DICE Underestimated Console Gamers with Battlefield Bad Company, Says Director

Why is it that possibly good news like this gets turned into a console hate thread?
You'd think consoles raped all your grandfathers repeatedly with a fire hydrant.
If you don't like a platform or are married to one input method then great, good for you, but why shit up a thread with useless bullshit? This isn't kotaku or the gameFAQs forums.

The important thing here is that devs will not be looking at differentiating console versions from a PC version nearly as much. This could lead to more games being developed for both console and PC as there would be less differences between the two. This would in turn lead to (possibly) more, fuller, deeper game experiences on both platforms.
And this would be a bad thing, how?

I guess Lars is trying to say that console gamers want a complex, in-depth game like those found on PC's? This strikes me as 20 years too late in his assessment of the situation. Console games bring in the money, and by far the best way to bring in the money is to "dumb-down" a game until it is most accessible to the widest range of players and ages. This means that they can't make a game too complex because then it would scare away the too-young or too-old, or those that simply play "casually". I could've sworn this was a well-known phenomenon by now, especially to someone in the industry such as Lars.

But I think we need to look at exactly what constitutes a hardcore gamer on the PC. As mainly a PC gamer, I always took being hardcore as simply playing a game seriously. It's not just a game but a lifestyle kind of thing. Games is just an extension of this digital lifestyle I have chosen that revolves around my computer(s). But there are times when a PC gamer can be seen as both hardcore and casual alike, depending on the game, their mood, the situation, etc. Like when I play L4D -- I'm all about communication and teamwork and doing things as efficiently as possible, like a well-oiled SWAT team. But there are also times when I just want to jump around, exploit the game, skip large swaths of a level, and generally get killed pulling off some fancy or self-destructive maneuver (but only when everyone in the room is doing it as well).

Console games tend to just stick to dumb-fun like this latter example. Console games tend to be less about efficiency and more about jumping around, noncommittal-like, where gamers can pretty much turn off the game at any point, whereas PC games tend to pull you in so that you are almost forced to play for longer swaths of time. Take WoW for example, or any decent in-depth RPG on the PC (the Witcher, Drakensang, etc). The goals are long-term. (Fallout 3 and TES: Oblivion being a large exception in my book -- they have the feel of an in-depth, mature PC game).

But, is it this general lack of depth that separates serious, hardcore PC gamers from console gamers? Or does it have to do with how they physically play the game? Gripping a gamepad often twists my hands into an uncomfortable shape, while simply resting one hand on the keyboard and another on the mouse is far more comfortable -- a gamepad uses thumbs for nearly every button. And something must be said for comfortable computer chairs as opposed to a couch, or a lazy-boy. Computer chairs are meant to keep someone awake for long periods of time, so they're designed to be slightly uncomfortable due to the need for an upright posture. If lazy-boys and couches were superior for long hours of paying attention they would have long become the quintessential mode of sitting in every office throughout the world. Or what about the hardware? Unlike a PC, a console is designed to only play games, whereas a PC just stays on because you know you're going to use it for other things later on. The hardcore PC gamer, using an extremely customizable PC machine, is also aware that they can tweak and modify a game to their liking -- the fact that one can customize a game to fit their preferred style of play tends to create more hardcore gamers because personalization (making the game your own) is at the heart of what makes a hardcore PC gamer hardcore.

So, basically, I don't really understand what Lars Gustavsson is talking about when he says there are hardcore gamers on the consoles. To me that's like saying that a mini-golfer is the same as a regular golfer simply because they both feel passionately towards their respective mediums. I think, by the nature in which either is played (or meant to be played), hardcore console gamers don't exist in the same capacity. And it seems to me that Lars's comments stink of propaganda or political maneuver when he attempts to portray PC gamers as "old farts". As if all the cool, young, hip people are moving on to consoles while the old-school PC gamer is antiquated or somehow obsolete. I very much disagree with the premise of this statement. The PC gamer, to me, is far more in touch with the gaming lifestyle as a whole: the latest trends in hardware, software, and technology in general. Being old and smart is way cooler, in my opinion, than being young and easily amused. I don't mean to sound conceited by all this, but in the never-ending battle between the (apparently losing) PC gamer and the console gamer, I just feel I had to stick up for the PC gamer.

Yay, no more stupid unlocks ? please pretty please with icing on top ?
They fucking gimped the MP game play through stupid unlockables, I had to play for 20-30 hours before getting weapons that I should have had in the beginning, and because I'm a working farther with a family and a house, that takes me ages.
Give player who play a lot some virtual medals or some other gay shit I don't care about, but please for the love of god, do not include weapons/armor or other game altering things. Players who play a lot don't really need better guns, because by playing much they already have an advantage, they know the maps better, they know when and how to use the weapons better. If there is anyone who needs better weapons, its the beginners.
I loved Bad Company, I played it for a few months but in the end I got tired of dieing to much, the maps were to cramped and some ended up in a constant spawn fest. And that's when the fun went away. Partly due to me not having enough play time to unlock essential weapons, but of course also partly because I suck :).
But the engine, sound and atmosphere is probably the best there is at the moment for this type of game.

Maybe what he meant is that DICE was wrong to think that console gamers were so stupid that they would go along with DICE's initial idea of paid cheating in BF:BC through selling more powerful guns only at a premium. But DICE discovered that the backlash was so severe that they had to partially backtrack on their pay-to-cheat scheme by making the Gold Edition weapons unlockable by anyone who reaches level 25 in the multiplayer portion on the game.

Perhaps this is a sign that in Bad Company 2 they are going to forget altogether about the anticompetitive, gameplay-destroying idea of allowing lamers to pay for earlier access to more powerful weapons. Maybe they see that console gamers also firmly believe in the concept of an even playing field where money does not give an advantage in competitive multiplayer gaming.

FPS with sticks will never be as fluid and fun as m/k. Maybe DICE should think about getting back to their roots and release BF3. Afterall, didn't BF2 sell extremely well?

The saddest thing about this thread is all the PC guys who don't own a 360 or PC bitching about a game they never played much (if at all). BF:BC was far from perfect, but once you got a handle on the control scheme and gameplay style there was MUCH enjoyment to be had. I'll still always buy PC versions of games that play better with mouse+keyboard, but BF:BC was a perfect example of how to do a console shooter right.

My cousin has stopped playing Halo 3 semi-competitively for TF2 on PC and he can't go back to Halo 3 because everything feels so slow and boring. I play online with him from time to time and it's kind of cool to see him learning how to play with a mouse+keyboard. I can run circles around him but the gap is closing.

I've watched some Halo 3 matches and it's similar to watching a Quake match in slow motion.

I own a PS 3 and I owned a PS 2 for years but console FPS are just horrible, sorry guys.

Been playing online since Doom and there will never be anything more satisfying than sitting in a chair in front of a monitor with a mouse and keyboard.

Video game developers need to stop trying to make better control schemes and just standardize mouse/keyboard because it is superior and console games are clunky as fuck.

This is coming from someone who is tier 10 in CoD 4 so I have a little experience, sucks compared to the PC though :) I would love to see one of these console FPS gamers fight a skilled player in Quake so I could lol for days...

I did buy the "FragFX" for my PS 3 though and it was pretty much a waste of money. I could never get it to be anywhere as smooth as a PC and it just is a really, really weird control scheme.

Just announce BF3 for pc please :(

DICE sucks until they announce BF3 as a PC exclusive.

Bad Company, with is awesome graphics, best sounds I've ever heard in a multiplayer game, 24 players, vehicles, and destructible realistic environments is my favorite online FPS out of any game. That includes Killzone 2, Gears of War 2, Socom, and COD4 all of which I have.

The reason I say this is I hope they don't change too much, other than to polish whats already there, and fix the damn glitches and bugs, because it's near FPS perfection on my PS3.

Please tell me this means that developers will stop taking "Lean" out of games that happen to be both console and PC. ie: F.E.A.R. 2?

I'm a little irritated that FPS have stagnated creative wise becuase of consoles. Since crossplatform development kicked in I haven't see any FPS push the bondaries of current PC hardware. It become same ol' same ol gameplay. PC gamers (like myself) are ready for the next thing...where is it?

Let's not fool ourselves, gentlemen; this is nothing but well-placed pandering. What better way to flatter your target audience than to say that you underestimated their intelligence?

None of this makes sense. Are they surprised that people were playing their game?

"Boy we underestimated the console crowd, they are actually playing this game."

and I don't get the "old PC gamers don't have time to PC game, but they have plenty of time to console game."

THIS IS THE BEST CONSOLE MULTIPLAYER GAME RIGHT NOW! -

Even if its missing clan support, ability to swap party, the gameplay is THE SHIZNIT

I LOVE this game and its the only game i scream at because its so INTENSE

There are still some bugs and I hope they fix it

REcon Sensor aka Motion Sensors are way too overpowered and if you play any Conquest games or ranked Goldrush almost everyone is a Recon/Sniper now because of this little device which allows you to see where anyone is in the direction its thrown....this allows you to sneak into areas and on Defense its the ultimate weapon

The same idiots are on the PC as the consoles, the only difference is the superior control scheme on the PC.

Controllers are fun, they aren't as precise as mouse and keyboard but they are good once you get used to it

Rumble
cooler style, with a controller like a bike or skateboard after awhile you can do stylish moves with your hands that I never could really with mouse/keyboard and it feels cool
and It's a challenge to learn how to play better with it like it was when i first was using mouse/keyboard

you want to do something good for console shooter players, get MS to sanction a mouse, whether they make it themselves or third party. everything else is far down the list of what's wrong.

I hope they don't completely ditch making small changes to the game to make it "console-friendly". This doesn't mean "easier", but somethings do work better on consoles then they do on PC and visa versa.

Take Halo 3 for example. It's got a lot of console adaptations to what would typically be expected of a PC FPS, and it benefits from it. Halo 2 felt a little strange on PC, but it was great on Xbox.

The real key I hope they realize is that you can make the PC and console versions different. I hope they do what works well on PC for the PC version of BC2, and what works well on consoles for the console versions of BC2. They don't have to be completely identical.

Battlefield Bad Company was one of the better console 1st person games I've played in a while. Now I'm concerned the follow up will be made "console gimmicky" with coordinated jumps and puzzles. Again as a PC / Console game player - I don't know what he means. Please don't mess with what worked in the first game.

As PC game player since 1991 I am not sure what he is talking about. BFBC was great!
I still play COD4, L4D, TF2, UT3, BF2 only the PC. But I get allot of time on 360 as well. There are certain Console FPS games I wouldn't touch on the PC. Bioshock, Fallout 3, Far Cry 2. Some games simply look and play better on their respective systems.

What guess that developer never player Halo 1,2,3 Goldeneye, Socom for ps2 online, or if he did he never got to past lv 23 on TS or he was in a cave taking LSD and playing single player time trials on mario cart. I remember seeing over 500,000 ppl online at once playing halo2. There are plenty of hard-core gamers out there for a console. When are these money making mothers going to relize that 4/5 games should be made for the hard core gamer. And that anyone that spends $300 on a console and $60 for a game is hardcore. Battlefield 2 and 2142 are still fantastic games today, crap the for the first two weeks you play the game you die, but come back for more. Until you figure out the 100 different complexes in the interface, and get to know a level or two. (24k Hawaiiboy) you almost have to hire a coach to learn how to play. But thats what we want. The console gamers are dying for some of that. We want to personalize our FPS, we want to see world stats and where we stand in the rankings of knife kills. For most ppl who are hard-core gamers for PC own a 360 because they need their fix of competitive FPS. I just wish that the true excuse for making a console BF is so they can take the money that they stole from everyone and make a real hard-core BF on a console. Well I am at work and dont care to edit or even try to keep my point in line. Just dont make excuses when EA came out earlyier this year stating that most game makers need to stop making half arss games. Just get a gov bail out and make a game. LV47 halo3 battlefield 2142 ace. Goldeneye lover. Socom fan. Mario Cart milk man.

So this means MS will allow Xbox 360 players to play against PC gamers in online gaming?

Whatever DICE, a port is a port. Blurring the line won't make a difference. Just stay on the console with your EA Money Hats, another COD is on the way, so you better get coding if you don't want to get left behind by the quality shooters.

I'm not interested in your PC games anymore anyway, they're buggy as hell and you take forever to patch.

To be honest he didn't really give any information at all. I haven't played Bad Company so maybe I'm missing something here but he could have elaborated on what they will do differently or what they did wrong. From what he said there's not really any useful information, just basically what most gamers have known for a long time.

Bad Company must have seriously outsold BF2 PC for them to keep going on this route. It's a shame as BF2 with its more open level design and squad mechanics was an element that I really miss when playing CoD4.

Personally, I'd be very curious to see what the age and socio-economic demographics look like for this "fanatic shooter audience."

great. just great.

I have no idea what this means...