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.

[Pandamobile]

Well no shit. I thought everyone knew that already.

[Queefy_B]

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.

[kancerkid]

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

[kaveti6616]

it's not because of the 360.

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

[No Way]

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

[jetlian]

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

[Kleptic]

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. etc...it 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...

[ikkokucrisis]

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.

[Soldierone]

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.

[jetlian]

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

[BISHOP-BRASIL]

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.

[HSx9]

@bishop-br
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.

[RedDead]

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.

[kikizoo]

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)

[stu888]

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.

[SJPFTW]

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

[Shackdaddy836]

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_player]

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

[tatotiburon]

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

[Blad3star]

Mag is crap.

[MysticStrummer]

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.

[Trroy]

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

[ThanatosDMC]

More MAG trolls that never touched the game.

[ZBlacktt]

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.

[llMurcielagoll]

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?

[Ravenor]

@Murcielago

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.

[kikizoo]

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

[llMurcielagoll]

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

[linko18-1990]

@ tatotiburon : What makes MAG crappy to you?

[multips3fan]

i dont care either.as 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

[Rainstorm81]

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.

[ZBlacktt]

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.

[AK46]

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

[Ravenor]

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

[frostypants]

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.

[madjedi]

@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.

[lelo2play]

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.

[frostypants]

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.

[linko18-1990]

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

[TBM]

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

[user9841288]

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

[sourav93]

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.

[Ravenor]

K3=24 RE3=16

WHA HAPPEN!?

[ZombieNinjaPanda]

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.

[linko18-1990]

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

[madjedi]

@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.

[tigertron]

RFOM, R2 and MAG say hi.

[Ravenor]

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.

[Inzo]

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

[finbars75]

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.

[JonDiskonected]

hmmmm mag=256 players

hmmmm resistance 2=60 players

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

[princejb134]

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

[ct03]

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?

[princejb134]

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

[Crazyglues]

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..)

.____........___...____
.____||......||.......____||
||.........___||.......____||

[princejb134]

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

[showtimefolks]

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

[cannon8800]

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.

[jizzyjones]

Bulls**t

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.

[wwm0nkey]

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.

[Pandamobile]

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

It's RAM more than anything.

[wwm0nkey]

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.

[SJPFTW]

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

[ATiElite]

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.

[Blad3star]

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

[DigitalAnalog]

60GB.

-End statement

[ZBlacktt]

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.

@DigitalAnalog

First gen 80g will also play PS2 games.

[Sailboy]

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.

[JonDiskonected]

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

[Pjuice]

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.

[ian72]

I'm sure Battlefield 3 can have more than 24 players in multi-player. Maybe not 256 or 128 or even 60, but I'm sure they could get upto at least 36 player count.
I don't mind really as some multi-player games with 24 or less people are still great. If anyone can make a great multi-player game with only 24 players, DICE are the people.

[Bob570]

No, the PS3 just isn't the all powerful beast of a machine that you think it is.

[Master of Unlocking]

Yes it is. Much more so than the xbox360 at least. But Dice are apparently like most of those US devs that just don't wanna run the risk of making Microsoft angry, so they prefer to pretend the PS3 and 360 are somehow on par power-wise and just say "consoles" in general.

[Pintheshadows]

@ Master of Unlocking. DICE are Swedish.

[Bob570]

@ Master of Unlocking

Do you really believe yourself? You honestly think that DICE is purposely toning down the PS3 version just because they don't want to make Microsoft feel bad? You're really saying they are making the choice to sell less copies of the game?

The PS3 is not powerful enough to run Frosbite 2.0 with more than 24 players. DICE (being a good company) is not going to give their long-time fans the shaft by going back and tailoring it to the PS3 (re-writing the engine they have been working on for 5 years) and porting it to the PC and 360. DICE is a PC developer, not a PS3 developer.

Like I said earlier, the PS3 is not the all powerful best of a machine that you think it is. My laptop is more powerful.

[despair]

doesn't matter, these guys know what they're doing, so if they want to make it 24 then fine. Although it doesn't matter to me as I'm getting it on PC :)

[xc7x]

PS2 online says hi

[xtreampro_REVENGE!]

WHAT!? I never knew the PS2 could handle a game with same graphical fidelity as BF3 with 64 players online.

Please show me that game because I missed out on something even bigger than MGS.

[No Way]

Battlefied 3 says "Shut the fuck up, kid!"
*Smacks* *Spits* *Teabag* "Ooooh yeaaah!"

[earbus]

Good .

[femshep]

Homefront is handling 32 very nicely and killzone has no problems either....dice dont leave us out

[kaveti6616]

Homefront and KZ3 don't support the same level of environmental destruction as BF3.

[femshep]

true but still there is no reason why they cant figure something out there just being lazy now

[Gran Touring]

they're not being "lazy" they're focusing their attention on the PC version. I'm sure they CAN get more players. The problem is they can't do it without compromising the engine, which people seem to forget, isn't being developed for the consoles.

[Shackdaddy836]

It's not "lazy". It's hardware limitations. Don't be ignorant.

[kaveti6616]

I don't know femshep. Maybe you're right. Maybe we should utilize our many years of extensive programming knowledge and experience in game development to label DICE as lazy developers because "there is no reason why they can't figure something out."

Or maybe you should shut up.

[kesvalk]

femshep...

more like femsheep to me...
and wow at they being lazy, ppl say so much crap today that is not even funny...

[antz1104]

BAAAAA!! Femsheep, lol, thats good :D

Ugh, thanks to everyone for already replying to her. Some people don't think before they speak.

[Bob570]

femshep are you kidding me?

They've been working on this engine for 5 years. I don't think they are being lazy. If you want more players, get a gaming PC. The franchise was created for PC, and it's good to see a developer isn't shafting their fanbase so that they can get a few more sales on a lesser version by cutting corners on all versions.

[ATiElite]

Homefront looks worse than COD
Killzone 3 has 24 MP
Crysis 2 12 mp
Halo Reach 24 mp

I just don't get why you consolers don't understand anything DICE is telling you guys.
Great Graphics + Full Destruction + Vehicles = 24 players MAX on consoles.

sorry but your 5 year old consoles are very much limited. remember on the PC BF3 has ZERO DX9 support. If i was a consoler i would be happy with BF3 even if it was 6 vs. 6. cause PC gamers with Dx9 Gpu's won't even be able to install it.

[DigitalPiracy]

There are so many fucking idiots in here it's ridiculous. I typed a long rant then deleted it because it's useless....Most of these people haven't even read what's already here. *sigh*

[joeorc]

you pointed out this:

I just don't get why you consolers don't understand anything DICE is telling you guys.
Great Graphics + Full Destruction + Vehicles = 24 players MAX on consoles.

what happens when or if another developer studio beats that?

say:

Great Graphics + Full Destruction + Vehicles = 32 players MAX on consoles.

NEVER SAY NEVER!

just because DICE say thay could not do it does not mean other's may infact be able to do it. Limitation's with harware is of course one thing every developer has to deal with. but also it comes down to the team an experience with the hardware an ability.

EVERY DEVELOPER TEAM IS not the same that's why saying one game vs another is silly.The experience with the team as a whole has alot to do with it. Im not saying that any other team could do better than Dice out right but im saying using one development team as a bench mark is silly at best because the games are not the same nore is the team's.

[Counter Strike]

This gen can handle many players if they cyt the graphics.

[RyuCloudStrife]

Battlefield 3 is pushing to new limits.. Thats the game that'll surpass Killzone.

[paradiselost93]

Good one.

[Pandamobile]

You think Killzone is the high-point of gaming?

Oh lawd.

[DrHouse]

To 90% of the community on here KZ3 is the best fps ever made.

[RyuCloudStrife]

Yes.

[Ravenor]

@Pandamobile

Quick, crouch in some chest high grass and sneak around them! PS3 Fanboys are like the Helghast, blind as bats.

[Inzo]

Well Crysis 2 sure as hell isnt.

[Kamikaze135]

But they didn't mention the Wii. I bet the Wii could handle at least 40.

[Otheros00]

And I bet gamecube can handle at least 256. /s

[Urrakia34]

So what's the big deal? I don't see this as a reason to complain. At least they're not sacrificing graphics just to have more players on consoles.

[No Way]

Agreed .. As well, it sure as hell beats Call of Duty with 12 players.
Not to mention the better graphics, vehicles, and destructible environments.

[kesvalk]

and really, much more than these numbers and the game becomes a base raping fest anyway...

[ThanatosDMC]

^But it's suppose to be a war game. 64 to 24 is a huge decrease in player count.

[Optical_Matrix]

If this is the case the graphics and gameplay of BF3 on consoles better be something special. I want to be sure I can be playing something as close the the PC version as possible graphically and if it means multiplayer numbers takes a hit, then so be it.

[SuicideShaun]

You will never be playing close to PC graphics on a console. Sorry to inform you.

[waterboy]

except ps3 thats above on exclusives

[Barajas_201]

strange, MAG on ps3 supports like 210 players, im pretty sure the ps3 can handle it if DICE puts the effort, 360 i dont know but it could idk

[BeastlyRig]

You really think Mag could do it with kz3 graphics??

Not even naughty dog could pull that off.

kz3 couldn't be rendered on this scale..

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

hell BF3 with more than 64 players would cause me to need 2 way sli to max out that beautiful game @ 1080p! so imagine consoles!

[Barajas_201]

yeah your right but they could at least try, hey but resistance is 60 players and with killzone like graphics, have you seen the resistance 3 trailer?

[paradiselost93]

**256 players.

[Shackdaddy836]

Wow. Your like the fifth person to say that exact same thing. Learn to read before you post.

[Insanelyman]

"yeah your right but they could at least try, hey but resistance is 60 players and with killzone like graphics, have you seen the resistance 3 trailer?"

LMAO!!!

Are you that dumb and blind. Resistance 2 in no way looks kinda like killzone graphics. And resistance 3 will only support 16 players online. Don't you get it at all, the more the graphical push the less players they are. Look what happen to killzone 3 it got its player count reduced just like battlefield 3 is happening.

[Barajas_201]

ok jeez

[BeastlyRig]

High end graphics, fully destructible environments, Huge maps!! 512mb memory?

Makes sense!

If you buy it on console just enjoy it..

[frostypants]

I'll likely buy both the PC version and one of the console versions.

[Veneno]

Warhawk, Resistance, MAG. Nuff Said. Warhawk has TONS of vehicle variety as well.

It's no use arguing. Sony haters deny FACTS that are right in front of them. There's not much you can do when you tell someone 2+2=4 but they keep saying "no, 2+2=5". Denial is a Sony hater's best friend.

[Gran Touring]

Nuff said? The engines running those games don't come close to that of Frostbite 2's.

[KeiserSosay4788]

NONE of those games you listed have full destruction

[kesvalk]

nor have the graphical prowess of BF3.

as aways sony fanboys don't know shit...

[ivant]

The Warhawk engine was an early release version and was never developed further -- ie no Warhawk 2. The developers were more interested in getting the game out quick and delivering simple, but awesome gameplay.

But the Warhawk engine could have easily been improved to include better graphics, physics, and destruction.

Resistance, MAG, and even Killzone 2/3 should have used and improved the Warhawk engine, then they all would have benefited by having fully usable vehicles in SP & MP with minimum 32 players.

[Veneno]

BF has destruction sure, and every other mulitplayer game doesn't, that's just a creative edge that Dice has that no one else has taken advantage of, so that's good on them. Just like MAG's 256 players, no one else is doing it, but doesn't mean no one else can on a ps3. Infact I'm waiting eagerly for a non-Sony studio to create a new 256 game!!

When it comes to graphics, a high end PC is always the king, so the consoles will always come in behind them, but we're talking only about player size, which has been proven over and over again that PS3 can handle high player counts.

But whatever, 2+2=5.

[Pintheshadows]

I'm sorry Veneno but no. This is a seriously high spec PC Game. It would melt a console. Go look at some of the videos. I have not had a gaming PC for a while but this will make me buy one.

[Firstkn1ghT]

Lol at the Mag comments. That's the worse looking fps this gen. And this kid above me has the nerve to throw in warhawk. So much ignorance from the sony fanboys. Bf3 in all its glory is only possible on a pc. Case closed.

[stu888]

enjoy spending £1000 on a new PC which can handle it.

[Shackdaddy836]

Wow. That's the most generic console fanboy comment against the PC and it's not even true....

[Big_Dom]

For a total build for a beast of a PC that will handle this game and more, it'll only cost me around 500 quid, max. Most people who own a PC built within the last few years will only spend about 150 quid buying a new card capable of running this and maybe some RAM. A small trade for next generation stuff.

[Veneno]

MAG's graphics easily trump most console FPS's out there, but of course throw in a subjective argument when we are talking about something tangible, player count.

Player count is something you cannot argue. The -->FACT<-- is that MAG has trump almost 10 times the player count that BF claims they can only do on consoles.

I'm ignorant? I have facts to back me up while all you got is "Sony Fanboy is a Doody-head!".

[Pintheshadows]

You do realise the cutback MAG had to make to get 256 players. Anyway, at no point has DICE mentioned MAG. They are talking about what is possible on their brand new engine. Perhaps you should read the article.

[Otheros00]

Cod is the worst looking fps.

[plb]

Crysis 2 PC also has 8v8 while console 6v6

[chidori666]

lmao, u mad pc fanboys?

[stu888]

all these comments from dice:
sounds like they're simply feeding the rich PC fanboys with this stuff because they betrayed them with Bad company 2 on consoles and the delayed release.
Whether its true or not why else are they saying this stuff and dissing their own game?

This comment must also mean that unless you've spent around £10,000 on a new PC recently your current PC most likely won't be able to handle BC3 with that amount of players.

I guess its only fair for Dice to give the PC crowd 30 extra players when they've all just shelled out $1500 on a new pc.

[PS360PCROCKS]

ok, first you say £1000 than £10,000 and than $1500. Which is it!? My PC cost around $1200 and I splurged on some stuff. You could easily build a PC for $900 and max this game out.

[04soldier]

$900 Damn that's a lot of money

[superrey19]

@04soldier
Yeah thats 900 for a brand new computer. Most people interested in gaming already have a computer that they can simply upgrade for the same price as a current Gen console.

@stu888
please don't fool yourself into thinking PC gamers r rich as I am far from it. I work full time, pay for my own college classes and bills, yet I can still manage my money enough to own a rig capable of maxing this game. So many people can buy multiple consoles yet no one brings up the cost then do they?

[PS360PCROCKS]

Lmao. Seriously delusional PS3 owners WAKE UP just because the PS3 HAS done 256 players doesn't mean it can in every game. Where's KZ3 with 256 players? maybe Uncharted 2? Do you know WHY it can't handle more? Because those systems have limits and if you want to maintain graphic fidelity you cut player counts. The PS3 has limits, it's not more powerful than a PC, get over it!

BF3 was being ran on a GTX 580 on maximum settings, that card has over 1GB of VRAM, what's the PS3 have 256? and Xbox 512? lol. disagrees COMMENCE!

Oh and to add the 590 and 6990 now have 2GB of Vram, that's insane.

[Otheros00]

The pc has limits. When devs code for a bunch of hardware it drags down the performance and graphics.

If it doesn't then why are you not using a pentium 1 and a riva tnt2 with 1kb of ram to run this game instead of buying new hardware.

[Kon]

LOL At idiots saying that "MAG this, mag that"

1-MAG has destructible environments? NO!
2-MAG has good graphics? NO!
3- MAG has boats, helis, jets, cars, tanks, APC's? NO

SO SHUT UP!

[Clarence]

I agree MAG looked and played like sh!t. I was very disappointed in the game.

[ThanatosDMC]

MAG has helis, jets, giant cargo plans, APCs, and cars.

You dont know what you're talking about troll.

[Neko_Mega]

256 Vs 64...... Yeah sorry but I think 256 wins.

[Mr PS360]

Mag is a piece of crap. Nuff said.

[Raider69]

I guess what DICE is saying is : get a PC or wait for the next generation of consoles to get a next gen experience!Of course by stating what is state they are already making full aware that its time for consoles to evolved to next new and better hardware.6 year old move on!

[Raider69]

Build a micro atx machine and stick it to your HDTV and get the best of two words, comfort of the living room and the best of what new hardware can do!The majority of new games even come with full support for controller pad,you can plug an xbox 360 controller and play Crisis 2,Witcher 2,Battlefield 3,.............

[kesvalk]

why would you want to play crisis and BF3 with a xbox 360 controller?

[Organization XII]

For me, consoles are dead. Time to switch to the good old PC glory. DICE is playing it right, unlike Crytek who pulled a Treyarch and f*cked its PC community!

just my 2 cents!

[antz1104]

And your 1 bubble!!! Good job! lmao

Console's aren't even close to being dead man, I doubt they've even peaked yet.

[Xfanboy]

And unlike most shooters it's innovative!!
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

After BF3 & RO2 I may not buy another shooter this year!
Oh rage also..

[kopicha]

I think they need to rephrase it. It's not the consoles that cannot handle it. It's their engine that cannot handle it from the console stand point.

I dont wish to go into details for another set of PC or Consoles fanboy war. But that's what I see. They are just trying to gain attention. Only idiots are listening to them

[kopicha]

which ever moron who disagree on me for no reason. You need to get your facts right. I aint siding any of the platform. I am just commenting from a pure gamer's perspective. In case you dont know, I have an Alienware for my PC gaming needs. And I have both PS3 and 360 for other console exclusives. So you fanboy keep your stupid disagree in your own "platform" for all you want. For me, consoles are definitely in their own league of entertainment as compared to PCs. They aint designed or meant to compete with PCs. Remember what Nvidia says, Consoles maybe static but they are "stable" platforms as compared to PC counterpart. You dont have to mess with which drivers works better with which dumb game and never EVER able to get a perfect drivers to work with your full library of games. This issue is non existence with consoles.

If you like to spend a lot to build a PC just to run some games in extreme gfx settings that's your choice. If others decide to choose consoles over PCs that's their choice too. It's none of any freaking business to you fanboys. You can bitch all you want with your specific platform. While end of day I am the laughing man as I still can enjoy from those platforms which I mentioned since I own them all. I personally prefer to play on my consoles more for my own reason, and I dont need you to comment to me if I am dumb not to play my PC despite I own an Alienware that I have not even touch it for almost 2 months from this post. In case u are curious, my Alienware is only for gaming and nothing else. I have other PC for my general day to day use with looking at rubbish you fanboys like to write in N4G.

Long live gaming... that is what a real gamer should be looking at rather than waste their freaking time trying to compare platforms to platforms.

I have always thought only console fanboys can be childish. I never knew PC fanboys are worst.

[Raider69]

Im mainly a console player but by some people comments and all the disagrees some console owners have against PC player or does o favour PC,all i can say is does Console owners dont know what they are missing wend you put together one 2500k or 2600k CPU and one GTX 560,570,580 or AMD 6770,6950 or 6970 GPU!I cant understand most of the defense made in favor of outdate hardware that this console generation already is, especially wend i get people saying that that console is better than a new PC!One thing is not having money to make the jump and upgrade to new hardware another is making stupid bold statements.

[shotgun_ps3]

If the engine is optimized for pc then yeah of course it is going to be able to have more players in multiplayer. DICE need to watch out though because most of the revenue from this game is going to come from consoles, since there share of the overall market is bigger than pc, and if to many stories like this pop up, coupled with an over-saturation of fps this year, they could find themselves in a bit of a pickle.

[shotgun_ps3]

What's with all the disagrees :(

Even the most foolhardy pc fanboy can't argue that the console market is bigger than the pc market.

[yugioh100]

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

wow that's a surprise lol..."sarcasm"

"need i remind every1 about a certain game on a certain console that supports 256 players ?"

lol that games been dead dude.

[MysticStrummer]

*sigh* MAG is far from dead. I play several rounds a day and never have trouble getting a game. You don't need to lie.

[yugioh100]

whos lying not anyone plays it anymore, and they are going to retire it soon...look it up.

[ATiElite]

MAG 1.1 million
Killzone3 1 million

These games are so great but NO ONE buys them.

[Neko_Mega]

Sorry but the long list of PS3 titles says you are full of sht. Or did this person not know of DC:UO, Free Realm and so on.

[HardCover]

Yeah because Free Realms or DC:UO is as taxing on your system as Battle Field Fucking 3.

BF3 is the true sequel to one of PC's best FPS franchises. You can not reasonably expect it to run properly on a 7 year old PS3. I mean. Come on! DICE have been-there-done-that on both PC and console. Unlike you. I'm sure they know the limits of the hardware pretty well.

[Neko_Mega]

Couldn't be mature about how you reply to someone?

[HardCover]

I'm not really being immature man.

My tone may be slightly demeaning to you but I'm being more than mature enough. I mean, what's wrong? Don't like that I say BF3 is more taxing?

Don't like that I bring up the age of the PS3?

Don't like that I say DICE is more knowledgeable than you?

These are reasonable and relevant things for me to say. Relax a little bit. You're way too tense.

[goku32359]

honestly, im okay with that. doesnt matter much to me anaway though since im getting this on pc :D

[negroguy]

Wish they would give a release date, I already know I will be addicted and wont even try denying it.

[Ducky]

Looks like some people can't handle the truth either.

Funny thing is, there'd be hardly any complaints if the PC had 24 players too. Seems people don't care about what's on their plate, they just want to make sure no-one else gets anything better.

[ATiElite]

I find it funny that consolers are crying so much about BF3 24 mp but Killzone 3 and Halo Reach are like 24 mp too.

Consolers should just be happy to be able to play the game because PC Gamers who have DX9 graphics cards won't even be able to install the BF3 because of the no DX9 support.

if all i had was a 360 or Ps3 and even if BF3 was 4 vs. 4 i would be very excited.

[kopicha]

I dont really see consolers crying over the 24mp in BF3. But what I see is PCer bragging over their 64mp and discriminate the Consolers which causes all the dumb debates.

[ipe]

kz player cap was cut down cause of players whinning about chaos when there were 32 players on smaller maps.

- kz2 32 players, 8 flying bots, 8 turrets, xy mines, bombs in same time, add all that to kz3+ jet packs and that robots
- mag also has vehicles, apcs.....besides 256 players
- bf3 ll not look like that trailer footage on consoles then why put more misery to console players
- people saying mag looks like ps2 game never touched game and are butthurt fanboys

- true, partial destructions in killzone is not like in bf, but stop pretending like it ll be 100% destruction, i played bf2, bad company titles, and every1 who says bf is 100% destrucion is liar, ey were hyping it before and ey are doing it again

- it ll be funny when bf3 on consoles outsell pc version, and judging by current preorders it ll be by wide margin

[kassler]

It's time for the next generation. The consoles are getting old.

[plb]

I'm getting it for PC but I know I wont be able to max it out on my current machine.

[bumnut]

You don't need to max a game to enjoy it, it will still be great.

[Grown Folks Talk]

An original Xbox shooter had 50+ online. It's all about how the game is built.

[Big_Dom]

Disappointing that this is true, seeing that it will effectivly make BF3 unplayable on consoles now due to spastics queueing up in their droves to take a ride in a jet, leaving about 2 people to go on foot to capture objectives. Not worried. It's a great time to build a new PC.

[caperjim]

This is just another example that we need to move forward to a new console launch. I have a PS3/360 but theres no way im buying this game for a console.

[Trroy]

I think they're just stating "we devote so many resources to making stuff look hot, that 24 players is our limit", rather than "more than 24 isn't possible on consoles", because obviously it is.

The real issue is -- is looking hot going to make for more fun than MAG? This may hurt some fanboy feelings, but MAG is still the best multiplayer FPS this gen, when it comes to fun. I seriously doubt BF3 can beat it. Honestly I doubt anyone who says otherwise has ever played MAG either, or has fun doing anything other than upping their K/D in any game they play.

I doubt MAG will be dethroned as the most fun FPS this gen, unless there's a MAG 2. Supurb graphics really only ups the bar in single player, where immersion in the story is more important. MAG's graphics are fine -- heck, if you compare its graphics to multiplayer BF:BC or CoD, its nearly the same. Given the player count difference, that's saying something.

[ZBlacktt]

Totally agree, MAG is the real deal for full ground warfare. I play it everyday. I would be playing it right now. But the servers went down for maintenance. Once I got the leader role learning curve down. The game really became just that much better.

[EVO-OM3GA]

Dude whatever your smoking I want some I own mag the game is ok but best mp fps this gen that's the funniest shit ever especially when all you seem to mention is 256 players and not all the game types support that many players, also It takes forever to get in games so that kills any comment about it's still got alot of people playing it.

Any enough of the MAG comments BF3 is gonna be sweet

[nsnsmj]

Now I fully plan on getting Battlefield 3, but how do some of you even know if the console versions will have the same level of destruction and detail? I doubt they will. PC version? Definitely. I do believe it's possible to have more than 24 on consoles--maybe not 64, but definitely more than 24.. Resistance 2 did 60, and it was a huge leap visually over R:FOM. No, it might not have had destructible environs, but who knows what else could have been added if the player count was left at 40.

Again, some of you are saying BF3 will have full destruction, but I don't think it will on consoles. At least not anything compared to the PC version. Though I'll gladly take back what I say once they show console footage with fully destructible environments (that stay destroyed the entirety of a match, and are better than just only certain parts of a structure being destroyed), awesome visuals, etc.

[linko18-1990]

why do we keep bring out MAG.. its a great game, but i would probably use "Resistance 2" as a better example, 60 players online, better graphics, its true not much destructibility in the environment, but if R2 can why not BF3..

[therapist]

mag looks like an xbox 1 game

the devs constantly have to sacrifice just to get their game to run on the current gen consoles

the first thing they do is drop the resolution

alan wake ran at 940x540 thats like a wii game or EDTV

call of duty games run at 1024x600, thats like a pc monitor from 1996

http://www.alvio.com/xABK_P...

lol that's a higher resolution than call of duty or alan wake

it's not that they want to make their games sub-hd with no anti aliasing, they try to get as much out of the 7 year old tech that they can, but honestly, what do you expect

bf3 will look no better than bfbc2 does on console, there is no more they can do with it

you want stunning graphics, get a gaming pc or start bitching about new consoles, if everyone just sits around saying they don't want new consoles and hoping somehow magically the ps3 and 360 will spontaneously evolve a better gpu and more ram

AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!

[Trroy]

"the devs constantly have to sacrifice just to get their game to run on the current gen consoles"

MAG is full 720p with MLAA (they added it in a patch), bro. Resolution isn't the issue. The CPU horses required to animate all those guys, and in BF3's case, do all the physics, is.

[kevnb]

mlaa? I hope its optional, mlaa can sure blur the graphics.

[therapist]

720p is a sacrifice, remember both consoles do 1080p???

But they cannot, no can they support 8x AA because they are MAXED!

If they could, they would, it's not like devs get their jollies from making sub-hd games with jaggies everywhere

Bulletstorm on pc with full 1080p native and 8x anti aliasing looks stunning!

I played the ps3 demo and 360 full version at a friends

NOT EVEN close to the same game, the console version is blurry, covered in jaggies and the textures are noticably lower res, it's not like people can fly said, screw it, let's make this game look like crap, they had no choice!

[RonXD]

LOL @ people saying "KILLZONE 2 IS 32 PLAYERS!!!"

Completely ignoring the fact that Killzone 3 is only 24 players. Not only that but the graphics were improved, a small amount of destruction was added and maps are now larger.

[xlockingupthesunx]

Consoles are for pussies.

PC's get the best version of 95% of games.

[gypsygib]

Well the second most popular FPS series this gen only supports max 16 and most of the time 8.

[ZBlacktt]

I been playing MAG for the last two weeks....very srs. What is this story about, lol. Btw, any clown who says MAG is not on par with COD. Clearly has no idea at all. More so since MAG's huge update in 2.0. This game is far more depth then MAG and BFBC2. But would say BF looks a tade better in the overall graphic's. But nothing compares to MAG battles with it's either 64 on 64 or 128 vs 128.

[Masterchef2007]

HEY HEY HEY

People listen to me and ignore the hermits. We will still have a fantastic game on consoles. Jeez why wont people just accept that Dice cant make Battlefield 3 exactly like the PC version. Just be happy that they are doing all they can to make the console versions look as close to the PC one as possible.

[Saryk]

I really can’t understand why people bitch about these things. You have a choice, to buy or not to buy, end of story.

[fullmetal297]

What's with all the mag.comments. See them in BF3 thread.

[Trroy]

This is a thread about "consoles" not being able to support more than 24 players bud.

Maybe you read the title?

[nightmarex121]

That is what i was saying how crysis 2 has good graphics b/c the player count was low :/.
Ps3 fanboys always complain nothing new here guys, they even complain that killzone 3 had lower player count and resistance 3. W/e bf3 going to be amazing nothing less.

[spektical]

now thats bull, here im playing resistance 2, and MAG (256 players)

[bobrea]

Implying the engines are ANYTHING similar. Fully destructible environments, open maps, and a seriously good graphics, etc would make it extremely difficult to make it run smoothly. It's just different technology so you can't say oh, well MAG has 256 players BF3 could do it. That's not the way shit works.

[BlackTar187]

I really don't like the fully destructible environments as much as i always wanted to. Since when you die you get more ammo makes the destruct environment kinda unrealistic(In a videogame sense)

[dkgshiz]

Well to be fair this is EA/Dice we are talking about. They use some pretty shitty servers. MAG did 256 with no lag. It can be done in other games.

[BlackTar187]

I only really am gonna agree on EA has crappy servers on all systems and always for the life of the game on all games. ;)

[04soldier]

I've played 24 players on Bf1943 and while the game is fun at moments. The intensity of the battles are lessened severely. The game gets dull very quickly just because of the player count is too low.

I would upgrade my PC but its just too much $$$ for todays economy.

Unless I get lucky and find a couple 100 dollar bills lying in the street. :/

[bobrea]

Do your tax return yet? I finally jumped into the HDTV world this year thanks to my taxes :D

[04soldier]

Yea. I have bigger and better plans for that money. And I'm not willing pump $300-400 on something no one can see.

[bobrea]

I HATE SO MANY PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD

[BlueEye]

Really? Cause I think the PS3 should be able to handle it.

[kevnb]

i honestly think I got stupider by reading the posts here.

[Snakefist30]

This is the reason BF3 wont sell well on Consoles.

[RAmar101]

Lmao @ crysis 2 6 v 6 on consoles, I'm so glad to have it traded in today.

[Master of Unlocking]

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

Yeah right, and let's all pretend MAG with its 256 players online doesn't exist. Even if the BFBC3 3D engine eats up more resources from the system, you can't tell me there's no way to have at least 64 players online on the PS3 version of BC3.

Oh, and stop treating the PS3 and the xbox360 on an equal ground. They are not. The PS3 is a new gen console.

[deerain]

Surely its down to the amount of data that can be pushed down the phone line that determines the amount of players, Yes you have to scale down the graphics but battlefield 1942 had more than 24 and that was old hardware

[BlackTar187]

There is only 1 way to play this game and its on PC. Although i dont really believe EA/Dice sometimes i believe this

[xtremegamerage]

skeeuk

6v6 works actually very well for the type of game it is.

Same goes for gears/uc2 etc.

For consoles it's not the amount of players, it's the amount of graphics being pushed in crysis.

Some of the best looking mp maps i've seen are in crysis2.

Plus you can scale some many walls,trucks. Awesome game.

Battlefield 3 is a totally different game, just as BF2 was.

I've bought and played every battlefield game on the pc.

[hilikusturbo]

I see 360 & PS3 fanboys ranting!! XD

[Bounkass]

Would someone mind explaining me why the PlayStatoin 3 game, M.A.G. can handle 256 players?

[i_like_ff7]

Shitty Graphics
No Vehicles
No Destruction

[DanSolo]

Just think of it as this....

On PC it is the sequel to Battlefield 2.

On console it is the sequel to Bad Company 2.

If you liked Bad Company 2 then this should be alot better and therefore be awesome!
The PC will have more players and the bigger maps that is needed for that.....
But the console maps will be the same size or bigger than Bad Company maps (which are bigger than COD, Killzone, Halo, ect) and the player count is comparable to MOST other FPS games on console....

So really... what's the big deal???

[AnxietyAttack]

Bah! Guess they haven't played Mag or Killzone 2 and 3.

[04soldier]

I dont normally game on PC so all the upgrading would just be for one game.

SORRY DICE, but your game won't be THAT good.

And in my honest opinion, this is why PC gaming has be in decline over recent years and console gaming has shown to be more profitable. COD/Madden series sell shitloads of copies because of ease of use.

You buy the game pop it in and play. No research to see if your PS3 can run the game. No installing a new graphics card. Just play.

*steps of soapbox*

[CaliGamer]

Now this news is something for the PC crowd to be excited about I guess. At least it changes gameplay is a meaningful way, not like 90% of the games that have the same gameplay and just slightly better graphics (see Crysis 2).

Tho, it is funny that the PC crowd would brag about something that is known. "The current PC's are more powerful than consoles", "water is wet" same difference.

[ballsofsteel]

correction THEIR engine on console's can't handle more than 24

[Tommykrem]

Really? I find this hard to believe. Shouldn't that be a matter of how much pressure you're willing to put on the servers, and not hardware? Bugger if I know, really.

[josephayal]

the PS3 can handle over 600 players online and the xbox 360 over 50 player at the same time, so DICE stop making excuses

[sethbalmore]

600? is that from DCO?

i guess you can add FFXI and PhantasyStarOnline for 360 then making it capable of supporting 2000+

[GodSquad]

Well the fact is also that not many or even none of us, know anything about how BF3 engine works. So far, console owners have been catered some great looking and playing games, but if it is the limit for their engine, then it is the limit. Have you considered, that if they raised the number of players, how potentially laggy it could get? And im no PC troll, i have PC, PS3 and Xbux360, but of course, i will get this on my PC.

[ivant]

Warhawk is proof that you don't need destructible environments for a great online mp with 32 players.

DICE should have gimped the destructibility not the player limit.

I'd rather have 32 -64 players with no, or very simple, destructible environments, then have 24 players and complex destructibility.

It is the chaos of warfare with large numbers of players doing all sorts of crazy things that make BF2 and Warhawk awesome games .... not intricate destructibility.

At the end of the day though, BC2 shows that you can still have enjoy the Battlefield experience with 24 players. Just make sure there are plenty of aircraft available.

[hoops]

Destruction is the pivotal selling point in BF3. Gimping that feature would in a sense destroy the essence of the game itself.
As for people saying why is MAG and Resistance doing many players online and BF3 cannot on the PS3?
Simple. Look at the graphics for those games. They pale in comparison to BF3.
Next those games do not have a interactive destructible environment in any way shape or form.
Last. Those games do not use real time lighting, real time global illumination or high levels of eye adaption high dynamic light rendering.
These are reasons those games can have so many players online for a console. It's lacking all those features and that graphical level of detail.
Consoles are 5 years old. The bandwidth and memory which those effects and environments require are lacking on these console systems. 512 megs of memory and that small bandwidth is not enough, regardless what n4g.com community thinks.
If the PS3 or Xbox360 could do this with those type of visuals and destruction, how is it that NO GAME ON THESE CONSOLES have come out as of yet that does this? I am waiting for this........

[ivant]

You're not getting the point.

Gameplay, gameplay and gameplay ...

... is what made BF2 and warhawk awesome and what will make BF3 -- not how pretty it looks, destructibility, or even by having a campaign.

Warhawk is the best online console shooter due to gameplay not because of graphics(ordinary) or destructible environments(none) or realism(lacking in many areas).

Let the PC fanboys have their optimized version of the game, and just give us console gamers the awesome BATTLEFIELD GAMEPLAY by gimping the Frostbite engine so we can have 32 -64 players.

Gameplay is what will make BF3 not .....

[04soldier]

I'd rather have the higher player count than the full scale destruction and immaculate graphics any day.

In a game like this, the player count is pivotal for how fun the game can be since each player can commandeer all vehicles in the game.

I'm watching this game very closely if the player count is stuck at measly 24 come release, it guarantees a 'NO BUY' from me...

[ivant]

24 players could still work... but just.

Yeah, games in Warhawk are easily better with 32 players then 24, However, smaller player counts could still be fun so long as at least half the team is in the air.... in air to air combat or providing support for the hardy few on the ground.

BF3 will still be a fun experience for console gamers if there are plenty of attack Helicopters and Jets on a map....not just the single attack helicopter -- if any -- in BC2.

Then, and only then, will 24 players still deliver the battlefield chaos.

And I mean attack helicopters like the Havocs or Apaches with the pilot having control of a cannon.

So wait and see how many aircraft and types will be in a typical game before passing judgment. It could still be a fantastic experience.

[RAYMEISTER]

Destructable envirnoments are a perk for any game. Like in BFBC2 u can take out a bldg w/ n kill every1 in it...awesome. It's also more like real life, which is what most people want when they play a vid game.

[Gambuzin0]

i Hope it will be good on consoles.

[hoops]

And people on this site actually thought BF3 on consoles whether it was the PS3 OR Xbox360 could handle 64 player online with those graphics, full destruction and real time lighting?
Oh god this game site....lol

[Naruto_Uzumaki]

I Don't think the xbox360 can handle it but the ps3 at least could handle 32 or maybe 40....

[SephireX]

24 players is plenty anyway. The pc will be the best version but a lot of players may lead to a lot of lag. Let's not forget about lag as it can ruin online experiences completely. This game will be awesome on all platforms anyway.

[tonywood]

I know the PC version of most multi plat games is the better of the three (Sometimes 4, with the Wii), but playing wiht 24 online is good enough anyhow. Sure not as many as 64, but most people don't use teamwork anyway online...hence Modern Warfare series and Halo. I'm still getting this game when it drops cause I love the battlefield series.

[ZugZug II]

Getting it for Onlive bitches.

[peeps]

Unsurprising really.

With level of graphics, destructibility, physics etc etc all going on I'm surprised the consoles will handle bf3 judging from the footage so far, then again I'm worried that whilst downsizing the game we may also see a significant downgrading of the graphics.

I think I'd prefer a lower player count if it meant keeping graphics similar to the pc version.

Not to mention that back in the day I loved BF2 on pc but also BF2:MC on consoles. bf:mc only has 24 players and had completely different maps to bf2 but it still had that battlefield feel

[Juevani]

Are you kidding me?? go find another wallet to rob DICE. remember MAG 256 players?? resistance 62 players, War hawk, killzone 2 and many other games.. Im sure the 360 have some games with 32 players too... in the last year or so I have almost only bought exclusive games (black ops being the only multi-platform game and the biggest waist of my money of all time by the way) and it will stay this way until multi-platform devs get their act together and start putting some effort into their games..

[sGIBMBR]

Unfortunately I don't have a gaming PC any more. Therefore I have the choice of either BF3 for 360 or PS3 seen as I have both HD Consoles... However, I refuse to buy a game on either platform that I have when there is a much superior version out there whether I have access to it or not!!!

The point is, that both current gen consoles have proved they can both handle over 24 players simultaneously and if Dice can't be bothered to increase the player count for HD consoles then I just won't buy the game, it's that simple.

Sure BF3 will be an awesome game, but I'm sure there's other FPS's out there that I can play that are just as entertaining for me!

One thing is for sure, I'm not investing in a gaming PC that's BF3 capable any time soon.

[anonym]

"[...]I refuse to buy a game on either platform that I have when there is a much superior version out there[...]"

They aren't holding back functionality just to spite console gamers. Consoles are physically incapable of handling what a modern gaming PC can. You're essentially saying that you will boycott any developer who actually makes use of the extra power and flexibility of the platform, rather than just letting consoles dictate their limits.

As for consoles proving they can handle more than 24 players, DICE never said anything to the contrary. What they're saying is that consoles can't handle more than 24 players for Battlefield 3, not in general. Different games have different requirements (minimum amounts of RAM and packet sizes, for example) to accommodate a given player count. The fact that a platform can handle 64 players for one game doesn't mean that it can handle 64 players for any other game, regardless of complexity.

[sGIBMBR]

You do raise some good points, especially about how I will essentially be boycotting any developer who makes extra use of the power available to PC users. I never looked at it in that way before, but what you are saying is right. I'm not saying I'm boycotting them because I resent what they are doing or whatever, I just can't play a downgraded version of something when there is a much much superior one out there.

[TronEOL]

I wouldn't doubt this. Consoles are old, that's a fact. But I really wonder how many people will actually be playing BF3 at the highest specs in comparison to all the people playing it on consoles.

You enjoy your 4-5 servers with 60 people in each server as I enjoy my 1000+ servers with 24 people from ALL AROUND THE WORLD.

With every positive comes a negative. Example: PC's can handle more, yes. But not everyone in the world will see it like that. I can count on one hand the amount of people I know that have gaming computers, and it still doesn't come close to the full 4 fingers and thumb.

Now I'm not insulting PC Gamers, as they have the right to enjoy their games, but so do console gamers. They shouldn't be any less of a gamer because they enjoy playing videogames elsewhere.

As for DICE, I call bullshit. The console side of the industry is purely political. Sony's PS3 can easily handle at least 32 players and still look good, but since there is this "Law" (I put those there because Microsoft is a baby) that stops the console versions from looking or playing too different. So rather than pushing each console to their limit, they settle for equality (which is bullshit).

Valve is the only company I'm aware of that really pushed new feature support on one console over the other (PS3 Steamworks/PC Cross Platform Play).

[RAYMEISTER]

All platforms will hav a good experience, but PC will have the best. Simple as that

[Haseo106]

LIAR!
Killzone 2 had 32 players.
Resistance 1 had 64 players.
Resistance 2 had 32 players.
MAG had 32, 64, & 256 players.

[ATiElite]

Now out of all those games which one has playable vehicles, helicopters, jets, aircraft carriers, FULL Destructible environments, and the graphics of Uncharted 2 plus 64 mp......None of them.

if the consoles could handle 64mp plus what DICE is doing then DICE would do it. consoles are LIMITED.

[DarkSpawnClone]

i would take a bit of a graphics hit for 15 vs 15 = 30 tho more players don't make a better games lol some of the best best MP matches iv ever played were 4 vs 4 ..tho im getting both PC and PS3 version :) BF i just one of those games were u need 2 copys 1 on pc for serious hardcore stuff and PS3 for being lazy infront of my tv (were i mostly hang out) but shooters on pc are so fun!

[ziggurcat]

the DICE devs obviously have not heard of MAG before... unless they think 256 players is less than 24.

[sethbalmore]

sure, if you want a shitty looking game

[RAYMEISTER]

Much more will b going on in BF3 than MAG.

[blackhammer]

Fact: The current generation of PCs are more powerful.

Myth: The PC is better than consoles.

Bullshit: DERP DERP MAG KILLZONE DERP!

[maxmill]

No shit PC is more powerful

why pc elitist take this so serious is beyond me

[RAYMEISTER]

i don't know why everyone's so upset. 1 game out of hundreds gets ported to consoles n guess what...consoles hav limitations. But 1 out of a thousand. Grow up peeps! PC gamers are happy. Console gamers be happy u can at least run the game. Stick to COD if u don't want destructable environment and great graphics.

[SSKILLZ]

Im ok with it as long as it looks, plays and runs Awesome !.

[Cha0tik]

I call DICE pure laziness because even though the graphics are better than MAG's graphics... MAG did 256 players with very little issues... the beta ran with amazing results and the final product was outstanding. Now Battlefield 3 could do this even with the improvement in the graphics department of the game but only if the development team isn't lazy and put the work as well as money to make it happen.

[CYBERHATER]

Once again the PC OWNS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[waterboy]

i love this talk of what ps3 "cant" do yet this is a multiplatform game not an exclusive game pcs version is better in all the areas named cause its not a ps3 exclusive game tell me if sony showed dice how to use ps3 it wouldnt be able to run the game to its highest extent or even better sure you could say it wouldnt be able to but how you have no proof

[IHateYouFanboys]

wow there are some seriously stupid comments in here lol.

"MAG has 256", "Resistance has 60", blah blah blah - that makes no difference. this is battlefield 3, not MAG or Resistance. remember, everything that happens in an online game has to be kept track of. you shoot down a single tree in the forest in Battlefield? that data has to get sent to every single player so the tree falls over on their console. shoot a rocket at a building? same deal, every player has to get that data including where it hit and how much damage to do, how big of a hole to make etc.

but even worse for the consoles than the data being transmitted is the fact that all of this takes local processing power. buildings dont just get holes in themselves magically, the CPU has to calculate that. trees dont get destroyed magically, the CPU has to calculate that. no other games do this, thats why they can have more players - all theyre tracking is the players. where they shoot, how much health they have, how much ammo they have, where they are positioned. Battlefield 3 does all this and then even more.

now multiply that by 24 players. 24 potential rockets going off all at once, blowing holes in building, knocking over trees, killing players, flying helicopters/jets, etc etc etc .............add that ON TOP of the data already needed for player positions/shots/grenades/kills /deaths. can you see why they cant do 60+ players? if you have a game running at a steady framerate for 24 players, upping that to 48 players is going to absolutely kill the framerate. itll be like watching a slideshow. now when you take into account the fact that the engine running the game allows full environmental destruction, its a miracle theyre even doing 24 players!

MAG is very rarely 256 players at once, and it does it in a way so that 256 players are even more rarely in the same spot at once. it may as well have been 32 players for most of the game. it also features no destruction, generic graphics, and a very basic engine. same for resistance - basic graphics, basic engine, no destruction.

i guess i shouldve expected this topic to be filled with PS3 fanboys since Battlefield 3 will no doubt look and play better than all the PS3 exclusive FPS games. just didnt expect them to come off looking *this* stupid.

[DarkSpawnClone]

Bubbles for that sir,it's nice too see some one with a brain.

[HardCover]

misclick*

[XeNoStRatoS]

I am quite a conservative gamer and will buy it because of its single player campaign like most of my games. So better get a nice setting together with at least 10h of value DICE.

24 gamers is not much, but still 3 squads a 4 players for each team or 2 with 6 per team... so that's acceptable although not great.