Are DICE Getting worried about planetside 2.. - Page 4

VaderShake · 2012-07-13, 09:19 AM

EA/DICE are worried because of falling stock shares and population declines in their lead titles. Are they worried about PS2 specifically...well, most likely they are because it is going to grab part of their base BF/MOH player and is on a much larger scale than anything they can deliver.

To those who are saying PS1 did not affect BF1942, to be honest...I knew nothing about PS1 because I was neck deep in BF1942 and never put my head up to look around, if I did heck yea I would have tried PS1 and probably loved it from what I have see.

With the failure of BF3 appealing to the BF vets it opened the door to find PS2 and we are super excited to try it. The shear size and scope and ambition of the game squishes BF3.

If SOE really wanted to take a swipe at DICE/EA & Activision they should do a WW3 game with 2,000 players, 3 factions, fighting all over the globe, with all modern vehicles & weapons, and a not as robust unlock system as PS2. Heck they could even do a WW2 game, imagine storming the beach at Normandy, fighting through the hedgerows, and into a town all in 1 64km map?

SOE is in the driver seat for the next 12 months if PS2 is what it looks to be and I don't think EA investors what to see an investment in hundreds of millions of dollars to develope a Frostbite 3 engine that can handle thousands of players. Maybe the new EA CEO will feel different?

infected · 2012-07-13, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by TAA

It certainly wont help that this game is going to look old and antiquated in a couple of years when the standard hardware for games takes a giant leap forward due to next gen consoles.

that is some serious comedy right there

Elays · 2012-07-13, 09:20 AM

If you look at the comments, I find it hilarious that there are so many begging BF3 to expand the number of players on the server.....to 32.

I don't want to be overconfident, but let's face it, PS2 will be a radical departure from the "brown & bloom" shooters, and I think people are ready for that. Ready, waiting, and begging for a playtest.

Sabot · 2012-07-13, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Klockan

They want this game to get over 10 million players, to do that they need to cater to the common FPS player. The idea of PS1 wasn't to have an inventory system or to have skills to chose what you could use, instead it was about having a three way faction warfare futuristic mmofps. They hold true to all those things, they do basically the same game except that they modified the gameplay parts of the game to modern standards. Planetsides gameplay was popular back in the late 90 early 00, but today the average fps player wants a game to play like battlefield.

That's not the point though... we all get that they've made changes to make the game more attractive in the eyes of a broader spectrum of FPS gamers. But it's still PlanetSide... But if you ask someone that has never played PlanetSide something like...
"What do you guys think about this: Instead of the AMS we now have the Gal as a mobile spawnpoint, and the main gun on the Mag is now controlled by the driver... comments?"

A CoD or BF player that's never heard of PS wont give useful feedback on that! That is exactly why we, the ones that know PS, are the most useful tools they have in the development of this game, m'kay?

Stardouser · 2012-07-13, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Klockan

All the big AAA games had threads with hundreds of pages before even beta was released.

Which AAA games are you talking about? Battlefield and CoD games already have huge followings and that probably accounts for a lot of the hype. I don't know how many people bought/subscribed to PS1 over the years so I can't speculate that there weren't that many, but not all of them are active right now, due to how long it has been since PS1's most active years.

Do you know of any AAA games that are/were brand new on the scene and are doing/did better than PS2 for hype?

Exmortius · 2012-07-13, 09:26 AM

planetside soe is going to eat battlefields lunch and i think cod fans as well. youtube is here folks. it wasn't when ps1 first launched. the game design is much crisper on ps2 it appears than ps1 overall. i expect a lot of people to defect. we will have to put up with more bs but the servers should be packed with cod/bf noobs who will be padding vet kill counts for a few months

BF3 was a pretty big dissappointment to me, i actually think overall BC2 was a superior game to bf3 in it's gameplay and mechanics. BF3 had potential but I feel like they kinda squandered it some. that game really shoulda been something more.

SwiftRanger · 2012-07-13, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Firearms

To put some figures to BF3 though -

PC sales - World - 2.02million
Xbox sales - World - 6.06million
PlayS2 sales - World - 5.52million

VGChartz doesn't have much credibility.

As for the OP: they already announced that one of the five(!) DLC packs would offer larger maps.
Battlefield 3 isn't a bad game (awful linear singleplayer though) but its server browsing wasn't perfect, it didn't evolve much in the FPS multiplayer area (aside from insane destructability). Something was off with the game after a while (also balance-wise), still, it was money well spent as Dice pushed PC tech with it. You have to applaud that. It's also one of those games where too much detail hurts the experience. You rarely actually saw your opponents and from where they shot you. While that may be realistic, it wasn't exactly fun.

This doesn't seem to be the case with PS2 as it offers very vibrant colours in the character details and environments.

As others have said: Battlefield is a lot more popular than PlanetSide could ever hope to be. Even after the past E3 I don't see the same buzz surrounding PS2 as BF3 got pre-release. Has something to do with being PC-exclusive and being free-to-play. As long as PS2 itself excels at what it aims to do (à la LoL) then Dice will feel the hurt in the long end, yes. Others will have to take note and start making large MMOFPSs themselves.

A perfect PlanetSide with the right meta-game could take on any multiplayer FPS experience. So I am not talking about a PS1 remake, that won't be good enough if SOE leaves it at that.

LegioX · 2012-07-13, 09:39 AM

I love how people are saying next generation consoles are going to make a massive leap in hardware..lol

Consoles will never beat the PC. When next generation comes out, Nividia will already be working on 900 series cards, and intel will still be owning in the processor market. Child please.

Accuser · 2012-07-13, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by LegioX

I love how people are saying next generation consoles are going to make a massive leap in hardware..lol

Consoles will never beat the PC. When next generation comes out, Nividia will already be working on 900 series cards, and intel will still be owning in the processor market. Child please.

What they mean is that the FPS games currently being produced (CoD, BF3 especially) are set up to be compatible with current consoles and PC performance. The next gen of consoles will allow developers to dramatically expand what they can do with their new releases, since the new consoles can handle it.

Put simply: BF3 on console can only handle 32 player matches, whereas PC can handle Planetside 2. The next gen of consoles will be able to handle Planetside 2... You do the math.

TAA · 2012-07-13, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Sabot

Excuse me... but what the F are you on about? They are making PlanetSide... is it logical of them to listen to everybody BUT the ones that actually knows PlanetSide? You obvisouly didn't play PS1 and is a bit ticked off about it... no vet. status or whaterver. And for some reason you think that if they listened to the CoD or BF crowd, it would make the game better...? How did you come to this conlusion? Seriously I want to know your train of thought here... I'm pondering writing a paper about it.

You are right. Oh I see the light! DICE should have definitely listened to their most hardcore BF1942 and BF2 players when making BF3 - it would have been a much more successful game!

Someone in another thread a while back posted this excellent presentation. I would link to that post and poster to give them credit, but I cant find it right now. I urge you to take a look. Listening to forum posters is a mistake. When it comes to specific advice on weapons etc: isnt that what people like Mr Whisenhunt are hired for?

Originally Posted by infected

that is some serious comedy right there

Originally Posted by LegioX

I love how people are saying next generation consoles are going to make a massive leap in hardware..lol

Consoles will never beat the PC. When next generation comes out, Nividia will already be working on 900 series cards, and intel will still be owning in the processor market. Child please.

For years PC game design has been stunted by the hardware limitations of consoles. The new generation of consoles will be a huge leap up for game design - it will set the new minimum level for the vast majority of PC games to come out for years after that. PC games always have been and always will be superior to consoles. Unfortunately the reality is that most games are designed with consoles in mind, not for the PC primarily. I am looking forward to the next generation of consoles. No I am not going to buy one. I am going to upgrade my computer instead.

LegioX · 2012-07-13, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Accuser

What they mean is that the FPS games currently being produced (CoD, BF3 especially) are set up to be compatible with current consoles and PC performance. The next gen of consoles will allow developers to dramatically expand what they can do with their new releases, since the new consoles can handle it.

Put simply: BF3 on console can only handle 32 player matches, whereas PC can handle Planetside 2. The next gen of consoles will be able to handle Planetside 2... You do the math.

Come back to me when PS2 on consoles can handle 2000 player maps, with the bandwidth restrictions microsoft and sony has right now.

Exmortius · 2012-07-13, 09:55 AM

hmmm 32 players vs 2000 players.......ya that's a tough choice NOT!

unleash the burgers!

Stardouser · 2012-07-13, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by TAA

You are right. Oh I see the light! DICE should have definitely listened to their most hardcore BF1942 and BF2 players when making BF3 - it would have been a much more successful game!

Yes, it would have. Not from a sales standpoint, because frankly, when a game like CoD is entrenched in the marketplace, making a better game just isn't all that matters, but certainly in quality. Because the fact is, the hardcore BF vets were actually quite willing to compromise on the issues.

Teamwork tools, for example, that BF vets were asking for. That would have hurt no one to include. Proper sized large maps instead of maps that they called large, but were really mockeries of the term since they were flag-packed. Having a couple of properly large maps would not have hurt the Metro lovers, Metro would still have existed for them. And as far as large maps go, the original post of this thread links an article that proves DICE finally realized the need for proper sized maps.

TAA · 2012-07-13, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Teamwork tools, for example, that BF vets were asking for. That would have hurt no one to include. Proper sized large maps instead of maps that they called large, but were really mockeries of the term since they were flag-packed. Having a couple of properly large maps would not have hurt the Metro lovers, Metro would still have existed for them. And as far as large maps go, the original post of this thread links an article that proves DICE finally realized the need for proper sized maps.

Finally? It never occurred to you that the plan was to get all the hardcore players to pay for the game up front, then appease them by making them pay again for the DLC for the style of play they want? Do you think that the hardcore playerbase would have been ok with that suggestion up front?

TotoDestroy · 2012-07-13, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Accuser

What they mean is that the FPS games currently being produced (CoD, BF3 especially) are set up to be compatible with current consoles and PC performance. The next gen of consoles will allow developers to dramatically expand what they can do with their new releases, since the new consoles can handle it.

Put simply: BF3 on console can only handle 32 player matches, whereas PC can handle Planetside 2. The next gen of consoles will be able to handle Planetside 2... You do the math.

Simply not the case. No matter how well they plan Micro, Sony, Ninty can only make a console with the best tech they have a t that moment which right now for PCs is the Nvidia 600 series GFX cards and Intel's i7/i9 series CPUs. So if new consoles do indeed launch next year, we'll already have AMD 8000 series/ Nvidia 700 series GPUs and we'll be pretty close to the 9000/ 800 series of those cards; and who knows what kinda crazy quattuordecicore CPU AMD or Intel might have out by then?

tl;dr consoles won't catch PCs because tech advances too fast for a stock console to keep up.