Interview with DICE: Laughable or Pleasing?

http://blogs.amd.com/how-to/2009/11/16/11-days-of-directx®-11-day-six-dice/

I see no indication that DICE has any plans to focus on PC Gaming still. Just looking at Bad Company 2 in comparison to PS3 tells me this.

In the interview DICE claims they have been involved with DX11 since the early development, yet Bad Company 2 their biggest game right now runs and looks almost better on PS3 than it does on PC.

How much of this do you all believe?

Do you think Frostbite 2 engine will be scalable enough to play on PS3/360 and support all the DX11 features he mentioned in the interview for PC?

I have my doubts, I think DICE is primarily focused on Console gaming so do not have much faith in Frostbite 2 delivering everything this guy talked about.

 

Well seeing how BFBC2 is a sequel to a console exclusive game, I think BC2 for PC has done quite excellently. As for the performance issues, I've yet to really experiment with it, but the game is utilizing more CPU resources than the typical multiplatform game does hence some performance issues for those with dual-cores. Considering the number of software extraction layers involved with PC games, as well as background tasks, the comparative needs of a multiplatform game on a PC are more so, at least when it comes to the CPU side of things. Thinking about this makes me want to drop my gaming desktop's Phenom II x4 into my slimline desktop (it's got an Athlon II x2 3 GHz right now) to see if I get a big boost with Bad Company 2. Graphically I get nary a boost when I lower settings, so it might just be the CPU getting taxed quite heavily.

As for "runs almost better on PS3" thats a bit of an overstatement unless we take specific pieces of hardware into consideration. My large desktop's Phenom II x4 and Radeon 5850 pretty much dominate the game at 1080p getting a constant 60 fps and no slow down. My slim desktop's Athlon II x2 and Radeon 5570 are a different story.

I did a bit of research thanks to youtube, and those with dual cores were all getting relatively slow FPS, regardless of graphics. A guy with a dual core Athlon and 8800GT was getting slower framerate than a guy with a Core 2 Quad and a Radeon 4670. Any other game would be favoring the GPU, but it doesn't seem to be the case with BC2. Anyone who wants to be into mainstream gaming should really just be gearing for a quad core. Not too sure how the dual core Intel i3s and i5s stack up against BC2. There just seems to be so many considerations when guessing performance with PC games. Hardware, namely the GPU, CPU, and RAM as well as the OS, and the DirectX API in use can vary to such a high degree, especially with a game like Bad Company 2 that supports 3 different APIs.

As for the future of BF on the PC, it looks pretty good, as BC2 at least within the first week of release had more PC gamers than either the 360 or PS3 playing online. While this doesn't necessarily mean more sales on the PC (especially with so many consoles not on Broadband connections and more people might want to play the single player anyways), it does show DICE how important online BF is to PC gamers. I'm sure it gives DICE the confidence to complete and release Battlefield 3 exclusively on the PC, as it will surely do well, considering how well BC2's multiplayer on the PC has done. BF3 done like BF2 with online as the main component and a bot driven single player offline mode would surely sell excellently, even if a PC only game. Also the lack of a story driven single player would reduce costs, as alot of money otherwise spent on voice acting, story, story scripting, and time creating events, gameplay, and set pieces wouldn't be needed in the first place.

 

Seems like a waste to release something exclusively for the PC after going to the trouble of developing a cross platform game engine. I'm not so sure about the PC only release of BF3. Again, seems like burning money.

 

I have it for the PS3 and I can rightfully say that it does not look "almost better" than the PC version. I don't blame DICE for not jumping head first into it when a single company has Direct3D 11 compatible cards out there. Even when Big Green gets their Fermi into consumers' hands market penetration is likely to remain low for sometime.

 

That undermines most of your post for me. The PS3 version tends to be more washed out in multi-platform games, the fact it runs at 720p at 30fps is a feat for both console versions if you ask me.

I don't think DX11 is mainstream enough for developers to really focus in on changing their games up with it. Sure it looks pretty in benchmark software, like DX10 which only recently is getting more and more adapted. DICE are playing it safe and including console and PC because that's the way this generation is going, developers are guaranteed money in the console market whether they want to develop for it or not.

BF was born on PC, they'll continue to develop for it aswell as consoles but I feel that if they made a BF3, it would be a console game which limits the potential for PC (higher player counts, graphics). Sure they could develop different versions but that's more costly, but I think everyone is content with BC2 for now.

 

Considering it's in development (and has been for a while) I'm sure DICE is trying to get it done especially with the myriad of projects they've had since releasing BF2. To make a true successor to BF2, would require complete focus on the PC I think. BF2 sold more than 2.5 million copies on the PC. I think DICE could do it again quite easily, maybe do even better. Not too sure what the numbers so far for BC2 have been, but it's very obvious (look at the number of servers in the BC2 server browser) that BC2 on the PC has done extraordinarily well not just for a multiplatform game, but a PC game in general. Battlefield was born on the PC, and even with BC2 being the sequel to a console based BF game, PC gamers still wanted it and took to it quite quickly.

Honestly I do think BF3 will be multiplatform, but the PC version will probably sell well enough to create positive profit margins on it's own. The PC version will be the lead platform I hypothesize, and have up to 128 players per server and running Frostbite 2.0, with console limits at 32 at best.

 

Simply having a crossplatform engine doesn't obligate a crossplatform game. A console is woefully unequipped and much too inferior to handle the gameplay of a large-scale battlefield simulation. I can guarantee many BF enthusiasts (including myself) will outright disown the franchise if they even so much as imply BF3 isn't going to be a PC exclusive.

 

I agree with the first sentence. However, I don't find the console woefully unequipped to handle large scale games. I saw MAG. It looked pretty decent and ran well. There were 256 players I believe, and the graphics were definitely better than BF2, but not as good as BC2. The engine also wasn't as dynamic as BC2.

Anyway, the PC version of BF2 officially supported up to 64 players. I expect BF3 will also support at least 64 players. I definitely expect the game to go cross platform, and if they can't do 64 players on the consoles, they will do 32. I wouldn't be surprised either way. I WOULD be surprised if it didn't show at all on consoles.

 

thinking about ordering a desktop with a Phenom II x4 955/965 + ATI 5850 and was wondering how beastly it is. Are you running settings maxed? AA and AF settings also please?

 

I believe that Battlefield 3 will be a PC-only exclusive. After all, look how well Battlefield 2 has lived on the PC, only a few months till it's 5th birthday and there are still over 10,000 players at peak times. Sure, this doesn't touch CS or CSS but still. It shows the games longevity was far longer than anyone probably expected.

I'm pretty sure DICE is already well working on BF3, I believe we will see an announcement at E3 2010 which will be very near the 5th anniversary of BF2. However, I really would not expect to see BF3 released till at least mid-way through 2011 if not later.

 

Even current BF2 gameplay is impossible to recreate on gimped console controls/hardware:

1) BF2 and presumably 3 have complex interfaces and interactions such as squad menus, maps, commander screens, etc. none of which can be faithfully recreated on a console.

2) There are no such things as "dedicated console servers".

3) BF2 supports 64-player servers and its quite possible to expect BF3 to exceed this; consoles barely struggle to achieve 16-32 because of #2.

MAG is a good game, but it's nowhere near the open-world full-scale battlefield that BF2 is. Like every other genre except for maybe sports and racing games, consoles are ill-equipped to handle any degree of complexity especially as found in FPS+RTS hybrid.

Graphics are moot since they will always have better potential on PC, whether developers choose to optimize for a given system is their prerogative.

Lastly, modifying BF3 so that it can run on consoles not only takes away from improving the PC version, but also no longer constitutes a BF game (see BF:MC and others); as I mention before should any veteran BF players catch wind of this, it's game over for DICE.