Battlefield 4 player count is set at 64 players

Future games might support more than 64 players, but for Battlefield 4, DICE is satisfied with 64.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Hufandpuf1671d ago

64 players is the sweet spot for battlefield games.

ArchangelMike1671d ago

Whats the word on the player count in BF4 for current gen systems?

FrigidDARKNESS1670d ago

Dice confirmed 64 players 60fps on xb1

Go to 16:22 mark in this video.

Lunarassassin1670d ago

Then that means 60fps on PS4!

JackVagina1670d ago


Old news...

MasterCornholio1670d ago


And dice confirmed 60FPS with 64 players for PS4 as well.

Motorola RAZR i

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1670d ago
BallsEye1670d ago

yea just kind of weird when squad limit is now 5 people. could make it 70 players :P

Drakesfortune1670d ago

because it is a slow news day.

Reem1670d ago

Battlefield always had 64 players, so I doubt it they will have more in the next future. 64 players is enough for big battles.

TwistingWords1670d ago

You could play 128+ players on BF2 with a little help from custom servers and mods

bumnut1670d ago

It was fun too, Am I the only one who is slightly disappointed BF4 is not 128 players?

trafalger1670d ago

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.

GentlemenRUs1670d ago

I think they said 720p but sometimes there's no difference ;)

Dynasty20211670d ago

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.

iamnsuperman1670d ago (Edited 1670d ago )

"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)

Irishguy951670d ago

Yeah rush was good in bf3 but some cinquest maps just had too few players

HammadTheBeast1670d ago

Gulf of Oman Conquest on PS3 was terrible. There were at most 4-5 people as infantry soldiers, everyone else was in a vehicle,

famoussasjohn1670d ago

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.

FrigidDARKNESS1670d ago

Dont know why folks saying its old news video clearly says Gamescom. Dice is re-confirming it on xb1 .

Show all comments (26)