770°
Submitted by Queasy 1415d ago | news

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. (Battlefield 3, PC, PS3, Xbox 360)

Alternative Sources
« 1 2 »
Wizziokid  +   1415d 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.
GameGambits  +   1415d 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.
kancerkid  +   1415d 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...
#1.1.1 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(34) | Disagree(52) | Report
Nitrowolf2  +   1415d 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.
#1.1.2 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(37) | Disagree(8) | Report
Kamikaze135  +   1415d 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.
Kleptic  +   1415d 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...
#1.1.4 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(22) | Disagree(4) | Report
XRider  +   1415d 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_TK  +   1415d ago
Because the PC is simply just miles better than the consoles. It's just that easy.
NiKK_419  +   1415d 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.
RyuCloudStrife  +   1415d ago
@GameGambits
"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
#1.1.8 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report
frostyhat123  +   1415d ago
Most people disagree with me but IMO more players does not always mean it will be more fun.
gcolley  +   1415d 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_419  +   1415d ago
why disagrees on my comment? that's the most logical reason i can think of
Pixelated_Army  +   1415d 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.
Sarcasm  +   1415d 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_Master  +   1415d 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.
#1.1.14 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(6) | Report
PotatoClock  +   1415d 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.
ThanatosDMC  +   1414d 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...
candystop  +   1414d ago
Thantos- You could probably run 1000 players online but of course you would have to dumb down the graphics as seen in Mag.
AAACE5  +   1414d 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 :)."
Ryudo  +   1414d ago
Someone needs to tell the halfwits above that Phantasy Star Universe had 1000s of players online for the 360.
Man In Black  +   1415d ago
Last gen games could do 32 players. This is laziness.
evrfighter  +   1415d 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.
#1.2.1 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(24) | Disagree(19) | Report
Focker420  +   1415d 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??
#1.2.2 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(16) | Disagree(20) | Report
DeathMetal1474  +   1415d ago
Yeah but
Mag's graphics were awful, not the case with BF
cakeisalie  +   1415d 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.
jib  +   1415d ago
@focker

frontlines supports 50 players
Focker420  +   1415d 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
#1.2.6 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(3) | Report
lil Titan  +   1415d 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
XRider  +   1415d 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.
IHateYouFanboys  +   1415d 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.
Blaine  +   1415d 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.
ThanatosDMC  +   1414d ago
@ cakeisalie
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.
#1.2.11 (Edited 1414d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
Da_Evil_Monkey  +   1415d 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.
MWong  +   1415d 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 Titan  +   1415d 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
FanboyPunisher  +   1415d ago
LMAO
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 Titan  +   1415d 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
Istanbull  +   1415d ago
Oh man, I hoped atleast 32 players for PS3. 360 is always holding back development on PS3...
ProGrasTiNation  +   1415d 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
Legionaire2005  +   1415d 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!!!
MWong  +   1415d 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.
#1.6.1 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report
iPad  +   1415d 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
ElementX  +   1415d 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
#1.8 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
Trunkz Jr  +   1415d 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.
#1.9 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
PotatoClock  +   1415d 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.
NeutralGamer  +   1415d 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!!!

Related image(s)
#1.10 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
fatalred alarm  +   1415d ago
what about digital downloads..
tanman777  +   1415d 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.
gamingdroid  +   1415d 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!!!
#1.10.3 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report
PotatoClock  +   1415d 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.
one2thr  +   1415d 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....
cavvac  +   1415d ago
FrontLines: Fuel of War - 50 players on the Xbox 360.
ProGrasTiNation  +   1415d 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
deafwing  +   1415d 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 ...
gamingdroid  +   1415d ago
So how does the Xbox 360 (or PS3 for that matter) limit the number of multi-player gamers on Battlefield?
Mista T  +   1415d ago
don't be stupid, that's why MAG looks like somebody sat on it
paintsville  +   1414d ago
Well if that's not trolling I don't know what is.
xbox360wiips3  +   1414d 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
hamburger123  +   1415d ago
Man

They should atleast do 32.
DelbertGrady  +   1415d 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.
#2.1 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Jellzy  +   1415d 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.
AKA  +   1415d 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!!!!!
Focker420  +   1415d 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.
femshep  +   1415d 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
chasegarcia  +   1415d 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..
#3 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(15) | Report | Reply
plb  +   1415d 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.
#3.1 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
bluwulf  +   1415d 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.
#3.2 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(15) | Disagree(19) | Report | Reply
Pandamobile  +   1415d 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.
bluwulf  +   1415d ago
Nothing special to 360 & PC owners owners = Uncharted 2 winning the most game awards & tech awards known to man since HL2. So by your own admission, the 360 definitely has 'nothing special'based on you citing those 2 engines.Outside of Bad Company? In 5 years, thats astounding. 1 title thats the bar for this gen gaming.

PS3's 'nothing special'Runs higher multiplatform #'s, which is why I said I highly doubt its the PS3 on call for restricting high player counts, when its proven to run them.

Optimizing goes a long way, and doesn't just mean clean code. It means being able to optimize your GPU/CPU load and have more features/Players/Physics/Light ing/MLAA etc. You say it as if its a bad thing. Tryarch doesn't optimize.. and well.. you know how that story goes. Saying 'meh they just optimize' is the same as saying "well they are really good programmers!"

And as always, all you're going on is hearsay, and you have 0 retail releases to back it up. As always, its a "BUH BUH THIS TITLE IN THE NEAR FUTURE IS BETTER THAN EVERYTHING ON THE PS3!" You're delusional.

Its personally hilarious to me that I can sit and ask you what engine performs better than KZ2 or Uncharted2, or GT5, or LBP on consoles at the current moment, and you'd have absolutely nothing to say. Or will you stick to your guns and admit that Bad Company is the most advanced engine on consoles to date?

Sony's first party games win GDC awards for the technology, and are noted by Dice themselves as using tech from sony games, in their engines. Im sure though, game developers have no idea what they are talking about, just pandamobile. Of course, you can never see how special sony engines are, not even when they are streaming in your face. You will always take an article & youtube video over substance.

Sticking to the subject, I said no 360 engines run high multiplayer counts, which is a fact. You respond with speculation about Frostbite and Cryengine3, Remind me.. Crysis2's multiplayer beta was 32 players right?

All you guys ever do is claim "ITS NOTHING SPECIAL" Yet Dice themselves are using the same lighting engine for realtime radiosity that GOW3 did and now its something special. with over 100 on n4g people claiming how amazing that tech demo is. Yeah, PS3 owners experienced it in an entire game. That was released.

But yes, the lighting was "nothing special" in GOW3.

Pandamobile:

Edited, I included PC owners as well in my original statement about UC2 winning more awards than HL2.

Nothing special is something cited by lots of 360 owners on the site as well, and seeing as how this is a console article. Its not a stretch to see most folks agreeing and PMing me nasty things aren't PC elitists. So thats I compared it specifically to the 360.

Hiding behind the PC while throwing the PS3 under the bus is lame Panda. So yes, the PS3 engines are nothing special compared to a maxed out PC rig. But they trounce all over other console engines.
#3.2.2 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(16) | Report
Pandamobile  +   1415d ago
You think I'm a 360 fanboy?

GG, Bluwulf.

I have a gaming rig and a PS3.
jetlian  +   1415d ago
really now
seeing as halo can bring 4 player split screen online. KZ3 has the worst looking split screen in the biz. LBP and warhawk about it and they won't win any awards.

COD:BO can't have 2 profiles on!! You clearly have no clue. Stream loading maps has nothing to do with gpu/cpu! It comes down to ram! If it was all about streaming you could just mash every level together and thats clearly not possible.

You can have 5000 low end objects or 500 higher end. But your not gonna have both. Chances are to get more characters in the game everything will have to be down graded.

tracking 256 chracters easier than having distruction

edit: unreal engine topples every ps3 engine

post images of ps3 best looking ingame and i'll show gears 2
#3.2.4 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(6) | Report
DeathMetal1474  +   1415d ago
So What
"but Killzone3's online runs at 30%", does killzone have vehicles on land and in air, does it have destruction? You can't even use the cover system from the campaign in KZ3 multi. It's run and shoot THAT'S IT. The only games that look really good on PS3 are super linear, heavily scripted games with static environments or a fixed camera angle, and in GT5's case those graphics are nothing special at all. Panda is right, quit your crying. And the awards argument means nothing, how many awards were from no name sites or PS3 fanboy sites. And I have a PS3 before you ask or accusse me of being an XBOX Fanboy.

The bottom line is that if PS3 could handle full destruction with more players DICE would implement it. It CAN't so they won't. It's not some conspiracy theory to make the consoles equal like all the fanboys think. Your tinfoil hats are too tight.LOL
#3.2.5 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(5) | Report
Big_Dom  +   1415d ago
I stopped at the first paragraph as you haven't a clue what you're even talking about. Load of bollocks, fella.
hoops  +   1415d ago
You actually think the PS3 can run 64 player running that engine with that destructible environment locked at 30fps?
KZ3, KZ2, GOD3, Uncharted 2/3 do NOT have a destructible enviroment like this game engine or the Cry engine.
When they is a game on the PS3 or Xbox360 with a game engine like that and can run 64 players and look like BF3. Then you have an argument.

Dude. Both the Xbox360 and PS3 are to blame. 5-6 year old technology will do it every time with 512 megs of total memory to add to that blasphemy.
#3.2.7 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(3) | Report
dead_eye  +   1415d ago
@Bluwulf Wow 2 awesome comments.
Big_Dom  +   1415d ago
If you're reading and talking shit, then I agree.
dead_eye  +   1415d ago
well at least I could read it all. didn't you give up
bluwulf  +   1415d ago
I;d say the PS3 has more evidence suggesting it can run larger games online, than the 360.

I'd say that the PS3 runs more advanced game engines as well.

Denying this is just doing so on n4g, but its not reality based.

Damn, missed!

edit:

"edit: unreal engine topples every ps3 engine "

LoL.. god damn bots..

God damn.

LBP won no awards?

Best Technology Award (2009)
Innovation Award (2009)[126] @ GDC...

How hard can you guys fail in one day?

I cant argue with made up facts from delusional 360 fans, I really can't.

So 2011, now BF3 is the most advanced game out? Its never anything previously on the 360 though, always in the future. Did u guys forget about the Rage cheerleading? Or did you jump ship after the console screens were released.. as usual?
#3.4 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(11) | Report | Reply
Pandamobile  +   1415d ago
Seriously dude, where are all these 360 fanboys you keep talking about?

Is everyone who criticizes the PS3 a 360 fanboy in your eyes?

And for the record, games like Mirror's Edge and Medal of Honor look better than any FPS I've seen on the PS3.
jetlian  +   1415d ago
wheres
the images to dispute me? no awards? as in read the full sentence and not alter the context of it. LBP and warhawk won't win any awards on graphics by SCALE and having 4 players!! DUH

When COD:BO came out and there was no duel sign-in ps3 fans call foul saying lbp and warhawk could do it. Well they don't have the same SCALE as COD:BO.
CaliGamer  +   1415d ago
If you can have more players then why wouldn't you? Doesn't make any sense.

Do as many as you can without a hit to performance, what's with the arbitrary number 24 anyway?
peowpeow  +   1415d ago
Maybe because it's a common factor of 3 and 4, also keeps the gameplay balanced for the map.

Like say having 3 squads of 4 vs another 3 squads..then again, 4 squads of 4 'sounds' better and that would mean 32 players

Please stop me lol
enkeixpress  +   1415d ago
"According to the GameInformer article, the console crowd hasn't complained to DICE about having less than the PC in previous Battlefield console games."

It's true. PC gamers complain more than console gamers.

If PC version only had 24 players support.. then the B3 forum would explode.

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.
#5 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
arjman  +   1415d ago
Isn't it because they recently said that 64 players was PC only, I had no idea they would make it PC exclusive and if I'd have known, I would've complained...
ct03  +   1415d ago
@enkeixpress
If you haven't experienced the epicness of a Battlefield 2 warzone with max players, then you simply don't know what you're missing out on.

Of course PC gamers would complain about a 24 player max because we DO know what we'd miss out on.
branchedout  +   1415d ago
"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 :)."

So, why are we fussing about a player limit that hasn't been announced yet?
plb  +   1415d ago
Because it gives people something to do I guess lol
Queasy  +   1415d ago
I think this is actually showing a little bit of disorganization in DICE/EA's communications about BF3.

They release info to retailers indicating 24 players but then say it isn't set in stone. Well, why release that info then?

They then offer two different explanations about why there is a console limit.
ElVeneno  +   1415d ago
I personally enjoy smaller team based matches. Helps with spawn kills a bit.
xX-PEIN-Xx  +   1415d ago
you have a point there, though I hate having to run around a map looking for people to kill.
ElVeneno  +   1414d ago
youre absolutely right, battlefield does offer a lot bigger maps so i can see your point.
oddexarcadia  +   1415d ago
They should have talked to Zipper and asked them how they got 64 players on their smallest MAG maps.
Pandamobile  +   1415d ago
They got 64 players on their smallest map by making it look like a last gen PC game with static environments.
Caffo01  +   1415d ago
and yet it is one of the best FPS this gen with lot of players in a match, huge maps, based on tactics and no lag,campers, noobs etc..
Pandamobile  +   1415d ago
Lol. MAG? One of the best FPS games this gen?

Really? It'd be lucky to be considered one of the top 25. It a generic shooter with a high player count. That's it.
DeathMetal1474  +   1415d ago
You forgot Panda
every shooter that's a PS3 exclusive is one of the best shooters this Gen. LOL
BlackTar187  +   1415d ago
Pand you are a good troll i have to admit
Bolts  +   1415d ago
The graphics are very console-ish but MAG is a great game. It might even be better than BC2 in terms of the epic scale brawl that can ensue. Unfortunately it was crippled by a terrible decision to split the community into three factions and now there's hardly anyone around to play domination with.
ThanatosDMC  +   1414d ago
You guys have never played MAG, huh?
Tommykrem  +   1415d ago
I always end up not playing the matches with 32, 40, 60 or 256 players or whatever the max limit is. But I would still very much like to see 64 players!
slavish3  +   1415d ago
lets wait for the dev's to reply instead of fighting like fangirls
#10 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
chasegarcia  +   1415d ago
Mag got that many players with servers. It is no secret.
#11 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
slavish3  +   1415d ago
mag doesnt look as good: fact
lil Titan  +   1415d ago
MAG looked good for its time, im sick if reading MAG doesnt look as good STFU
jetlian  +   1415d ago
lol
for its time? its onnly a year old. wait 5-10 years before you make such a statement
lil Titan  +   1415d ago
what other game looks near as good during that quarter of release...i thought so 256 with those graphics is something to applaud at, bring on the disagrees i know im right
jetlian  +   1415d ago
lol
I will agree it looks good for 256 people but at release there is/was better looking games already out!

Now if you looking at it from the 256 players angle its still looking good seeing as its the only one out with that feature
hoops  +   1415d ago
Mag looks like a Xbox1 or PS2 game with static backgrounds. Thats why they could do it. Sorry but its not a good looking game.
Try making MAG with a game engine like the one used in Crysis 1 or the Frost Bite engine that supports destructible environments and see how far you get
#11.2 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
RedRedSuitSDF  +   1415d ago
Why does everyone want it like MAG. MAG sucks. Zipper moved on from that game so fast to make another SOCOM.
BlackTar187  +   1415d ago
thats not true at all. Thye have given a bunch of stuff post release. Anyways on topic BF on PC were way better then any BC game that followed so comparing them is stupid. I was a huge BF1942,BF Vietnam, BF2 BF2142 player and could only stomach BC for about 2 weeks. Nowhere in the same league.
Focker420  +   1415d ago
Funny as they released a new update just a few short months ago.
RedRedSuitSDF  +   1415d ago
Even with the small post updates.. you know they're only doing that for MAG to make it look like they still care.. but to my point... MAG sucks! I hope they don't make it like that. I rather have smaller team based games, rather than huge cluster fucks in battle.

@killzone3.... my PSN gamer tag is same as my 360 one, and same as my name on here. Look it up.

And good for you ... you think Halo sucks and for some reason you think 4 on 4 the way halo is, is a lot of people.... I think MAG sucks. We're entitled to those opinions. And you can bet your ass that the MAG updates were for free... what? Were they going to charge to fix the game? That would be like SOny trying to charge you for all their PSN updates.
#12.3 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
Killzone3___  +   1415d ago
they improved the game alot for free .... i guess you don't have a ps3 so why bother talking to you >.< ...

befor release date i saw some videos and liked it but after buying it i didn't like the gameplay because it didn'tfeel like the videos i watched but after a while i get used o it and it's a fun game .... gaphics isn't that good but the game is fun if you are good at it , it's a hard game especially with ps move ...

and i can say the same thing with halo ......

i don't like to play against alots of people but i don't say it's sucks because i don't like that .....
#12.4 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
makingdamage  +   1415d ago
In my book MAG is better than bc beacuse it feels more like a real war. Now I´m only playing MAG even though I own bc2. BC is too much like cod, the feeling of war isnt there, you just run around killing people without any strategy.
Achemki  +   1415d ago
@midnighter20c
Umm, that's how they get paid. Jesus. I'm sure even developers have families and bills to pay. You can't earn a living by taking a year off. A studio without projects isn't much of a studio.
#12.6 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Kon  +   1415d ago
Let the console versions with the meh version. Concentrate all your efforts to the PC version
specialguest  +   1415d ago
Agreed
As much as I love my console games, I don't mind if Dice sh*ts all over the console version of BF3, and puts all of their effort on the PC version.
#13.1 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
Spinal  +   1415d ago
Captain Hindsight says: 'A Smart man owns a PC Gaming rig. That is all.'

Captain Obvious says: 'Duh.'
ASSASSYN 36o  +   1415d ago
I have played every single battlefield game released on consoles. And each time I complained on the forums over the size of multiplayer. Especially after playing 50 player matches in fuel of war.
Dannehkins  +   1415d ago
I am going to let the developers decide. DICE know how far they can push their system and they know what they want to present as a multiplayer experience.

It's all well and good saying we want more plays and then comparing it with the likes of MAG and such, but we're talking about a completely different engine here with completely different developers.

I am going to let them decide at the end of the day. 24 people compared to 64 people is a big difference, granted; but, if that 24 enables you to get a very good experience on a console, then so be it in my eyes.
Kon  +   1415d ago
Yes, it is all about having a good experience. If i were getting the consoles version i wouldn't mind if the game had only 24players, as long the multiplayer is good. But i don't think the consoles can handle that much happening at once. Destruction, cars, helicopters, jets, and 64 players? hardly.
#16.1 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
BlackTar187  +   1415d ago
yea i cant wait to play in groups of 4 with no mic support beyond the 4. it will be another game my whole clan will get pumped about then throw away once we realize you can only party with 4 people.
theballa113092  +   1415d ago
At least 32 is okay for me I guess.
Killzone3___  +   1415d ago
why not making the same game on ps3 and pc if xbox360 can't handle it .... ps3 can handle it , im sure of it , if it can handle god of war 3 then it's easy for the ps3 to handle this game ....

can anyone tell me what's the release date of battlefield 3 ? .. i saw some comments befor that they show the release date but i can't find it >.< ...
#18 (Edited 1415d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(10) | Report | Reply
Dr Face Doctor  +   1415d ago
2.5 times the players means 2.5 times the spawncampers, and I don't think console gamers could handle looking behind them that much.
ct03  +   1415d ago
Spawncampers in Battlefield? Really? Um, no.
MrR0ck5taR  +   1415d ago
64 or 24 it dont matter, If it plays good im all for it. If they can get a bigger number of players for the consoles that would be great. I see everyone mentioning MAG as a game with a huge player list, but lets not forget Resistance:Fall of Man had 40 players online, Resisitance2 added to that with 60. although no destructible environments in either, but the player count was there and they ran smooth. sometimes it was a clusterf**k tho. All in all B3 is looking to be a title i will purchase and enjoy despite the number of players. Game on peeps
bumnut  +   1415d ago
If you have only played Battlefield games on a console you will be used to 24 players, so does it really matter ?
gypsygib  +   1415d ago
DICEs first mistake was listening the negative comments on their forums, 90% of comments on game forums are negative and often represent a very loud but small minority of the consumer base.

And I liked Cole's new look!
Xfanboy  +   1415d ago
this what he said!!
Senior Gameplay Designer Alan Kertz responded to a question about why the PS3 won't have 64 players by saying, "Of course, we didn't say "oh console players don't want 64 players.' Network performance and cpu/gpu power and memory."

http://twitter.com/Demize99...

That goes for both consoles sorry..
xtremegamerage  +   1415d ago
Not quite sure why it's 24players?

Sorry but gpu excuse just does not cut it, neither does ram.

Dice sort your memory management system out, lod etc.
xbox360wiips3  +   1414d ago
24 is the minimum i think its gonna be at least 32
thebudgetgamer  +   1415d ago
is it more impressive for devs like dice or cryteck too make awesome game on such a grand platform as a pc, or is it more impressive that devs like nd or gg make awesome games on obsolete hardware?
Big_Dom  +   1415d ago
The way I see BF3 working for a console is this: BC2 did have some very large maps, some that could easily have been in BF2 or 1942 on PC and no one would have batted an eyelid at. Heavy Metal, Arica, and Atacma desert being the three main examples. Jets could easily work on those maps. All DICE would have to do is open up the sky for the jets to roam in.

Visually, this is where the console is going to take the biggest hit. Regardless, it should still look amazing. All they have to do here is have it a level or two above what BC2 was, and it will still look stunning. I can live with jaggies. I can live with the odd low res texture. So long as the core experience is there, I don't care.

FB2 has been in development for years, so I'm sure they have it running fine on consoles by now. It's only an issue of player count, which I'm sure they could at least bump it to 32 minimum if they tried, and who knows, even more.

The single player is said to have co-op, so that's prompted me to buy it for console on day one anyway. I'll be building a new PC, and having this game come out around the time I'd planned on doing so is a nice bonus. Best of both worlds. I'll be getting it both on console and PC, because it's going to be just that good.
gcolley  +   1415d ago
BC1 had big maps, BC2 had lil' maps
CZert  +   1415d ago
Common with today's technology we can have more than 24 players and not only that ... we deserve it !!
turgore  +   1415d ago
they should give the option of 64 players on consoles WITHOUT destructable environments or 24 with.
Queasy  +   1415d ago
Developers don't have infinite time and money. Creating games (and any software really) is a constant trade-off between what you want and what you can get in to meet a deadline.

I would think that your suggestion would be at the very bottom of the feature list.
gcolley  +   1415d ago
go play CoD
xbox360wiips3  +   1414d ago
cant be done
without destruction would be the opposite of where they want to be
if u want 60 plus no destruction play mag resistance 2 or build a pc
The_Nameless_One  +   1415d ago
Grasping at straws are we now DICE?
Netic  +   1415d ago
Anyways. PC has the edge right now in terms of technology compared to those 4-5 years old consoles... It doesn't get any simple than that.

If you think that MAG and other games proves that ps3 and x360 can achieve 64 players in BF3 well ask yourself this :

- Was PC the leading development platform?
- Was it meant for DX11?
- The game had an open world or some narrow maps and corridors?
- The game had full destructible environment ?
- The game had advanced physics?

on and on

BF:BC2 on DX11 with 4x antialising 16x anisotropic filtering at 1920*1080 on pc is astonishing and when I played the ps3 version well... in terms of graphics I was like... wow they took out a lot of stuff that PC can bring easily.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
30°

A Game Where You Can Snuggle Snowmen

40m ago - Anyone can build a snowman. A good snowman, though? That requires ice-cold nerves, high-level spa... | PC
40°

Unboxing Of The 20th Anniversary PS4

1h ago - Blogger Minimur12 of Wololo.net was one of the lucky winners of one of the PS4 Anniversary editio... | PS4
40°

[ABG] Hollow - Visually Stunning Sleepy Hollow Inspired Haunted Horse Ride

1h ago - Hollow is a wonderful haunted horse ride inspired by The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, full of spooky... | PC
40°

Popzara Podcast Episode 06: Super Holiday Gaming Special

1h ago - It’s a gaming-centric podcast yet again, with roundtable discussions on everything from Civ: Beyo... | Culture
Ad

Start Making Games for the PS4

Now - Want to design the next generation of video games? Start learning game design today. Click for more info on how to get started. | Promoted post
40°

The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky FC Evolution Announced for PS Vita

1h ago - Nihon Falcom, well known for creating the Ys franchise, is remaking one of their RPG classic. It... | PS Vita