DICE's Patrick Bach has explained why the console versions of Battlefield 3 have a lower player count than the PC version, stating that issues with "CPU, memory and bandwidth" are to blame.
Just STFU and develop the game gosh. There's like 50 news posts from EA/DICE every frekin day ENOUGH!.
Cant expect much from 6yr old hardware. Console gamers should be thankful the games even appearing on console.
Getting it on PC so i dont care :P Why bother paying a royalty to MS or Sony then up end with a lesser version.
^^ because I don't even have PC in the first place
"Cant expect much from 6yr old hardware. Console gamers should be thankful the games even appearing on console" Another military shooter? I'll pass...10x over.
They don't want to admit that they aren't talented at programming for consoles. Plenty of games have looked/played great, had large maps, and had exponentially more players than this. You're not fooling anyone with a brain, DICE.
Well given the destruction, Jets in game, Engine running at its maximum potential. I say your still getting an awesome Bad Company 2 update for consoles. I mean umm. Still getting a great game either way. NO game has really pushed destruction limits like what DICE is trying to do with Battlefield 3. That is sole reason I believe console games will have the limited player count. Simply to much for consoles to handle. You could always just tell them to do it repeatedly and get Battlefield 3 for consoles in 2013 or something when they find a way to optimize the engine enough to do so. I can't wait to play this on my PC.
Honestly the real issue I have is that every time I play BC2 on PC (32 players) roughly 80% of every team is snipers. I wish they would limit the sniper count per team. I can't imagine a match with 40+ snipers running around.
Its funny how u PC gamers think PC gaming is the best thing since sliced bread ........ consoles rule the gaming world hands down. There are many great titles that won't be comin to PC at all so enjoy Battlefield 3 because its the only game worth talkin about on PC ..... buying $500 end cards and constantly updated ur PC isn't wort it , so I will be enoying BF3 on my PS3 !!!
I like how all of the sudden N4G members know more about console hardware tech and architecture than DICE, a video game developer who are widely regarded as some of the best in the business. Did it ever cross your thick, fanboy skull that if a developer with a world-renowned reputation says that something cannot be done on consoles, or a specific console, that said thing CANNOT ACTUALLY BE DONE due to hardware limitations? it is fun to think that you spent 300 dollars and now have the strongest video game console ever devised, but you would most likely be wrong.
Devs: "We can only fit 100 Balloons in room #1, and 40 in room #2" Random Person: "Well why can't you fit 100 balloons in room #2?" Devs: "Because room #2 is only 1/2 the size of Room #1" Random Person: "Oh you guys are just lazy" Devs: "ಠ_ಠ"
@HOC "They don't want to admit that they aren't talented at programming for consoles. Plenty of games have looked/played great, had large maps, and had exponentially more players than this. You're not fooling anyone with a brain, DICE. " Your always saying the problem is the developers, for not using the uber cell tech that PS3 possesses, which angels crafted in the mount Doom. The fact is, consoles are limited hardware, which obviously can't same that PC can. You have seen games that have had something that some others doesn't, so you assume all can have everything? Why doesn't Killzone 3 have bigger maps, or over 250 player mp? I have seen that other games have them. Becouse the hardware is not capable of it with KZ3's visuals.
Granted, Battlefield 3, due to destructible environments, is probably more memory constrained. That being the case, 24 is just fine. All the people whining about it didn't seem to care so much when other big-selling shooters were released with pathetic 8 or 10 player multiplayer.
There is nothing pathetic about 8 or 10 players. When will people learn the difference between quality and quantity?
@Kurt The Player count if small means the maps have to be small also so :P Some games it works well others do not.. FPS haveto be face paced and you cant have that if u have a big map with small player count
@Kurt Russel, we're talking multiplayer, not AI bots. if you have stupid friends the quality will be bad. Quantity is important when it comes to multiplayer.
Nope, quantity doesn't matter. What matters is how the game is designed. If the design works best in a 3v3, then why would you want more players ? That doesn't mean the MP won't be as fun. You can play halo in 4v4, and it's still fun and intense.
@Aloren, That's fine for arcadey games like Halo which dont intend to be at all realistic in any way but Battlefield and Resistance are, very much, attempting for a realistic feel so the number of opponents really does make a difference. Having said that 24 is quite a lot. It's the same with racing sims. Even the 16 players of GT5 barely cuts it. In real world races you have dozens of racers.
"Quantity is important when it comes to multiplayer. " That is totally subjective how the game has been designed.
Lol Cuz the guys in mareketingg really help develop ehte game and what not geez :) dont read em if u dont want to :)
Cause if they'd all gather up at one place the console would explode trying to figure out how to even start rendering that
I'll be playing it on PC so this is of no concern to me.
Thats the best decision just like any multiplat out there. I can preorder the game now on PC for 50usd.
Where is the $50 preorder for PC? I looked at the EA Store and it's $60. Where did you get it for $50?
DICE: cuz we are laaaaazy...zzzZZ
DICE: Man consoles have the smae resoultion as cell phones. Most of you games couldn't handle the destruction of Angry Birds.
It's pretty self-explanatory, and DICE has promised those purchasing the Console version that the multiplayer still suits the lower player count and remains a thrilling exprience...
The 360 CPU runs at 3.2ghz and has 3 cores with 6 threads with each core running at 3.2ghz. Memory wise I can understand as 512mb in this day and age is extremely low. Graphics yes that too especially when the memory is being shared across the cpu and graphics chip in the 360 in the same sense this applies to the PS3 as well. Microsoft and Sony should have put 1gb of ram in their systems at least...So I am hoping that next gen we will hopefully see 2gb or more ram minimum 2gb at least. As these days PC's on average tend to have between 2-4gb of ram and heavy users opt betwen 4-8gb or those like me who saw prices go down tons a few years back and given the price of ram these days being cheap picked up OCZ 4x2gb DDR2 for something like £50 new.
<<The 360 CPU runs at 3.2ghz and has 3 cores with 6 threads with each core running at 3.2ghz>> The 3 cores of the 360 COMBINED are slower than one core of an Intel i7. Quote: each 360 CPU core is approximately a quarter of the same-frequency Nehalem (i7) core. Add in approximately 1.5 times better performance because of the second, shared thread for 360 and around 1.3 times for Nehalem, multiply by three cores and you get around 70 to 85 per cent of a single modern CPU core on generic (but multi-threaded) code. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
Yes, of course you would disagree, because you think Gigahertz and number of cores speak for themselves. Just consider this: The 360 came out in a time when Intel and AMD could only fit TWO cores onto this die size. Yet, the 360 has three cores. Something's got to give, you know. P.S.: I won't even add the source for this because you'll disagree anyway with things you don't like to hear. But if you're curious, it's somewhere on Anandtech.
Expect console gamers to pick up articles from 2006 praising console tech as next gen(which it really wasnt even at that time) and apply those articles to todays time lol.
I think you missed my point, you are comparing an intel i7...Not everyone has the latest of everything and in my opinion PC gamers are the wost of the bunch as their stupidity has no bounds when it comes to wasting tons and tons of money to constantly keep up with the ever changing technology in PC parts. How much is the highest end card these days? Around £500. My point was that given the fact the 360 is not upgradeable it still has the CPU capicity given its ability to still perform at reasonable levels. Compare the 360 cpu to those with say Amd Athlon AM2+ cpu's running dual core. But overall the lacking areas are the ram and graphics.
@SuperSaiyan You realise its the same people whom you call stupid that are funding the tech for your next console, infact they probably are using it at the moment. No one needs to buy 500usd GPUs to enjoy games. Thats for people who want to be playing on multiple screens, lol you might be getting that with Xbox 1080. 100usd GPUs are more then enough to provide an experience superior to consoles.
Cor! It's just ladies one in one out with this kind of party chat... They're beating down the door!
@SuperSaiyan4 So those helping push Tech forward are stupid?... Glad to know where you're coming from in all this.
Dude the ancient Pentium 4 ran close to 4GHZ, there was even a dual core model. you cant really compare processor performance based on MHZ alone. The pentium 4 would get raped by an I7 running even at 2.4ghz single core. So its not about the MHZ. Also the memory bandwidth of the GPUs on this consoles is about 25gb/s Any mid range GPU(which costs 100usd) on the PC today has over 100gb/s memory bandwidth. Now that is a huge difference.
I know its not all about the GHZ I know I build and configure PC's and know my fair share on what is what. My point was that the 360 CPU still has a lot of muscle in processing power given it has 3 cores each running at 3.2ghz yes data calculations per second and level cach all take and affect of course also on whether it has the latest MMX instructions and so fourth. But all in all the 360 cpu still has the ability to do much still late on in life. For example take the PS3 it has a very old GPU but has the CELL but developers are still able to bring out really great looking games on the PS3 despite its setback which is its GPU. Now the 360 has a superior gpu but its setback an be seen as it uses DVD's still. But the 2 things the PS3 and 360 have in common for today is that they both lack the memory and graphics ability to directly compete with PC head on. No matter what the consoles will never be ahead of the PC unless both companies are willing to pour stupid amounts of money into tech. But the advantage of consoles is that their purpose is for gaming, just turn it on and away you go no messing about with anything. Also developers can always push consoles further to get more out of them than they can with PC's because PC's are always changing. I am sure if we were still using say a 9800GT 512mb card developers would have found ways of pushing out far more visuals but they are never given the chance.
Dont be stupid PC gamers are NOT funding next gen consoles, that has to be the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time. PC gamers are just those who have medium-high end systems that just like seeing pretty visuals I know I used to be one of them wasting tons of money every few months on new parts until I woke up. And some retard just likes hitting the disagree button..Nice well lets hope whoever you are you dont get hit by a bus and then run over by another bus then sucked into the engine through the manifold and out you come as shit.
So where do you think the RSX or Xenos GPU turned out from? Sony and MS didnt develop them in house. Yes they were based on existing PC technologies, they arent the same GPUs that are present in the PC however it was the initial PC tech that was used to make those GPUs had that not been present it would have cost Sony and MS billions to develop and even then may not have been upto par to what they are today. Before you start disagreeing, Sony did try developing their own GPU with the Cell. They intended to use 2 Cells in the PS3. But look how they failed and in the end had to retort to Nvidia to save the day. MS would have had a simular fate had they tried to develop a GPU on their own. Hence PC gamers play a large part in funding tech, if they didnt buy stuff, Nvidia and AMD wouldnt be developing new GPUs either.
To further correct you, PC gamers are not funding anything, in fact you guys are the ones who are stupid enough to buy high end cards in the first place at ridiculous prices. Also consoles fund themselves, with the sales of consoles you automatically get all the components you need as a full gaming system, so no your theory of pc gamers funding consoles is wrong. I could say that console gamers are funding PC gamers, we buy the so-called obsolete hardware and that money gets put towards new tech which leads to you pc gamers getting higher end cards and so-fourth.
SuperSaiyan You need to read the following article: http://www.tomshardware.com... "According to Jon Peddie Research, 46 percent of the dollars spent in 2009 on stuff like boutique PCs, high-end processors and graphics cards, SSD's, specialized gaming mice, keyboards, speakers, monitors and others come from PC enthusiasts." 9.5billion usd were spent on high end hardware in 2009. 46% of that was from PC gamers, which is a huge amount of money going toward development of hardware.
I've had my 5850 for a year and a half and it still crushes any game I throw on it @1080p with the highest settings. So stop with the "constant upgrading" myth. Most PC enthusiasts upgrade just for the sake of upgrading not because they must do.
As long as we can have reasonable player counts online, I don't care so DICE/EA, stop talking, focus on the game and do your jobs please.
God damn console owners get over it, BOTH THE 360 AND PS3 ARE DATED HARDWARE. And no the PS3 is not being held back by the 360 in this case. Quite your bitching, face the facts, and be ready to enjoy what will be a fucking awesome game, even with 24 players.
Haha PC gamers are coming out of the wood work, nice to see you guys, where have you been these past years? Anyway, I'm a console gamer and I'm really not worried about the player count. As long as the game runs smoothly I think it'll be fine.
Busy been playing games ;-)
Haha I thought that right when I wrote it. You guys gotta come out more often all this console war crap is getting old we need that third party to through in some plot twists :)
All I want is to play PC v PS3.If that means only 12 PC players v 12 PS3 players I would b happy...But by reading this my dreams of having a redefining FPS is out of tha widow ;(
don't even need to be told why to be honest
Next question will be: What console version will be better? In your opinion. Playastation 3 xbox 360
Why ask something if the answer is simple......its gonna be the xbox version ofcouse.
BFBC2 was identical on both and both had problems with the frames per second tho DICE dose a great job when it comes to porting games
Clearly BF3 is a memory and CPU heavy game given the highly destructible environments. Add to that hardware that can't scale in the areas of processing speeds and memory and its pretty clear where the consoles bottle neck. That all said, BFBC2 was fantastic with just the 24 so I don't see this as a major issue.
I think they could of pulled off 32 players... BC2 could of used 4 more ppl per team based upon the map sizes alone... The action is gonna so spread out in BF3 with larger maps and more vehicles... It could slow down gameplay even more...
Funny how people complain about lack of players or are worried the console versions won't have nice graphics then say they don't want a new console gen for another 5 years. PS3/360 now are what Wii was when it released, last gen (5 year old) hardware.
i will be running BF3 @ 1080p @ 40+ FPS, with 60 Players. Thats the difference.
They are going to saturate us with pics and vids of the PC version for months to the point we won't care until the game is out and in our consoles.
Personally, I'd much rather have average graphics and ten times the amount of players. Sure games like crysis and killzone are pretty and good, but I'd trade half the memory textures for more players, it makes the gameplay so much better. I hear people complain that high player counts make bad games, but it's really just poor execution. For instance, MAG supporter the high player count, but restricted gameplay with map size, so you would only ever run into about 8 players at a time max, out of 256. It's just tweaking it so you get a good balance of crazy, fun, hectic gameplay, and it still being playable, and fun for the thousandth time.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.