starcraft 2; far more has changed in the last 12 years than the last five, but it's still expected to bring in over $100 million in profit this year. Of course, Battlefield doesn't have anywhere near the fan base as Starcraft, but even if it sells a quarter as much, that's still more than $25 million in profit (assuming $60/game at a 45% profit margin).
But if it's about maximizing profits by targeting as wide an audience as possible, by your logic, every game by every developer should come out on every platform. Either that, or developers should abandon the PC completely. Neither of those are gonna happen.
"...Not for PC to have some exclusive content, or the even more absurd exclusive mainstream game. You want there to be new Battlefield games right?..."
Why is this a problem? What's wrong with a PC exclusive? The PC is still a very viable platform. Complaining about a PC exclusive is like complaining about a specific console exclusive. The core Battlefield series (1942, Vietnam, 2, and 2142) has always been, and should always be on the PC. I'm not and no one else is saying that consoles should never get a new Battlefield game. It's just that the next generation of console Battlefield games need to be different from the core PC version. After 3 is released on PC, they can take what works and make a streamlined (not dumbed-down) version for consoles, like BF2: Modern Combat was compared to Battlefield 2.
Let's put this another way (this would never happen, but bear with me for the sake of argument): Let's say that Bungie announced that the next Halo game would be a multi-platform release, coming out on both PC and Xbox. I think it's pretty safe to say that the Xbox players would feel the same way about that as we do about Battlefield 3. Halo belongs on the Xbox. Well, Battlefield (the core series) belongs on PC. You can have your port (Battlefield 3: <subtitle>) or Bad Company 3 later.
After playing BF2 for years, I switched over to Bad Company 2. BC2 definitely feels like a Battlefield game, but it's different (not bad-different, just different). It's lacking things that are familiar to people that played BF2, such as the rose command menus. Pressing (spamming) one key to spot enemies, request ammo, or ask for a ride just isn't the same. Plus it's missing othere ques for those things like an icon on the map or a message in the chat.
All that I (and, I'm sure, everyone else that agreed with Jeff) want is a new, updated sequal to Battlefield 2. One that feels the same (even with new features) and hasn't been streamlined (again, not dumbed-down) for consoles.
The core series needs to be PC exclusive. BF3 on the PC should not suffer because of console limitations. Does that mean I'm completely against it being on consoles in the future? No; they just need a different version of it, like Modern Combat was to Battlefield 2. Those that have never played or have little experience with the core series on the PC probably don't understand, but it's true. You just can't replicate those large-scale battles on the console (some might argue with MAG, but MAG =/= Battlefield). Even the PC version of Bad Company 2 is lacking in that respect.
Log in to comment