Battlefield dev eyeing next-gen

Swedish developer DICE seeking senior software engineer to optimize Frostbite game engine for next-generation systems.

Battlefield developer DICE has its sights set on the next generation of systems. A senior software engineer job listing at the developer posted to the Gamasutra game board specifically calls out "next-gen."

Might Battlefield 4 be a next-gen game from DICE?

According to the requisition, the person chosen for this position may be tasked with optimizing DICE's proprietary Frostbite game engine for current- and next-generation systems. Iterations of the destruction-centric engine powered Battlefield 3, Medal of Honor, and Need for Speed: The Run.

DICE is presently preparing a trio of Battlefield 3 downloadable content packs, but the studio's development docket beyond that is unknown.

There have been hints at the developer's future. Last July, EA Games senior vice president Patrick Soderlund said the studio had "not abandoned" the Mirror's Edge franchise. Additionally, Electronic Arts president Frank Gibeau reportedly stated during a presentation last November that "there is going to be a Battlefield 4."

For more on DICE's latest project, check out GameSpot's review of Battlefield 3.

Written By

Eddie Makuch is a news editor at GameSpot, and would like to see the Whalers return to Hartford.

Want the latest news about Mirror's Edge (2008)?

Mirror's Edge (2008)

Mirror's Edge (2008)

Follow

Discussion

96 comments
dalua360
dalua360

Dialog between a developer and his publisher:

 

Dev: I want to create the most realistic combat game ever!

 

Publ: No, you have to create the best selling game ever

 

Dev: Ok [sigh], I will transform BF into COD, and all gamers will play it

because there will be no other game on the market for those who like realism, and all costumers will be stuck with two CQB games.

 

Publ: Perfect... what do you have in mind?

 

Dev: Look this: Battlefield 3

 

Publ: Now, just to make sure our costumers don't realise what we're doing, put some vehicles and big maps. And lie about this whole Frostbite 2 new destruction system, because no one played Red Faction Guerrilla and they won't realise how outdated we are.

 

Dev: Done.

dontcare27
dontcare27

@ClaudiusCaesar Windows 8 is not needed, Windows 7 is all you need to run the latest games for a long time to come. Your comment about the power supply, to me, sounded like you were on about it not being powerful enough to run windows 8. Read over what you have typed before clicking on submit. It's an awful experience reading your comments, lots of it makes absolutely no sense at all. When I started to read your latest comments today, I gave up on the first one and have become so bored of you. You CLEARLY know absolutely nothing about computers. Enjoy your PS4, you deserve one.

RobertBowen
RobertBowen

BTW, CaludiusCaesar, if I did want to get another Windows 7 license, (which will be valid until 2020), it would cost me just over £100 ( ~ $150) for the FULL version or £70 ( ~ $110) for the OEM version. Don't know where you got $250 from. You must shop in the wrong places. :P

RobertBowen
RobertBowen

ClaudiusCaesar wrote: "On a PC, you will need a much better CPU, motherboard and GPU (maybe a 7870 or 7970) to match that PS4 spec. Add $400 there." That's highly debatable. BTW, you can overclock CPUs on a PC to get some extra power. Seems you just want to inflate the cost without reason. "Are you going play games with a $10 keyboard and $8 mouse. What a jokey. Good game keyboard and mouse would be $150." I play games with a keyboard and mouse that cost me exactly those prices. Absolutely nothing wrong with them. I tried one of those 'expensive' gaming keyboards once - it died in 3 months. Not worth the money. "Where is the Windows 8? $250" I wouldn't touch Windows 8 with a barge pole. If I simply gradually upraded my existing PC with some of those parts, my WIndows 7 license is still valid. NO extra cost. "A $40 case with a weak power supply is gonna handle that? Not sure. Who is going to put all that together? $100." The case is fine, and the PSU I identified will do the job just fine as well. No cost to put it together, because I self-build. NO COST. "Total to add: $900." Wrong.

ClaudiusCaesar
ClaudiusCaesar

@dontcare27 Finally, if I have $2000, I sure would buy (build) a game PC. And I would be proud to say: "Yes, I spend $2000 on my game PC (rig, right) because that's my hobby and I love it". I don't have that money, and I'm glad that there is an alternative: $500 console. However, I would never say "console gamers are stupid because PC is cheaper".

ClaudiusCaesar
ClaudiusCaesar

@dontcare27 For me, I'll never buy a desktop again. That's done. I'll buy a tablet. Maybe, if I REALLY need Windows: a laptop. (I would buy a desktop, just to play games). Mouse and keyboard is also about performance and durability. I guess what, 90% of PC gamers have expensive keyboard and mouse. What's the point to have a expensive PC and a sh!t keyboard and mouse. But, yeah, a XBox controller for Windows is a good option. NEVER buy used games. Rather buy 2 new games than 3 used games. The money needs to go to those that WORK hard to make games, not a unnecessary retail. I'm very glad they will block used games for next gen. Well done. Two things a give to PC. Some games are cheaper, and there are good exclusives for PC, like RTS. That's a good reason to invest $2000. $2000 PC => $500 PS4. That's is MY POINT: $2000 and $500.

ClaudiusCaesar
ClaudiusCaesar

@dontcare27 What I learn (I mean "unlearn"): 1) PC do NOT need Windows to run games. Interesting. Linux? 2) A console that is BUILT to play games are NOT well design to improve the performance of a GPU and have a operation system that is also degisn to play games are not faster than a PC architecture that was not design for running games and Windows, a HEAVY and not efficient operation system. 3) High-end GPU do NOT need a more powerful power supply than a cheap one that comes in regular PC cases. A Radeon HD 7970 consumption is 255W + motherboard + CPU + blu-ray. Regular power supply: 300W. Something is gonna fry.

dontcare27
dontcare27

@ ClaudiusCaesar [Quote=ClaudiusCaesar] Remember if PS4 comes with a Radeon HD 7670 GPU, you will need a much more powerful one on a PC to match-up. That means an expensive high-end GPU. [/Quote] You take dumb to a whole new level. Also, just to cheer you up a little. By the time the PS4 is released, the GPU that they'll use will be very much outdated and cheap. Thank you and good night.

dontcare27
dontcare27

@ClaudiusCaesar you could also buy an official xbox360 controller for windows, if you can't get your s--t filled head around keyboard and mouse, of which you don't need to shell out stupid prices for. high priced mouse and keyboard is more for comfort and extra settings than anything else. I'm actually glad there's a place for people like you to go, the ill informed, not prepared to educate themselves to new things. always taking the easy root in life. Just like the way you play games online. Probably always f---ing camping, waiting for that easy less expensive kill.

dontcare27
dontcare27

@ClaudiusCaesar you're f---ing puzzled lad. what makes you think that you need a higher spec gpu in the pc rig, rather than equal spec for it to match the ps4. do you think the ps4 has some magical fairy dust that overclocks everything? have fun overclocking your ps4 by the way. least you can buy some pre owned games for the ps4. what? what's that you say? Sony are trying to stop you doing that perfectly reasonable thing. but why? of all the things that Sony would try to pull on their customers. lol. you're a mug. saying s--t like windows 8 (like you actually think you need to buy it in the first place) needs a stronger power supply is f---ing stupid. Just stop talking son, before your f---ing head explodes and you end up covering your bedroom walls with all that s--t its overloaded with. windows 8, my god, f--- off. in your world you could buy a ps4, pay someone to take it apart, install it all into a PC case. then expect it to be more powerfull than a high spec super computer worth $2000. your also forgetting that the PC is not just a console alternative, its also a f---ing PC. You can do thousands of more things with it than you can on a Console, whether game related or not. you get more choice. more for your money. You also have a PC/Laptop right? why aren't you adding that to the costs. our console alternative is in our PC.

ClaudiusCaesar
ClaudiusCaesar

@RobertBowen On a PC, you will need a much better CPU, motherboard and GPU (maybe a 7870 or 7970) to match that PS4 spec. Add $400 there. Are you going play games with a $10 keyboard and $8 mouse. What a jokey. Good game keyboard and mouse would be $150. Where is the Windows 8? $250 A $40 case with a weak power supply is gonna handle that? Not sure. Who is going to put all that together? $100. Total to add: $900. Also, maybe that PS4 spec could be $400. But, I give you the price of games. You could save $10 on SOME games. $50 a year.

BRiDeath
BRiDeath

@ClaudiusCaesar, Today's high-powered gaming PC will fade against a PS4? Got any proof, f--kstick?

RobertBowen
RobertBowen

Let's put this ridiculous argument to bed. Speaking strictly in terms of the UK, and our over-inflated prices for just about everything... Rumoured PS4 specs & price CPU: AMD A8-3850 quad-core 2.9GHz GPU: HD 7670 clocked to 1GHz with 1GB VRAM. Optical Drive: Blu-Ray Whatever else is inside Base System with 1 controller = £315 (~$500) PS4 games: 10 @ £40 (~ $60) = £400 (1st year of purchases) Total cost = £715 (including VAT at 20 per cent) Additional 10 PS4 Games = £400 (2nd year of purchases) Total Cost = £1115 PC equivalent: CPU: AMD Llano A8-3870K 3.00GHz with on-board APU (Socket FM1) = £108 Motherboard = £50 RAM: 8 Gb (2 x 4Gb) DDR3 RAM = £35 PSU = £50 GPU: AMD HD 7770 with 1 Gb RAM @ 1Ghz = £120 HDD: 1 Terabyte SATA = £80 Optical Drive: Blu-Ray = £50 PC Case = £25 Controller 1: 2 button wired wheel Mouse = £5 Controller 2: Standard wired Keyboard = £7 System Cost: £530 including VAT at 20 per cent (~ $845) PC Games: 10 @ £30 = £300 (1st year of purchases) Total Cost = £830 (including VAT at 20 per cent) Additional 10 PC Games = £300 (2nd year of purchases) Total Cost = £1130 Over time, there's not much of a difference, eh? Sheesh.

ClaudiusCaesar
ClaudiusCaesar

@BRiDeath Yes, a "$800 to $900" PC plus "another 2 or 3 hundred dollars" will beat a PS3. But will fade against a PS4. By the way, you forgot to ADD $150 for a good set of keyboard and mouse (I understand, its very hard to keep up with ALL the cost of a PC game). Also, why someone will spend "$800 to $900" on a PC. Please, buy a tablet, or at least a laptop. Again, you keep calling this trolling, I call this wake-up for FACTS.

ClaudiusCaesar
ClaudiusCaesar

@dontcare27 I bought a $600 PS3 six years ago. Then I'll buy a PS4 in 2013. What are you trying to tell me is that if a have bought a PC SIX years ago I'll be able to JUST upgrade the GPU in 2013? Really? You need to have bought a $2000 PC six years ago and will buy ANOTHER $2000 PC in 2013. Maybe YOU didn't spend $2000 all at once, but if you add up all your spend last 6 years, that will be close. Please, show us, ignorant and inferior console gamers, how much did you spend on your current rig and ALL upgrades (I know that will be hard to remember so MANY upgrades and how much they cost). So, people, don't wast your money on ONE PC. Use that money to buy a new PS and XBox (for all exclusives), and you still have money to buy some games. P.S. Remember if PS4 comes with a Radeon HD 7670 GPU, you will need a much more powerful one on a PC to match-up. That means an expensive high-end GPU.

dontcare27
dontcare27

@ClaudiusCaesar Stop Guessing and go and get your facts right, so you don't end up sounding like a total f---ing console worshipper. PC gaming isn't as expensive as you obviously think it is. PC gamers will always be closer to the next gen games. Whatever Hardware ends up in the next gen consoles is already available for PC gamers at a good price. Once you have a Gaming Rig built, your set for a long time to come. When that time comes that you need to upgrade your old GPU in order to play a certain new game that needs that extra power. Your old GPU will have run its life span so well, that the next upgrade that you need to play that game and future games will cost so much less than any new next gen console. With a console upgrade you have one choice and price. With GPU upgrades you have lots of choice and prices. You can choose how much power you want. You don't need to go and buy the most expensive GPU. No one needs the most expensive GPU to play games. Unless your using more than one monitor or a huge screen, even then you don't need the best you can buy. You get MORE for your money with a Budget Gaming rig than you do with a NEXT GEN Console. Trust me. Look into it mate you'll be surprised. As for BF3, 64 players is oh so much more fun. What's that? PC only!

bluebird08
bluebird08

battlefield 3 is still epic on consoles, but on the next gen battlefield's we need 64 players on ps4 and xbox 720.

BRiDeath
BRiDeath

@ClaudiusCaesar, God are you still f---ing talking about that $2000 price tag? I don't know a single PC player with that expensive of a rig. And if anyone does have one, then they either never scoped out NewEgg deals or love having overpowered systems that no current game utilizes now (or the foreseeable future). Even with a $200 monitor, my power rig only cost $1100. That's with an FX 4170 and two Radeon 6850's in CrossFire mode. $950 to $1100 is the price range all my PC friends spend on their rigs as well. Seeing as how the average high-powered consumer PC at the local retail shop (Fry's Walmart Best Buy) runs about $800 to $900, whats another 2 or 3 hundred dollars to turn that cost into a gaming rig? In the end, you're spending the same amount as having a regular retail PC along with a gaming console. You've clarified many posts ago that you haven't got a freakin' clue about PC building or PC gaming, which makes me angry at myself for even correcting your trollish comments.

RobertBowen
RobertBowen

Gigas_Yuu: 3. "One last thing." People should buy and game on whatever gaming platform suits them best. A cheap laptop with a decent spec is perfectly adequate for casual gaming - just ask my wife, who prefers Solitaire and Bejeweled, between surfing the net and shopping online. Some people prefer tablets. Some prefer consoles. Some prefer PCs. And still others prefer combinations of all these. There's no 'right' or 'wrong' way to game - and ALL of these different platforms can be used in a more social context. So I heartily disagree with your narrow views.

RobertBowen
RobertBowen

Gigas_Yuu: 2. "PC Gaming is a social joke." That depends entirely on what games you play, and where and how you play them. For example: a) You can tie all your games to Steam if you want, and use that to communicate with your friends online. Xfire is a free alternative option anyone can use, and is very easy to set up. Most multiplayer games also allow you to communicate within the game itself, so if you're all playing the same game, there's no issue. There doesn't have to be a single overarching standard if you agree with your friends before hand how you want to communicate. 'New adopters' of any platform have to feel their way around initially, so I don't think your point stands. b) Two or three people can sit around a PC to play a game, or indeed hook the PC up to their TV, plug in controllers and kick back on a sofa to play a game. So yes, you can have a full social interaction with your friends playing a PC game, and several PC titles also support one screen/split screen co-op. The notion that you can only do this with a console is a tired old myth. c) Some games allow you to play over LAN. My sons and I had many great co-op sessions in our house through our home network. We have two PCs and a laptop linked up, and the social interaction worked just fine, thanks.

RobertBowen
RobertBowen

Gigas_Yuu: 1. 'Incoherent rambling' I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Is PC gaming expensive? It can be, but doesn't have to be. It depends on what you really want out of a game. The games are usually cheaper, so the overall long-term cost evens out. Is console gaming cheap? It can be, unless you add lots of peripherals and subscriptions. I know this from experience, as each member of my family had a separate controller, etc., and the costs soon mount up. My son wanted additional and alternative controllers for his Wii, and they were quite expensive. If you're a lone console gamer, your outlay will be significantly less than if you have a family of gamers to support. There are pros and cons to both. If you want to play games on ultra high settings on PC, then yes, you'll have a higher financial outlay. If you're more interested in gameplay rather than graphics, however, the financial outlay is markedly less.

RobertBowen
RobertBowen

Gigas_Yuu: "This is so stupid that PC elitists have come in." So, if a few people point out some shortcomings of a piece of hardware rumoured to be in the next console, they're suddenly PC elitist? You make a huge assumption based on just a handful of posts here. Maybe you ought to check people's game collections before spouting nonsense. In our household we have an Xbox 360, an Xbox, a PS2 and a Wii. Personally I enjoy playing games on the Xbox systems - with my own library of 87 X360/Xbox games (not including my son's game collection as well). The reason why I'm interested in the hardware of the next-gen consoles is that I'd like to see some enhanced capabilities and decent future-proofing built in, given the likely lifespan of those systems. I don't mind spending a little bit extra up front for the core purchase if it translates to longevity. If the 'next-gen' Xbox is using a low spec graphics component, developers will reach the ceiling of what is possible much more quickly, and it will be constraining for them in the long term. This is not beneficial to either the developer or the end gamer. BTW, you're lucky if you only have to pay $200 on a console. I've just had to replace our X360 (the DVD drive died in our old one after 5 years of use), and paid £160 ($253), and that was on a deal. Admittedly that includes our exhorbitant sales tax (VAT).

Gun_Chimp
Gun_Chimp

Maybe before looking to the future, DICE should think about fixing the game they already have out there. BF3 on XBOX is just full of glitches, both in gameplay and graphics, and yesterday I revisited MOH:Tier 1 and found it so much better!! C'mon DICE, fix what you sold us before moving on to new games!!

xsonicchaos
xsonicchaos

@vackillers don't give them wise ideas. EA might take some of us serious just to have a reason. remember the ME3 ending storm. yeah, they just needed that, the best reason to make more mediocre money grabing DLCs... at comunity demand. nah, just kidding! or am i!?...

nyran125
nyran125

@ gigas Yuu Steve Jobs did make life difficult by making everything incompatable with his systems. Only a year or so ago, games like counter Strike could be played on a Mac.

bongsyas_23
bongsyas_23

maybe there will be more realistic destruction on BF4

vackillers
vackillers

battlefield 4 will be a MMO subscription only model...guaranteed :D

moviequest14
moviequest14

Awesome,an entire new generation for loads of dlc and gratuitous charges and fees.

raahsnavj
raahsnavj

I sure hope they charge less for the 'unlock everything' DLC in the next edition. But instead I bet this game costs $70+ and requires me to download the 'unlock my game' DLC that is usable only once before I can play it, which EA will probably force me to buy separately.

ClaudiusCaesar
ClaudiusCaesar

@BRiDeath Of course you ALWAYS could build a PC stronger than a console, there is no doubt about that. My point is about cost. At the same price, no PC will EVER beat a console. My GUESS is that you will need a $2000 PC to beat a new-gen $500 console (what is already a lot of disposable income for most people). By the way, the PS4 would come with the 7000 series. So, if you call this trolling, be my guess.

giantqtipz
giantqtipz

so.... next gen console huh? 64 players? what no 64 players??!??!?! oh.. 128! aight aight aight thats cool. nothing wrong with dreaming right guys? but please dice increase the player cap on the consoles!! bf3 on consoles is already an epic game. but more players will make it MORE epic. EPICER

BKILL96
BKILL96

So ... Bad Company 3?

BlueRaptor7
BlueRaptor7

Eh, Battlefield 3 has toted itself as a "realistic" shooter, but it's far, far, far from that. Bullets drop like they weigh as much a brick, bullets do less damage the farther they travel (???) making any kind of long-range fire fight a cock-shoot. I use to have faith in the BF series, but this latest installment has really got me down. I know that the next Ghost Recon is cheesy as hell, so maybe there'll be some new IP to come set the standard for realistic shooters.

Gigas_Yuu
Gigas_Yuu

3. One last thing. My extremely hot neighbor is more likely to get a next-gen console before she gets a gaming PC. Again, it's accessibility, but more importantly simplicity. Even if it would be amazing if we got to build a rig together, it's just not gonna happen, despite how good our relationship is. Did you think Steve Jobs made tons of money making sh** complicated? Now, at this point I am just waiting for a chauvinist to show up and allow me to auto-win the internet. Couldn't care less if the next Xbox uses a low end card; I've seen and had the experience of my 590 dying before graceful EVGA sent me a replacement. So much for "bad crappy low end", amirite... Resume mouth breathing. If anyone should be pissed about something, it should be at consoles taking away abilities it introduced. Netflix party view on Xbox was a huge hit with my friends - now it's gone. Back to ghetto syncing.

Gigas_Yuu
Gigas_Yuu

This is so stupid that PC elitists have come in. Here, I'm going to tell you why this budget garbage is so cute, coming from someone who has been fortunate enough to put down 2000 to future proof his PC as much as possible. 1. I don't buy a "budget" PC to run a game on medium settings with only 2x AA and 16x AF that barely gets 34FPS. If I am going to spend 700, I really couldn't care less if the experience is better than a console - It's a stupid waste to stop there. It's brainless chest beating. I want to play the game the way it's meant to be played and you know what? A lot of people investing in a PC optimally want that. A 200 dollar console gives them the social benefit to play with friends and I'm sorry to say; more people own consoles than game-ready PCs. I hate being stuck with a mid-range gaming rig that can't play something at comfortable frames (for me, it's 50) at a resolution above 1080 - and I'm not talking League of Legends or graphic borefests. I'm talking Battlefield 3 with the textures, shadows and effects set to max with a notepad modification to increase draw distance. 2. PC Gaming is a social joke. You have Origin shoving itself alongside Steam - and for all my friends who don't play a single EA game because they're RTS fanatics, what, you want them to download X-fire? Where the hell is the standard? PC Gaming communication is so silly to new PC adopters. Just like consoles, not everyone wants to communicate via voice.

kid23455
kid23455

They need BC3. BF3's campaign was a pathetic joke, while BC2's was a cheesy B-movie ride. Oh yeah, and it was awesome, funny but getting in a few serious moments. I hope the multiplayer is more reminiscent of bad company's bullet spongey aim-is-all-that-matters awesomeness. BF3 is OKAY, but it doesn't have that same spark as BC2.

RobertBowen
RobertBowen

If it really is a 6670 card in the next console, they really shouldn't bother. Just have a look a this comparison of graphics cards on TomsHardware, playing Batman: Arkham City (a recent release) at 1920x1080 res: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2012-vga-gpgpu/10-Batman-Arkham-City-DirectX-11-B-Performance,2959.html I chose the HDTV res because the next-gen consoles are supposed to be supporting that, rather than fudging it. The 6670 card is waaaay down at the bottom of the chart, struggling on barely 25fps. Even the 6700 series above it gets destroyed by current top-level cards. Says it all, really.

BRiDeath
BRiDeath

@ClaudiusCaesar Just one more thing I will say, even though a gaming console can be solely optimized for gaming does not mean it will make a s**t stain graphics card work well. The 6670 has been reported multiple times by insiders and business purchasing documents that this will be the next Xbox's card. A 6670 is very low-range. Why? Because you have the 6700 series, 6800 series, 6900 series, 7800 series, and the 7900 series all sitting on top of the 6670 while it gets dumped on to examplify its terrible abilities. Now, I'm done feeding this troll. Anyone else have a comment?

X-7
X-7

I would love BC3. The way BC2 ended means they have to do a sequel. They will proabably make that before BF4. Fingers crossed.

chkmode
chkmode

Agreed I want to see bad company in BF4.

badiie05
badiie05

should be bad company 3! loved BC2 a million times more than bf3.

HCL2
HCL2

Now this will be tricky from now on. Does new generation means/incudes WiiU ?

mkdoomfan2
mkdoomfan2

You know what? Screw Battlefield 4!!!! I want Bad Company 3! I want to have a memorable cast of characters dammit!

toddx77
toddx77

And at the same time EA is is eyeing new ways to cut content out of games to charge as DLC.

ClaudiusCaesar
ClaudiusCaesar

Just one more thing I will say, the same GPU in a console can be way more efficient than in a PC. Consoles are built to play games, they are optimized and tune all in one single board to get the maximum of a GPU. That's why we cannot compare the same GPU specs between console and PC.

DemannameD
DemannameD

I'm assuming by "next gen" this means that consoles will be able to run the game more like a high end PC. PC owners certainly are at what ever standard Microsoft or Sony can achieve for a console already. The booms in Tech mean consoles are stuck were ever they start, but an upgradeable machine is will always stay "next Gen".

EverestMan
EverestMan

You can put a pc together that looks better than a ps3 at launch prices. The parts you would need to do that at the current price are no longer manufactured because they are 6 years out of date, and no one that plays on PC will buy parts that old. Current PC's are more expensive than current consoles because there have been 4 to 5 generations of graphics cards and cpu's that have come and gone in the PC realm. You're argument would be like saying that when the new consoles come out they should pack current hardware with the same price as a console from 6 years before. Its flawed. Point is, if you have the money to do it, you can play a game with all the bells and whistles on PC that a console cannot do due to hardware limitations, if you don't have the money to invest you still get a damn good product its just not as good. Nothing wrong with that at all. I have all the current consoles and a gaming PC which is my primary platform. All gaming platforms have their uses and none of them should be looked down upon. They all do the same thing, they play games. The only absolute is that games will always look better on PC simply because it is an open hardware system and not closed like console. System wars are silly, people can play games however they want to, no one is more right or wrong, its all about choice, thats it. We're all gamers here.