'OMFG the word 'Kotick' is in the name! I must make sarcastic comments and pledge to buy whatever game he's not involved with!'
Did anyone even read what Kotick just said? His doubt comes from the lack of console footage. Given that EA higher ups have been shouting from the rooftops that they're going to take down COD (at least twice now, and failed) they might want to provide footage for the main audience COD targets, i.e. console gamers. The Battlefield footage could be broadcasted on the most powerful PC in the world but how would that translate to the current gen console hardware (i.e. the position COD draws in the most profits)? We don't know and thats why he's questioning it.
If he wanted to piss on everyone's bonfire he'd have just said that regardless of any effort from DICE/EA, COD would beat BF3. Here, it sounds more he made like a sensible judgement; that BF3 is currently targeting (whether you like it or not) a small portion of the overall audience, and hasn't
demonstrated how it performs for the larger audience (360 and PS3). When the xbox and PS3 footage comes out, then he'll shout his claims and then you can express you disdain for the man.
I currently have both BF3 and MW3 pre-ordered for PC, of all frigging platforms. You can start calling me a biased numbskull now.
ImprovizoR said:
This is pathetic even for Kodick
He doesn't realize what he said. If a game is better than CoD on PC it will be better than CoD on consoles as well. Better graphics, bigger maps, more realistic, 32 players.
Better graphics: No. Transfer a DX11 game back to DX9 (xbox hardware) and then whatever version of OpenGL the PS3 is running, and making sure their hardware can run it. It will not look exactly the same simply because the PC is the lead platform. What does make the graphics better is optimisation, and how the team handles it.
Bigger Maps: Thats on a concept level; Theres not reason why a console (esp. today) can't run BF2142 sized maps (and they are fucking huge). It depends on the hardware and how well optimised the map is.
More realistic: Concept. Theres no reason why a piece of hardware makes the game 'more realistic' aside from varying graphical fidelity. It is dependant on the style and feel of the game.
32: Concept. Also, more does not mean better; 32 sure works on BF because its huge, but try even 18 players on maps that aren't designed for this, like Rust, any Arena map in TF2, even Nuketown becomes a mess. Also depends on the services that Xbox Live and PSN provide.
I don't know why anyone would chose CoD over BF3 even on a console. But I'm sure Kodick will try to sabotage BF3 somehow.
Because people have varying tastes? Because one is focused on tactics and strategy, the other is simple and fueled by adrenaline? Neither game is terrible and they both fit popular tastes so what exactly is the problem? Do you consider yourself more intelligent because you play a certain game? Consider other people retards because they play a certain game?
I've yet to see reports of Kotick sabotaging anything related to any battlefield game. Whilst this is an open opportunity, I've yet to imagine a feasible plan he could go with to demolish the success of BF3.
Get one, get the other, get both, or STFU.
just because you can't top ~1m sales on PC doesn't mean bc2 couldn't top 3m sales on PC alone, and that was just a console spin off. Imagine how much BF3 is going to sell on PC, at 4x more profit a pop too on PC due to digital.
