Speaking to G4TV, DICE producer Gordon Van Dyke has stated the PC release of Battlefield 1943 has been pushed into 2010, quite a ways off from the game's originally intended September release date, which is definitely bad news for many a PC enthusiast.

"We haven't released a Frostbite-built game on PC, so going into this project we lacked a starting foundation we had on Console," he said. "So it was and still is the absolutely right decision, for quality sake, to not release until it is ready."

There is no solid date for the game in 2010 as of yet.

Why does this make me think of that Penny Arcade Tribes dead-horse-beating strip.

sad face

I'm a PC gamer. I'm used to being shafted.

If there going to delay it for such a long time they might as well make an effort to implement some of the 'features' that games 6 years ago had. 64 player MP hmm... Finite ammo hmmm..

I'm with you there. Playing with 64 others was just awesome. Still play BF2.

This is gay. I played the ps3 demo and thought it could be a bit of fun until a real game came out like Natural Selection 2 or Starcraft 2 but nope. Not buying it on console either f*** that s***.

What is so different about PCs compared to the 360 that makes it such a challenge to port to PC? Aren't these games all made on PC anyway? It smells like bulls*** but whatever, I wont be buying it regardless... would be interested to know why it is so hard to port (requiring so much extra time) On the one hand, dice have a pretty good track record, on the other hand im super sceptical about these kinds of excuses.

since when have DICE worried about the quality of their release code?

^ Since EA got them by the balls

isn't bf3 in the making aswell?

My Money is on the PC version being delayed so they can try and double dip. People who wanted the PC version might crack and buy the console version. Then later they buy the PC version because it is better.

That way they have actually told the truth. The game isn't ready as it needs to offer several features that the console version doesn't hahaha.

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 06:03:51 25/Aug/09

On the one hand, dice have a pretty good track record,

ahaha of what exactly?

When it was just Trauma studio with Desert Combat, s*** was just right.
Digital Illusion bought out Trauma and evolved into Dice and then the spiral commenced.

^ Since EA got them by the balls

Since when has EA released quality?

Just from the few sports games i actually play, each of them has their own fatal flaw which makes me buy another version the next year not because the teams are different, but because i hope that the next one fixes the lasts problems.

I don't think trauma had anything to do with it.

Trauma's influence is surely noticeable, but the quality was and is equally as poor as it always has been.

I don't think DC was anything special. The earlier releases were horrid (which is fair being alpha), but the subsequent releases weren't that much chop either. They seemed buggy as s*** and unbalanced to boot. On par with the BF patches (1.3 anyone?).

Having to deal with DICE and DICE products regularly, I reckon they're the same as always. As individuals, they all seem like pretty decent people. Collectively they really suck.

last edited by Freewheelin at 14:03:33 25/Aug/09

BF1942, and to a slightly less extent, BFV, was the best thing DICE did. Embracing the old model of an "open" (moddable) game, plentiful dedicated servers, no bulls*** ranking system... everything else they've done has been lame follow-the-leader stuff and it's just sad. They could have been one of the few PC developers like Valve and Blizzard to actually make a difference in the market but they've pussied out and gone the console route and will just keep churning out Battlefield franchise titles of decreasing quality until people finally get a clue and give up on it.

/rage