It's the language of what they said that's peculiar. The average PC has a dual/low-powered quad core with either Intel integrated graphics, or something on the level of the 560/660/7850. By default, their console ports are targeting something higher than the "average" PC. They are lucky that DICE has proven to be such a competent company that manages to compete directly with giants like Unreal, CryEngine and id's Tech6.

EA's quality has been on the rise ever since John Riccitello left the company. Can't wait for Mass Effect Andromeda in 4K

Their games are developed for consoles with sub-gtx660 graphics and tiny jaguar processors period, another thing is that their ports don´t usually suck too much.

would be nice if they actually started to make great battlefield games again. The bf series is just a shadow of it self.

+1 😉

This statement from "EA" is only "Too Good To Be True" 🙂

Anyways , great job with BF1, it runs perfectly well on my Asus laptop

I just want a G3D clan for modern warfare remastered so we can all shoot at each other then talk s**h at each other/ hahaha Dam I love that game!

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.

Very valuable input. All you're doing is bitching about us bitching about things we don't like. Try again with some real arguments please 😉 And by the way, there were more graphics options in Neverwinter Nights 2's options than in BF1. Go and check if you don't believe me.

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.

These downgrades? http://www.dsogaming.com/news/battlefield-1-pc-gamers-report-visual-downgrade-ation-after-latest-patch-dice-investigating/

Very valuable input. All you're doing is bitching about us bitching about things we don't like. Try again with some real arguments please 😉 And by the way, there were more graphics options in Neverwinter Nights 2's options than in BF1. Go and check if you don't believe me.

I feel like it's a pretty fair argument. The game has a ton of graphics options and does run great over a variety of hardware and it looks really, really good too - downgrade or not. I seriously can't think of another game that comes close with that level of visual quality at the performance I get. It's filled with control options, graphics settings, sound settings, etc. It has both match making and custom servers. First patch took care of most of the bugs, added hardcore, completely changed one of the maps that people were complaining about. Aside from minor balance issues (support class is worthless garbage after the bar nerf) I think the game is probably one of the best PC releases in a long time. Sucks that it doesn't support mGPU, but that writing has been on the wall for a while now. Plus it may be added in the future through DX12, which is the route most companies are going now anyway due to the way modern shaders work across multiple cards.

These downgrades? http://www.dsogaming.com/news/battlefield-1-pc-gamers-report-visual-downgrade-ation-after-latest-patch-dice-investigating/

I guess? I didn't read about them nor did I notice them. Is it across both vendors? DX11/DX12? Is it a VRAM limit thing (like the Doom IQ issues?). That article doesn't say much other then the forum mod saying it might be a bug. I don't see why else they'd downgrade the visuals at the high end, it's not like performance was an issue.

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 don't know about you. But there were people constantly yelling for them to give another battlefield Vietnam. Which I still think the best BF game with atmosphere. Not everyone likes to run around with smg or machine gun, and enjoys bolt lock rifles more. Bottom line is you can't please everyone.

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.

Oh no, i personally don't expect anything from them but maybe they can fool some ppl with average PC setups to believe EA REALLY consider PC gaming a priority for them and not another "a single GTX 1080 should be enough to play at 1080" a la QB...specially when mGPU is non present. 😀 BTW GTX 1080 and Titan X PC setups can't be considered "average".

Sucks that it doesn't support mGPU, but that writing has been on the wall for a while now. Plus it may be added in the future through DX12, which is the route most companies are going now anyway due to the way modern shaders work across multiple cards.

That's a really unrealistic expectation. Like they did with the DX12 Civ 6?

Where's the announced dx12 multigpu support?

DX12 Patch for the CIV VI is out DX12 is the mGPU marvel for GPU makers (and only for them): ask game devs where is the mGPU expected support, GPU drivers can't do a s*** to add/fix it on DX12.

Very valuable input. All you're doing is bitching about us bitching about things we don't like. Try again with some real arguments please 😉 And by the way, there were more graphics options in Neverwinter Nights 2's options than in BF1. Go and check if you don't believe me.

Well this wasn't valuable at all. Neverwinter nights 2 may be the worst possible example of a PC friendly game, and there isn't even a console excuse for it. That game runs like absolute trash and looks worse. I still can't run it well. I guess when you're willing to have a very specific - and ridiculous - interpretation of what I said as strictly the number of options being indicative of quality, your post might have been worth whatever passing effort you put into it. Considering that most of Neverwinter Nights 2's settings are things Battlefield (and most current games) take for granted, its honestly kind of a joke that you would bring up such an outright stupid example in the first place. Especially when you consider a full third of the options are just specifics about shadows no one should ever have to care about and mouse cursor options.

Oh no, i personally don't expect anything from them but maybe they can fool some ppl with average PC setups to believe EA REALLY consider PC gaming a priority for them and not another "a single GTX 1080 should be enough to play at 1080" a la QB...specially when mGPU is non present. 😀 BTW GTX 1080 and Titan X PC setups can't be considered "average".

A GTX960 plays BF1 at 60fps @ FHD on Ultra. I feel like last generations mid-range card playing one of the best looking games out at 60fps is pretty indicative of them caring about the PC - not to mention the hundreds of other settings/options that are targeted for PC users.

Like they did with the DX12 Civ 6?

Civ 6 isn't an EA game, regardless they are still promising to add mGPU to it at a later date. Deus Ex/ROTR both got mGPU after launch as well. I don't know - I just find it upsetting that like arguably one of the best looking/performance PC games of all times comes out and people still find a reason to be disappointed with it. Like EA/DICE could have easily phoned a console port in like hundreds of other ****ty ass games that come out on PC and still sold 10 million copies. They didn't though - they built one of the best looking engines/games that performs extremely well, went the extra mile to put in a bunch of graphics and control settings that are PC specific, among other things - and it's like "nah none of that means anything because the game didn't ship with mGPU support so the 1% of gamers that own SLI/Xfire are left out thus EA doesn't care about high end PC"

A GTX960 plays BF1 at 60fps @ FHD on Ultra. I feel like last generations mid-range card playing one of the best looking games out at 60fps is pretty indicative of them caring about the PC - not to mention the hundreds of other settings/options that are targeted for PC users. Civ 6 isn't an EA game, regardless they are still promising to add mGPU to it at a later date. Deus Ex/ROTR both got mGPU after launch as well. I don't know - I just find it upsetting that like arguably one of the best looking/performance PC games of all times comes out and people still find a reason to be disappointed with it. Like EA/DICE could have easily phoned a console port in like hundreds of other ****ty ass games that come out on PC and still sold 10 million copies. They didn't though - they built one of the best looking engines/games that performs extremely well, went the extra mile to put in a bunch of graphics and control settings that are PC specific, among other things - and it's like "nah none of that means anything because the game didn't ship with mGPU support so the 1% of gamers that own SLI/Xfire are left out thus EA doesn't care about high end PC"

Med/High setting for GTX 580 1080p to get always 60 fps. Well , it was before the patch, i may try with High settings soon.

Hofpefully this means we'll finally get up-to-date NHL games on the PC again. I miss those a lot.

Most EA games look very good, but most use the very well optimised Frostbite so those with mid range setups get good performance. It's not like there are dozens of devs bringing out stuff that is so much better technically, is there?

It's just all fluff talk by EA..... the true story is DICE have spent a very long time building an engine that scales well across different hardware.

It's just all fluff talk by EA..... the true story is DICE have spent a very long time building an engine that scales well across different hardware.

Yup!

It's just all fluff talk by EA..... the true story is DICE have spent a very long time building an engine that scales well across different hardware.

Of Coarse it its but i bet some people believe the words that come out EA mouth still. EA didnt do ****, Dice and other other developers do it all, We EA did crush westwood C&C series and so many other things. To this day EA still uses the slogan its "in the game" for there sport games and imo they all long since been "in the game" for me