DICE recently announced that Battlefield 3 will not be released with modding tools. Patrick Soderlund went on record stating "if you look at the Frostbite engine, and how complex it is, it's going to be very difficult for people to mod the game, because of the nature of the set up levels [...]".

So PC users may be getting a nice graphical update, but this is more evidence that BF3 isn't necessarily being developed PC first. The last AAA release to drop modding tools, Dragon Age II, was a console port. News doesn't look good for PC shooter fans.

Source: PCGamer

I thought they said this a good while back. Everyone knows it's a COMPROMISED GAME.

edit: Seems like the word "port" makes people want to argue semantics. The bottom line is that the hardware of another platform is limiting design choices.

this is more evidence that BF3 isn't necessarily being developed PC first. 

@MrKlorox said:

I thought they said this a good while back. Everyone knows it's a port.

Are you kidding me? Since when does a port has more content and options and the device it is being "ported" too?

Missing mod tools != port.

@Mr_Skeleton said:

@MrKlorox said:

I thought they said this a good while back. Everyone knows it's a port.

Are you kidding me? Since when does a port has more content and options and the device it is being "ported" too?

Ever play Bad Company 2?

Despite this I still expect it to be modded until you're sniping people through portals in mordor.

Yeah, this was said a long time ago.  Also they specifically said at some point that they are developing this primarily on PC I believe.  Don't know where you're getting that it's a port.

@MrKlorox: Battlefield Bad Company 2 was a port on the PC, but how does it reflect on BF3? Battlefield 3 is going to have 64 player multilayer and not the 24 players the consoles get. And if for some reason you think they are going to make the 64 people play on the console's 24 players maps (although im sure they will add them for the PC for smaller games) or that they will put the 64 players maps on the consoles I think you must be out of your mind.

Anyway companies take the ability to mod the game in order to get a more controlled multilayer experience, which they have to do if they are going to go after Call of Duty.

This was announced, like, months ago.

@Mr_Skeleton said:

@MrKlorox said:

I thought they said this a good while back. Everyone knows it's a port.

Are you kidding me? Since when does a port has more content and options and the device it is being "ported" too?

Ever play Bad Company 2?

Lame. Battlefield 2 has some fantastic total conversion mods.

I'm really excited that they're putting a focus on consoles as lead platform for this one. We finally get to see what all the fuss was about!

I'm not even sure the "consoles can't handle them" argument is even the most valid thing ever heard. MAG supported lag-free, 30FPS 256-player matches with 8-man squads. And while MAG certainly didn't have the asset destruction BF3 will have, you can't deny that they could probably make it work. But it's even possible that the maps and such are being designed for a smaller player count, and just scaled up for PC, rather than designed for 64 players and scaled down.

I mean, sure they're touting some great graphics on the PC, but being a multi-platform game, the same shit that we've seen in the E3 demo and the like will happen on consoles, just at lower resolution with smaller textures and less graphic detail. Graphics is likely the most easily scalable part of the game, so why would that be used to demonstrate which platform it's designed for? Even Crysis 2 and DAII have DX11 patches and high-res texture packs, and those are both very clear console ports.

@Mr_Skeleton: Fine, the word "port" isn't the best one to use. But they're still designing the game around what the consoles are capable of to reduce the disparity of the two versions. The only real difference will be player count and map size (as opposed to JUST player count, like BC2) because those are the most obvious changes to be made so they can get away with saying it was designed with the PC as lead platform. But when compared to the real Battlefield games that came before it, it's clear that they have no interest in pushing modern hardware or gameplay conventions to the extremes they used to. BF3 is still watered down, no matter what direct3d shaders they pile on top of it.

Just like you implied, if they want to go after Call of Duty, they cannot possibly make a true Battlefield game. BF2 wouldn't have existed in the form it did without BF1942's mod scene; and without BF2 being what it was, there would be nobody interested in playing BF3.

@example1013 said:

Patrick Soderlund went on record stating "if you look at the Frostbite engine, and how complex it is, it's going to be very difficult for people to mod the game, because of the nature of the set up levels [...]".

Oh right.

It's fine if they want to keep mods from hurting their DLC sales (or whatever their motivations are), but don't patronize the fanbase like that.

@MrKlorox said:

I thought they said this a good while back. Everyone knows it's a port.

Are you kidding me? Since when does a port has more content and options and the device it is being "ported" too?

@example1013: MAG matches were hosted on dedicated servers capable of hosting 256 player matches.

Obviously BF3 will have dedicated servers both for consoles and PC , DICE has to make sure that console players can host a match using P2P on their console and maintain a playable framerate and pings.

Considering that PC players will have 62 player matches, not to mention higher quality visuals (not incredibly important but hey, it's something), I can't imagine why anyone would be seriously upset by this news.

They'll probably add mod support later on down the road.

@Liber: That makes some sense, then. All the really high-numbered console games I played have been run on dedicated servers. I didn't make that connection before. SOCOM, Battlefront II, MAG. But then that brings 2 questions to mind: was Battlefield 2 for consoles hosted on dedicated servers? And if it was, then fuck Microsoft, because PS3 has dedicated server functionality online, but I don't think XBox Live does, meaning that's the real bottleneck for both PC and consoles as far as online play goes.

@Liber said:

@example1013: MAG matches were hosted on dedicated servers capable of hosting 256 player matches.

Obviously BF3 will have dedicated servers both for consoles and PC , DICE has to make sure that console players can host a match using P2P on their console and maintain a playable framerate and pings.

That contradicts what came directly before it. If it's anything like the Bad Company series, console users won't host a match using P2P because EA has dedicated servers.

@vidiot said:

@Mr_Skeleton said:

@MrKlorox said:

I thought they said this a good while back. Everyone knows it's a port.

Are you kidding me? Since when does a port has more content and options and the device it is being "ported" too?

Personal opinion does not override the fact that the Frostbite 2.0 engine that was built for Battlefield 3, was made with the PC being the lead-platform.
The engine, like most modern game engines, allow for easier ports to consoles. In many past instances, this means that drastic concessions are usually made for the PC version. This is not the case from a technical standpoint regarding Battlefield 3, especially given how console footage was recently shown and then people "complained" about it.

Be upset regarding the over-the-top concessions are being made to combat piracy (?), or whatever, Dice is trying to publicly accomplish here. It's a cultural problem or something, this sounds like an executive decision made by a suit, it has nothing to do with regarding the game's engine or the project work-flow: The PC version is not a port.

Like I already said, "port" is the wrong word. But it's the same setup and result: the hardware of another platform is limiting the product.

Like I already said, "port" is the wrong word. But it's the same setup and result: the hardware of another platform is limiting the product.

@MrKlorox: I think console limitations play a lesser role here.

Many people complain about the absence of the "commander" in post-Bf2 games. I think they removed it for gameplay reasons and not just to make BF playable on consoles.

While the commander mode was a great feature , it was great when it worked and when there were 2 skilled commanders on the field. The problem with commander mode was that it had too much impact on the match result , if 1 team had a good commander and the other team had a terrible one , team 1 had 90% change of winning even with worse players.

As for the maps , I am 100% sure that both PC and console version will have 64 player-ready maps. console players will just have 24 player map borders and capture points.

Considering that PC players will have 62 player matches

not to mention higher quality visuals (not incredibly important but hey, it's something)

@Liber: I'd expect the console version to have at least twice as many maps (hell maybe even three times more) made from the same amount of landmass as the 64 player PC versions, just changing the borders and trimming the file sizes for quicker loading.

Also, yes, the commander role could be quite a wildcard. But really, a good jet pilot could have just as much of an impact. And those things are being given priority this time around.

@Liber said:

@example1013: MAG matches were hosted on dedicated servers capable of hosting 256 player matches.

Obviously BF3 will have dedicated servers both for consoles and PC , DICE has to make sure that console players can host a match using P2P on their console and maintain a playable framerate and pings.

That contradicts what came directly before it. If it's anything like the Bad Company series, console users won't host a match using P2P because EA has dedicated servers.

@MrKlorox said:

@Liber said:

@example1013: MAG matches were hosted on dedicated servers capable of hosting 256 player matches.

Obviously BF3 will have dedicated servers both for consoles and PC , DICE has to make sure that console players can host a match using P2P on their console and maintain a playable framerate and pings.

That contradicts what came directly before it. If it's anything like the Bad Company series, console users won't host a match using P2P because EA has dedicated servers.

Um, guys, i don't know shit about consoles, but Battlefield 3 won't have a server browser. That means no dedicated servers right ?

I thought they said this a good while back. Everyone knows it's a COMPROMISED GAME.

edit: Seems like the word "port" makes people want to argue semantics. The bottom line is that the hardware of another platform is limiting design choices.

@Ahmad_Metallic said:

@MrKlorox said:

@Liber said:

@example1013: MAG matches were hosted on dedicated servers capable of hosting 256 player matches.

Obviously BF3 will have dedicated servers both for consoles and PC , DICE has to make sure that console players can host a match using P2P on their console and maintain a playable framerate and pings.

That contradicts what came directly before it. If it's anything like the Bad Company series, console users won't host a match using P2P because EA has dedicated servers.

Um, guys, i don't know shit about consoles, but Battlefield 3 won't have a server browser. That means no dedicated servers right ?

Those are two different things. Dedicated Servers are the opposite of P2P Hosting. Server Browsers are the opposite of Matchmaking. The console versions use Matchmaking with dedicated servers, the PC version uses Server Browser (primarily, though I think there's a Play Now button which works like matchmaking) and dedicated servers. But for COD, both the console and PC versions use matchmaking and P2P hosting.

@MrKlorox said:

I thought they said this a good while back. Everyone knows it's a COMPROMISED GAME.

edit: Seems like the word "port" makes people want to argue semantics. The bottom line is that the hardware of another platform is limiting design choices.

I love that wording, I'm gonna start calling games that now.  I could always be a little more politically correct.  

I'm fairly sure this is old news but I will continue to be glad for it. Mod tools largely ruined Left 4 Dead for me, trying to just find a vanilla round to play is more or less impossible now. I look forward to being able to play some Battlefield when I want to play some Battlefield, and to the community not fragmenting across a thousands variations I don't care about.

Hmmm.

@MrKlorox said:

But for COD, both the console and PC versions use matchmaking and P2P hosting.

CoD PC still has a server browser, even though you can do matchmaking too. There are actually tons of server out there with nobody on them which implies that I can play on a server that has nobody actually playing the client, making it really the same thing as a dedicated server. That is, if you define dedicated server as a piece of software on a computer that hosts a game but does not have a local person on that machine also playing the match.

@example1013 said:

Patrick Soderlund went on record stating "if you look at the Frostbite engine, and how complex it is, it's going to be very difficult for people to mod the game, because of the nature of the set up levels [...]".

Heh so basically our tiny brains cannot ever hope to comprehend their mind blowing engine which is why they won't have mod tools, and not because of the awesome DLC they are going to shove down our throats, ok.

@example1013 said:

"if you look at the Frostbite engine, and how complex it is, it's going to be very difficult for people to mod the game, because of the nature of the set up levels [...]".

Well that's just the slightest bit condescending.

I didn't know about this. No mods means the people who do the amazing project reality mod for BF2 won't be able to do it to BF3. This really blows.

Ask yourself though, how many games come with modding tools, period?

Warcraft and Starcraft spring to mind, Crysis...... Half Life 2? I don't think that whole "consolisation" of the game has anything to do with a lack of mod tools, I just think that officially supported modding is dying at the hands of paid DLC, across all games, on all platforms.

Complex engine my ass, they just want to sell the most effin DLC they can.....

@Mr_Skeleton said:

@MrKlorox said:

I thought they said this a good while back. Everyone knows it's a port.

Are you kidding me? Since when does a port has more content and options and the device it is being "ported" too?

Its a port.

It IS true that games are far too complicated for a modder to make really awesome content. And it's not possible for a company to develop a solid tool-set to release to users without massive investment. It's actually probably completely impossible for DICE to provide the appropriate tools to modders at this point. (And if it is possible, then I have a decent reason why they wouldn't do it anyway.)
 
The thing is, game development is often propped up by a massive amount of proprietary software (most of which is not listed on the tin), of which the developers have no right to distribute without cutting incredibly expensive deals. They have without a doubt an insane amount of middleware in use for a game like BF3. They'd have to buy the rights to the technology in order to distribute it for free, which obviously is a bit of a bad value proposition. It's unfortunate, but the method for developing assets for games has become so convoluted that it's made meaningful mods of "AAA" games a thing of the past. Even then, this is less an issue with the games industry as it is the CG industry itself. It's a several thousand dollar investment for a solo artist to accomplish just one small facet of what they do in a game like BF3, not even taking into consideration the 'game' aspect.
 
UE is the only one still taking a crack at this whole mod thing, but only because it's at the core of their business. They're always making sure to keep all tools in house instead of buying them up (and basically only having a 'lease' on them). But they're still willing to branch out and cut those deals I mentioned, with things like SpeedTree being a permanent fixture to the UE tool-set now. I believe their business strategy is to make the Unreal Engine as ubiquitous as possible and sell those developer licenses, (at like $20k a pop or something ridiculous like that) which is what one needs to legally sell games that were made with UE. They make this whole business work for them by being less focused around making games and more about making the tools to make those games with.

DICE and EA do not have this focus. Instead they choose to keep frostbite to themselves in order to retain that sizable competitive edge on the competition, a smart move for a company who's M.O. is to simply sell lots and lots of games.
  
But despite this commitment and ingenious business plan, UE is still an incredibly poor proposition to most modders. UE is meant to create a hospitable environment for modders, and it accomplishes this perfectly by having the easiest, most intuitive UDK on the market. But even then, with the difficulty of creating games on an engine entirely meant for "AAA" games, the barrier to entry becomes insurmountable for your average modder group. Attempting to do so also implies an incredible time commitment, one that has only lengthened as the years go on. It's becoming harder and harder to spend a veritable chunk of your life on something that will garner no compensation. A platform like Microsoft has developed has much more reasonable connotations for someone who just wants to make a game. Both of them fill a niche to a certain selection of people.
 
 
Hope that explains a bit about the state of modding these days, and shows that it's not because they want to sell DLC.

Lame...
 
I hope they add it.

@Mikemcn said:

@Mr_Skeleton said:

@MrKlorox said:

I thought they said this a good while back. Everyone knows it's a port.

Are you kidding me? Since when does a port has more content and options and the device it is being "ported" too?

Its a port.

Oh now I see your point, in the I thought it wasn't a port for the arguments I said before but after your argument I don't think there is any chance it's not a port.