Battlefield 3 PC receiving ?special effort?, won?t run on Windows XP

DICE developers have revealed a few new details on the upcoming Battlefield 3 on Twitter. Lead Designer David Goldfarb has allayed fears that the next Battlefield will be a console port, saying that while the game won’t be exclusive to the PC, the PC version of the game is getting extra attention. More news has emerged on the game’s system specs, too. Battlefield 3 is designed to run with DirectX 11, and won’t run at all on Windows XP.

Responding to questions on Twitter, Goldfarb said the game “will not be exclusive. We are putting special effort into the pc version, even for us, it’s extraordinary.” This is good news for those who were worried that DICE’s success on the consoles with Battlefield: Bad Company 2 coul make PC version of the game becoming a lower priority. it looks as though the opposite is true.

Meanwhile another DICE dev, Johann Andersson dropped a few details on the system specs that will be needed to run the game, saying that “Frostbite 2 is primarily developed for DX11. XP & DX9 is _not_ supported, 64-bit OS is recommended. Lots of time to upgrade if you havent!” This will probably mean an upgrade for many. Are you still using Windows XP? Would you upgrade for Battlefield 3?

Battlefield 3 PC receiving “special effort”, won’t run on Windows XP | PC Gamer

 

I'm NOT using XP at all, but my GPU in my desktop is only a GTX 260, same in my laptop. Although I plan on a new Sandybridge laptop with GTX 460m or HD 5870 (preferably 6870 or newer tech), and will definitely update my GPU just to play this game.

I love BF2 to this day. I hope they do it justice.

 

Yea read this today as well. I'm planning on building myself a desktop pretty soon, and this will be the game I have in mind for it!

 

Yeah, wasn't BF2 a DX9 only game a mere 3 years after DX9 came out, and Geforce4 users were raging hard at the time about it?

Looks like DICE still isn't afraid to try

 

Thank god. It's about time for developers to man up and stop catering to people living 10 years in the past.

 

DX9 really needs to be abandoned at this point, so I have no problem with this move. Hopefully this will help XP diehards get a rude awakening about how outdated their OS is. Some still claim it's the best OS for gaming...

 

Old news right? Still, if they're true to their intent then BF3 will at least be optimized for 1080p FOV, modding support, and have 64+ player maps - maybe even 96+ by now. Oh yeah, and jets!

 

Im in favor of the move forward.

For people with old systems and setups they have tons of other games to play, so dont hold back major titles that should grow to accept and cater to newer tech.

Now the only thing is, after there little speech about how great it will be, they better live up to it and not give us a title that runs like crap like most other DX11 games do where the just shove every DX11 feature into a game they can think of and make it run horribly and all the while not look any better than a DX9 version of the game that runs 2x better.

 

They said a lot of this about BC2. DX11 treatment and that even though it's cross platform it wouldn't be a console port, blah blah blah and it was all BS. BC2 was console port through and through. Everything from crappy mouse control, overall UI, hitbox detection etc, and the list goes on. Every patch and update arrived on PS3 and 360 first and then arrived on PC months later, sometimes half a year later. Sounds like console port through and through, even on the updates and patches, pretty lame...

Anyways, I won't insult it too much but I have little doubt, whether running the game in DX10 or DX11, visually will matter little. I have little doubt the game will look barely any different than on PS3 or PC. Just like BC2. Difference between PS3 and DX11 on PC are barely distinguishable to me, not to say the game looks bad, DX9 simply still looks good if done right. Batman AA ranks as among the best looking games to me. For me mouse control, being able to have options like Crysis provided for visual settings, proper hitbox detection made for client on PC and server response, voice communication working, no stupid server glitches with friend's list and favorite servers lost, etc etc. And of course this time a mod community which BC2 completely lacked provide almost no replay value other than to to level to 50 playing on the same boring maps for some 600 hours. How some did it, is completely beyond me without shooting their own computer out of boredom. Those are more important, but I have a feeling those are the things DICE will fail at it.

You know the important things, things that actually make a game GOOD, not just some tech show. I know some will say BC2 is a good game and Vietnam is improved blah blah. I guess some people forget there are lot of people who bought the game a year ago. And waited a year to hear the game actually works. So for me, my expectation is to buy BF3, but wait a year for patches to rectify the crappy porting from console and then have to pay another $15 to get a DLC that actually makes it good. Sounds good to me. Bring on BF3, woot! Hooray...Yay DICE...

 

You guys don't know what your asking for. If BF3 releases in say 2012, you'll need 2016 technology to run it as it should with everything maxed. The technology today, that is within the average consumers reach, can't even run BFBC2 adequately without having to turn down some settings. This is just unacceptable.

It's stupid for them not to allow DX9 because that will force everyone to upgrade to the latest in computer hardware if they want a smooth playing game. I mean even the newest gaming laptops with intel i5 and nvidia GTX460m can't run BFBC2 at max graphic settings. Now imagine BF3, they just push the envelope so much, that software leapfrogs the current hardware and you can't enjoy the game in all it's glory until hardware catches up a few years down the line. Just look at Crysis.

They should make it so that the game is accessible to current hardware technology, so we can enjoy the game how it was meant to be. Because who knows tomorrow is not guaranteed, and we could die before we even see technology that could run the game in all it's glory....Oh, that's why they invented the videogame consoles. "/

 

The latest? DX10 has been supported since the 8000-series cards from nVidia, and whatever the equivalent ATi series was (3000, maybe?). I bought my 8800GT in 2007, and it supports DX10.

 

Sandy Bridge cpu supports DX10 lol.

 

It should be a good thing that it'll require future tech to max it. Over the next 5 years or so that BC3, BC4, and BF4 come out, everyone will be able to max it!

 

Not interested in the franchise, but big developers publicly declaring their intent to move away from technology from the last decade is always good news. Games don't go forward as much as they should if old technology keeps holding it back in development potential, however any attempt to do a Crysis by this developer is going to be backfire somewhat.

 

Are you still whining about that? You do realize that your card is an underclocked GTS 450 (desktop) and not really a true high-end card, right? And the fact that the mobile HD 5870, GTX 480M, and GTX 470M beat it? Get over it. The true top-end desktops won't have any issues maxing it out, which is what they are for.

 

Exactly, you'll need to be in an elite class to play BF3, since you have to dish out thousands for a system that can run it adequatley at maxed out settings, and again even then when it releases, there won't be hardware that can max it out, until 2-3 years down the line after it's release. BF3 in the first and second year will effectivley be a 2000 + dollar game just because you have to buy the most modern hardware to play it. You see what I'm saying.

Not many people can afford a computer like mine with an i5 and 460m. Especially with the economic situation. Luckily I got it for 1000 bucks at the Thanksgiving Holiday sales, but usually other brands besides Toshiba sells theirs for 1500-2000 dollars, and even today still do, just to play BFBC2 which I believe came out almost a year old, compared to the just recently released 460m, which is newer technology than the game. It's foolish that you have to pay that much to enjoy the game how it was meant to be, and I'll bet alot of people get annoyed because their expensive new hardware can't run the software at full specs.

If I force DX9 on BFBC2, I get the desired fps and playability that I want and that's how it should be, but just knowing there's more to be had, irritates me. I'm sure I'm not the only one, and this will be the same issue with Battlefield 3, many will be locked out and forced to suffer playing it with inferior graphics settings, just the way alot of computer gamers were locked out and annoyed because Crysis was to ambitious and made a game that was waaaaay ahead of it's time hardware wise.

 

This is only a problem for the small percentage of people who obsess about maxing out every setting.

The truth is actually much more simple: hardware is only so powerful. The end. The goal of the developer is to make sure that their game runs well across as wide a range of hardware as possible and to keep the game graphics relevant for as long as possible. Unlike hardware (which has a finite amount of power) the game needs to be as dynamic as possible.

The fact of the matter is that if everyone with a mid range graphics card could max out the game upon release, then the game designers have artificially limited the graphics ceiling and it is worse for people who invest in high end SLI / xFire systems, for example. By having the graphics cap outside of the reach of normal systems on release day, they keep their game relevant longer. It's a good thing, and it doesn't hurt anyone.

You would be happier if "medium" was just called maximum, but the name wouldn't make a lick of difference to the image displayed on screen.

 

Anyone remember when BF2 was in developement that it was supposed to be 128 player maps and that was one of the big hypes and then they couped out and made it 64 players.....one reason why i lost interest with it. I was pissed that they dropped the 128 players in BF2 from the beginning. It's not like doing 128 players would have been hard. Joint operation has 150 player max if i remember correctly.

 

I don't mean to hold game developers back (although I personally hold considerable sway over them...typically, most of the bigger developers will morse code me on my beloved telegraph and ask me if I'm ready to give up XP yet...I simply paint a picture of my thumb up or my thumbs down and send it to them via Pony Express...), but I will ALWAYS, ALWAYS have an XP gaming machine...

And since my m1710 doesn't have a DX10 capable card, it's the perfect choice...

If a game requires DX10 or a faster GPU than the 7950 to run, even at minimum settings, and I really, really want the game then I'll put it on the m11x, but that's my toy not my primary gaming machine (that's why Just Cause 2 and Force Unleashed are on the m11x and not the m1710...the m1710 can't run either one)...

BF3 might just be the title to get me to buy an m17x-R5, but I'll still keep my m1710 handy for the classic game titles that were difficult to transition from the non-NT kernel 95/98 OS to XP and next to impossible to transition to Vista/W7...

When some really smart people come up with 95/98/XPBox (I'm going to try to trademark that name, but DOSBox probably already has me beat) and laptops have enough computing power to run games in 95/98/XPBox, then I will completely abandon my m1710 and my very, very outdated XP gaming and gladly join everyone else on the cutting edge...

For me, gaming is not always about the latest and greatest...it's just about what's fun...but I respect those who want to move game graphics and game AI forward...I'll just always be a couple of years behind you...and I'm ok with that...(I still spend an obscene amount of time playing Black Tiger and Speed Rumbler under mame which my first Toshiba laptop was able to do...)

 

Now it might actually make good use of 8GB since 64bit is recommended

 

lol shadddap...actually I don't really need to try the RAM anymore if I don't want to since the new drivers are giving me very smooth framerates now.

 

Will the horsepower needed be a little like Metro 2033? If yes, I will be able to play medium with Tesselation at 30 FPS ^^

 

you can expect it to be way more demanding than Metro. I don't know what kind of system you have but be prepared to spend another 2000 dollars just to play it...

 

no. anyone with a top-of-line laptop or high end desktop should be fine.

 

Get real. BF3 is a franchise series. It's not about who can have the toughest running game.

Sure DICE will add some DX11 features. But they have already said the emphasis will be on DirectCompute, NOT tessellation for Frostbite 2 engine. This game will be more than capable on running on high end laptops. If they use tessellation it will be used only situational, like making a wheel round. Not like some heaven benchmark idiocy.

DICE/EA is competing with Activision, not CryTek, or 4A Games. BF3 will be about lots of players on one map which means they need this game accessible to as many players as they can. Why would they want to make a game only a few can enjoy? Compared to COD Black Ops which sold more copies than EA's entire fall lineup? Makes no sense.

Anyways, I disagree completely with some of you raving about future tech. This game will have some DX11 features to satisfy those who have beast machines. And this game will run smooth, fast and look great on consoles like PS3 and old computers running on DX10.

 

I'll bet you 1 million dollars, whoever has the most powerful desktop today will be able to play it at only medium to low settings at best, and still they'll have ugly framerates drops below 20 fps. I bet you. This is the stupidity I speak of, they make PC gaming out of reach, and that's why Microsoft and Sony spent millions to make a standard, and the result was consoles. It's no wonder PC games are a dying breed...

 

ROFL, easiest money he'll win. Use your head seriously. This isn't some small development team like 4A Games. This is EA wanting to make as much money as possible. Whether DICE wants to make a monster game or not is not their choice to make. EA is at the helm no question and EA is about $$$ and wanting a game that can compete with COD from Activision. Having a game traditionally exclusive to PC now cross platform is clear evidence of this alone. If you really were serious, masterchef341 made the easiest million in his life.

There is no doubt the Frostbite engine was made for Console first then with additions to make some features appeal to PC users. I have little doubt Frostbite 2 engine is the same. This is a cross platform engine to be made for games for the masses, not an exclusive PC engine for the elite.

 

Ideally, a game should have nice looking graphics even on low and be playable on even Intel IGPs on minimum, but at the same time should look amazing maxed-out and challenge bleeding-edge systems maxed out. This is what DICE should be aiming for to get the most appeal.

 

...


Okay, now you're just being a moron. You can't play with 32xAA with your card which wasn't made for it. Boo hoo. Get over it.

I'll take that bet.

 

It was already stated that it won't support XP and DX9, that in itself destroys your argument about them designing this for the masses. Also just use BFBC2 as a reference point, if you don't believe they're gonna tax hardware, because BFBC2 is on par with Crysis, and don't give me the it's not, cause it is and I'm to lazy to post the more credible sources than you that state this very fact...

 

bahahahha PC gaming is a dying breed? seriously. Get over yourself. PC gaming has been growing. All consoles can do is get more average joes into gaming. Where will they go for more hard-core gaming after they get hooked? The PC. The PC is the heart of gaming. Always has and always will be. Will it get the shaft on many titles? of course but it will always be the heart of gaming. Lets just look at cost? Besiding making an expensive computer. Games are way cheaper. Console games have to pay a 10-20 dollar royality...PC games don't. Look at my steam account
SteamCalculator.com - How much is your Steam Account worth?

I spent just over 500 on it lol. Could have been less but i already owned like 6 games that came in the packs i bought.

 

*cough* Intel current IGP does 5k on 3dmark 06 if i remember?

EDIT: and ivy birdge is to double that....If ivy bridge does double that than that is right behind if not equal to my overclocked GTX 260m

 

quoted for truth.

just turn of the 32xaa on a gtx 460m already and get over yourself. it's about as fast as a mobility 5850, so in desktop terms we are looking at a 5750 or gts 450, about. Those types of cards are designed to run games at medium / high settings at medium resolutions (not quite 1080p) with no aa, or 2xaa. the end. These cards also cost about $100 or even less. At about $150 you start getting cards designed to run at high settings with 2x-4x aa. There aren't any systems designed to run any modern games at 32xaa. 32xaa is NOT implemented by the development team. It's a graphics card feature. Normal people who run normal aa (4x) will play BF3 just fine, as they will BC2.

Similarly, I could create a post processing effect (lets call it cheffect). Cheffect is implemented on the GPU (post processing effect) and performs a proprietary full screen edge blur operation. You can change the quality of the operation from 1x to infinityx, but the performance cost grows exponentially. You shouldn't bicker about not being able to run 8192x cheffect on your games. The hardware wasn't designed with the intent of running 8192x cheffect, even though it is capable. Get. Over. It.

AA is a post processing gpu effect, much like my propriety cheffect. It is done in hardware and was not designed to be used in games with no more than about 4x, or at most 8x on extremely powerful graphics cards. There is a huge growing performance cost with AA, and also diminishing returns on quality. Most benchmarks will do max settings with 0xaa 0xaf, and then also do max settings with 4x-8xaa and 8-16xaf.

"Maxed" doesn't have a consistent meaning. Everyone is using different resolutions, and post processing effects like anisotropic filtering and anti aliasing aren't automatically considered when talking about maxed out settings. It might be ignored (0xaa 0xaf) or something reasonable - in the ballpark of 4xaa 8xaf or 8xaa 16xaf.

No one is using 32x aa. Gah. Ok, rant over.

 

Again there's a thread on this forum about PC games in stores, well it's not just in my area, but I see almost everywhere Computer stores and videogame stores are drastically downsizing their PC games. Pretty soon the only place you can buy will be online. Oh and where the hell are the fighting games on PC? I really want a UFC game for PC, but knowing the developers and their foolishness they'll jack up the graphics so much it'll require a Cray supercomputer to at least push 10 fps...

 

ROFLMAO. DX10 has been around since 2006 and if DX10 is done right, it can be up to 30% faster than DX9. Seriously, you and City Pig get over it. No one here said BF3 will run on the highest maximum settings with AA at max on a laptop.

Simply said this game will run fine with some settings off in DX10 on high end laptops fine, and it likely be visually comparable if any differences for the average player. Unless you stop and compare screen shots side by side. BC2 looks nearly as good in DX9 as it does DX11. BF3 will be no different.

This is almost as funny as the raving Y2K bomb shelter lunatics few years ago.

 

I think its a good idea. As it is right now those same DX9 people can't play Bad Company 2 anyways as the system requirements are too high (even the low end is quite high). So removing DX9 is going to inconvenience what? Less than 0.5% of people who can play BC2 right now anyways?

 

Not really. Plenty of people can play BC2 on 13" notebooks with midrange GPUs. It's not as intensive as others make it out to be. Having a game playable doesn't mean maxed settings. Too many people overreacting to this.

If you want maxed with AA as is now with any game, get a desktop. If you want to game on laptops you have to make concessions. Get over it.

 

I will not settle for anything less, like you and the Pig, with both your inferior hardware. Yes, yes, inferior hardware that made both you and the Pig accept that you'll never be able to get past 2x aa. Oh and yes, my notebook can and does do 32x aa at very playable fps at max settings, with the new drivers. Bwahahahahahahahaah....

 

Review Intel HD Graphics 3000 graphics solution - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

btw here you go current IGP is 5.2k in 3dmark 06. Ivy bridge is rumored to double that again. so that'll be as fast as a GTX 260m and that'll be before the end of 2011. plunty of time before BF3 comes out. That means people with a freakin IGP will be playing games as good as i can or better lol sounds like a good time to upgrade in a year or so lol

 

Any update on BF3 is GOOD news!

 

Will I then be able to play it at 1920x1080 DX10 medium-low?

 

Turn down the AA to 16x and tell me if you actually see a difference. Just try it.

Anyway, you're saying ridiculous things. If current SLI/CFX desktops can't play it, then it will bomb because no one will be able to play it. It's called logic. Try using it some time instead of being pissed that your upper midrange graphics card is just an upper midrange graphics card and will struggle with demanding games in the future. If graphics cards are getting faster while software isn't demanding more power, then what's the point? Get over it, and buy a desktop since that's clearly better suited for your needs.

 

My system is more powerful than yours and I don't use any AA in bc2.

 

I have a faster computer than you do. I have a desktop 5830 OC'd to stock 5850, with a phenom ii x4 965 BE.

It's *leagues* faster than any 460m system. Again, the 460m is comparable to maybe a 5750.

Just pulling out a number, I would say the graphics card by itself is about 50% faster than the 460m.

I use 4x aa.

 

yeah, good luck running Battlefield 3...

 

yeah well good luck to you too on running BF3

 

Any gamer still on DX9 hardware deserves to be cut off.

It's 2011 people. Upgrading once every five years isn't too much to ask.

Oh yeah, consoles. Barely 720p, 0xAA, and averaging 30fps, at best.

GLORIOUS!

At 1080p, the 5730m will not run BF3 at playable framerates. It isn't even designed to run today's games at 1080p.

 

I'm gonna post up *still* screen shots at different AA levels and see if you can figure out which is which.

I'll be fine for BF3, thanks. You would be too if you were willing to tweak the settings around.

Keep in mind - the xbox 360 and ps3 are also target platforms for BF3. As long as your computer can handle other cross platform games, BF3 should be fine.

 

oops, double-p.

 

And that's an issue? Steam sales are through the roof. Last I heard they had well over 30 million active users. Just using Steam as a minimum you'd be stupid to ignore a 30 million user base. If 30 million users is "dying" then maybe half the countries in Europe are on the verge of extinction.

Also, regarding jacking up graphics, most of the time, the console ports are poorly coded and require extensive hardware to run games at same detail as the consoles, when they should be able to run them with ease. It's the develper's issue, not the computer's.