PS3, Xbox 360 “can’t handle” over 24 players in Battlefield 3, says DICE dev

As we all may be aware of, the PC version of DICE’s highly-anticipated military shooter Battlefield 3 will feature massive multiplayer maps alongside a support of up to 64 players. However, console players will get a watered down version, which will include a meager support of 24 players plastered across scaled down multiplayer maps for the manifest low sum of total players.

An interesting tweet by DICE developer Johan Andersson clarified that consoles are too old to handle more than 24 players, unlike PC’s which can.

The story is too old to be commented.
Pandamobile2981d ago

Well no shit. I thought everyone knew that already.

lociefer2981d ago ShowReplies(26)
Queefy_B2981d ago (Edited 2981d ago )

I will be getting this on pc but pandamobile nice trolling there btw, if you ask me theres every chance the ps3 could considering the amount of games it has with the high number of players, i dont know how much this is taking to run or cause its multiplat but if the ps3 can handle 32 players on killzone with some pretty big warzone maps btw, then i think it can go above 24 in any game. Maybe its the 360? it has to have parity with it for online? thats more likley the case but we will never know will we.
edit: i got mixed up with killzone 2 my bad, but my point still stands.

kancerkid2981d ago

Killzone doesn't have persistent destruction, vehicles (it has mech-like things though!), or fully destructible buildings.

kaveti66162981d ago

it's not because of the 360.

is it because of the 360 that Killzone 3 has a 24 player cap?

No Way2981d ago

Yes, it's the x360s fault that Killzone has 24 players.
Just ask Queefy_B! He will tell you what's up. :)lol.

jetlian2981d ago

don't forget its 360s fault for re3 16 player cap too. these maps are big and they have destruction.

Kleptic2980d ago

Battlefield 3 is closing down on becoming the very first 'next generation' game of 'this generation'...if that makes sense...

You can see that everywhere, which made the arguments so retarded for the past few years between console and pc gamers...

up until now...the PC wasn't doing anything that ridiculous despite what we have been told over and over by the PC crowd...the PC would receive the best versions of mediocre multiplatform shooters...Call of Duty, etc. didn't do anything the consoles couldn't other than higher resolutions, better frame rates, and better AA...but the games themselves were pretty much identical...

just like the stupid bs surrounding Crysis 2...crysis 2 on PC is no different than the console counterparts other than AA, framerates, and max resolution...the environments are the same, the geometry is the same, the lighting is the same...etc...they are the same core games overall, just the PC is better at displaying them in higher fidelity...

BF3 is the first to really stretch this out to where the PC is actually getting a version of the game that the consoles simply can't handle...the environments are bigger on PC, there is more stuff being rendered, it can support more players at once while still having much more going on on screen in ridiculous detail...

until now...this didn't happen...BF3 will set the stage on PC, in which the overall games will be different until the next consoles arrive...

ikkokucrisis2980d ago

Uh no, Kleptic, BF2 on the PC was also a 64 player affair. throw in the fact that BF2 had bigger maps, more vehicles, top down commamd and mapview modes...the PC BF experience has ALWAYS been better than consoles.

Soldierone2980d ago

Killzone isn't capped at 24....they simply went the Call of Duty route of confined maps, and more action packed.

BF is bigger, they can do it. Look at MAG, Resistance, Killzone, and Socom....hell look at DC Universe. Xbox not once has advertised a lot of online players because not once has itbeen capable of doing it.

jetlian2980d ago (Edited 2980d ago )

52 players on 360 wha cha

the pc will never be given a generation with consoles kleptic. I don't even know why people try


It's neither console's fault, it's DICE's.

MAG had 256 players online in maps bigger than anything I had ever seen on Battlefield franchise. For sure it don't have the destruction and the graphics but that's 4 times the biggest player count on PC for BF3 and with a stable performance and no noticeable lag.

I'm pretty sure 360 can run games with 64 players in it too. If you think about it, having a console showing your character and 63 real buddies shooting each other playing from somewhere else isn't that much more hard than showing your playable character and 63 AI guided NPCs... The difference is it does require a lot from the connection infrastructure instead of processors and it's kind of more memory hungry too (the real weak point in consoles for PC devs), but both consoles have showed they can handle it if optimization is done right.

The truth is that in the future BF tittles they'll probably support 64 players in both PS3 and 360 with no (much) bigger compromises than those they'll already have on BF3 *IF* the community demands it... They just don't got Frostbite that optimized on consoles for now but DICE is a great developer group, the right guys for the job.

HSx92980d ago (Edited 2980d ago )

Because obviously Battlefield 3 and MAG coding are the same, LETS NOT FORGET ABOUT MAGS GROUND AND AERIAL VEHICLE SUPPORT. You speak from no experience at all, MAG's coding makes it flexible enough to support a large variety of players, Battlefield is more complex and has too many things happening at once to allow a huge amount of players like MAGs connection to go through, PS3 and Xbox can probably handle it but there would be many crashing and Network issues that will make them look bad and they don't want that, if it were that easy any developer would make a shitload of players for one match.

RedDead2980d ago (Edited 2980d ago )

I've said this a few times now. Consoles are out of space, the next generation will be forced into play by dev's like Dice. The differance between Multiplat games on Pc and Consoles is about to show that 10 years(as sony claim) is too long for a generation. Ps3's tech is too old, same with Xbox. Pc Tech is many times more powerful these days and Battlefield 3 is the first game that will truely have the huge differance that makes Pc gamers glad to be pc gamers.

kikizoo2980d ago

As pc gamer too, with a ps3 (like every serious gamer, because the best exclusives since 3,4 years are on ps3), we are always expecting too much with our "big guns", but in fact, dev can't make games only for the best pc (pc games don't sell well, if they can't sell it to most of the pc = no $)

After the best console launch, you have to wait 3,4 year to see pc game (only some of them), on par with consoles games (and not a single gow, uncharted, ratchet, etc) and you have to wait again 3,4 years to see what your new card can really make = new console generation with better tech and power than pc.

by the way, resistance 64 players, kz 32, mag 256 = dice problem (since xbox can't handle fps with more than 16/24 player most of the time, they probably don't want to make a difference for ps3, wich is sad)

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 2980d ago
stu8882981d ago

weird how battlefield 2, 6 years ago could handle 64 players and the current gen can't.
don't make no sense.
It's like how blood and dead bodies disappear after a while even now. That's been going on since the days of PS1.

SJPFTW2981d ago

yahh because battlefield 3 is generations ahead of battlefield 2 and requires more resources to run. Fact is BF3 is a "next-gen" game and what we are seeing is some game eclipsing what can be done on consoles. Current consoles are not next gen anymore

Shackdaddy8362981d ago

If they make BF3 just like BF2 then yes, it wouldn't make sense.

But now you have to factor in destruction, graphics, and a wider amount of weapons, vehicles, and detail.

Now if you want really want 64 players then I guess DICE could get rid of all that destruction and make it look like BF2.5 but I doubt it will be very fun or popular....

the_best_player2980d ago

M.A.G says hi, 256 players in one map

tatotiburon2981d ago

are you talking about MAG? a crappy game that nobody is playing now?

MysticStrummer2981d ago

MAG's not a crappy game at all, and plenty of people still play. I play several rounds a day and never have trouble getting a game no matter what time or what day of the week it is. I play MAG because it simulates a large battle. 24 players won't do that, so my interest in BF3 is dropping fast. Why even call it Battlefield when it's a minor skirmish at best? More than 24 players wouldn't be out of the question if the game was made from the ground up to be on PS3, but it's not. As others have said the problem is fully destructible environments and the high quality graphics. Personally I wouldn't mind downgraded graphics if it meant more players. Oh well, I skipped BC2 because after playing MAG it felt empty and boring. I'll most likely skip BF3 for the same reason. MAG is still my favorite online shooter for this generation.

Trroy2981d ago

I agree. Battlefield should change its name to "Battlepen" or "Battlebox" to better represent the game environment.

ThanatosDMC2981d ago

More MAG trolls that never touched the game.

ZBlacktt2981d ago

Just GTFO, you give all gamers a bad name when you speak of things you have no clue about. Take that dude below you as well. He's another troll.

llMurcielagoll2980d ago

I was about to post a comment but apparently someone beat me to it but yeah, I do not know if it has anything to do with it but, If MAG can handle upto 256 players then I believe that it can easily handle more than 24.

Or is there a difference between a multi-plat and an exclusive game?

Ravenor2980d ago


I've said this 100 times now, MAG makes loads of concessions to get that playable number up (Skin selection, weapon selection and Vehicles are all pretty low in MAG) look at some of the player models in MAG compared to Zippers models from SOCOM 3 and 4, their is a reason MAGS models look blocky and and the skins are blurry.

MAG isn't crap, but their is a reason it looks the way it does.

kikizoo2980d ago

let them believe all they want, they are living in the delusional land of misinformed people since 2006.

llMurcielagoll2980d ago (Edited 2980d ago )

I never said MAG was crap.

I have not taken some things into account things that gives MAG the upper hand in allowing loads of players in a single game.

Kikizoo, why would I be be delusional, I am just simply pointing out something and someone simply explained why.. End of story

linko18-19902980d ago (Edited 2980d ago )

@ tatotiburon : What makes MAG crappy to you?

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2980d ago
multips3fan2981d ago

i dont care long as i will be able to play same quality as pc or close to it 24 it is. i just hope the maps are not that big =campers

Rainstorm812981d ago

I prefer smaller player counts...when it too many it get ridiculous IMO....

Whoever brought up MAG is insane.....256 players yet it looks like a more polished Modern Combat....MAG isnt that great, BFBC2 was better.

ZBlacktt2981d ago

A real war has MANY soldiers / player's. This was the huge draw to MAG player's. I never ever have to look for gun battles in a MAG game. Because war is all around me! The options and game play of MAG are better then COD and BFBC. I've played them all a lot. In MAG, you become the squad leader, platoon leader and then commander of units. Games more in depth as well. Play a game of Domination ( 128 vs 128 ) on MAG. Which is 30 mins long. Then put your skills to the test. You will be mind blown.... for those who have yet to play MAG.

AK462981d ago

Funny I had as much fun playing MAG as I did in BFBC2, both are great games.

Ravenor2980d ago

Zblacktt Planetside beat MAG to the punch, what MAG does isn't new.

frostypants2980d ago (Edited 2980d ago )

I owned MAG for a while but I agree, and in fact dumped it entirely for BFBC2. I just didn't like the feel of MAG. Personal preference.

But you HAVE to respect the player count in MAG, and what it implies. No one is saying that BF3 should also allow 256 players, but one would THINK that it could at least support more than 24...even with the destructible environments.

Does destruction and vehicles REALLY make up for a 232 player discrepancy??? Really? 232?! All of a sudden, at least 32 players doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

madjedi2980d ago (Edited 2980d ago )

@raiin If your judging mag for it's look and not it's gameplay, your already failing at understanding mag, it's the gameplay not the gfx you damn people. gfx whores

Killzone 3 looks incredible but increase the number of players to 64 or 128 and see if it can maintain it's looks.

@frostypant i don't doubt dice could make 256 count battlefield game with it current destruction lvl or better. My only question is how many more pc generations of gpu need to pass before they are capable of running it without a super high end gpu set up ie sli ect.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2980d ago
lelo2play2981d ago (Edited 2981d ago )

Honestly... gamers should get the PC version... if they have a PC that can run the game. That's were the definitive BF3 experience is going to be.

Please DICE... don't fu*k up the PC version. BF2 was one of the best online games ever released.

frostypants2980d ago

What's funny is I remember when BF2 came out, everyone complained that it wasn't as good as BF: Vietnam or BF 1942. Funny how time changes perspective.

I liked BF2, but it was a glitch fest that took YEARS for Dice to patch properly.

linko18-19902980d ago

That's where the problem comes in, The majority of gamers' don't have high powered PC's to run this games..

TBM2981d ago

personally i think your all fools for arguing over what games can support how many people.

user98412882980d ago

You really think people know these things? or... anything for that matter... REALLY?

sourav932980d ago (Edited 2980d ago )

Well killzone 2 went up to 32 players online. That had great graphics, it had moving objects and it averaged at 30 fps. Resistance 2 also had up to 60 players per match.

Ravenor2980d ago

K3=24 RE3=16


ZombieNinjaPanda2980d ago (Edited 2980d ago )

none of which though had constant destruction, vehicles, and the same scale of maps.

Don't get me wrong, I love those games, but this has more to do than player count. It has to do with what is being processed, graphics, etc.

linko18-19902980d ago

He's right. Anyone remember the moving train online level or the level with the nuclear explosion? those are amazing to look at.

madjedi2980d ago

@ravenor First given that those are all order games, i would be surprised if b3 didn't look better.

About k3 and re3 reduced player count, ask the devs themselves, it's their f^cking game and they can increase or reduce the player count to fit whatever playstyle for mp they please.

"Fact is none of those games look as good as BF3, especially those games."
So this effects our enjoyment of the gsme why exactly.

So i don't know if your one panda's pc buddies or a battlefield nut or what, now if b3 is better looking than every other shooter released fine.

Not really caring who wins the biggest graphics d*ck contest, i enjoyed the hell out of mag despite it's graphical inferiority to other shooters, and bfbc2 for it's fun mp.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2980d ago
tigertron2980d ago

RFOM, R2 and MAG say hi.

Ravenor2980d ago

Playercount isn't something that exists on it's own and doesn't effect any of the other things.

Fact is none of those games look as good as BF3, especially those games.

Compare SOCOM 3-4 models/skins to MAG Models/Skins. The environment textures, lack of a decent weapon selection, skins and vehicles also all point to concessions to get the framerate up.

Inzo2980d ago

Its funny to see the relief in some of these PC fanboys comments when an article like this pops up.

finbars752980d ago (Edited 2980d ago )

Can't do over 24 players WTF.when I last checked the ps3 was doing 256 players online.must be a mistake to me do say something so foolish. I'm mean killzone2 had 32 online.nice try dice but you failed epicly.

JonDiskonected2980d ago

hmmmm mag=256 players

hmmmm resistance 2=60 players

yeah consoles cant handle more than 24 players.....

princejb1342980d ago

dude like ps3 has a game that can play up to 256 players, and their saying 24 is the limit

and i know xbox 360 had a game back in 2009 where it was 64 players online

so wth is going on seems like developers are getting lazy again

ct032980d ago

It's the limit when you implement the technology of Battlefield 3. Why is everybody being so thick about this?

Comparing MAG to Battlefield 3 is a joke. Have you *seen* the Battlefield 3 gameplay trailers?

princejb1342979d ago

have you played battlefield 3?
watching something on tv and playing it is 2 different things
when you actually play it is when you find out how bad the game really is

Crazyglues2980d ago (Edited 2980d ago )

Yeah, I mean come on' -you can't expect amazing graphics and gameplay and Massive amount of players.. it's a console people..

Sure if you want to water down the graphics and game-play then sure, you can do 256 (MAG) but don't then expect Amazing Graphics..

That just can't be done... If that's what you want, wait for the next generation of consoles.. PS4 and X720

There are going to be some limits, or else why would anyone even play on PC they would all be on Consoles... There are just things you can do and things that just can't be done.. (for a shooter where the shots have to count and be accurate anything over 24 is going to be a problem)

Games like Resistance2 and Mag are far from accurate. -(it takes a lot of shots to kill someone, did you ever wonder why that was? -it's to hide the lag factor that comes up when you push the limits of the console..)


princejb1342980d ago

it is possible with this gen if the developers give their time to do it, but they just want to rush games out alot of times to get some money into their pockets

showtimefolks2980d ago

it did do 256 players so stop this hate i have yet to see another console game support half that

maybe the graphics were not as good for this gen

and Bf3 should have no issues other games have done it dice are just playing around

dice are one of the best fps devs so they will figure out a way

cannon88002980d ago

I'm sorry DICE but I seriously cant believe that. If mag can have 256 players on a massive world, then surely you can have at least 30 or more on the ps3 and 360. Tell your programmers to work harder.

+ Show (15) more repliesLast reply 2979d ago
jizzyjones2981d ago


Killzone2 im sure had 32, MAG had what 250?, Resistance2 had 60.

Don't bullshit us DICE your engine cant be that advanced if it can only manage 24.

wwm0nkey2981d ago

Read my above statement. Not all games are the same, the sooner more people learn this the better.

Also all consoles have a bandwith limit. That is the biggest factor here really.

Pandamobile2981d ago

The biggest limitation isn't really net bandwidth per se.

It's RAM more than anything.

wwm0nkey2981d ago

Well even then, if the PS3 and 360 version didnt have that bandwith limit in (dont know why they wont get rid of it) then it could go up to atleast 32, would never go past that though.

SJPFTW2981d ago

yahh and did any of those games have destructible environments? LOL killzone 2 is a corridor shooter it better have 32 players

ATiElite2981d ago

1. name one game on the Ps3 that has full destructible environments.....NONE!

2. name a game on the PS3 that has maps bigger than MAG and has better graphics than Uncharted 2............NONE!

3. how much ram does the PS3 have. 256mb

4. how many players does Killzone 3 MP have. 24!

5. No more debating this issue. The PS3 is a wonderful console but BF3 is a PC Game being ported down to consoles and unfortunately these consoles have limitations so in FAIRNESS to maintaining QUALITY DICE is gonna have to make some sacrifices.

Blad3star2981d ago

PS3 it only does every thing...Except play PS2 games.

ZBlacktt2981d ago (Edited 2981d ago )

How many gaming PC's cost $299? ....NONE!

Let's put $1400 into the PS3 and then talk I guess, lol.

This whole story is like no big deal anyway. Like BF is some huge monster seller.


First gen 80g will also play PS2 games.

Sailboy2980d ago

Im getting tired of this, doesnt anyone remember that the RAM inside of a PS3 isnt your normal type of RAM. THats why it can handle games like uncharted and killzone and MAG because all they needed was 256mb with that type of ram.

JonDiskonected2980d ago

1. red faction

2. having both, cant think of one

3. it's actually 256+256

4. I think you're right on that one

5. we know pc is better than consoles, but when you apply yourself, you can pull a lot from this generations console, which most devellopers arent willing to do

Pjuice2979d ago (Edited 2979d ago )

at sailboy a 1400 pc can be about 10x faster than a ps3 so 10x the power for 4x the price isn't that bad if you ask me and you get a lcd with that also, as for pc gaming you can get a capable pc for 500-600 that runs games pretty good.