Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Real Reason EA/DICE caters to the Console.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Real Reason EA/DICE caters to the Console.

    BF3 Xbox360 Pre-orders 9 Times to PC
    Source: http://battlefieldo.com/xbox360-pre-orders-9-times-pc/

    And there you have it. Proof that can not be denied. The biggest reason businesses this large make decisions. The bottom line. It's not about drive or goals or love of the trade. It's how much money will this product make.

    Platform - Pre-Orders (As of 10/08/11)
    Xbox 360 - 939,864
    PS3 - 384,678
    PC - 124,805

    With 1,324,542 pre-orders for console platforms compared to only 124,805 pre-orders on the PC, who would you cater to as a gaming company?

    Nevermind that they got their start on the PC. Nevermind that it was the PC community back in 2005 that made BF2 one of the most successful and largest FPS game in history, at the time. Nevermind it was the PC Modding community that kept it alive until BC2 came out.

    The bottom line is Console players out number PC players and that in a nut shell is the game. Face it PC Gamers we are now second class citizens in the world of gaming. Unless something drastic happens the Battlefield series will now take into account console performance, feedback and issues well before they take into account the world of the PC.

    I've always known this but I just don't think about it too much. It makes me ill that we've gotten to this point. *sigh*

    I'm sure there are other factors involved. Perhaps many and more PC Gamers are waiting for it to come out before buying it just to see if it's worth it or not. That's just wishful thinking though. Reality isn't that nice.
    .
    "Young gamers assault while Older gamers flank."
    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

  • #2
    Re: The Real Reason EA/DICE caters to the Console.

    Bad Company 2 catered to consoles yet PC version sold more than 360 or ps3. And BC2 is probably the exact reason why pre-order numbers are so low for PC this time around.

    I pre-ordered BC2 and soon after realised it's a console game ported for PC. And that is why I didn't pre-ordered BF3 as I wanted to see if the same applies to it. And look, I was correct, BF3 caters to consoles and therefore I'm not buying it.

    I doubt I'm the only one who thinks this way. I would have loved to be able to pre-order and show my support for DICE but they didn't deliver anything that would assure me the game won't be a console port again.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Real Reason EA/DICE caters to the Console.

      I'm not sure what part of bf3 comes across as a port? is it the 64 player maps....or high res graphics for PC only?
      "Everyone makes fun of us rednecks with our big trucks and all our guns........until the zombie apocalypse"

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Real Reason EA/DICE caters to the Console.

        Well, from L-iNC's point of view I imagine the following point to it being a port:

        No VoiP for PC yet voip for consoles (handled by the manufacturer)
        No Commo-rose, a feature ESSENTIAL on PC
        No squad organisation (apparently being fixed.....)
        No 6 man squads
        Deceptively small and restrictive map design
        No working map with interface and HUD
        No Battlefield recorder
        No proper dedicated server options
        No proper flight mechanics for helicopters, they used the same silly BC2 console controls
        Only 4 classes, for a game with 64 players surely more choice was necessary (thought this one is likely just me)

        But again the biggest, most obvious is the voip. They clearly didn't think of this as a PC game. I said this very early, that in all the interview DICE done for the PS3 and 360, they were telling THEM they were the lead platform by saying they would get the FULL features. Now we all know this is not possible numbers wise, as the consoles are old and obsolete technology, yet they get all the features of the PC game and more besides, yet PC's get less than consoles and far less than would be considered as required to be a fully functioning PC game. ALL of the above were in the previous BF games, yet have been torn out to cater to the consoles. I think that is what he means.

        As for 64 player maps......that is old. I understand their excuse of "More players upsets the balance and is no fun" but I fail to believe it. The engine is capable of more players, as we have seen in the beta hacks, (128 player servers) and squads can have more than just 4 players, which I think is really restrictive. So, why not push the boundaries of technology on the PC? Scared of making the consoles look even more behind I wager. Games many years old have more players. DICE always insisted that BF2 for example could never support more than 64 players due to its net code. Well, we now have 128 player BF2 servers. Maps are built to fit, and the gameplay rises to follow. I think maps in BF3 are going to be deceptively small. I know Caspian was surprisingly small if you were on the ground. The flag placement was good, but there was zero room to flank. The road leading from US main to checkpoint was the edge of the map, so surprisingly restrictive in where you can go. Hopefully once people start modding (I have 100% confidence they will now) we will see some nice big maps. I put Caspian at maybe 1.5km by 1.5km, which is small for 64 players. IF they made the maps bigger, they could have raised the player count. But then they would have had to do more work and scale back HUGELY for consoles......

        Of course, I withhold the right to be wrong! ;)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Real Reason EA/DICE caters to the Console.

          Originally posted by L-iNC View Post
          And look, I was correct, BF3 caters to consoles and therefore I'm not buying it.
          Young people in america rarely vote, citing that their issues aren't pandered to. Politicians don't pander to them because they don't vote. They don't vote because they're not pandered to, which leads to them not getting pandered to. For the same reasons, PC gamers complain developers don't cater to them, so they don't buy games. Since they're not buying games, they're not a significant portion of the sales, and you don't cater to the minority as a developer, you cater to who it sells. PC gamers don't feel appeased, so they don't buy. Since they don't buy, developers make no significant effort to appease them, so PC gamers don't buy the games because they're not appeased. Since they don't buy..

          The only way out of this on our end. We have to become the dominant purchasing force if we want to be catered to. It means being vocal, yes, but it also means we have to be vocal after we've spent money. Developers who try and meet us halfway have to do it on the terms of the publishers, who saddle them down with absurd DRM or other incredibly stupid things. It also sucks, because if we as a gaming community don't step up and buy terrible games now, there won't be any interest in making better games later. We've had a lot of time to try it our way, and it's obvious to me now that simply complaining to companies isn't going to cut it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Real Reason EA/DICE caters to the Console.

            Let's see...

            -- No STEAM support from the beginning
            -- All the bad stuff from BC2
            -- Designed for consoles

            Of course there are going to be fewer PC pre-orders. It's almost as if they WANTED fewer PC orders.

            3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ill be brief becuase I am on a phone. I hope they don't push the limits jeepo. I have a mid to high end rig and Caspian taxed it alot. As far as map size....Caspian seemed as big as a bf2 map. Maybe not a mod made PR map....but it seemed the same size as bf2 vanilla. I will follow up later when I'm at a PC . As for players.....the engine can handle it,that is true.....can your rig? I doubt many here could push z map MADE for 128 players in the fb2 engine. Then we would have everyone complaining the game doesn't play smooth.

              Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
              "Everyone makes fun of us rednecks with our big trucks and all our guns........until the zombie apocalypse"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tempus View Post
                Let's see...

                -- No STEAM support from the beginning
                -- All the bad stuff from BC2
                -- Designed for consoles

                Of course there are going to be fewer PC pre-orders. It's almost as if they WANTED fewer PC orders.
                Wait.... so if its not on steam its a port?

                Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
                "Everyone makes fun of us rednecks with our big trucks and all our guns........until the zombie apocalypse"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Real Reason EA/DICE caters to the Console.

                  Its probably the lack of in game VOIP, possibly squad management, battlerecorder.

                  Consoles get in game VOIP.

                  There is more to PC than raising the resolution and player count.
                  |TG-12th| Namebot

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Namebot View Post
                    Its probably the lack of in game VOIP, possibly squad management, battlerecorder.

                    Consoles get in game VOIP.

                    There is more to PC than raising the resolution and player count.
                    Does everyone here realize that console voip is not handled by the games??? Microsoft and Sony take care of it. It's not built into the game at all. On consoles you don't have to be ingame to talk with anyone

                    Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
                    "Everyone makes fun of us rednecks with our big trucks and all our guns........until the zombie apocalypse"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Real Reason EA/DICE caters to the Console.

                      That's extraordinarily obvious after a little thought to me Ven, it seems Battlelog is also intended as a replacement for XBL Dashboard or Sony's system. The game code is isolated, and on consoles, all the exterior networking architecture is handled by XBL or Sony.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Real Reason EA/DICE caters to the Console.

                        Originally posted by Ven View Post
                        Ill be brief becuase I am on a phone. I hope they don't push the limits jeepo. I have a mid to high end rig and Caspian taxed it alot. As far as map size....Caspian seemed as big as a bf2 map. Maybe not a mod made PR map....but it seemed the same size as bf2 vanilla. I will follow up later when I'm at a PC

                        Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
                        No worries mate, but one thing I will say is this, and this is not personal, it is just because you are raising the point.

                        Low end PC's. I could not care less if you can't run the game, don't come and moan about it. Some of us can run it fine, some of us upgraded for specific titles. I hate this reasoning. I faced it hugely when we were making PR ArmA. We had people with rigs barely capable of playing BF2 complain they could not play ArmA PR and wanted us to lower the settings. Sorry, but no more pandering to the lowest common denominator. If your PC can't run it, then that's just the evolution of technology, keep up or get out, don't hold back the rest. To say this is a reason for why the maps are so small sickens me a huge deal. If PC gaming is your hobby, then accept that it is not a cheap hobby if you intend to stay at the cutting edge. Then evaluate if you intend to stay there. Then assign to staying there, or forever hold you peace. RO2 is going through this exact thing. In the release I could run it fine as could most. But there was a HUGELY vocal minority who could not. So what did the developer do? They removed detail, and made the game less intensive. Now it looks like a dog for me on ultra, definitely a pre 2009 look to it, with texture load problems (on an SSD!) and other graphical flaws that were not there on release. So why is this fair? They then had the cheek to say that we should not complain, as RO2 was by far the most graphically intensive PC game ever made and still looks superb(their words).....I beg to differ.........

                        I agree they seemed similar to a BF2 vanilla map. But that's my point. BF2 was released what 6 years ago? Where is the progress in map size and player count............why must we stagnate? Why must we go BACKWARD in the above listed features? Thank you consoles.......

                        Also the fact that you mention that console voip is handled by the manufacturer. We know this, however this leads us to the conclusion that EA DICE never cared about PC voip, and didn't expect the vocal backlash from the community. So they clearly never cared or worked on it at all, else it would be included, which shows that their priority is not with the PC, as voip is the FIRST, literally the FIRST thing I would include.

                        Thanks guys, this thread has been very therapeutic! :)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Real Reason EA/DICE caters to the Console.

                          Originally posted by Ven View Post
                          Wait.... so if its not on steam its a port?
                          Yes Ven, that's exactly what I meant. You are so observant! :icon13:

                          3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Real Reason EA/DICE caters to the Console.

                            From today's New York Times:

                            "Expectations were high for id Software's long-awaited new game, the postapocalyptic shooter Rage. But while the console version is a technical feat, its PC version is a disappointment."

                            A trend . . .
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Real Reason EA/DICE caters to the Console.

                              "Face it PC Gamers we are now second class citizens in the world of gaming." LMFAO!

                              PC Gamers are first class and are the elites in gaming. PC people in general are mostly gamers at one point or another but in general enthusiasts in the PC industry are the ones who push the bounds. They find ways to innovate and change technology. Consider the following: Every piece of software is developed and tested on a PC.

                              Consoles are the second class because of sheer numbers. I don't see anything a console gamer has in them that makes them first class anything. While consoles may have some nice features, the lack of change, I consider console's to make us lazy. Both gamers and developers.

                              Consoles are cheaper now than ever before. It is a given why there are so many pre-orders.

                              I will not argue that the fact still stands. Why games are catered to consoles. But I will always argue that consoles no matter what bells and whistles it may have at launch, added over its lifetime, or games exclusive to them are and will always be second class to me.

                              P.S. Oh, if anyone ever tells me PC gaming is too expensive over console gaming. I have a whole seminar that says otherwise :P

                              /Rant

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X