Battlefield 1943 XBox 360 Playtime Tops 29.45 Years, Smoother Servers in PS3 Version

Split-screen: "Electronic Arts recently revealed the following "fun facts" about EA DICE's Battlefield 1943. On the XBox 360, there were over 5 millions kills in the first day of play. About 29.45 years of gameplay has also been completed by the collective Live players since the game's release.

"The company also stated that, 'PS3 having less layers in it's configuration has gone smooth and server capacity is holding for now and servers are still being added for the weekend spike.'"

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
meepmoopmeep3420d ago

you get what you pay for


Nike3420d ago

And thus rose EA from the ashes. Seriously, the popularity of this game is nuts. Haven't tried it myself but would love to see what the fuss is all about.

nostalgic_noob3420d ago (Edited 3420d ago )

Xbros buy games then they have to pay the most rich and evil company in the world to allow them to play that game they just bought and to top it all off they have the worst servers and lag in any system with internet ever.

Tito Jackson3420d ago (Edited 3420d ago )

Game is hella fun.


Doesn't matter. You'll get 50+ disagrees even though you brought facts to the table.
But dont get discouraged, remember, the kids who disagree with you, are like newborns---some times they dont want ANYTHING, they just want to cry.

Why dis3420d ago (Edited 3420d ago )

Having trouble comprehending what they said? I don't see how you can't grasp what they said. EA said the overwhelming success on XBL caught them off guard and not as many people on PSN are buying the game and playing it hence the more smooth remark.

I found it funny reading all the PS3 fanboy articles about the game acting up on XBL and them bashing XBL, when the Game's own live news broadcast EA was saying due to capacity issues they would be working to fix the problem by adding more servers.

This has nothing to do with fees, PSN or XBL. lol


Why dis3420d ago

They've been acting crazy for a week now. I didn't think the shock from E3 would have taken this long, the angry phase is just now materializing.

KillaManiac3420d ago (Edited 3420d ago )

I am sure this game is great especially for 360 owners since not many exclusives so far this year, but if you have a decent PC you would get much better value for your $$$ if you bought BF2 or BF2142.

Not to mention those games have more kits,maps, and 64 players.

darthv723420d ago (Edited 3420d ago )

What are the player limits per version?

edit: just read that there is a limit of 24 players broken down into squads of 4 (?). I think the ea servers should be able to handle that. Anyone know how many instances a server could host before needing another server?

Elven63420d ago

The servers running Battlefield 1943 are dedicated hence NOT run by Microsoft, Live is only used to connect to them. Had the games been P2P this probably wouldn't have happened.

MazzingerZ3420d ago (Edited 3420d ago )

Doesn't mean less players but that, LAYERS, XBL demands to always be connected under XBL where you have all those layers for cross chat, game invites, status, etc so even if you connect to dedicated servers all that other data must be running back and forward under the XBL framework which causes a more laggy experience.

"Had the games been P2P this probably wouldn't have happened."
It wouldn't have worked.
Frontlines:Fuel of war had also dedicated servers because of the same reason.

Technicallly IT IS XBL fault but it could be fixed by EA if they placed servers all across US, Europe, Japan, etc to improve the PING times...these type of games requires that...for PS3 players works better due to less data flow during matches.

TheReaper423420d ago

hey that's how i set up my private servers.. although not as crazy as those warhawk servers. I only have 4 PS3s dedicated servers set up (a lot cheaper than buying full servers). It gets the job done and saves money.

vickers5003420d ago


Actually, it's a great deal for both 360 AND PSN owners. And I don't really care about PC games, I HATE the keyboard and mouse setup. I have tried it over and over again, trying to get used to it, but it's just horribly uncomfortable, and is not very good for gaming in my opinion.

Though if you are primarily a pc gamer, you will most likely be an elitist douchebag who thinks he is better than everyone else because he is playing on a platform that many have abandoned for consoles, making you think you're "individualistic" or "special" or something, so please save yourself the time of telling me "you don't like it, therefore you must suck at it, there is no other explanation" (assuming you are an elitist pc gamer like most of them I've encountered)that argument is getting really old.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 3420d ago
Blow Out Your Brains3420d ago

Too bad it lacks gore, I would buy it but it's kinda hard to play a war game without blood.

El_Colombiano3420d ago

Urgh gore. Thank God it does NOT have it. Too many games with unnecessarily overexerted gore these days.

Nike3420d ago

I agree. Medal of Honor (Allied Assault, before the whoring out began) wasn't any less compelling, even with the lack of blood. If you create compelling enough gameplay, it becomes irrelevant how realistic it is and returns the emphasis to the one most important thing: fun. :)

Harry_Manback3420d ago

I played the demo last night, and I must say the game is pretty fun!

somekindofmike3420d ago

Great Response, who needs gore when you're playing a great game!

Lich1203420d ago

But gore does make sense in a war game. War is violent, and thus I would argue to make a war game more realistic they should be violent. However, there are plenty of violent war games so for those who are enjoying, keep on keeping on. For me it seems a bit odd.

ArsArcanum3419d ago

wtf... weren't people bashing the ps3 exclusive ninja gaiden sigma 2 for not having enough gore?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3419d ago
jBat173420d ago (Edited 3420d ago )

there, i said it.

nothing special with this one, gameplay is slow and boring, there are 4 guns in total, the vehicles are total useless except for traveling, animations are a joke, the maps are bland

xbots love this game because it's the only thing they can afford. it's not hard to save up 15 bucks from their lunch money

RockmanII73420d ago

what gives you the right to say that since it's cheap it's for poor people. The game IS made for either people looking for a quick fix or 'poor' people. Unlike you and many other PS3 users alot of Xbox and probably some PS3 users are getting hit hard with this economy and can't afford to spend 60 games without a second thought. You probably have a big home, went to a private school, and have parents rich enough to get your spoiled @$$ anything you want while others are thankful to get a $15 game. But who am I to judge.

oldsnayke3420d ago (Edited 3420d ago )

Perhaps it's just not your type of game, but that doesn't give you the right to outright bash it.

IT has its pros and cons... but ultimately, the only reason WHY the PS3 servers are smoother is because next to nobody is playing the PS3 anymore. Hell, they're even considering dropping Modern Warfare 2 for the PS3... what does that tell you?

The numbers are greatly different if you compare the amount of people playing on Xbox daily compared to PS3. Obviously the servers are going to be smoother.

Disagree all you want, Sony droids... but you know I am right. Your system is going to fail.

Boty3419d ago (Edited 3419d ago )

This game is NOT for poor people. This game is a classic Battlefield Game. Its is extremely fun. Specially when you bomb someone from a plan.

@ moron above me...
The ps3 version is just fine yes. Tons of people are playing it on the ps3(I was on just last night). And give me some prove that Modern warfare 2 is going to be dropped from a extremely large fanbase such as the ps3's.

3420d ago Replies(3)
goflyakite3420d ago

For only $15 I might have to get this.