Future games might support more than 64 players, but for Battlefield 4, DICE is satisfied with 64.
64 players is the sweet spot for battlefield games.
Whats the word on the player count in BF4 for current gen systems?
Dice confirmed 64 players 60fps on xb1 Go to 16:22 mark in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watc...
@frigiddarkness Then that means 60fps on PS4!
@frigiddarkness Old news...
@Frigid And dice confirmed 60FPS with 64 players for PS4 as well. Motorola RAZR i
yea just kind of weird when squad limit is now 5 people. could make it 70 players :P
Why is this news?
because it is a slow news day.
Battlefield always had 64 players, so I doubt it they will have more in the next future. 64 players is enough for big battles.
You could play 128+ players on BF2 with a little help from custom servers and mods
It was fun too, Am I the only one who is slightly disappointed BF4 is not 128 players?
the big news is that on consoles it will finally support 64 players. it hasnt been confirmed yet if it will be 1080 resolution but it will be 60 frames per second.
I think they said 720p but sometimes there's no difference ;)
64 players is PERFECT for the bigger maps. This is something console players have been screaming for, and now they're getting it with the new gen. Good news for them. But it's not all raining diamonds. Believe me, after, what, 2 years on BF3 on PC now, hear this: 64 players on certain maps is just ridiculous. You're annoyed with 24 players. Now imagine 64 players on a map like Metro. 64-man rush on any map. It is unplayable. Seriously. 64 man sounds amazing, but it's so pointless at times, that it stops being fun AT ALL, and you end up just defaulting to 32-man on those maps instead. I will never, ever, ever play 64-man Metro ever again. 32 man is the highest I will go in TDM on Noshair Canals, my now go-to map for grinding.
"This is something console players have been screaming for, and now they're getting it with the new gen." That is only down to illogical map design though. Like you mention in the rest of the comment; bigger maps suit more players and smaller maps suit lesser players (otherwise the maps are either unpopulated or just ridiculously crammed). I said this before bigger/more is not always better (the last of us multiplayer mode proved this). I am glad to see 64 player maps because DICE, in the BF franchises, always creates large maps (needed for vehicles) and this made the console version of BF3 suffer to some degree (because they had large maps but relatively low player counts)
Yeah rush was good in bf3 but some cinquest maps just had too few players
Gulf of Oman Conquest on PS3 was terrible. There were at most 4-5 people as infantry soldiers, everyone else was in a vehicle,
Yeah the maps needed to be tuned to the amount of players on current gen. It was too much running around to find someone. I stuck to the close quarter maps just because it had more things going on. I got tired of Op Metro really quick when admins had 1700 ticket servers lol.
Dont know why folks saying its old news video clearly says Gamescom. Dice is re-confirming it on xb1 .
The only reason why they kept it 64 for pc is because they wanted consoles to catch up to bf3 for pc. Its a good marketing plan because it makes next gen consoles seem that much more attractive.
64 players! Just a shame that it's running at 720p. But I guess that's what happens when you go with cheap weak AMD hardware.
Been hearing alot about the horrible visuals on the PS4!! Thats a shame!!
ign saw an unfinished map running with placeholder textures... no way the game will look that way
we are still a few months away from luanch
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.