Battlefield 3 teased, PC is top priority

By on February 10, 2011, 5:07 AM
With consoles receiving a lot of preferential treatment lately, it's no surprise that PC gamers immediately questioned the development focus of DICE's upcoming Battlefield installment. Fortunately, Game Informer affirms that the title is being crafted with PC gamers in mind. "We won't make it for console and port it to PC -- that's not how we do things," said executive producer Patrick Bach. "We're focusing on PC first, and then we fiddle with it to fit it onto consoles."

The studio was serious when it said it wanted to build the best Battlefield ever. Battlefield 3 has been on the whiteboard for years and its team is twice the size of BFBC2's. DICE has been waiting to harness the power of Frostbite 2.0 and the company shared some impressive details about BF3. For starters, it reportedly features improved lighting elements, with one "probe" containing more lighting information than an entire level of 2010's Battlefield: Bad Company 2.


The game is expected to launch in Q4 2011 with an M rating and features co-op play, four classes, more unlockables and better, more immediate post-release content than BFBC2, along with well-balanced character customization that doesn't rely on "pink rabbit hats." Level destruction has been cranked up, character animations are more realistic courtesy of EA Sports' ANT engine, war sounds have been captured at various distances to ensure realism, and improved audio cues.

The PC version has 64-person multiplayer while consoles will be limited to 24 (supposedly because console gamers are happy with that). Settings will include New York, Paris, Tehran, Sulaymaniyah, and Iraqi Kurdistan, but it isn't clear if any of these will be specific to single or multiplayer. Mod tools won't be available at launch -- if ever -- because Frostbite 2.0 is said to be too complex and DICE would rather focus on polishing the game instead of simplifying its dev tools.




User Comments: 40

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

this seems to be going in the right direction i wouldn't be surprised if battlefield was going to beat the next cod again xD and as for the pc is top priority im expecting some ****ing amazing stuff to be going on and atm its a good year for pc gamers!

Cueto_99 said:

Can't wait to fly an F-15, and wreck havoc among the 32 enemy players ! Although I wonder, how are we going to be able to shut down an aircraft... Land-to-air missiles? Railguns? Top priority game for this year!

fpsgamerJR62 said:

If DICE can deliver on all of its promises, then Battlefield 3 could indeed be the best Battlefield game ever. I'm personally hoping to see a solid single player campaign on top of Battlefield's usual excellent multiplayer component. As for the next installment of CoD, BF3 could be beat it in every department yet I suspect that Activision will again sell millions of copies of this game just on the basis of the Call of Duty name. Here's looking forward to a solid gaming year.

Guest said:

BFBC2 Blew my mind.

BF3 looks like it will be epic.

Bring on the destructible worlds,

I want to see whole apartment blocks destroyed with the enemy still inside.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Funny, the last bit about Console gamers being "happy" with 24 player is actually true!

I'm a PC gamer, always has always will. I now live with my friend who has always loved consoles, always have alwas will.

My Setup is a decent spec PC, 22" full HD screen, razor mouse keyboard and Bose Companion 5.

His setup is a Samsung 5.1 surround sound, 32" Full HD LCD TV, Xbox 360 Elite (only 2 weeks old) a brand new PS3 (4 weeks old) with loads of games.

I went up to him after reading this and said "Battlefield 3 is coming to PC and Consoles, PC can handle 64 player online, Console is limited to 24. Why do you love these Sh*t boxes?"

He instantly went into one about how consoles don't need that many players and that, if it did it would be impossible to play or win blah blah blah...

Some times, Console owners absolutely amaze me.

Guest said:

I'd like to see facial treatment like the one being used on L.A. Noir. It's simply absurdly realistic for a game.

We have tons of First-person shooters; what makes all the difference is attention to details, without compromising the playability.

Bring us a deep, immersive experience.

BFBC2 was great, Vietnam brought nice refreshment.

The bar shall be raised for BF3.

Cheers!

ElShotte ElShotte said:

I think they did raise the bar on BF3. BF2 was phenomenal, BF3 will be even better. And I am either going to get the Special Edition or buy the DLC BF2 Mappack later, I want to see BF2 environments destroyed, great example of how video games moved into the future over the past couple years.

ElShotte ElShotte said:

@burty117: Console gamers aren't capable of thinking outside the box... they settle for less by nature. Us PC gamers are always getting the latest parts and all so a game can perform or look better on our system as the graphics and technology head into the future. PS3 and X360 are OLD now, and theyre way behind. We settle on the best, they just settle. And in all honesty, especially in the case of BF3, who's going to get the better gameplay experience? I mean seriously, we will have maps that are 4-5 times the size, epic 64 player battles, and they'll just have BFBC2 - 8 players + jets.

frodough said:

kudos to DICE

every gamers knows that most game makers want to make games primarily for consoles due to 2 main reasons:

1) consoles are very popular platform to massive audiences, thus potential to be very profitable

2) PC platform require extra securities for games due to piracy

i have to give it to DICE for having such faith in its game and PC. i truly believe that they KNOW the best experience in playing BF games are on PC and PC only.

personally i think console gaming are dumbing down gamers - making them lazier just so the platform can go mainstream and hit the livingroom. you lose so much flexibility trying to run and aim with just 2 thumbs than it is using keyboard / mouse, and that's the truth. same reason why XBOX never 'continued' running games on cross-server/cross platform (because they tried it on original Halo and an average PC user can easily out play & out maneuver even some of the expert players on the console side.

jetkami said:

Will they ask $60 for it? I hope its priced less then COD just to show them up.

Wagan8r Wagan8r said:

This may be my most anticipated video game this year. I never got into Battlefield 1942 nor its subsequent titles, mostly due to my lack of computer hardware and Internet. Then, I bought BF:BC2. It was a steak dinner among a smorgasbord of CoD Happy Meals. It was also the first FPS since Crysis that I felt was made as a PC game. The sound direction still blows my mind with its realism; a feeling that I hadn't felt since the first time I played MoH:AA. I am really hoping for BF3 to take full advantage of modern DX11 GPUs, necessitating my purchase of one! Good luck, BF3 team!

frodough said:

RE: Jetkami

"Will they ask $60 for it? I hope its priced less then COD just to show them up. "

BF3 is said to be FREE TO PLAY with a micro transaction system. i assumed it would be free for download but even if it cost money i would jump on this boat simply because this game already seems more promising than Black Ops... o the horrid i already uninstalled that game, it's just weren't the same w/o infinity ward and those who dare to say the graphic got better - please come to your senses and get out of a self-denial.

(owned 1942, BF2 collection, BFBC2)

Wagan8r Wagan8r said:

jetkami said:

Will they ask $60 for it? I hope its priced less then COD just to show them up.

No, you can pre-order it now on their website for $50.

EDIT: They seem have updated their site to be $60 now. Must have been a limited time deal.

yRaz yRaz said:

wagan8r said:

jetkami said:

Will they ask $60 for it? I hope its priced less then COD just to show them up.

No, you can pre-order it now on their website for $50.

EDIT: They seem have updated their site to be $60 now. Must have been a limited time deal.

damn, I really hate buying games for $60...I hope Crysis 2 is $50, but it wont be. What ever the market will bare is a business model I hate.

I hate how that extra $10 was meant to subsidize the price of the console. I paid $1500 for my computer, don't charge me an extra $10 to "subsidize" the price of my computer. It's not like the can pull the piracy excuse since it is almost completely based around online play.

Cota Cota said:

Finally a game development for the best gaming system ever.

Guest said:

BF2 is more than 5 years old. In 2005 it blew every console FPS.

BF3 will do the same. BF3 will simply rock on PC. Don't ditch PC gamers. PC games (mainly FPS and MMORPG) has always been ahead of console in every way.

It's fine if console gamers are happy with their games, but please realize the fact that those same games on PC are more advanced, because they are not limited by a static technology. PC hardware is not limited to evolve by a 5 years cycle like console!! These are just FACTS, not opinions.

princeton princeton said:

frodough said:

"Will they ask $60 for it? I hope its priced less then COD just to show them up. "

BF3 is said to be FREE TO PLAY with a micro transaction system. i assumed it would be free for download but even if it cost money i would jump on this boat simply because this game already seems more promising than Black Ops... o the horrid i already uninstalled that game, it's just weren't the same w/o infinity ward and those who dare to say the graphic got better - please come to your senses and get out of a self-denial.

(owned 1942, BF2 collection, BFBC2)

BF3 will not be free to play. Nowhere has Dice even hinted at that. Don't pass off your hopes as facts.

RaiDeR55 said:

@frodough Maybe you was thinking of battlefield4free with micro transactions..Bf2 with BC2 weapons.

As others stated above, the PC is always going to be ahead in graphics/Cpu power for gaming.

Looks like the console cycle for refresh is going to be longer than 5 years this time around..PC will be up too DX 13 or 14 by then and some really really fast Gpu's and Mulit cores 12 -16 core cpu's..

Consoles stuck with tri core and Sony's cell cpu for awhile.

SO BF3 should kick some serious A**..Yes that be cool if they did like they did LA Noire for facial expressions. Awesome tech!

Guest said:

Comments ripping on console gamers are sad. It isn't a competition. I play Battlefield on the PC and the PS3. Both versions are good, so don't be sad that you can't afford both a PC and a console (or three).

The PC versions are usually more versatile but far less relaxing to play. Often the player is hunched towards the monitor stressing over his K/D ratio. On a console you are chilling on the couch, probably with some friends, eating and laughing at how your moronic friend just killed himself.

Over time I've come to enjoy playing on the console more and more just for that reason. The limited team sizes do annoy us but we can't control that. The comment that console gamers are happy with 24 is untrue. My friend used to be a PC-FPS snob too but now seems to prefer the PS3 version. Not because its better, but because we have awesome flat screens with surround sound and nice couches. I guess if I was playing on a 27-inch screen in my mom's basement I'd probably not feel the same way.

Guest said:

Ahhh! I would love to play it on the pc, I just suck/cannot get use to the keyboard and mouse and a controller would be at a disadvantage. Is there any hope for me?

Wagan8r Wagan8r said:

Guest said:

Comments ripping on console gamers are sad. It isn't a competition. I play Battlefield on the PC and the PS3. Both versions are good, so don't be sad that you can't afford both a PC and a console (or three).

The PC versions are usually more versatile but far less relaxing to play. Often the player is hunched towards the monitor stressing over his K/D ratio. On a console you are chilling on the couch, probably with some friends, eating and laughing at how your moronic friend just killed himself.

Over time I've come to enjoy playing on the console more and more just for that reason. The limited team sizes do annoy us but we can't control that. The comment that console gamers are happy with 24 is untrue. My friend used to be a PC-FPS snob too but now seems to prefer the PS3 version. Not because its better, but because we have awesome flat screens with surround sound and nice couches. I guess if I was playing on a 27-inch screen in my mom's basement I'd probably not feel the same way.

No one ever said that it was a matter of not being able to afford consoles in addition to a PC. I can afford to buy an XBOX 360 and a PS3, but I'd rather spend that on upgrading my PC, buying games, or buying other electronics. And being "hunched towards the monitor" is more immersive than sitting 5-10 feet away. PCs will always be more powerful and upgradable. That's why we love them.

/story

Guest said:

i play on xbox and to say we are happy with 24 players is wrong. i want the best gaming experience i can get. i would accept it if they said the consoles cant handle 64 players, but to say its because were happy with it kind of annoys me. if the game is going to have jets it will need huge maps to accomodate them, if its got huge maps and only 12 on each team its going to be dreadful, youll have half your team in the air, the inevitable sniper ****** not really doing anything, i see entire matches where no flags are captured, this could be the most retarded thing ever. i really hope its more than 24.

Guest said:

"For starters, it reportedly features improved lighting elements, with one 'probe' containing more lighting information than an entire level of 2010's Battlefield: Bad Company 2."

What do they mean by "probe"?

"...along with well-balanced character customization that doesn't rely on 'pink rabbit hats.'"

What do they mean by "pink rabbit hats"?

Guest said:

it means they aren't going to rely on a bunch of stupid camouflages and face-paints like black ops did to make the game cool.

Emin3nce said:

lol black ops imitates TF2.

AT FIRST I WAS SERIOUS...

but then...

RABBIT HAT AND FISH IN PAPER WOOO

Guest said:

this is sad. i love dice and bbc 2 a ton, but if your going to put 24 players on a map designed for 64, you're pretty retarded. Don't stoop to activision's level, DICE. (the one of making crappy games)

Guest said:

Battlefield 3 will be the best, since ist a mixture of Battlefield 2 MC and Bad Company series... xRaWx will be their!!!

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Definitely excited to play BF3, looks like this game may actually live up to what most PC gamers wanted to see =D. I am a bit disappointed that they just went with four classes though like BF:BC2, I really feel that in a 32v32 scenario you need more specific classes then just attack/support hybrids. And the lack of mod tools is a bit worrisome too, I really hope BF3 doesn't push out constant mappacks/DLC with high prices and no community contribution like we see in most games nowadays. But for the time being I'll take them at their word and hope down the line they will find a way to open up the game to the community.

jetkami said:

Will they ask $60 for it? I hope its priced less then COD just to show them up.

From what I've seen yes, like most new releases they are charging PC gamers $10 dollars more because of the "console tax". It's unfortunate that publishers don't think PC gamers realize they are charging us more, but for this game I will forgive them .

frodough said:

BF3 is said to be FREE TO PLAY with a micro transaction system.

You're mixing up BF3 with Battlefield Free4Play which is basically a simplified BF2 for download.

Guest said:

Comments ripping on console gamers are sad. It isn't a competition. I play Battlefield on the PC and the PS3. Both versions are good, so don't be sad that you can't afford both a PC and a console (or three).

The PC versions are usually more versatile but far less relaxing to play. Often the player is hunched towards the monitor stressing over his K/D ratio. On a console you are chilling on the couch, probably with some friends, eating and laughing at how your moronic friend just killed himself.

Over time I've come to enjoy playing on the console more and more just for that reason. The limited team sizes do annoy us but we can't control that. The comment that console gamers are happy with 24 is untrue. My friend used to be a PC-FPS snob too but now seems to prefer the PS3 version. Not because its better, but because we have awesome flat screens with surround sound and nice couches. I guess if I was playing on a 27-inch screen in my mom's basement I'd probably not feel the same way.

You're right, bashing console players just because they enjoy that system more then a PC is sad. But then going on to stereotype us as hunched over gamers stressing out because of our K/D ratio in our mothers basement is just as pathetic.

Guest said:

this is sad. i love dice and bbc 2 a ton, but if your going to put 24 players on a map designed for 64, you're pretty retarded. Don't stoop to activision's level, DICE. (the one of making crappy games)

Thinking that DICE would let console gamers play on huge maps is absurd. I would assume they implement a type of fog of war like they did in BF:BC2 to condense the maps. Something that they possibly will let PC gamers use too who want smaller servers like 48 or 32 player limit.

Guest said:

i'm a console gamer the reason i'm not pc is because 1 don't have money 2 i hear that you need to keep up with the requirements and 3 i have a laptop not a desktop i would like a little more players though at least 30 or 35 40 would be awsome just saying

Guest said:

maybe, but condensing maps doesn't solve anything. i'm not really willing to pay for $60 worth of crap *** half maps. plz, just 48 ppl or something, DICE

Guest said:

okay u would pay 1500 dollars 4 a computer and u only hav to pay about 1 fifth of that for a PS3 or 360. So financially it would be better to get an xbox so u dont have to worry about a game being too much. U PC gamers are lame and need to quit being nerds and having to have the best thing ever. The graphics are just fine on the console.

U dont need to pay for more parts to play a game.

And consoles are more socialable so u dont get bored and u always hav someone to talk to.

Guest said:

If they do release the mod tools for Battlefield 3 I don't think it won't be too tough for a lot of the community since most of them like a challenge. Especially talking about the Project Reality team.

Guest said:

Pc sucks I got rid of mine after BF2 cause it was so stupid but BFBC2 on the 360 was the best game I hhave ever played handsdown

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Guest said:

okay u would pay 1500 dollars 4 a computer and u only hav to pay about 1 fifth of that for a PS3 or 360. So financially it would be better to get an xbox so u dont have to worry about a game being too much. U PC gamers are lame and need to quit being nerds and having to have the best thing ever. The graphics are just fine on the console.

U dont need to pay for more parts to play a game.

And consoles are more socialable so u dont get bored and u always hav someone to talk to.

This is simply not the case, first off a gaming PC will not cost you $1500 dollars. You can spend that kind of money but it is not necessary. In today's age almost everyone needs and has a personal computer on which you can do more then just game. They can be used for business, school, personal activities, home theater and anything else you can think of since it truly is an open platform, but one that doesn't require a monthly fee. Also if you find the console to be more sociable, grats. I personally can't find anything better with it in comparison to a PC that doesn't just have basic VoIP but quality third party software and huge communities.

Oh and if it wasn't for nerds pushing the boundaries, most of what we have today and enjoy wouldn't be here.

Guest said:

maybe, but condensing maps doesn't solve anything. i'm not really willing to pay for $60 worth of crap *** half maps. plz, just 48 ppl or something, DICE

Yes, it is disappointing and I'm not sure why they couldn't even try for at least 32 players. Maybe it really is some technical issue that with so much intense action and physics going on that the hardware can't cope. But I wouldn't worry that somehow the maps will be inferior, they'll likely just be focused in on the main town like Oasis in BF:BC2 on conquest instead of the Rush variety which has four towns. I don't recall console gamers in uproar about that, but I do remember PC gamers feeling that some maps were small in comparison to what they were accustomed too.

BlindObject said:

I just want them to optimize it so scales wells on console, and so that PCs will most likely play it at high settings with med specs or something along those lines.

Guest said:

no we are not happy at 24 we want more 32 or 48 would be better

Guest said:

I loved BC2. I thought it was on a par with Modern Warfare and beat the crap out of MW2. Regardless, I really enjoyed BC2. It is great that DICE is working this title specifically for the PC. I wish that were true of the most recent MOH Dice released late 2010. To me that title was a port, or at least it had that low quality feel to it that reminded me of a port job. We all knew these console hacks would end up ruining gaming and they just about have done so. Bravo Dice for your efforts!

Guest said:

P.C.'s are DA BOMB!!!!

pVk said:

hr

I miss those op chopper

Guest said:

i would be nice to have at least 32 players.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.