At C2E2 DICE announced what limitations Xbox 360 and PS3 players have to live with besides 24 player limit. Check the story!
noooo ! jet fighting wont be so good then :( we need big maps!
Get a PC, because that is the only way to play BF3. 360/PS3 is really going to be Battlefield 3: Modern Combat.
id love to get a decent gaming pc but i dont have the money for it...soo ps3 is the way to go for me :(
Well, im not too worried, I know PC version will be better but I don't have a gaming PC, I don't even have desktop PC at all. Tbh I don't even want one, I dont have space for it etc, I'll just take console version and be happy :)
I think PS3 owners should ask them why they're not getting more players. MAG has...256? "It's because EA had to pander to the 360 and its LIVE architecture Zipper managed to pull off MAG with 256 players, so there really is no excuse why the PS3 version shouldn't be able to support more." Did you really just blame the Xbox? Weak sauce! I would think this would be a good time for Sony to step in and make sure devs are taking advantage of their hardware. But then again, maybe Sony doesn't want 3rd party software being better than their own.
@I_find_it_funny: Yup, I'm right there with you. The only thing I have is a "Good" laptop. But all I'm saying is don't be surprised(or even mad) if we get the short end of the stick, which looks like we will. I played and loved BF2:MC but it was no BF2.
"I think PS3 owners should ask them why they're not getting more players. MAG has...256?" MAG also looks like ass. lol
Zipper managed to pull off MAG with 256 players, so there really is no excuse why the PS3 version shouldn't be able to support more. At least they're developing the PC version with the PC architecture in mind. Too many PC games have been neutered this generation thanks to console limitations and the mindset that every version has to be equal. edit @ Fred-G-Sanford: Most games can't even pull of 16 player matches without lag, yet MAG manages to pull off some of the largest battles ever while maintaining little to no lag with those high numbers. It also does not, as you say, look like "ass". What it offers and what you get makes it one of the best online shooters of this generation. The online community is also very tight-knit. Yes, you will get idiots running around without a semblance of what teamwork should be. That happens in every online game. But if you examine the dedication that true MAG players devote to keeping their clans running smooth, you will see that the community is also top-notch. A game as niche as MAG and it still garners a large amount of support to this very day. That is very impressive for such an ambitious project.
Lol PS3 isnt being limited because of the 360. Sony fanboys are only looking for excuses why the PS3 version isnt anywhere close to PC version. Its time a developer is actually making use of PCs, which is why the game is distancing itself from the console counterparts. Infact i would call BF3 on PC exclusive, since its a different game.
"What it offers and what you get makes it one of the best online shooters of this generation."
Lol at all the console gamers crying about PC being expensive. Its actually the other way around, they just dont know it. Must be fun paying more for every game rolling out lol, even to go online in some cases.
No console version will be comparable to the PC version when a developer actually develops the PC version as a standalone game, without taking into consideration how that will affect the console versions. Do you even play games on PC? You will realize what DICE has actually done. They haven't pulled a Crytek; they really are taking the PC version seriously. That is something to be taken into consideration when we are living in a gaming generation that ends up putting out PC games that might as well be ports of console games. @ Dark_King Why wouldn't DICE be able to support 64 players on the console version then?
@thereapersson MAG was made from the ground up to support 256 players.Lots of sacrifices were made to get that player count.Not to mention Zipper made the severs MAG uses just for it.Also its not because of live,besides EA runs their own severs for games.
@Active - Of course the PS3 version is being limited by the 360. No one expects 256 player BF3, but having a player count as low as 24 when you've already played games with 60, 64, 128, and 256 players is a huge downgrade, and the only logical reason for this to be the case is the desire to make the console versions the same... which they won't be anyway. Obviously the destructible environments are a huge factor in lower player count for the consoles, but the PS3 could at least handle 32 player matches, if not more. What's the highest player count achieved on the 360? It wouldn't bother me at all to have less detailed visuals and a higher player count. I'm sick of these minor skirmishes that pretend to be a huge battle, which is another reason why MAG appeals to me so much. @Sanford - To each his own, but MAG is the only online FPS of this generation that keeps me coming back for more, which for me means it's the best. It doesn't look like "ass", but I like how graphics are what determines a game's quality for you. If you're a PC only gamer, I can understand your graphics snobbiness even if I don't agree with it. If you're a 360 only gamer, your emphasis on graphics is borderline comical. OT - I don't mind smaller maps since the player count is going to be so much lower. Hopefully the maps will be smaller than BF:BC2's, because that game felt empty after the epic battles of MAG. They should leave the jets out entirely with these smaller levels. It will just look stupid to have slow flying jets in the sky. One of the many reasons I like MAG is the limited amount of player controlled vehicles. It takes me out of the big battle experience to see players driving/flying vehicles around awkwardly and crashing into stuff like morons. I prefer the copters of CoD and planes of MAG that are controlled by the AI. It just looks cooler and more like a real pilot is doing his job. Two cents thrown.
Sony fans are in full damage control mode failing to realise PS3 is just about as hardware limited as the 360. Giving example of Mag is just fail. Want to play BF3 the way its ment to be played get a mid range pc that will cost you 500-600usd.
i KNEEEEEEEW IT
This ain't the first time a game has been dumbed down on the PS3 because of the 360 format. It's not that the 360 can't handle bigger and better games because it can. But it has everything to do with the "FACT" that it is MS policy not to have mandatory installs. The reason for this (as most of you already know) is because of the 360 arcade version has to be able to play any game out there with little to no HDD. Then there is the fact that MS charges the Publishers more for multiple disc games for the 360 so devs try to keep most games on a single DVD9 disc, which these days is laughable. Dev's have always tried to keep the console version of multiplatform gameplay almost identical. If MS sold HDD in every 360 and allowed for mandatory installs for certain games aswell as not charging the publisher extra for multiple disc games. Then this wouldn't be a problem and gameplay wise (not graphically) the console version on both the PS3 and 360 would be close to the pc. Looks like i'll be getting this game for the pc.
@Substance101 - Fail? How about PC elitists showing up to troll console articles? Too damn funny. I used to game on PC. No thanks. This is about the console versions, and there is no good reason why PS3 should be limited to 24 players when it's been shown to be capable of more. They will attempt to make the console versions the same, and will fail at it anyway. If they made a PS3-centric version, there is no doubt that it could have at least 32 players. I even said I wouldn't mind downgraded visuals to get there. Hell, with downgraded visuals they could do the same on 360. Wow. lol
@thereapersson "What it offers and what you get makes it one of the best online shooters of this generation" The only people who would agree with you are the people that still play MAG. MAG doesn't do anything to define itself in this generation. OMG it has 256 players--I never once (for longer than a minute) found a game with 256 players. Mag does one thing new--large # of players for a shooter on console.
This is a reality check for ps3 fanboys imo. It's about time the pc stood up and started gettin warmed up. For the past 5 years its been half asleep with an arm tied being its back. all the "powa of teh cell" fanboys really thought they were competing with pc hardware. Pc gaming is where the bigs play. Ur about to see why.
Interview said that the air space would be slightly larger. Makes sense though about the map sizes. If the console versions wont support 64 players then there is no need for a 64 player size map.
My thoughts exactly... :) Less players, the maps should be smaller...
But the bad thing is a certain console could easily support 64 players. It has already done 60 players with large maps and 256 players with monster maps.
Not on Frostbite 2.0. Get a clue, BF3 is way more technologically advanced than MAG, or Halo, or any of those console games. You get less players, you get smaller maps, you have MUCH less powerful systems, be glad you'll be able to play it at all.
Doesn't EA run it's own servers for all of their games?
No, jets will have a broader airspace to fly in only ground troops will have a more limited space. "The maps themselves will be scaled down on consoles with the out of bounds zones surrounding the maps. As for planes? Planes will have a much larger airspace to fly around in compared to the players on the ground." Also; "Other news that came out of the Chicago showing what PS3 did a build of the game was shown at the show, and the attendees were impressed by the graphics on the PS3 version." CAN'T WAIT FOR MY PS3 AND PC VERSION :-)
Disappointing... But I'm sure that it won't be as bad as it sounds.. so..
maybe just some corners of the maps and some trees and houses.
Sticking 32 players in a map designed for 64 would be a bad idea. It sounds perfectly reaosnable to scale down the maps for less players.
It sounds reasonable to scale the maps. But that isn't there sole thought process. There is still a pervasive mentality in console development that believes every game needs to be shoot, die, and respawn in 5 seconds is necessary to satisfy the console crowd. Immediate action is the order of the day...and that is just no longer the fact of the matters at hand.
thats the reason why the main battlefield series should stay pc exclusive (cause only pcs can handle the high player count without sacrificing much of what makes battlefield, battlefield) and make bad company the console equivalent (cause its already basically a smaller version of battlefield) there really is no point on keeping the same name if it isnt the same game edit: i do commend dice on not gimping the pc version like other games have done, i just dont think they should be riding on the bf name for the console counterpart if they arent going to be delivering the same game...id be happy with bad company being the console exclusive version of bf
Large maps with several objectives would need people working together. That is something that very rarely happens on console. People usually go off alone, with little to no teamwork at all. PC gaming on the other hand is different the crowd is more mature and tends to work together. Hence larger maps are more suited to that demographic.
"Large maps with several objectives would need people working together." <- MAG The Domination maps arent large... they're HUGE!
Yeah the PC guys should be rejoycing that a dev has actually recognised a difference between consoles and PC's and have adjusted their game accordingly. There should be no more "cut & paste" ports, it should be designed for the platform it is made for. PC's have faster hardware and better network infastructure so the game should fit that.
It's good to see developers not fucking up pc release in favor of console releases, as BF is no doubt a pc ip. That said, too bad I'll be stuck with ps3 version. Let's just hope they put the Move plans to work.
Eventhough I don't own a gaming rig I'm glad to hear that DICE won't be gimping the PC version for the sake of consoles. I'm pretty sure the console versions will still be great fun.
I'm pretty sure the 1 guy who doesnt aggree with you must have mis-read your statement. Bubbles.
Well this sort of makes sense given that the players will be much less. If they kept the same maps with a fraction of the players, that'd be a complete waste. Everyone would find one choke point (given the player count) and they'd just battle there anyways. As for vehicles, I'm sure that Rush mode, or whatever it was called, from Bad Company will return. Therefore you can use whatever vehicle you want since the maps are 'longer'. It's really simple though. If you want the unfiltered Battlefield experience, get it for PC (if you have one that can run it). Otherwise be satisfied with what they can accomplish on the PS3/360.
My PC can barely handle Minecraft and I'll be getting the PS3 version, that said I'm glad they're not restricting the PC version just because the consoles can't handle as much as modern PCs.
you buy games for your PS3, save some money and buy a pc to game on (<500 dollars on a budget) It isnt shit to save up by the time this is out. PC hardware is cheap as hell, you can get a decent dual core/quad for 250-350ish new and then only need a video card and a little over-clocking and you'll be getting a good taste of the PC world. Video card - $79 - 150 on a budget to play game very decently.
First off, Alot of people use gamefly so the dont have to buy games or get them at a much cheaper discount. Then they can resell the game to put money towards the next purchase. Secondly, a good taste of the PC world and what games would those be? So you are telling me for a 79-150 bucks for a videocard you could run Battlefield3 well? Ummm i dont think so. The gameplay videos that you seen was running on dual 580's, which will cost you about 700-800 bucks for two.
Bloody Napkin Every considered, they are showing early footage of BF3 which is probably highly unoptimised and they are probably sporting GTX 580 for promotional purposes. Companies like Nvidia and AMD like to do this so their hardware get popularity. A GTX 460 costing 150usd will probably be more then enough to play the game. by the time gets released i bet the GTX 560 will be going for 150usd. Thats the thing with PC gaming prices drop fast and performance keeps increasing. Not like console where it costed you 600usd at launch yet even bought today it still performs the same like it did 5 years back.
Yeah, and if you go AMD quad, rather than Intel, you can shave 2 or 3 hundred off your CPU estimate. A 955BE is $135, you really can't beat the price /performance ratio with anything that Intel makes.
it will be good on the consoles// great on the PC. You will enjoy the game either way to be honest. There's no way the consoles could handle so many player count along with full destructible environment plus the new visuals Frostbite 2.0 will be pushing.
Of course its only natural. I would hate for the game to have huge maps but very little people. I had that happen to me before and it isnt fun running around for a long time trying to find the enemy.
aww that sucks, I hope I can get my gaming PC in time otherwise it will be PS3 for me.
It's funny, they forgot to mention that even with the Map Size restrictions, that jet's can still fly out of bounds and beyond.
This is for THIS game people should upgrade or buy a PC. eat pastas for a year, sell some goods, but you have to play it on PC ! Mine is ready, oh nom nom nom
Dude, a lot of people don't like to Game on a pc, Yes the games look better but the K/M combo isn't for everyone, i'm one of those who prefer to sit back on a comfy chair & just play with a ps3/360 pad
For some reason I'm getting from your comment that they should either limit down the PC version or suppose to go up with the consoles on a PC oriented series.
You can do that with a PC too. Sure it takes a Nasa engineer to hook up the HDMI from the back of your TV to the video card, and sure, PC's only support both PS3 and X360 controllers, but I see your point.
They should focus more on the console versions since many people will be playing this game online, not sure about PC as I could careless.
PC players can play Online as well. In fact, PC has the best online gaming service and community.
Haha did he really just say that. There are more people playing online on PC everyday then all consoles combined.
Substance, i agree that was a stupid comment he made. But your comment is even dumber then his. No way the amount of PC player online in a days time amounts anywhere close to both consoles combined, even one console for that matter. I have no clue why PC gamers think consoles gamers are stupid to PC's and dont have a clue. Steam averages about 2 million players per day. COD alone on either console logs that in on a days time, so take your BS else where.
http://news.bigdownload.com... People just don't realise how many people game on PC. At the very moment there are 1.7 millions people on steam. And on steam alone. You can't even do the math. While I don't know if PC has more player than both combined there are wayyyyy more people than you console player think. You have been endoctrined by media thinking PC was dead.
@bloodyNapkin Cod & halo are about the only game that is played in high number onconsoles. Other games not so much. Ever considered how many people are playing on Wow everyday? yea thats in millions. Add in the other MMOs its huge. Then add in the number of people playing games like: Counter strike, Warcraft 3, Team fortress 2, Starcraft 1 & 2. Thing with console gamers is they keep jumping from new game to new game. Never really supporting any older games. With PC you will find many of the older games are still alive. Counting the number of people online playing all those games is simply mindboggling. By the way just for your info more people are playing BC2 on PC then on any console. Lastly yea as i did mention the only games on console played in huge number is COD & halo, aside that everything else is in small numbers.
One of the stupidest thing i've ever read, good one.
PC Master Race
i think everyone already knew it would have smaller maps.
Big Maps 1600 MP or $15 PSN
And free on the PC.
I think its a good idea. If in fact they can not increase the number of players on bf3 for consoles then making the maps smaller will be a good idea. Come on BF3 Shipment map!
But DICE is probably the only multiplat company that finally does it right for both consoles and PC. PC clearly have the advantage on both scale and player count, this doesn't mean the 360 and PS3 are out in the dust, they've trying give as much life for half-a-decade technology. -End statement
I don't see this as a problem, but then again, I've getting Battlefield 3 for 360/PC. Honestly, I can't understand why people are bringing up MAG as a reason why DICE should up the player count. MAG has nowhere NEAR the kind of real-time terrain deformation and micro/macro-destruction that Frostbite or Frostbite 2.0 offers, so cut the crap fools. You guys love blaming the 360 for everything, but you conveniently "forget" the fact that Zipper had to take a number of shortcuts to get MAG to where it is today.
PC gaming dosent just account for steam people seem to think that don't know why. theres other things aswell. xfire etc. But then on top of that theres people that just don't install that stuf and play games anyways and they will be in there millions aswell. I wish people would stop comapring how many people do what lol whats the sense ffs. :) I play pc and consoles so effectively i add to both portions of the argument ps3/xbox/pc/wii All i know end of the day when we all sit down and get down to it we all doing the same damn thing. GAMING. Be that on a larger are smaller scale in this case ill buy the game on PC and console for they will now offer up to different experences making it worth my money. Hense WINNING.
double post :/
I can't believe people are blaming the 360 for smaller map sizes. get real, its because the current gen hardware is old news. you know, the 512mb of ram and 5year old cpu/gpu's. ignorance at it finest.
Anyone who has played MAG recently knows it has this gen COD graphics(better lighting than COD) and a huge battlefield so it is easy to blame 360.
you keep thinking that and ps3s exclusive games will keep making your pc exclusives and multiplatform games look like snes