Top
770°

DICE offers another explanation for Battlefield 3 console multiplayer limit

XMNR: We reported that Battlefield 3's online multiplayer would feature 64 players on the PC but only 24 players on the PS3 and Xbox 360. Later, we followed up with a report on one of the developers saying that the multiplayer was hardware and network limited. Now details from the GameInformer article are coming out and DICE gives a different explanation for the console limit there.

Read Full Story >>
examiner.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Wizziokid1968d ago

maybe they should make the limit depending on the console, so if the 360 can't have as many players as PS3 it won't hold the PS3 back.

GameGambits1968d ago

Honestly there's no reason for them to explain it. If you want the ultimate Battlefield 3 experience this year it is going to be on PC. Anyone else can just pick their console of choice and get the same experience as the other console. The reason they do that is to keep Msoft/Sony happy, and put the game on their box.

It'd be great if developers WOULD stop this "must be equal" on each platform junk when one machine is capable of more. That also would cause longer development times though.

kancerkid1968d ago (Edited 1968d ago )

Why does everyone think that the PS3 can handle more? If it could, it would. There is no reason to think they are 'holding back' the PS3.

Let's remember the PS3 and 360 do not have 4 GBs of RAM, nor do they have state of the art GPUs. Get over it.

"I'm seeing a lot of comments about the Xbox 360 holding the PS3 back. Let's remember two things. 1) The 24 player limit may not be set in stone. 2) The Xbox 360 has had games in the past (Frontlines, Section 8) and one coming soon (Homefront) that supported more than 24 players. If there is any limitation on consoles than it is likely due to the demands of the Frostbite 2.0 engine which won't even support Windows XP and requires at least DX10 on the PC."

http://www.examiner.com/con...

Nitrowolf21968d ago (Edited 1968d ago )

@Kancerkid
there been a good amount of PS3 FPS that go over 40 players.
Resistance Fall of the man, the first PS3 game (i believe) supported up to 40 players.
R2 has 60
MAG has 256
Warhawk did a good number also.

Although these game aren't the greatest looking, you may be right about the engine part. But i am sure the PS3 could do at least a little bit more, same with the 360 i am sure both can at least do 30 or 32.

Killzone2 did 32 players and it's the best looking FPS on consoles

Its because both games have to be equal. It's complete BS i see from Multiplat, if one console has more power why not utilize it then?

@Kamikaze125

true, and i am aware of that. I just feel that they could push the player count a bit more, when you have games that do far more, graphically Resistance 2 wasn't bad, but if a game like killzone 2 can do 32 and be the best looking FPS on console i don't see how they can't expand it to that. Killzone 3 has 24, which is a good think, but with battlefield the maps are huge and created for that 64 players, seeing a low count could possible mean smaller maps then.

Kamikaze1351968d ago

@Nitrowolf2

Yeah, but Battlefield has totally destructible environments and on top of that, it's a graphically great looking game since it's a 2011 release by a competent developer.

Kleptic1968d ago (Edited 1968d ago )

the PS3's abilities for multiplayer counts have usually been because Sony puts up dedicated servers for their first party games...almost always...

for most modern console games...thats the limiting factor...XBL almost always uses a player for hosting (not p2p like the miss informed scream about, its still standard host/client networking (95% of the time), just with a residential connection for hosting duties)...

Resistance: Fall of Man (40), Resistance 2 (60), MAG (256), Warhawk (32), Killzone 2 (32)...were all first party titles...MS almost never does dedicated servers...because they are, you know, expensive...and they want to use your subscription money for...ads...or something? but that is a different debate entirely...

I'm just saying we haven't necessarily seen a physical cap on player count due to hardware yet...Killzone 2 is easily one of the best looking multiplayer shooters ever created (even crysis took a major graphical hit during online multiplayer)...and it could sing with 32 players all going nuts on screen at once...Killzone 3's reduced count to 24 has been said to be due to gameplay changes, new map designs, introduction of vehicles, and that not many people played 32 player games the first time around...as it was almost too chaotic on certain maps...not because the PS3 couldn't do it...

but in either case...if BF3 ends up with killzone like visuals, or better, the PC's 64 number seems unrealistic...although if EA agrees to go with dedicated servers, 24 seems low also...who knows at this point...

I just hope they go with dedicated servers regardless...residential hosting can be a nightmare with even 8 players...play Gears of War, you'll see...

XRider1968d ago

@Nitrowolf2 Perfect Dark Zero (first party) on the 360 has 32 players and Frontlines has 50. More players has nothing to do with hardware of the consoles. It's all about who is willing to spend the money to run servers and maintain them. PC is an open platform so EA doesn't have to pay extra to run servers. Consoles are a closed network and third party developers have to pay royalties to Sony and Microsoft to run big MP games. Sony's and MS games like Resistance, MAG, Warhawk and Perfect Dark are first party games so you can't compare them to the cost of third party.

Commander_TK1968d ago

Because the PC is simply just miles better than the consoles. It's just that easy.

NiKK_4191967d ago

64 players can be done with bf3 on consoles. the only reason they aren't trying to implement it is because they didn't think console gamers would care as much as they do, so they decided against dedicated servers because they cost more on consoles. they chose 24 because if they go over that without dedicated servers then it will lag bad, but maybe they will realize how much we actually wanted more than 24 players, then maybe they will invest in dedicated servers for consoles.

RyuCloudStrife1967d ago (Edited 1967d ago )

"It'd be great if developers WOULD stop this "must be equal" on each platform junk when one machine is capable of more. That also would cause longer development times though."

dont even say that just look at Black Ops dude

frostyhat1231967d ago

Most people disagree with me but IMO more players does not always mean it will be more fun.

gcolley1967d ago

if the maps are bigger, which they will be to accommodate PC, then more players actually will be better. BFBC1 could have done with more players as those maps were pretty big compared to BFBC2.

NiKK_4191967d ago

why disagrees on my comment? that's the most logical reason i can think of

Pixelated_Army1967d ago

It's a selling point for the PC version. If they match feature for feature with the console version it's lessens the intensive to buy the PC version.

Sarcasm1967d ago

It's really a question of is it that consoles cant handle the graphics with that many players? or is it an issue with networking?

As mediocorely received as MAG was, it's able to do 256 players due to them building their network to handle it.

I don't see why 32 players or even 64 players isn't possible. Even Resistance 2 has 64 players online.

Blaster_Master1967d ago (Edited 1967d ago )

Or i could just not get the game. PC gamers get a cheaper game but better deal? I think thats BS.

If thats the case they should drop the price to the console game below the pc version.

PotatoClock1967d ago

Do you not know how prices work for console games?

You'll never get cheaper prices on games because Sony and MS have to get their cut. Hence, $60 games for you.

You want PC priced games then buy a PC.

ThanatosDMC1967d ago

MAG is able to handle more than 256 players at once according to Zipper.

"3. MAG could be even bigger. MAG is renowned for its 256-player support – and we earned the Guinness World Record for most simultaneous players in a console FPS as proof – but that’s not the limit of our technology. Truth be told, we can support a lot more than that. We picked 256 players as our target for game design reasons (how we divide up squads, platoons, etc). However, with our architecture, we could increase the number players well beyond the 256-person limit if we wanted to – we’d just want to make sure our design fit whatever super huge number we wanted to go after first."

http://blog.mag.com/blog/20...

candystop1967d ago

Thantos- You could probably run 1000 players online but of course you would have to dumb down the graphics as seen in Mag.

AAACE51967d ago

Did you guys even read the article?

"We aren't sure of the reason for the differing explanations but the response to the earlier article about the 24 player limit on the consoles was overwhelmingly negative in our comment system with the discussion degrading down into a console fanboy war with claims that the Xbox 360 was holding consoles back.

Battlefield fans shouldn't give up hope yet on the multiplayer numbers though as one of the developers indicated that the 24 player limit is not set in stone. This was later followed by DICE's Daniel Matros saying yesterday, "The console player count will be announced later on :)."

Ryudo1967d ago

Someone needs to tell the halfwits above that Phantasy Star Universe had 1000s of players online for the 360.

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 1967d ago
Man In Black1968d ago

Last gen games could do 32 players. This is laziness.

evrfighter1968d ago (Edited 1968d ago )

try again when last gen games like kz2/3 or mag has destructible environments.

@enkei
"Console gamers are more laid-back, as long as the game works & plays just as good as the PC version, then it's fine by them."

well if you read the article.

"but the response to the earlier article about the 24 player limit on the consoles was overwhelmingly negative in our comment system with the discussion degrading down into a console fanboy war with claims that the Xbox 360 was holding consoles back."

They pretty much just said the ps3 fanboys were spamming their comment box.

Focker4201968d ago (Edited 1968d ago )

@evrfighter

That doesn't mean its impossible. MAG had 256 players at once. Cut that down to only 64 and I almost guarantee it could have destructible environments. And its not like BF's destruction is organic. Its all broken down into sections which makes it even easier to implement.

edit: This is a serious question, I truly don't know the answer. Are there any games on the 360 that have more than 24 players??

DeathMetal14741968d ago

Mag's graphics were awful, not the case with BF

cakeisalie1968d ago

@Focker420

I dont own a PS3 hence the question, do you ever see 256 people all at once dishing it out in Mag? if that doesnt happen then its a moot point.

Also several people are pointing out Mag looks crap, hence unless you want to make BF3 look crap on the PS3 i think the PS3 is limited hardware wise and its not the 360 holding the PS3 development back, if that was the case then the PC would have been held back as well.

jib1968d ago

@focker

frontlines supports 50 players

Focker4201968d ago (Edited 1968d ago )

@cakeisalie

Everyone starts out in different sections of the map. As their squad completes objectives they move closer to the center. By the end of the match all 256 players are in the center battling it out.

@jib

Thanks for the info

lil Titan1968d ago

@jib not to bring down the 360 but how many games does other than frontlines that has have more than 24 or 32 player limit?...exactly, i hope they can do 64 on PS3 and 360 but mostly PS3 i know PS3 and PC can spar with one another not to say 360 cant its just that i think 360 would need more than a mouth guard to go against PC

XRider1967d ago

Delta Force Black Hawk Down Xbox had 50 vs 50. Hell, the first Delta Force game on PC had 62 players in 1998. People who think it takes a PS3 to do what developers have been doing since 98 are just dumb and need to do a google search.

IHateYouFanboys1967d ago

@lil Titan: "@jib not to bring down the 360 but how many games does other than frontlines that has have more than 24 or 32 player limit?...exactly"

what an absolutely idiotic thing to say lol.

Frontline Fuels of War has 50 player multiplayer on the 360. that means that the 360 and Xbox Live can handle 50 player online games, end of discussion. to discount it because its the only one that does that many is stupid for a few reasons.

firstly, it shows the network handles 50 players at once.

secondly, how many PS3 games handle 50 players or more? only 2. so theres 1 on 360, 2 on PS3. 1 of those was criticised for having more than that (resistance 2) as it was just a spawn-a-thon and far too hectic. the other is a completely different type of game, basically only being 32 players at once as you were broken up into squads and all the squads were kept apart on the map so you never had 256 players fighting together (MAG).

how many players a game has online in a match is based on many things, but the console power is pretty far down the list. what type of game is it? a game like Gears of War wouldnt work 12 on 12. its a close-quarters intimate squad based shooter. Call of Duty wouldnt work 16 on 16 as the maps are too small and you die too quickly. imagine playing domination with 16 players on the other team guarding the points! youd never actually capture anything. MAG works because its a huge map that is specifically made to keep player numbers in areas small. resistance 2 didnt work because they just crammed as many people as they could into a regular level.

remember, having 50 online players online isnt really very taxing on the CPU. the 50 players dont have AI, theyre 100% controlled by the players - all the console does is render their character model. the NETWORK is the thing that has to be able to handle it, and youre kidding yourself if you think that Lives far superior infrastructure cannot handle as many players as the free-to-play-get-what-you-pay- for PSN.

Blaine1967d ago

MAG DOES NOT LOOK LIKE CRAP.

/cpslock

Random HD MAG montage: http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Those are definitely not BAD graphics.

@fanboys:

Have you even played MAG? What you were trying to say is: "the way the maps are set up places 32 players AGAINST 32 others". The minimun you'll ever get in MAG is 64 players in one area of the map, and like Focker said at the end of the games people will be concentrated into a smaller area at the center of the map.

ThanatosDMC1967d ago (Edited 1967d ago )

I'm guessing you dont have MAG?

Play Domination against powerful platoons of SVER when they're attacking. They'll reach the middle spawn point of the defenders and "red line" them. It's the biggest sh!t storm of explosions, bullets, smoke, and gunfire you'll ever see in videogames.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1967d ago
Da_Evil_Monkey1968d ago

Their logic seems a little flawed. The reason most console players didn't complain about 24 players only in BC1/2 is because that's is what most of us are accustomed too. The majority of console gamers also have not played the previous Battlefields. Just because nobody complains you decide to produce an inferior product? I would have thought DICE would have wanted to try and create the best experience possible on all platforms, not just the one whose fanbase complain the most.

MWong1968d ago

I got to agree it just seems like they are being a little laxed. It doesn't sound like a console limitation with either the 360/PS3, but more along the lines of fans not wanting more. So it goes back to a comment another user made, it's DICE that is determining how many players are on the consoles versus the PC.

lil Titan1968d ago

@gamegambits there is reason for them to explain, when the ultimate BF3 experience is going to be with my surround sound entertainment system, if others are like me there PC is mainly for work.

If MAG can do 256 players i know DICE can pull off at least 60 on PS3, this should be a cake walk for DICE and if you say they cant then your insulting the game simple as that

FanboyPunisher1968d ago

How do you know this? Because an engine is designed around that number..how can you say DICE can when you dont even know the level of stress their engine puts on consoles?

Are you a developer?
Engineer, S/W Developer?

Do you understand that your comment is a retarded opinion, if you look at the OXM screens of BF3 you'll see it looks far far better than MAG. Thus 60 players on P2P is something i'd like to avoid, MAG still gets ripped for having shoddy servers, slughishness.

So instead of saying 'Simple as that' learn how the shit it done, get an idea then you can make a 'factopinion' statment.

Gamer Noob.

lil Titan1968d ago

in all fairness how do you know this?
are you a developer?
Engineer, S/W Developer?
are you working with DICE by there side confirming all this information you seem to blow out your rectum?
its called the internet fam, i can read up on how to become an antelope doctor if i want and i can say that because i know DICE is an amazing studio that only want the best for there customers, they said that console gamers wasnt complaining about the players? so does that mean if i do complain that maybe they will look in to supporting 64 on PS3...YES since i know they can do it SIMPLE AS THAT!

oh im just going to be the the bigger man an not call you such childish names as it seems thats how you get your kicks
technology is only going up BF3 looks great but soon in the future there is another game thats going to up the level of WOW once again

Istanbull1968d ago

Oh man, I hoped atleast 32 players for PS3. 360 is always holding back development on PS3...

ProGrasTiNation1967d ago

Yes devs dont want to risk losing money or outcasting the 360 because of its massive presence in the U.S market&europe,the ps3 is so much better in terms of tech but the games have been held back buy devs just out for the money,give fans the ps3 sdk & we would show you the meaning of the word 360 killer...the Cell will be around a lot longer then the Xcpu!fact

Legionaire20051968d ago

Both 360 and PS3 can do 60 player count or more. Even some developers like Bungie, Rare, and other developers said, that they could increase player count, but its all about maintaining a balance depending on the game style they use to create their games. Rare if they wanted to could had increase Perfect Dark Zero to 50 players. Insomniac Games Resistance's Series, all had 40 to 60 players smooth no lags. Heck even MAG!!!! hundreds of players online!!! So what is the excuse DICE? You can do it!!! Beat down Modern Warfare 3 and Ghost Recon: Future Soldier. Take a dump on those games and throw them in the trash!!!

MWong1967d ago (Edited 1967d ago )

According to the article you need to go to the EA Forums for Battlefield and complain about getting so few players. If you complain or ask for it enough you'll get more players on the 360 & PS3 versions.

I don't care how many players are in a game to be honest. I just want Battlefield 3 to be 10 times better than Bad Company 2. 32 players wouldn't be to much of a strain though.

iPad1968d ago

why cant these game developers call out microsoft for making a "next gen" console too weak?

It should be PC and PS3-64players

and 360- 24

after all, its microsoft's fault

ElementX1967d ago (Edited 1967d ago )

I dunno... people say KZ2 has the best console graphics however playing Dead Space 2... I'm thinking that game looks better, and it's multiplat. BTW I'm playing on PS3

Trunkz Jr1967d ago (Edited 1967d ago )

I keep seeing "Omg this game can do # amount and such and such" different engines can handle different loads - MAG can hold many players but doesn't offer anything else really besides the high load of players. BF3 seems like it will offer so many things (more then BC2) but it can't handle high demand of players for consoles. Don't you think if they could they would offer more then 64 players for PC? You were fine with 24 in BC2, so why complain now? Is it because PC is getting so much more now and is the main platform? Cry me a river.

PotatoClock1967d ago

PS3 fanboys see their console as being a supercomputer. So naturally their going to cry about PC having more players cause they think their equal to it.

None of the examples of games that can have more than 24 players involve destructible environments.

NeutralGamer1967d ago (Edited 1967d ago )

I dont undetand why people keep saying "BF belongs to PC"....

Maybe BF had the best experience on PC, but why does it belong there?

Look at sales of Bad Company 2:

Xbox - 2.79 millions worldwide
PS3 - 2.09 millions worldwide

PC - 0.31 million sales world wide -.-

Okay I admit the numbers are a bit wrong, but still...

Now go at Bad Company 2's stat site and look at number of PC players... 2.4 million....

If PC gamer want the experience then stop fucking pirate games!!!

fatalred alarm1967d ago

what about digital downloads..

tanman7771967d ago

If it is showing up on the BFBC2 site, then it is a legit copy that someone has activated online, which you can't do with a pirated copy of this game.

gamingdroid1967d ago (Edited 1967d ago )

A game doesn't really belong to any console beyond what people prefer it on.

FPS used to "belong" to PC, but look where it is now. If people like the experience why does it matter where it "belongs".

I mean last I checked, I didn't think gee this Blu-Ray movie really belong on the DVD. After all DVD is where the movie was originally released on....

I really don't understand this whole, let's exclude others mentality in gaming. Exclusive this, it belongs here, bla bla blah. Go Play!!!

PotatoClock1967d ago

Your numbers are very wrong.

And piracy is bullshit with a game like BC2.
You can't play pirated games online. Battlefield has always had a unique CD-Key system.

Did you see how much faster PC unlocked Operation Hastings than consoles? That is a DLC too so not everyone has it.

We buy and play the shit outta that game, so no, we do get the experience because PC owners buy quality games like Battlefield, not pirate them like what happens to a lot of half-assed console ported crap.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1967d ago
one2thr1967d ago

Im not sure that you guy's know this but when the very first PS3 was released, better yet during the PS3 press conference I believe SONY has mentioned that every Playstation 3 has the ability to become a "Dedicated Server" with just software..... Dont believe me take the game, WarHawk for example and it has a trophy for keeping your PS3 a dedicated server for 4 consecutive hours..... Thought I might add that....

cavvac1967d ago

FrontLines: Fuel of War - 50 players on the Xbox 360.

ProGrasTiNation1967d ago

PS3
Mag=32vs32,64vs64,128vs128
ResistenceFall.of..=20 vs 20,,2nd one=30vs30
Killzone3=16vs16
Socom Confrontation=32 again
Dedicated servers rule
BTW,Xbox is not good enough to keep track of 256 people & if they tryed it,the game would look like counterstrike 1.6 with low settings.So mag is a very good game when you count in what it has to achieve

deafwing1967d ago

wow large maps with barely anyone to take out ... hmm ... going to be struggling for kills on this one ... ah well can't have the best of all worlds I guess ...

gamingdroid1967d ago

So how does the Xbox 360 (or PS3 for that matter) limit the number of multi-player gamers on Battlefield?

Mista T1967d ago

don't be stupid, that's why MAG looks like somebody sat on it

paintsville1967d ago

Well if that's not trolling I don't know what is.

xbox360wiips31967d ago

mag looks like trash sounds like trash guns are awful game play is awful no campaign slack vehicle u cant compare another fps to battlefield single player campaign coop campaign full destruction vehicles aircraft earthquakes y'all need to stop acting like developers and thinking y'all no whats possible and whats not if enough people complain about the player count they'll raise it. go to the official forum tweet do what you gotta do

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 1967d ago
hamburger1231968d ago

Man

They should atleast do 32.

DelbertGrady1968d ago (Edited 1968d ago )

I'm fine with 24. The quality of gameplay and map design comes first for me. Worked more than well for BF BC 2 and will probably be awesome in BF 3 as well.

Jellzy1968d ago

If you've played BF2, or 2142 for that matter then you'll know that the map design is fine with regards to 64 players.

Also the fact that you'll be paying more for the consile version and will essentially be getting less as we won't have full access to all areas of the maps unless they have them cut up and offered as indivdual maps... Sorry if that doesn't make sense.

PC version for me, but I would like to see them attempting to keep the console versions on par.

AKA1968d ago

the game and map are make for 64 player in mind
just like bc2 only 24 player will make the game slow simple and plane boring.

i guess the beta has to be great for me to buy this game and i dont have a gaming pc we will see. is not like i will not have games to play, i got a ps3!!!!!

Focker4201968d ago

BFBC2 maps are tiny in comparison to BF's. Theres a reason BF games have more players than BC. The maps are simply massive in BF.

femshep1968d ago

id rather have the 24
with 8 people on any game its laggy as hell cause most people think its a great idea to uses a wireless connection with poor internet to being with

chasegarcia1968d ago (Edited 1968d ago )

The Frostbite engine cannot do it on PS3. It took them like 3 games to get it running smooth and now you guys want more player?. Maybe with more development time but as it is, not going to happen..

plb1968d ago (Edited 1968d ago )

This is what I'm thinking too. Yeah games like MAG have 256 and such but frostbite 2 has full on destruction plus HUGE maps and all types of other stuff going on so it probably gives GPU/CPU a workout and current gen consoles can't quite handle it but who knows.

bluwulf1968d ago (Edited 1968d ago )

PS3's multiplayer games have more advanced engines(talking about GPU/CPU load) than the 360 & run in 720p + Higher numbers Online. This is a fact. Huge maps are stream loaded. Size really doesn't matter this gen, because its n ot as if you don't see foliage Texture/detail growing in as you get closer. And pre-determined destructibility, and model swapping is hardly taxing.. its 2011...

The 360's highest player count was with a terrible engine for Frontlines, which was 50 and choppy if you could ever get 50 people in one server. However Halo is limited-no big shock there- and is the 'huge maps'... Its safe to say that one of the consoles can't do more than 24. And id imagine its not the one that runs killzone 3 @ 32. Or Mag at 256, or Warhawk at 32... or GT5 at 16.

Sorry but claiming its the PS3 for this one, I highly doubt that they couldn't get 32-64 running on the code just on the PS3. Where as the 360 has had 5 years to prove it can do it, and cant.

I love it that people think DICE has maxed out the GPU/CPU but Killzone3's online runs at 30% or something. Denial is the most hilarious thing to watch this gen. Options of 24-32-64 is better for a variety of players. Mandatory 24 is stupid as hell for this game if its REALLY going to be the true sequel to BF2.

Can't really have an all out vehicle/air/commander war with 24 people. Thanks Microsoft! You've contributed so much to gaming engine technology and advancement this gen.

Pandamobile1968d ago

Frostbite 2 is one of the highest tech engines out there. Second only to CryEngine 3.

Besides being highly optimized for the PS3, Sony's first party game engines are really nothing that special.