Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

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

  • EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

    http://www.neoseeker.com/news/19942-...wing-platform/

    This just keeps getting funnier and funnier. Next they are going to say that BF4 will be a pc platform just like they said BF3 would be :D

  • #2
    Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

    lol
    |TG-Irr| di1lweed1212

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

      Well it started out with Pc in mind, then they realised, hey only 1/5 the amount of people play on the PC, meaning most of the people playing only have 24 players, meaning Commander mode, 6 man squads, larger maps, Armored kill isn't something Xbox/Ps3 are looking forward to.
      You wanna pay extra for them to make a seperate PC game then go ahead, they aren't going to make two games but only get the profit of one.

      Maybe BF4 will be more focused on Pc this time around, it sounds like they know exactly what they did wrong and they already have the engine built for the game so I don't see them leaving stuff out because of not enough players, Like commander/6 man squads, with a 24 player limit isn't going to work or the glitches from terrain destruction, you only fell into the map and vehicles flew into the air along with making impassble 6 feet holes everywhere, "Im not a programmer but I don't see how hard it would be to fix that /sarcasm"

      I think BF4 will be closer to what you guys want this time around.

      BF3 brand new amazing engine, forced to work on outdated peices of **** meaning some features had to be left out for everyone.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

        This has to be some sort of inception tactic. Good PR for PCs but this coming from a publisher is odd considering the growth of both consoles and mobile platforms. From a pure numbers perspective there has always been less hardcore PC gamers (as in they mostly play via a PC vs a multi-platform gamer) except for the early days of computing.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

          I dont see why it has to be two games for the profit of one, but maybe slight differences are not a bad idea. Still the same maps and engine, but 6 man squads for us and 4 man squads for them. Also a commander for PC version, but in the same game. Seems reasonable, maybe I am missing something.


          |TG| Buletproof_Bob

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

            It might not seem like a lot, 2 more guys in a squad, but it is.

            6 man squads+commander, you need a completely different balance system for Vehicles, weapons, maps, kits.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

              What about the difference in the number of players, I am told the max on consoles is 32, not 64. That's a huge difference, should have an effect on balance, etc.


              |TG| Buletproof_Bob

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

                24 players on console, You can still have the same kinda game with 24 players as you can 64.

                3 flags, 32 players and less, 5 flags, 32 players and more, that is the only difference is that the flag amounts are different.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

                  You cant really believe that, out of 24 players its 12 on each side and taking up two tanks and a gunship leaves only 6 on foot with armor around, not the same. That's a minimum estimate, preferably I'd have 3 for each tank plus jets, etc. Even if it was in the same proportions, do you think the scale alone can't make a difference?


                  |TG| Buletproof_Bob

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

                    Originally posted by Brainhurts View Post
                    6 man squads+commander, you need a completely different balance system for Vehicles, weapons, maps, kits.
                    Adding 2 more squadmembers should not require a total different balance system. Sure the SL needs a better UI to control the squad. But in terms of kits, weapons and vehicles - I don't see the big problem.

                    When in comes to the commander it would require a different UI system, and removing the MAV and mortar from the selected kits.

                    One can hope that they would add some more "depth" in BF4, where there is a difference between the SLs and SMs at least.

                    Originally posted by Brainhurts View Post
                    24 players on console, You can still have the same kinda game with 24 players as you can 64.
                    On the smaller city maps, yes, but when playing on the big maps it gets very boring compared to PC. And seeing the feedback on reddit and battlelog, the console players are certanintly not looking forward to Armored Kill.
                    "The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind"
                    H.P. Lovecraft

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

                      There is no need for a balance change for weapons/vehicles for 24 player or 64 players, people can still fight each other with 24 players as good as they can fight each other with 64 players.

                      Nearly everything about the game would have to be changed in order for 6 man squads to work,


                      Look at how the tanks are in game, 6 man squads, thats one squad for two tanks, Thats CrazySob and me in our own tanks, in the same squad with 4 people in the same squad to repair us all in voip, Tanks are op now? Try 6 man squads, They would be literally unstoppable, unless the tanks or the way of fighting tanks was completely rebuilt and changed from how it is in game.

                      That is just one example of many reasons the game would need to have many balance changes in order for 6 man squads to work.

                      I know they aren't looking forward to the big maps, and it directly points to why the game is so different, Consoles are the number 1 reason for everything someone might find "wrong" with the game, "commander, 6 man squads, map size etc"
                      Last edited by Brainhurts; 07-31-2012, 06:20 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

                        Weapons and vehicles does not matter, when the size of the map makes it harder for people to find enemies. That's the downside of having only 24 players on big maps. I also imagine this to be one of the reasons, why flags seems to clutterede in the middle, so it makes it easier to convert to console and 24 players.

                        Tanks with a full squad should be unstoppable. Just like in was in previous BFs. Having a tank and having a great squad support should make you harder to stop.

                        Vehicles balance seems quite alright, even though loads are complaining about the tank. I don't see the problem, since people been complaining about vehicle balance since forever. It is a part of the Battlefield franchise to me.

                        Again I don't see how everything has to be change in order to make 6-man squads work. It is a per design choice by DICE. They could have make them 6-man sized, but instead they made them 4-man. I just don't see how adding 2 more people in squads would create a major overhault in the whole game-design.

                        Making computer games aint no simple business, but just see so many design flaws in BF3, where DICE could make some extremly simple solutions. I'm not saying that the game would be any better with 2 more players in the squads, cause you already have a problem with the struggling SL-role in the game. But simple stuff like In-Game VOIP and a better UI for the squad/SL would do wonders.
                        "The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind"
                        H.P. Lovecraft

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

                          Originally posted by Reminshi View Post
                          Weapons and vehicles does not matter, when the size of the map makes it harder for people to find enemies. That's the downside of having only 24 players on big maps. I also imagine this to be one of the reasons, why flags seems to clutterede in the middle, so it makes it easier to convert to console and 24 players.
                          While the pathetic RAM and old GPUs of the consoles do really limit map design, I think there is are some other reasons than just 24 players for the cluster of flags.

                          If you read the DICe developer's discussions of maps like Firestorm, they really saw that many players hated running from flag to flag in the huge vehicle maps. We have a guy in my clan who was recruited when he played BC2, but he refuses to play CQ in BF3 because he has to run way too far to ever see an enemy... even with flag clusters. Personally I am not that bad, but I remember BF2 and 2142 to remember cursing when there were no jeeps left on
                          Dalian Plant or Verdun. Hoofing it 500meters just to get oneshotted by a tank is not fun.

                          Big maps work best when you have TG type cooperation, otherwise it is just tedious. That is why the majority played Karkand or Cerebere Landing or camp Gibraltar or Sharqi or.... generally maps with very tight sprintable flags. The minority played Dragon Valley or Sidi Power Plant. Public generally want instant action and that is why COD4 took off so big, it was designed around funnelling people to action...none of the previous CODs did that nearly as much.

                          I can't blame DICE for trying what they did in BF3, can't say I miss maps like Heavy Metal from BC2... I miss maps like Atacama Desert, Arica Harbor and all the great rush maps way more. BF3 Rush is okay, but some of the maps are clearly problematic.

                          Originally posted by Reminshi View Post
                          Tanks with a full squad should be unstoppable. Just like in was in previous BFs. Having a tank and having a great squad support should make you harder to stop.
                          You used the words "unstoppable" and "harder to stop" in the same thought pattern. Which is it? I don't have a problem with harder to stop... I do have a problem with unstoppable. And as I have said in those other threads...only certain maps make them unstoppable. What we are missing here compared to previous BF games is a rocket launcher that works well. That isn't a matter of console v. PC, if anything PC makes that worse since DICE has to balance for our incredible aiming abilities and that means RPGs are nerfed constantly against infantry without regard for how they work against tanks.

                          PC hurts the game there.

                          Originally posted by Reminshi View Post
                          Making computer games aint no simple business, but just see so many design flaws in BF3, where DICE could make some extremly simple solutions. I'm not saying that the game would be any better with 2 more players in the squads, cause you already have a problem with the struggling SL-role in the game. But simple stuff like In-Game VOIP and a better UI for the squad/SL would do wonders.
                          Agree. The simple UI and VOIP things make a big difference and I hope DICE sees that now. Those two are likely the biggest culprits of actual issues with BF3 and not just nitpicks.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

                            I still don't agree with you on the maps misnomer, its up to the players and their squads, Im not going to go into depth this isn't the place, but its how and who you are working with and who you are fighting against.

                            Even if BF4 is as "deep" as BF2/2142 its going to be the players who end up making the game work or not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: EA CEO:" PC is the fastest growing platform"

                              Originally posted by Brainhurts View Post
                              I still don't agree with you on the maps misnomer, its up to the players and their squads, Im not going to go into depth this isn't the place, but its how and who you are working with and who you are fighting against.

                              Even if BF4 is as "deep" as BF2/2142 its going to be the players who end up making the game work or not.
                              I agree that it is the players that make or break a map many times, that is why I wrote this:

                              "Big maps work best when you have TG type cooperation, otherwise it is just tedious"


                              As a game and a map designer you can either design around the perfect situation occurring or you can try to design for a more limited scenario.

                              I believe that those huge maps work best only with 64 players and everyone communicating when they are on 64 player size.... for 99% of pubs this doesn't happen. You end up with Battlefield tag as a few meander about capping flags in circles while the others have a battle royale in vehicles. So I think DICE is making a better choice for the majority of players by creating maps that force people together into roles. If you design a game to only ever work in the optimum conditions... you get an empty game community and only 1 or 2 servers that can actually keep going because they can hit that optimum number and communication environment.

                              People complain about the lack of commander in BF3, but how often did you have a terrible commander or no one who wanted to do the job in 2142 or BF2? Yes it was great when it worked optimally, but as DICE noted... it was 2 players per server that got to use it and it was rarely used well.

                              So yes it is the players that make a game, but eventually you have to admit that you cannot rely on all players to be operating optimally. DICE has been fighting this with its XP system and map design for a few games now. When the community rejects maps like Firestorm and Caspian, they are essentially asking to be fragmented. Now we have the CQ/TDM crowd who will likely never cross maps with the Armored Kill crowd (why would they ever play on Firestorm again when they can play Tank superiority or go rape infantry on a map without choppers?). Granted, Karkand IO started this branch a long time ago... but I have a feeling this will be worse than the jet only map servers back in BF2.... BF3 is splitting into a vehicle or no vehicle community because of the complaints of each community that are getting specialized play buffed.

                              Because communities have rejected playing in situations where their favorite play style may be hampered or more difficult, we have lost both those maps that require optimum coordination and player count as well as those that sought a middle ground where everyone could play their style.... I have high hopes that Aftermath will give those of us who like combined arms (when balanced) a nice mix, but I have little faith that the mixed gameplay fans are more than a tiny minority anyway.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X