Battlefield 4 Beta: Console vs. PC
We give you a place to fight with words while waiting for the launch of Battlefield 4.
by Aaron Sampson on
Did you enjoy this video?Sign In to Upvote
PC definitely has an advantage graphic wise and player-count wise. Personally, I pre-ordered BF4 for 360, but I'll buy anther copy when I build my gaming PC
I wish the money weren't so much in the consoles so we could keep PC gaming pushin'. Games should be even further along, not just having ripples in fabric b/c console hardware can support it now. I feel robbed because of this!
Watching videos for the PC version does it absolutely no justice whatsoever as far as graphics are concerned. It looks HUGELY better when you're actually playing it (at 1920x1080 or higher).
I myself was pretty unimpressed with max settings videos... but then I decided to try the open beta, well, the difference is pretty astonishing.
One exception though is the water looks awful in game as well; hopefully, it is a WoP.
Well, after viewing this video the only thing that is clear to me is that the graphics quality shown in the Ad has NOTHING to do with the real quality on PC or Consoles shown in the video.
Comparing this to current gen consoles was a pointless endeavor. I want to know how it looks on next gen consoles.
This one is a pc game for me tyvm, that being said....
I didn't know there were this many differences. Smaller maps, number of players, etc, was expcted, but taking away cover and vehicles? That is a bit much.
Plus, pc version costs half what the console version costs in Brazil, capitalism FTW!
I didn't play the beta so I can't say how this game feels to play, but watching it seems like it's just a new BF3 map, which is a let down. Will buy anyway though.
I couldn't see much difference between this and BF3. I won't be buying it, I unfortunately thought BF3 was the dullest spectacle of a game I've played in a long time. Too slow, hate vehicles (if you can get in one long enough to learn to fly the fucking things!), just didn't get on with it. I played it on PC and console and I hated it on both.
I think I'm done with multiplayer FPS. Really can't be bothered with it any more.
Roll on Witcher 3 is what I say.
Unless I'm missing something since I didn't take part in the beta's...what's with the textures on xbox? I know it wont look great cos of what its on,but it looks like everything is made of a single shade concrete.
WHAT?! I tried defibrilating enemies and it didn't work... I tried multiple times with different angles and distances...
So I resorted to the repairtool.
Only thing stopping me from getting a beast PC is the $1500 I don't have.
So PC Elitists seem to be swimming in money.
Remember when BF allowed players to create mods? Well its sad that its gone since these bastards are greedy as a pig when it comes to DLC. No mods = More money for EA.
I will wait 6-12 months for a PS4 and BF4 price drop,
The 64 player on next gen versus the 24 player on current gen leaves no choice for argument.
@Toplinkar Consider how extraordinarily limited they are with system power and in particular RAM with the old consoles.
Uh, don't worry you didn't miss much. To me it sucked, looked decent but not great, hit detection sucked unless you spewed bullets at the target and hoped a hit actually registered.
@23Jarek23 It didn't even look good when they showed the PC part. The graphics shown in the video looked worse than what I saw on ME3 and Bioshock Infinite. Was this only multiplayer gameplay that might've compromised graphics detail for fluidity?
I can aim with either a mouse or controller. Of course the mouse gets an edge.
@Ghosthunter54 I guess if you are used to it than it becomes easier, I can't even play Super Mario Bros with the keyboard much less any fps :p
just man up and play arma 3
@thegamegod pretty sure thats what the 12 gig download is going to help with
@Xyllix just spend the money in stages or save it up.
@Xyllix You don't need to pay 1500 for something that can handle most current gen games unless you want to max out the graphics
@Xyllix That is stupid, what is great about pc's is that you can buy them with whatever parts you want depending on how much money you got, did you even try looking for prices before talking shit?
@Xyllix My gaming PC cost about the same as an Xbox and 5 games to build, and I got 5 games free with my GPU.
@Xyllix Why would you spend $1500 on a PC?
A $600 one will get you one that infinitely stronger than any game console you have now.
@Xyllix Get the parts one by one and no it's doesn't take $1500 to get BF4 running in ultra 1080p. $800 tops if you're not overclocking and concentrate in CPU and GPU power.
@Xyllix No actually if you play a lot of games the PC ends up being cheaper than a console. You don't pay royalties or fees. Per game you save a lot of money so if you normally buy more than 1 game per month, that starts adding up.
I pre-ordered BF4 deluxe for 45 bucks.
@Laedipiros I'm pretty sure EA has a deal going on if you buy BF4 for current-gen you can upgrade your copy to next-gen for $10 or something.
@Laedipiros because some developer are not very smart people. why having 2 standards for the same game? that's just silly.
@AlexBadaboom @Ghosthunter54 Yes the mouse does get the edge I can verify from experience I came of consoles to try BF3 on PC I'm not a K n M user so I plugged in my Xbox controller and got raped bad. LOL that's why im getting it on the PS4 I know PC is better but I've always plaed with a controller so just wanna go were I stand a chance.
@336_07 Naa war games have bored me for a long time. The only thing keeping me going on FPS up to this point was fun gameplay. One reason I hated Battlefield 3 most likely. I mean I kicked the COD disease a while back but that is only because of the same game being released every year thing, but COD isn't really true to real life military is it? It is pushed outside the boundaries which is probably why I enjoyed the Soap/Price story line so much. And the COD formula is anything but boring. I just wish they brought out a game that actually looked and played differently.
The next game I will be getting is probably Dark Souls 2, then probably Witcher 3 unless something else catches my eye between now and then. Nothing has yet though.
@Rushaoz @Xyllix More than $800 average (no tops), but less than the $1,500 mentioned above.
However, it is much simpler to just buy a console, put the disc in and you are playing.
The lifecycle of a console is much much longer, average to 7 or 8 years, and it could even be longer.
In 7 years from now, every game that will come for PS4 will run as intended in a ps4, whereas a pc built with a higher budget right now (let's say $800 dollars average) will not be able to keep up for that long with launched games.
So, not only you have to get more money to play on pc, your money devalues faster, and you will be left out of minimal specs faster, and that doesn't happen on consoles.
That is the reason why I come from pc gaming, and play in console... it is more practical to play in console and I do not have to worry about specs.
Also, playing in PC affects much more your electrical bill. A powerful PC will always require more power to operate than a console.
Of course PC will have more everything, but at what cost?
That has been, and is my opinion.
@KungfuKitten Like he said paying 1500 for a monster pc is something most normal folk don't have lying around. Something pc gamers NEVER understand. On the long run maybe a pc could be cheaper but then you would have to buy alot of games to make a difference. Meanwhile the pc has so many problems most older people cant stand the trouble and have no clue how to work it properly while on the console you have no problems at all just insert cd and youre done.
Im all for pc gaming but in NO way is it cheaper or easier!
@Nightmare338 Because when you buy a console your technical specifications are the same for the lifetime of the unit. Xbox 360 and PS3 (god love them) are highly outdated in processing power. I personally think they are really smart people that would like to give you the full abilities of the game but can't because of the "last gen" specifications of either unit.
@madgame23 @336_07 Yeah I think that could work for a game. There are plenty of games where it is really easy to die. I mean COD isn't realistic but it is very easy to die on that. Quick deaths, quick revives, that is one of the reasons I do like COD.
But if you want to go that far. There would be no respawns people would have one life per GAME. As in I buy COD for £40 and if I die I can no longer play the game (or any game on that console ever again if you want to go to the absolute cutting edge of extreme).
But if they used realistic hits. Like a chest shot through kevlar breaks your ribs so you can only limp or at the very least fall on the floor and not move. If you get shot in the arm your gun drops so you can no longer fire. That COULD be worked into a game I feel but it is very heavy going though. I bet it would be a hard sell. Be more an RPG than anything. But it could work.
I just don't think it would since people are used to being superhuman in games like BF and COD. It is why games are popular. You can kill each other without consequences. Unlike in real life. I mean I play games to get away from real life, same reason I also read novels quite a lot, and it is properly fun. Real life not so much.
@Dannystaples14 @336_07 you're lacking imagination, or friends to play with (not an insult). It really clicked for me when I started playing with my best friend. Each multiplayer match is like our own story, it gets really fun and the game is so over the top and ridiculous it just adds to the hilarity
@KelboDelta I have to disagree. I had an Intel Q6600 system with a GTX 460. If I had that system now, Which is probably only worth about $300-$400, would STILL play any game at a much better quality than it's console counterpart. So no, you're wrong. You can upgrade and spend cash to have the latest and greatest, but even if you choose to a cheapskate and never upgrade, you'd still have a better than console experience.
@KelboDelta PC gaming has made gaming significantly cheaper for me. As opposed to before, when I only bought a few games a year due to their high price tag, I now can afford to get a large number of games each year via Steam. I have so many games now that PC gaming has introduced me to the concept of a backlog!
And what you say about 7 years from now, that is demonstrably not true even now. Today you can't say that BF4, Saints Row 4, Skyrim, FF14, etc. are meant to be played on a PS3, because it's simply a terrible experience. The true game is on PC.
Your money lasts longer and has more bang for your buck on PC, you get better game experiences on PC, and of course, you can do a whole lot more on a good PC than just playing games.
@pauldevette I agree with your post above, but with steam sales over the life of a system you save quite a bit of money. The only really big expenditure is actually buying the components for a gaming rig, I am sure that all the sales of the game stores I personally frequent has added up. On the other hand though if you don't buy a lot of games there is no point to building a gaming rig because you wont get your worth out of it anyway, consoles are awesome for casual gamers and hardcore gamers alike.