DanTheGamer11 Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Battlefield isn't popular on consoles? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 EA has to butter up the console makers, Sony and MS. While they may be "ahead of the curve" in terms of them adopting SoC, I've seen nothing to prove that such a solution is actually a good thing. If it was all he claims it to be, then the PC market would have already adopted it, IMO. Nobody should ever buy a console for multi-platform titles or they're wasting their money. Buy it for the exclusives or don't buy it at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhenKittensATK Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) In performance it can't win, but maybe in other factors like how the OS interacts in the background. Like installing updates while in low power / sleep mode, similar to tablets and smartphones. I hope he just used very bad wording, but you rarely ever get a second statement clarifying whatever these execs say, because someone told them to just shut up. Edited May 28, 2013 by AZNguyen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fogel Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Battlefield isn't popular on consoles? Despite BF3, all previous Battlefield installments were PC only. Out of all my console friends I only know one who played BF3 on the console regularly to a degree. It did not impress many console fans. It gets play but I think mainly from those who are tired of CoD and Halo but still want to play FPS. Console FPS players pretty much buy any and all FPS games (it seems like) and rarely seem to stick to any of them. So I'm sure the sales were decent on it (haven't checked) but BF3 most definitely did not have the same impact on consoles that other FPS games have made. Besides my point was more aimed at the fact Battlefield has always been PC franchise. so alienating your original fanbase in favor of the new kid is just dumb. But then again that's EA. They did that when they created BF3 and pissed off all the hardcore BF2 fans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black64 Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 They both have only 8GB of ram, 8 core CPU and a 500GB HDD? Aww that's so cute , I am running a 6 core HT to 12 cores, 24GB of ram and more then 6TB of HDD space in my PC right now. So I think they are a gen or 2 behind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 They both have only 8GB of ram, 8 core CPU and a 500GB HDD? Aww that's so cute , I am running a 6 core HT to 12 cores, 24GB of ram and more then 6TB of HDD space in my PC right now. So I think they are a gen or 2 behind. :sigh: This is part of the problem - people who think you can directly compare the specs like you just did Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black64 Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Define "a generation ahead" then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhenKittensATK Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) Battlefield isn't popular on consoles? My brother is an avid CoD player on the PS3. He told me BF3 and any other FPS I introduce him to has too many campers. Then I hear him yell at the TV about campers in CoD. Define "a generation ahead" then. A generation in terms of electronics is usually 1-3 years, depending on the product. How often they release the new model to replace the current one. Edited May 28, 2013 by AZNguyen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_Jim_* Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 EA has to butter up the console makers, Sony and MS. While they may be "ahead of the curve" in terms of them adopting SoC, I've seen nothing to prove that such a solution is actually a good thing. If it was all he claims it to be, then the PC market would have already adopted it, IMO. Nobody should ever buy a console for multi-platform titles or they're wasting their money. Buy it for the exclusives or don't buy it at all. For consoles, SoCs would be great, as they allow for lower power requirements and cheaper manufacture. Not so good for PCs though, with their performance limitations compared to discrete components ('Jack of all trades, master of none' and all that). Since consoles are essentially black-box computers or System-in-a-Box setups, the use of SoCs means nothing more than a way to save some money on production and help them run cooler. Now, as much as I do not want to, I can defend the guy's asinine statements. In the respect of performance numbers, I would not be surprised at all if the next gen consoles actually do beat all but the most powerful PCs at launch, and that only after another generation or two of GPUs and CPUs would the performance numbers return to parity. Remember, since the current crop of consoles are so dated, both nVidia and AMD have been only competing with each other and with themselves. ('We can push this many FLOPS.' 'But we can tesselate more than they can.') With the new consoles to compare themselves against, they may have to play some catchup to get away from GPGPU stuff and back to pure graphics power, before returning to GPGPU. That being said though, the technology of either company is far and away better than the next generation consoles. The numbers may, for a time, support the consoles, but the actual hardware of the consoles is not a generation ahead of anything, except the consoles they are replacing. Those performance numbers will only be the result of the heavy optimization console games can have. PC hardware is still king and always will be. Also it will not take five years for the numbers to return to PCs. More likely two years on the outside, with leaked benchmarks in just a year and a half, if it takes that long. What this boils down to is software, not hardware, and some idiot equating unequal things. It is not even apples to oranges but apples to spam. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Long, but good read: http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/31/forget-the-xbox-one-and-ps-4-the-most-powerful-gaming-device-is-your-pc/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locutus Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 The XBone is going to be the equivalent to a mid range gaming computer... I know that one thing is for sure, AMD is going to make a killing during this generation of consoles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVIYTH0S Posted June 1, 2013 Posted June 1, 2013 The XBone is going to be the equivalent to a mid range gaming computer... I know that one thing is for sure, AMD is going to make a killing during this generation of consoles. I know right, I was thinking and hoping that with such a contract maybe AMD will get some money behind their R&D and start to really to show serious competition with Intel and Nvidia...I mean they definitely are doing quite well as is but imagine if the PS4 and XBO sell well, this could really be a great thing for AMD. (a big IF they sell well....which doesn't seem too likely at this point lol) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now