if BOP was PS3 exclusive only...

[stealth finger]

Originally Posted by Dubbedinenglish

There is. Patches can't be larger than 256 mb (if I remember correctly) because of the arcade. That is why after the limit it appears as DLC in the marketplace not a patch.

Theres a size limit sure. for a patch i think its 64mb but dont quote me. The 256Mb limit for arcade games is long gone. DLC and patches are 2 very different things. In its simplist terms a patch FIXes things in the code where dlc ADDs to it.

I took it as states referring a number of patches that could be released. Theres no way a clan system would be outside of that size limit and if so they should've had it in the the free DLC conquest mode, which wasn't a patch.

Originally Posted by Dubbedinenglish

As far IL-2 goes I think time and budget are the main factors. Though with the patch limit I don't think we'll see the 'pits in the form of a patch, but rather as DLC.

Pits would almost definetly be in DLC rather than patch.

[Dubbedinenglish]

Originally Posted by stealth finger

Theres a size limit sure. for a patch i think its 64mb but dont quote me. The 256Mb limit for arcade games is long gone. DLC and patches are 2 very different things. In its simplist terms a patch FIXes things in the code where dlc ADDs to it.

I took it as states referring a number of patches that could be released. Theres no way a clan system would be outside of that size limit and if so they should've had it in the the free DLC conquest mode, which wasn't a patch.

That's what I meant and it was a patch on the PS3 version for conquest (also had a number of fixes for balance and such). Take Burnout Paradise its patches (I think after the 2nd or 3rd one) they showed up as DLC, not at auto patches. The problem is that devs may alienate Arcade owners by going over the 64mb as they may not have a hard drive or larger card. That could be the reason DICE didn't add it in. At the same time 1943 or the BFBC2 beta didn't have clan support so it maybe a moot point.

[stealth finger]

Originally Posted by Dubbedinenglish

That's what I meant and it was a patch on the PS3 version for conquest (also had a number of fixes for balance and such). Take Burnout Paradise its patches (I think after the 2nd or 3rd one) they showed up as DLC, not at auto patches. The problem is that devs may alienate Arcade owners by going over the 64mb as they may not have a hard drive or larger card. That could be the reason DICE didn't add it in. At the same time 1943 or the BFBC2 beta didn't have clan support so it maybe a moot point.

Well i dunno about ps3 but on the live marketplace Conquest was a DLC download, not a forced patch, seperate to and distinct from the players map pack and forced Title Update/Patch. The conquest mode is 80Mb so that may have been slighly too big for TU but at that size i'm suprised sony would have it as a forced download.

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-GB/ga...=0&sb=1#offers

Alas the whole clan issue is moot though as its a design choice they made and are obviously planning on sticking with.

[InfiniteStates]

Originally Posted by stealth finger

Clan support shouldve been in from the get go anyway and they had 2 or 3 patches that never fixed the arty glitch that was there from the start anyway so bad company (as much as i love it) probably isn't the best example

Lot's of things should have been in lot's of games out the box. But feature creep is a dangerous thing in game development. I cited BF: BC as an example because the XBox patch limit is the excuse the producer gave on the EA forums for lack of clan support.

[stealth finger]

Originally Posted by InfiniteStates

Lot's of things should have been in lot's of games out the box. But feature creep is a dangerous thing in game development. I cited BF: BC as an example because the XBox patch limit is the excuse the producer gave on the EA forums for lack of clan support.

well thats the first i've heard of that. Last thing i heard was Gordan Van Dyke saying they decided to take clan out and replace it with that stupid squad system and that clan support may be brought back in the future. It would seem counter productive to limit the amount of patches that can be released. look at MW2 thats had like 5 already. Its a money thing.

[InfiniteStates]

LOL it's not a limit on patch count, its a limit on patch size. Because the basic XBox has flash memory or something. But each patch will only be adding code, not removing any, so each patch gets bigger and bigger.

But its more than likely that GVD is just making excuses... 2142 had clans and squads. Pfft.

And you're right - it is, and always will be, a money thing.

[stealth finger]

Oh well if you where talking about size then i misunderstood. There is indeed a limit to how big a patch can be. But likewise if that was the case it shouldve been with conquest download (was this a forced dl on ps3?) which was a free dlc (ignore everyone thats says ms forces charges on marketplace content) To put through another patch after probably wouldve been cost preventative. But yeah probably GvD or someone blowing smoke. If they where gunna do it it wouldve made 1943 and bc2.

and for the record. battlefield2 was the pinnacle of online gaming. It had the best squad sytem ever. Probably much like 2142's but i never really played that :p

[SimonSays132]

Originally Posted by Houndstone Hawk

I'm an owner of PS3 & 360 consoles & at the moment, the 360 will always have the edge on multiplatform games, for some reason unknown to me. My experiences include titles such as Ghostbusters (awful graphics on PS3), Call of Juarez 2 (PS3 version unplayable due to frequent & random loading times that would freeze gameplay for up to 4 seconds), Birds of Prey & NFS Shift(Horrendous screen tearing in PS3 version only). Even titles like Dragon Age, Oblivion & Fallout 3 are far more smoother running on the 360. These are only my experiences as I've had both copies on both systems for testing. I'm not saying the PS3's a bad machine; it shows it's potential on it's dedicated titles like Uncharted 2 & Killzone 2 but it really doesn't seem to do port titles very well.

I agree with your PC multiplay analogy; it's all about the setup & the hardware used but, at the moment I really don't think the 360 is holding back the PS3 on titles like Birds of Prey when it falls so short with other cross-platform titles. Shame. PS3's a tidy console & it has the potential to be great.

The thing is about graphics on both consoles is that they are pretty much the same. The differance is that the PS3 can't process information as quick as the 360 making the frame rate much lower, and it shows. It also has worse anti-aliasing(google it if you don't know what it is) which to me is a big problem. Naughty Dog eliminated these issues but if you look carefully there is a small problem with antialising.
I know PS3 fanboys won't believe me about their precious "better" graphics being smashed but it's true. PS3 does have MUCH better lighting though. Games are MUCH harder to make on PS3 so a lot of games are now switching to multi-platform games instead of doing exclusives for the PS3.

[InfiniteStates]

Originally Posted by SimonSays132

The differance is that the PS3 can't process information as quick as the 360 making the frame rate much lower, and it shows.

That's only true on badly/lazily engineered cross-platform games.