EA: Our Games Are Developed for High-end PCs

Published by

Click here to post a comment for EA: Our Games Are Developed for High-end PCs on our message forum
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/243/243030.jpg
Battlefield 1, Star Wars Battlefront and Mirror's Edge Catalyst offer great performance for my system... With really responsive and smooth mouse movement. gg
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/255/255331.jpg
GTX 580 runs smooth and lag free Battlefield 1 , just like BF4.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/216/216490.jpg
Well, as already mentioned if BF1 is anything to go by, I would say they're on the right track. :thumbup:
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/258/258664.jpg
This is hilarious, coming right after their BF1 update introduces the first graphics downgrade I've seen in already released BF games, and also breaks high end PC's use of SLI / CFX setups. This statement is such rubbish that I'm wondering why it's even worth news on Hilbert's page.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/175/175780.jpg
Would be nice if they actually started to make great battlefield games again. The BF series is just a shadow of it self.
data/avatar/default/avatar27.webp
High-End PC gamming.. Game designed for top PC hardware... Currently without SLI support in Battlefield 1 :thumbdown (last update was very lame)
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/260/260826.jpg
This is hilarious, coming right after their BF1 update introduces the first graphics downgrade I've seen in already released BF games, and also breaks high end PC's use of SLI / CFX setups. This statement is such rubbish that I'm wondering why it's even worth news on Hilbert's page.
^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^ EA tries to fool PC gamers like Ubi$hit does but with better manners. Where are the PC advantage in graphics over consoles and mGPU support? 2016 publishers logic: consoles should be the graphic standard, there isn't mGPU in them so no mGPU support is needed in any platform. Don't worry: 2017 will be the year everybody could play tetris in 4K/30 unstable fps without mGPU because MIGHTY 4K 4K 4K 4K Scorpio 4K 4K 4K 4K will make it possible! πŸ˜€
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/80/80129.jpg
^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^ EA tries to fool PC gamers like Ubi$hit does but with better manners. Where are the PC advantage in graphics over consoles and mGPU support? 2016 publishers logic: consoles should be the graphic standard, there isn't mGPU in them so no mGPU support is needed in any platform. Don't worry: 2017 will be the year everybody could play tetris in 4K/30 unstable fps without mGPU because MIGHTY 4K 4K 4K 4K Scorpio 4K 4K 4K 4K will make it possible! πŸ˜€
I'm sorry but this post is just as ridiculous as their statement. Yeah it sucks that they don't support mGPU yet, but saying that the PC version of BF1 doesn't have any advantage over the console version is just nonsense. Also I can play this game at 70fps, on Ultra at 4K.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/55/55855.jpg
[youtube]1irMMs-cBGA[/youtube]
data/avatar/default/avatar10.webp
"You won’t see much margin upgrade at all," he said. "We build all of our games to the highest possible spec, which is typically a high-powered PC, and as the consoles come in, [which] may not be the highest spec, we may actually dummy down the console product to meet the spec of the console. In a world where the console looks more and more like a PC, that’s good for us." That is good for business (production costs for one game, sales across all platforms) but not necessarily good for gamers because even for minor things like ui you can either make something good for gamepad or for keybord and mouse. I miss old times with true pc exclusive games not ports. Making one game for all platforms is good for business not for gamers. And today reality is proof for that, while the business is good pc gamers recieves bad ports with poor performnace, locked fps, no multi gpu support after release on constant basis.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/260/260826.jpg
I'm sorry but this post is just as ridiculous as their statement. Yeah it sucks that they don't support mGPU yet, but saying that the PC version of BF1 doesn't have any advantage over the console version is just nonsense. Also I can play this game at 70fps, on Ultra at 4K.
GTX 1080 is a good GPU enjoy it. πŸ™‚ What is ridiculous is to think a single graphically downgraded game mark a trend in PC gaming performance. Once a game is graphically downgraded 70 FPS at 4K ultra is not so impressive if you need a GTX 1080 to get these numbers. Try to get that 70fps at 4K ULTRA in another EA "PC friendly" title like Mirror's Edge Catalyst (THIS IS "HIGH", "Ultra" was not so...good): http://i.imgur.com/ocZhKVY.png (Direct link to source is not possible, it's a banned source in here, i even edited the image source name to avoid problems...) EA like Ubi$hit and even CDRprojekt jumped in the graphics downgrade wagon to be "fair" with console gamers. They can also choose the alternative method MS prefer: ZERO PC optimisation and heavy console engine optimisation directly forced on PC (QB...).
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/87/87487.jpg
Battlefield 1, Star Wars Battlefront and Mirror's Edge Catalyst offer great performance for my system... With really responsive and smooth mouse movement. gg
The first two are definitely games that run great on my PC but the latter is still prone to hitches and stutters on Hyper settings despite me having the recommended hardware to run them (an 8 GB graphics card that the game only uses 6.5 GB of at most).
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/80/80129.jpg
GTX 1080 is a good GPU enjoy it. πŸ™‚ What is ridiculous is to think a single graphically downgraded game mark a trend in PC gaming performance. Once a game is graphically downgraded 70 FPS at 4K ultra is not so impressive if you need a GTX 1080 to get these numbers.
70FPS was before the recent patch that supposedly downgraded the graphics. I also don't really get what you expect. It's not like there are tons of games with better graphics that perform better in 4K. In fact, is there any? Especially at the scale of Battlefield? Feels like you have unrealistic expectations.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/239/239622.jpg
this is hilarious, coming right after their bf1 update introduces the first graphics downgrade i've seen in already released bf games, and also breaks high end pc's use of sli / cfx setups. This statement is such rubbish that i'm wondering why it's even worth news on hilbert's page.
^^^^this^^^^
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/126/126739.jpg
GTX 1080 is a good GPU enjoy it. πŸ™‚ What is ridiculous is to think a single graphically downgraded game mark a trend in PC gaming performance. Once a game is graphically downgraded 70 FPS at 4K ultra is not so impressive if you need a GTX 1080 to get these numbers. Try to get that 70fps at 4K ULTRA in another EA "PC friendly" title like Mirror's Edge Catalyst (THIS IS "HIGH", "Ultra" was not so...good): http://i.imgur.com/ocZhKVY.png (Direct link to source is not possible, it's a banned source in here, i even edited the image source name to avoid problems...) EA like Ubi$hit and even CDRprojekt jumped in the graphics downgrade wagon to be "fair" with console gamers. They can also choose the alternative method MS prefer: ZERO PC optimisation and heavy console engine optimisation directly forced on PC (QB...).
For a Game that looks as good as BF1 to be playable on a rx460 with maxed settings @ 1080p with no issues, is a great game in my opinion. Pretty much anyone can play it. Sure I know you're mad cause CF isn't working.... But things break from time to time with patches, so drop your game down to 1080p and man up, they will fix it sooner or later.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/246/246171.jpg
Their phrasing was very deliberate:
We build all of our games to the highest possible spec, which is typically a high-powered PC ...
With a statement like that, they could get away with creating a game that will just barely allow it to run slightly past 60FPS on a rig involving something like an i7 6770 with a GTX 1080. Sounds pretty scummy, but many companies are already doing that (take Deus Ex for example).
data/avatar/default/avatar35.webp
I hope you guys don't attack me for what Iam about to say.....My opinion on battlefield 1 it offers no reason for me to even consider wanting to play sorry, world war 1 was the best they can come up with really???Why not do something based on current world events, USA vs Russia in world war 3, special ops Iraq, afganistan, former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, why they choose to go with ww1 I will never understand. It's plain boring to me sorry. Battlefield 3 was by far best chapter in my opinion.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/246/246171.jpg
I hope you guys don't attack me for what Iam about to say.....My opinion on battlefield 1 it offers no reason for me to even consider wanting to play sorry, world war 1 was the best they can come up with really???Why not do something based on current world events, USA vs Russia in world war 3, special ops Iraq, afganistan, former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, why they choose to go with ww1 I will never understand. It's plain boring to me sorry. Battlefield 3 was by far best chapter in my opinion.
As much as I dislike EA and have no interest in the Battlefield series in general, BF1 seemed far from boring IMO. Besides, there are way too many modern warfare games and WWII games, but almost no WWI games. I find it refreshing, even if it is woefully unrealistic and inaccurate.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/126/126739.jpg
I hope you guys don't attack me for what Iam about to say.....My opinion on battlefield 1 it offers no reason for me to even consider wanting to play sorry, world war 1 was the best they can come up with really???Why not do something based on current world events, USA vs Russia in world war 3, special ops Iraq, afganistan, former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, why they choose to go with ww1 I will never understand. It's plain boring to me sorry. Battlefield 3 was by far best chapter in my opinion.
I thought the same and was on the fence for a while, but then I bought it cause a few friends I game with got it, and its an absolute blast! I would find someone who has it and try it out, has a much different feel to it compared to BF3 and BF4, but its really fun.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/259/259564.jpg
Battlefield 1 looks exceptional on a PC, runs extremely well on a wide variety of hardware, has a **** ton of options for graphics, controls, even sound. It should be the example we hold up of a game that can exist well on both consoles and PCs But all most of you people can do is bitch. It's literally all you're capable of.