DICE Talk Up PC Focus For Battlefield 3

Speaking on Nvidia’s Geforce-promoting Geforce site, Battlefield 3 executive producer Patrick Bach has stated that he believes “the world has moved on” from consoles being the focus for “superior” gaming.

“So for our target of what we want to hit, we are now using the more powerful platform to try and prove what we see gaming being in the future rather than using the lowest common denominator, instead of developing it for the consoles and then just adding higher resolution textures and anti-aliasing for the PC version. We’re do it the other way around, we start with the highest-end technology that we can come up with and then scale it back to the consoles.”

Fighting talk.


  1. darthmajor says:

    Is the day coming that the console players can rise up and be outraged at getting a “dumbed down” version of the game? Are the tables finally turning?

    • cncplyr2 says:

      I sure hope so!

    • DSR says:

      Their products are made purely for easy money and their developers are lazy and when PC will win, all the console players will nerdrage.
      The accumulated filth of all their ports and brown next gen will foam up about their waists and all the xbox kids and kojima fanboys will look up and shout “WTF dumbed down?!”… and I’ll look down and whisper “LOL.”

    • Tei says:

      I am not sure why “nerdrage” is a term. I am a nerd myself and I think my kind get angry like other people. You made your testament in comic sans, I rage. I don’t see it as any different like the no-nerd people .. you burn a flag, or the koran, … no-nerds rage.

    • Orija says:

      DSR, I was going to chide you for being a pc fanboy but then I saw what you did there.

    • stahlwerk says:

      Turning tables on the PC?
      =TRANSPOSE { A1 : E5 }

      (because PCs are boring and ExceLOL)

    • Schmitzkater says:

      I see what you did there.

    • Tams80 says:

      I fear many will just say “This game is awful! Don’t play it!”, when in fact it’s because they are playing a game based on PCs on a console. A bit like some PC gamers reactions to console ports (to PC).

    • Felixader says:

      Ay sheesh.
      Reading the comments in here i have to say that i just can hold back this time.
      I probably shouldn’t do this but whatever.
      I started with a C64 when C64 was already old. Then i continued to play games on the NES and SNES at friends houses and really got into it when i finally managed to get my poketmoney together to buy a N64.
      Between the Consoles Dreamcast, Gamecube, GBA, XBox, DS, XBox, Wii and Xbox360 i had one PC (wich crimbled on me pretty quickly) on wich i managed to get glimpses of games like Half Life, Command and Conquer and Unreal and smany more of all genres, two years after release and a Laptop wich was never really made for gaming.
      I have now a PC again on wich i love to play the various Indie and Adventure games wich reach from
      Aquaria over Minecraft and Torchligth to World of Goo. (Rebougth Torchligth for the 360 cause of the much loved Couch Comfort ^_^)
      But mainly i use my PC for drawing with the help of a tablet.
      I just say all this to make clear that i may be a rooted Console Gamer ( and bit of a nintendo fanboy X-P ) but nontheless always had an ear and an eye open for the games on other platforms like the PC ( and the various Playstations. ^.^ ) alaways aware of the fact that every Platform had awesome games wich i really wanted to play but couldn’t cause of various reasons that all can be summarised under “Not enough Money”.
      (Btw, one of the Series i always wanted to play was the Battlefield Series, wich really made me happy and giddy and all when i finally could on the consoles.)
      Reading the different biased comments of the various biased gamers and fanboys always kinda … grieved me.
      It’s just sooooo STUUUPID to read everyones reasons for wich they claim their platforms to be the ultimative thing.
      So let me come to the fact that we are on a (quite enjoyabel) PC gaming Site.
      What really bugges me here in the comments is that when People complain here about Games oit mostly is about the “dumped down graphics”.
      I mean like ALWAYS.
      Really? This is your most called big reason?
      It doesn’t look pretty enough?
      That is your most and mainly focused reason?
      I can understand when a menue is crap and a pain to navigate on the PC cause the develper didn’t really consider the Platform (That goes both ways, i tried FF11 or something on the XBox and it was just a nigthmare. X.-P ).
      But why does it seem as if the GRAPHICS are THE reason developers of PC Games are mostly called out on?
      This is so shallow to an to an extent is conecting to one of the main reason why i prefer consoles before PC.
      Instead of upgrading and having to compare stats every time i want to buy a game i just pay the game and play ( on my comfy couch none the less) where everything on the PC seems to be aligned with further hassle.
      This counts especially when i only can play a game after i have wresslet with some technical hooah, wich i mostly wouldn’t understand in the first place but mostly colours me baffled that i have to do the work wich i have initially payed the developers for when i bougth their game.
      Oh the Consoles aren’t without their flaws, especially since they can be connected to the internet at al times. (I am tired of unfinished Games beeing released cause they can be patched afterwards. Not that i often have to buy such a game since i don’t have the Urge to preoder everything and have no problem to wait till i can get some reviews and oppinions on the Game)
      Best example for this is XBoXLive.
      While still mostly a very good experience when playing and (voice-) chatting without any troubles it really gets on my nerves when i have to see that i often have to play on Player hosted Servers althougth i payed like 60 Bucks for a service. (Not to mention that the Xbox Dashboard mutates to a fucking Billboard when you go online.)
      The center of my comment here is: is the Graphics really the Most Important thing you have to complain about?
      Not to forgett that i often have the suspicion that most of the PC-gamers that write that wouldn’t anyway be able to play the Grafic Heavy games on full “technical whatever” on their machines despite complaining about the dumping down like a madman.
      (takes deep breath) However, i am now off to play some more of this fine game iconoclast. Thanks for pointing me to it RPS. ^.^

    • Felixader says:


      I am more adressing the gamers/Customers here, since those are the people who finance the developers.

      Overall i just don’t like the “I have it bad, why should anyone else have it good?” stance of lot of the gamers wich often is getting the redicilous addtition of “I am anyway more intelligent, and more deserving of it.”.

  2. dethgar says:

    I have heard this talk before…

    • stahlwerk says:

      …and I don’t wanna hear it no more…

    • Orija says:

      … even though I still want to hear their false promises…

    • Duffin says:

      … whispered into my ear as he presses me up against the wall, those rough hands smothering my thighs…

    • MiniMatt says:

      Whilst writing for PC focussed website developer says “PC is important”. The shock is almost too much for me. I’ll have a little lie down.

    • Dreamhacker says:

      …but I can’t close my eyes and make it go away…

    • rayne117 says:


  3. coffeetable says:

    Don’t think this is for the sake of PC gamers. Considering how much weight visuals have in selling a game, this makes sense from a marketing perspective – they can make the game for NVIDIA’s latest labour, take the promotional footage using said hardware and then tag a “also for XBOX360 and PS3” on the end of the commercial. Boom, instant 1-up on your competition.

  4. Joshua says:

    You know, Crytek said and did the same thing with Crysis 2. But nobody believed them. Something tells me that a lot of PC ‘fanboys’ will still cry OUTRAGE over this.

    EDIT: Although Crysis 2 was also aimed at actually running on a solid framerate, you can’t simplay say that the PC version is basically an upjumped version of the console version.

    • lamzor says:

      you are missing something. as far as i can remember, we didnt see any crysis2 PC footage until PC beta leak(people were told to wait for final version, which will be MUCH better). thats why nobody believed them. and they had good reason for lying. PC version was good as any stupid console port done 100x before(not saying that its bad console game).
      go see BF3 PC footage. IMHO its absolutely stunning. for me, its on the same level as crysis was when they teased PC version few years back. never seen before graphics.
      crysis2 didnt come even close.

    • Joshua says:

      Completely disagree with you there. The Crysis 2 stuff looks just as beautifull as the Battlefield 3 stuff I have seen. And crysis 2 managed to do that with a solid framerate and with DX9. I just hope BF3 will be able to do the same performance stuff.

      But what you are saying sounds like saying that Portal 2 has been dumbed down for the PS3.

    • Cinek says:

      “The Crysis 2 stuff looks just as beautifull as the Battlefield 3 stuff I have seen” – ROTFL. Here you lost all the credibility. And: Yes, I do own Crysis 2 and I seen BF3 trailers. It’s nothing alike.

    • lamzor says:

      crysis2 is not that good. i dont think you can compare it to BF3.to me, it feels like BF3 is one generation ahead. maybe overall feel is nice in crysis2. it doesnt look THAT bad. but when you add destruction model and all the features in DX10 and DX11, high resolution textures, better physics model, better animations BF3 will look and feel much nicer.
      i remember when crysis1 was teased(and released). i dont know ANYONE who wasnt stunned and amazed(even more than BF3 now). as it turned out, it wasnt optimalized very well. but still, it remained the best looking game for years(and best benchmark). even now, i think that you can compare it to crysis2. crysis1 was revolution. crysis2 is at best – evolution.
      in some aspects, crysis2 is worse than crysis1. for example link to vghq.net
      and only DX9 support.
      textures can be also really bad in crysis2
      link to forums.steampowered.com
      i know, its too soon to judge quality of BF3. nevertheless we might have new “best looking game ever” soon :) unfortunately i dont think that my oooold hd4850 will be able to run it 1080p max details :)

    • Joshua says:

      Note that the same link to the steam forums you posted also showed a lot of horrible Crysis 1 textures, for your information. That only leaves the DX9 support, and frankly…
      I seriously do not get why everyone thinks DX10 is somehow better then DX9. Seriously. In crysis, you got exactly the same graphics in DX10 as you could get in DX9, only with DX9, you got better performance. In the end, I really don’t care about stuff like tesselization (dx11), and I really don’t care on which DX it runs (since it really doesn’t matter anyway…), as long as it runs well. Unless it has to be freaking ugly in order to make it run well…

    • skalpadda says:

      There were plenty of really bad textures in the first Crysis as well, look through any interior location for example, or have a closer look at rocks and vehicles. As for Crysis 2, I’m perfectly happy that they made a game that looks very nice and has a much more consistent performance than the first. What I’m disappointed in is how much they’ve scaled back the physics and made it more narrow. I also miss hiding in bushes a lot. Bushes were fun.

  5. BrightCandle says:

    Its easy enough for Dice to prove that this is what they are doing.
    1) The PC version should come out first, the consoles ports will clearly take longer being based on an already completed PC game.
    2) The menus will be based on mouse input, so much so infact that the console port will use the analog sticks to move the mouse pointer around the menu structure.
    3) It will have an easily run PC server which supports 64 way multiplayer at least. The console version will thus require a user to run the server, unfortunately in doing so they wont be able to play the game, they will also will only support a smaller number of players.
    4) No auto aim in either version
    5) DX11, full AA mode support, crossfire/SLI works on initial release. Looks better than crysis did on release (its been 3 years of hardware and software advancement we expect them to use it!)

    Too much?

    • Amun says:

      Not enough! Not nearly enough!

    • cqdemal says:

      Your first four requests are supremely silly. You’re basically saying that console players deserve to get a half-hearted port? Us PC gamers have been on the wrong end of bad porting for quite a while but there is no reason to wish it on others.

      DICE confirmed quite a while ago that the console versions will have smaller maps and fewer players per game. Also, the PC version runs on a pure DX11 engine, has no DX9 support, and has already been demoed publicly on SLI rigs.

    • Churba says:

      Of course they’re supremely silly. He’s basically asking for what pretty much All Entitled PC snobs (As in, PC gamers who are Entitled, idiotic snobs, not all of us as a whole) want, short of one thing – That PC’s get the good games, and consoles only ever get Shovelware, or good games which are restricted down into shovelware. Because Any company faithful to the PC is going to do that, and ignore the larger console market, because having your games on as many platforms as possible in the best form possible is fucking HERESY and BLASPHEMY, as well as being a good business plan if you’re a developer.

      The only thing he didn’t ask for is for Consoles to explode like a bomb if you mention PC games around them, killing everyone in the room.

      Of course, what you can draw from this is that these people don’t know a goddamned thing about game development, game design, or the gaming industry as a whole – which STARTED with Arcades and consoles, I might add, just to make a few heads explode from rage that the PC isn’t actually the originator of gaming – They generally just know they have a PC, therefore it’s superior, and even the slightest problem or error should be blamed on consoles and developers pandering to console players – it’s been the case since Battlefield 2 came out and before, let alone now and in the future.

      That, and you can bet that if you faced these little punks with a complex, high speed, massive FPS like Tribes 2, or a super-fast twitch FPS like Quake, they’d fall apart in the game, get utterly dominated, and then blame it on consoles.

    • Gazmanic says:

      Looks like some people are struggling to understand sarcasm . Also i may be mistaken but didn’t gaming start on massive computers .

    • bascule42 says:

      /throw 2p.

      Yes between Joshua and Professor Falken.

  6. stahlwerk says:

    I have the highest respect for the Frostbite Engine team at DICE, and it’s clear that this is GeForce PR as much as anything else. But you really have to go out of your way to phrase the concept of engine scalability in fighting words like these, which I don’t approve of and think of as highly un-scandinavian.

  7. rocketman71 says:


    Yeah, sure. We saw how many of their promises DICE kept with Bad Company 2.

  8. killmachine says:

    “we start with the highest-end technology that we can come up with” – that does not mean – “the highest-end technology that is available”.
    anyways. if they really release a graphic monster, pc players will start moan, “oh, my pc is not powerful enough to run it”.
    pc players got used to console ports and graphics not improving the last couple of years. i think it will be a hard transition to go back to, “i need to upgrade my hardware for that one single game”.
    what can be achieved nowadays is pretty neat. we may be at some point were no improvement is necessary?! lets not forget about design. i rather prefer a good design than a high polycount+top of the line post processing.

    • lamzor says:

      on your PC version, you can lower your resolution, use low resolution textures, use DX9(or DX10), disable PhysX, lower AA, lower AF, lower model quality, join 24player games on smaller maps etc.
      by doing this, you should get close enough to console quality. by doing it, im pretty sure that BF3 will run even on slower PCs.
      Even crysis ran on slower PCs when it was released. Not on full details, not in 1080p but im sure if there would have been console version of crysis back then, it would look like my crysis on my slower PC.
      upside of making PC game is that if you have i7 with newest GPUs in SLI mode, you can play game on max details, max resolution, max quality.
      you cant do this with shitty port of good console game.
      also BF games are played years after release. in 2-3 years todays high end hardware will be hardly low end.

  9. Njordsk says:

    Sweet words in my ears.

    I upgraded my PC to 2500k/580gtx for that game alone. Though it does serves me for the other, BF3 made me jump onboard.

    I simply can’t wait to sink hundreds of hours in a BF again. Still playing BC2 daily.

    • Orija says:

      Would you say it’s worth it to get myself a 2500k even if I already have 3.2GHz quad core?

  10. Corrupt_Tiki says:

    Day one sale! Already.

    I will upgrade my computer again, if it doesn’t run awesome!

  11. MajorManiac says:

    I’ll believe it when I -see- it.

  12. dangermouse76 says:

    Is this not more that console games are becoming so noticeably inferior even to Non pc gamers. That it has become a bit of an embarrassment to claim cutting edge graphics from their console iterations.
    This ses more about the simple passage of time than Dice suddenly waken up in surprise and saying
    ” oh shit there is this amazing thing called a PC, lets base our games around their superior graphics, and physics capabilities. ”
    It is welcome but it is also marketing speak.

  13. buzzmong says:

    If it was another cross platform developer but Dice saying this I’d roll my eyes and ask for proof, but Dice get special disposition because of what they did with Bad Company 2.

    They did say BC2 was a console centered game when they brought it out, hence some of the limitations, but they at least spent quite a bit of time and effort redesigning the menu (inc options menu!) and UI for the PC. Yeah, Dice can’t do server browsers and the context sensitive “I see something button” was rubbish compared to BF2’s command circle, but everything else was slick and worked really well.

    • SlayerCake says:

      Respectfully disagree on the Spot Button! I found it way better than the radial menu for the sole reason that it’s not a radial menu and therefore is fairly practical to use. All games need useful Q button!

    • MisterT says:


      what. WHAT!
      I mean, the commo rose was so easy to use, I found it a total relief when I was about 14 and just bought BF2. spotting was automatic, and everything else was hold button and move mose in direction of message, bloody brilliant system, better than BC2’s aim at something and hope the button isn’t on cooldown.

      I respect you as a person, but your opinion seems absurd to me.

  14. Navagon says:

    We need to see the multiplayer. For however much in a technical sense it might be designed for the PC, clearly the single player is designed from the ground up for 8 year olds and their grubby controllers. If we don’t see the PC-ness in the multiplayer then all this amounts to is a nice engine which will hopefully be put to better use by someone else.

  15. Cinek says:

    Well, this game already won against Crysis 2, even though it’s not released! LOL

    1) Multiplayer will have 64 players, not 16ppl on 52×52 meter map.
    2) MP will feature co-op
    3) They show the PC version footage, unlike Crysis 2 pre-release, and it already looks 10 times better even though it’s just from alpha / beta version.
    4) They talk abut using destruction as a “strategy” – something Crysis 2 removed entirely, and Crysis 1 barely ever had.
    5) It will be less bugged than Crysis 2, cause you can’t really make anything more screwed, even if you try hard.

  16. kyrieee says:

    I love them for doing this, but I don’t know if it will turn out well. We can only hope it sells well on PC.

  17. Pundabaya says:

    Yes, because every PC gamer is mature and enlightened. There are NO fucktards or screaming elmoas on the PC scene. Or you know, there are? Probably even more, and louder and more stupid than on 360, and the really offensive ones tend to get banned off Live, whereas the most an idiot can get on the PC are server bans.

  18. T4u3rs says:

    blah, blah. blah

    Why did they launch BC2 with a broken browser?

  19. wazups2x says:

    1 )PC is the lead platform
    2) Primarily developed for DX11
    3} Runs in 64-bit
    4} 64 players PC (Only 24 consoles)
    5) Much bigger maps on PC version
    6) All gameplay shown so far has been PC only
    7) No waisted resources on developing for XP or DX9

    Battlefield 3 is going to be an amazing PC game!

    • Joshua says:

      Highly disagree with you saying that DX9 is a waste of resources. Fairly recent games actually managed to run awesome on that.

    • wazups2x says:

      But it is a waste of time/resources developing for such out of date hardware. They could spend that time making it run much better in DX11 and also look much better.

      I wish all developers would drop their support for XP and DX9.

    • Zyrusticae says:


      You do realize a whole bunch of folks don’t have cards with DX11 support, right? In fact, according to the Steam HW survey less than 6% of users currently have one… link to store.steampowered.com

      I, for one, am unlikely to upgrade from my SLI GTX 260 setup anytime soon.

    • wazups2x says:

      I also only have DX10 card, ATI 4890.

      DX11 is compatible with DX10, so Battlefiled 3 will support DX10.

      DX9 is on it’s own and will not be supported. And very few people have
      DX9 cards now so they’re not worth supporting.

    • Grape Flavor says:

      Look again. 61.96% of users can run this game, I expect an even higher percentage of BF3’s target audience is so capable.

      A lot of people are getting confused – BF3 also supports DX10. It’s just WinXP users or those with ancient DX9 cards that are left in the dark.

  20. Felixader says:

    Oh My GOD!

    So much PC Elitism. X-P

  21. The Dude says:

    Graphics, shmaphics. All the graphics in the world can’t save a bad game. And PC-centric doesn’t have to mean cutting edge graphics.

  22. Leelad says:

    Do this DICE and i’ll suck your collective dangly bits.

  23. Coillscath says:

    Colour me skeptical but the last time a developer used almost that exact phrasing, Borderlands happened.

    Still if they keep to their word and pull this off I’d definitely buy the game out of support for them. I enjoyed the hell out of BF2 and BF2142 especially.

  24. kennycrown says:

    I found it a total relief when I was about 14 and just bought BF2. spotting was automatic, and everything else was hold button and move mose in direction of message, bloody brilliant system, better than BC2′s aim at something and hope the button isn’t on cooldown.