Kotick not worried about Battlfield 3, says is for PC gamers

[OGBuzz]

That's because I watch all the pretty trailers - I'm not interested in interviews

Seriously though - I just keep in touch with news and developments, and where a company is based really has very little bearing on the final game for me.

Also, I have the same kind of horrified fascination in anything that Kotick says - again, just like the ANC.

And yeah ... keeping in mind that BF3 isn't a PC exclusive - something Bobby seems a little misinformed (or utterly retarded) about

Thats very true

it (BF3) is using PC as the lead platform to which they'll port to the PS3/XBOX, something 3ARC fails at completley.

ofcourse they are catering for all platforms, what a nut, i think DICE are pretty smart doing things the way they do and in the end everyone is going to walk away happy and satisfied no matter what platfrom youre on, this cannot be said for the last two CoD's.

I word of advice Kotick, youre a smart buisness man, but having disatisfied customers does'nt do well for your image in the end, sure on or two unhappy customers are'nt that bad, but when there is a product that is the same price and competes in your department, dont be surprised when people bugger off to greener pastures.

It really is only at matter of time, lloking at Robert Bowling at E3 doign the demo just from his body language shows its "another year, buisness as usaul, blah blah blah lets get this over with and put MW2.1 on the shelves"

IW is not what it used to be, Activision is to be partially blamed. Thye guys who made COD4 were brilliant, but they are now shadows of their formers selves

 

[shadowfox]

I word of advice Kotick, youre a smart buisness man, but having disatisfied customers does'nt do well for your image in the end, sure on or two unhappy customers are'nt that bad, but when there is a product that is the same price and competes in your department, dont be surprised when people bugger off to greener pastures.

Just keep in mind, Kotick doesn't give a damn about the gamer. All he wants is their money. So he doesn't care if he pisses them off - and just based on past happenings it's quite clear there are plenty of sheep that'll buy whatever gets hyped the most. And it doesn't matter if CoD dies - he'll wring it completely dry and then move on to the next franchise.

Which is why it's probably just as well that Blizzard maintained full control of their IPs (Starcraft, Warcraft, Diablo) - and Kotick won't dare piss Blizzard off, because if they walk a major chunk of his income hits the highway. He's more than savvy enough to keep that from happening.

 

[DenSweeP]

Tarryn, where did you get those figures re BC2 sales? If you check on BFBC2 Stats where you can check stats, they list how many PC, PS3 and Xbox players there are respectively and number of servers and how many people are online.

According to that, PC has 2 868 505 players, Xbox 3 262 708 and PS3 has 2 558 530 players.

So, either the site is incorrect or your stated figures are incorrect. I dunno which.

I'm not disputing that COD sell far more than BF3, but to me BF is till the better game. That's just me.

Now obviously on the PC vs console front, for the COD titles, the PC had it's ass handed to itself. On BF3 though, I would like to see what happens. Yes, BF will most likely not sell as many as COD, but that alone doesn't make it the better game. Avatar made billions in revenue, but which was better, Avatar or The Hurt Locker? Also, I love the way when it comes to figures, the Xbox and PS3 are seen as once platform, but heaven forbid you even think that when comparing the two!

 

[Azimuth]

Tarryn, where did you get those figures re BC2 sales? If you check on BFBC2 Stats where you can check stats, they list how many PC, PS3 and Xbox players there are respectively and number of servers and how many people are online.

According to that, PC has 2 868 505 players, Xbox 3 262 708 and PS3 has 2 558 530 players.

So, either the site is incorrect or your stated figures are incorrect. I dunno which.

I used VGChartz. They're usually my go-to for sales numbers.

Not too sound, um, cynical, but is it possible that the BFBC Stats site includes pirated copies of the game?

 

[Blackhand]

I used VGChartz. They're usually my go-to for sales numbers.

Not too sound, um, cynical, but is it possible that the BFBC Stats site includes pirated copies of the game?

No, you can't play with a pirated copy on legit and tracked servers. You need an original key tied to your account.

EDIT: After some further research, you cannot play multiplayer at all with a pirated copy. I thought there might be a "cracked" server or something though those aren't normally tracked. So just to add some more weight to the stats if there was some doubt about pirated copies being tracked, there is at present no way to play BC2 multiplayer without a paid key.

 

[OGBuzz]

No, you can't play with a pirated copy on legit and tracked servers. You need an original key tied to your account.

True that....

I always found BFBC2 Status to ber VERY acurate when it came to my stat tracking

but its weird that the margin between the two are so huge in terms of figures

someone is right and someone is wrong here......

 

[Ap0calyps3]

PC has 2 868 505 players, PS3 has 2 558 530 players.

Well, my eyes are telling me that there are more BC2 players on pc than on ps3. xbox tops them both though. So densweep is right, don't place xbox and ps3 in same box, even if they are both consoles, they are still different platforms. You cant put a ps3 game dvd/bluray into an xbox 360 and vice versa. Yes, pc and ps3 had it handed to it, by xbox, and ps3 had it handed to it by pc as well.
As for the topic of this thread, Im not worried about bf3, Im a pc gamer, I cant afford ps3/xbox + the cost of their games.
PS: just dont neglect the pc side of bf3, if needs be, port it to the consoles, pc must take priority!
PPS: We(pc gamers) will know if it was neglected, by the fact if it doesnt come with dx11 capabilities on release
PPPS: pls dont place me in same box as kotick... just because BC2 got lots of sales on consoles, i would still call it a pc game, same for cod4(cant give my opinion on mw2 or bo as I never even bothered with them, and even now, i wont, its not like a game miraculously becomes good all of a sudden. If shit at release, it will still be shit a month later, year later etc. And im talking about these two on pc)

 

[PenTanium]

Got my rig ready for BF3, I think...

 

[Azimuth]

Well, my eyes are telling me that there are more BC2 players on pc than on ps3. xbox tops them both though. So densweep is right, don't place xbox and ps3 in same box, even if they are both consoles, they are still different platforms. You cant put a ps3 game dvd/bluray into an xbox 360 and vice versa. Yes, pc and ps3 had it handed to it, by xbox, and ps3 had it handed to it by pc as well.

How is this relevant? In a market that is increasingly dominated by consoles - and with developers responding with an emphasis on console development over PC - it makes sense to divide multiplatform sales into PC and combined console stats. When somebody like Bobby Kotick talks about the console market, they're talking about both PS3 and Xbox.

 

[Blackhand]

Each platform has its own following and each needs its own development cycle, so of course it makes sense to view them separately from each other. You can be sure in business and strategy meetings they are spoken about separately.

 

[Azimuth]

Each platform has its own following and each needs its own development cycle, so of course it makes sense to view them separately from each other. You can be sure in business and strategy meetings they are spoken about separately.

But not in terms of sales.

 

[Blackhand]

But not in terms of sales.

Why? I doubt internally they've adopted the whole PC vs. Console war, maybe they have? Other than that I see no reason why they would group sales that way. I think its more players that started grouping sales like that.

 

[shadowfox]

Each platform has its own following and each needs its own development cycle, so of course it makes sense to view them separately from each other. You can be sure in business and strategy meetings they are spoken about separately.

Would their development cycles really be that much different? I can see that there would be major differences between PC and console maybe, but between PS3 and XBox360 - not so much.

 

[Blackhand]

Would their development cycles really be that much different? I can see that there would be major differences between PC and console maybe, but between PS3 and XBox360 - not so much.

The 360 and PC aren't that different from each other architecturally so migrating from one to the other isn't too bad, they both use DirectX and Windows for example. The PS3 is vastly different to 360/PC with its own operating system, propriety graphics library and entirely different CPU architecture. 360 <-> PC easier, 360/PC <-> PS3 more difficult. So the PS3 & 360 seem more closely related, but under the hood that is not true.

Regardless, each platform still needs special attention and their own development cycle.

 

[shadowfox]

The 360 and PC aren't that different from each other architecturally so migrating from one to the other isn't too bad, they both use DirectX and Windows for example. The PS3 is vastly different to 360/PC with its own operating system, propriety graphics library and entirely different CPU architecture. 360 <-> PC easier, 360/PC <-> PS3 more difficult. So the PS3 & 360 seem more closely related, but under the hood that is not true.

Regardless, each platform still needs special attention and their own development cycle.

Ah, I see, I see.

Although I wouldn't think it should affect the core game-files themselves.

 

[Ap0calyps3]

Each platform has its own following and each needs its own development cycle, so of course it makes sense to view them separately from each other. You can be sure in business and strategy meetings they are spoken about separately.

Exactly. Also, they make a moerse mistake if they develop and release a game for today, on pc, and it doesnt take some if not all of the potential for dx11. Consoles are slow, on development, and I refuse to wait the average of 6 years for console's lifespan to wear out. Dont tell me I will only see todays dx11 fully used in 3-4 years as the current consoles burn out their candles and they are developing whatever is available today in tomorrow's consoles. Because in 3 to 4 years time we will be 2/3/4 directx's ahead(especially at the current rate of development). Also, dont tell me that my lifestyle is too expensive for you to follow, I bought my stuff 3 years ago, and only starting to look at upgrading my graphics card. All my hardware was also only midrange, and i spent well under R8k. Games, i get for no more than 200 bucks. Console games add up very quickly in cost.

@ azimuth
Anyways, I hate debates about which is better. If you have the money you do them all anyways, in my case pc route was cheaper, and i have the needed knowledge from being exposed to programming thanks to my degree.

Would their development cycles really be that much different? I can see that there would be major differences between PC and console maybe, but between PS3 and XBox360 - not so much.

I think so, especially pc, as pc itself has multiple platforms(dx9/10/11). I think this is the biggest reason they actually shy away from pc and get the media to promote consoles anyways. PC should tecnically speaking have the longest development time, as they have to cater for those that are still on dx9, even 10, and 11. Those that have made the purchase into dx11 wants to see their money well spent, and complains about the lack of dx11 features in new games. Those with 10 do the same, except that was then. Most games that are released this year supports dx10 in some way. And those that havnt made the move to newer greens yet will turn into zombies and go on a killing spree if they dont see new releases on their platform. So a compromise is (generally)made that balances on all the features, as rewriting the code 3 times for dx just to make each fully utilised, i dont see that happening. Also, we can only really expect to see fully featured dx11 games a year or two after its first installment, as releases of current games will have been in development since before the release of dx11.

Hope that answers your question, though I probably could have been more organised in my writing.

 

[Graal]

I might be able to take him more seriously if he knew anything about search trends - but apart from a recent spike, it's not like MW3 is completely pounding BF3 in the search engines. As a matter of fact, BF3's been leading the race for the majority of the year so far

Those trends don't really mean much in the long run, because the market CoD caters for isn't likely to consist of a lot of people who search for new info on google every day.

 

[Blackhand]

Thread has derailed, resume the hissing and spitting at our old friend Bobby, that's much more entertaining!

 

[Azimuth]

Why? I doubt internally they've adopted the whole PC vs. Console war, maybe they have? Other than that I see no reason why they would group sales that way. I think its more players that started grouping sales like that.

It's not about a console war, it's about the money. And, let's be honest here, most multiplatform games sell better on console, even when you break it down to different consoles. You can blame bad ports, but if you glance over MyGaming's index, the declarations about how PC gamers is going to pirate this, that, and everything else in between BECAUSE LOL aren't doing much in the way of convincing developers to pay attention to that market. It's a self-sustaining cycle of fail.

If I were in the game development business, in all honesty, I'd give the PC market the big old finger.

Would their development cycles really be that much different? I can see that there would be major differences between PC and console maybe, but between PS3 and XBox360 - not so much.

Actually, the PC and Xbox development processes are very similar, it's PS3 that's wildly different.

 

[Graal]

the declarations about how PC gamers is going to pirate this, that, and everything else in between BECAUSE LOL aren't doing much in the way of convincing developers to pay attention to that market. It's a self-sustaining cycle of fail.

Oh oh oh, but you see, the biggest problem the majority of pirates have with this argument is that apparently the pirates weren't going to buy the game either way. It should apparently make the whole piracy problem just go away and make developers smile, because pirates were going to steal it anyways.