Battlefield 3 console multiplayer limited by hardware and networks +Setting

[QUOTE="FGMPR"][QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

R6 on XBOX 1 and Vegas on the HD consoles were great, It hink your just jaded.

XboximusPrime

whatever dude, im just tired of hearing about it like you guys have it so bad.

Do you see it now? Hell besides this chart you have free-to-play games with quality and graphics of a mainstream game. You can say it even started with cod4. The maps and spawn system weren't properly balanced for 64 players and the guns hardly had any recoil. Graphics, gameplay and overall quality of games have been stagnet for the last 4 years. Also we been getting waves of badly unoptimized games.(CodBlops is a good example)

Would you really wnt 64 players on a console?

XboximusPrime

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

Would you really wnt 64 players on a console?

NWA90s

PlanetSide had 500+ player battles back in 2003. ArmA 2 doesn't have a player amount limit. REAL 256 player battles are possible in that game.

Is there anything else besides that watered down game? MAG? On console?

[QUOTE="NWA90s"][QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

Would you really wnt 64 players on a console?

Jebus213

PlanetSide had 500+ player battles

ArmA 2 doesn't have a player amount limit. REAL 256 player battles are possible in that game.

it depends on the game engine. if one game can support 256, it doesn't mean that all games can.

People saying MAG can handle this and Resistance can handle that fail to realize that Battlefield isn't MAG or Resistance, it runs on a entierly different engine at different graphics settings. They probably have to reduce the graphics in order for it to work, and I bet they are not willing to do that.

[QUOTE="Khanbhai0"]

[QUOTE="FGMPR"] If we stopped complaining about PC gaming series being ruined by consoles time and time again, Battlefield 3 would have been 24/32 players for us, too. It's easy to sit there and tell us stop complaining when your a part of the lowest common denominator. You're not the one who had to watch classic PC games like Ghost Recon, Rainbow 6, Deus Ex, Battlefield (between 2-3) etc become simplified, less ambitious and regressive sequels of a game they were supposed to be improving on.

Battlefield 3 PC is good for gaming. PC gamers not willing to see our beloved series go down without a fight is good for gaming. Our attitude towards this has helped the likes of BF3 and Homefront, hell even Black Ops become significantly better games on PC than they would have otherwise.

FGMPR

unlike the consoles not all PCs are alike, Im guessing your one of those elites who can afford those super expensive PCs that cost more than most people can afford. The irony is that you dream of anambitious PC game that won't even play on 98% of the PCs out in the market.

360 and PS3 are powerful machines, they are better or on par with most of the PCs in the market.

I'm no "elite" my friend, I'm a broke full time student who proably put's more money into gaming than I should. I just deal with facts, and that fact is, is that consoles are running 5/6 year old hardware and just cannot compete with even mid-level PC hardware these days. Battlefield 3 is vista/win 7 only because EA/DICE know that most PC gamers have moved on from XP, just like most of them own appropriate hardware. It's hard not to be a PC gamer and not own hardware that eclipsis the consoles, because console equilvilant hardware is insanely cheap these days.

I highly doubt Uncharted 2 would be considered dated at this point, I am (like many others) satisfied with my console's performance. Besides, piracy not consoles caused the demise of PC gaming

I'm not planning to buy a gaming PC, and It seems like the console version will not offer anything new like BC2 did. I will probably skip this one

[QUOTE="FGMPR"]

[QUOTE="Khanbhai0"]

unlike the consoles not all PCs are alike, Im guessing your one of those elites who can afford those super expensive PCs that cost more than most people can afford. The irony is that you dream of anambitious PC game that won't even play on 98% of the PCs out in the market.

360 and PS3 are powerful machines, they are better or on par with most of the PCs in the market.

Khanbhai0

I'm no "elite" my friend, I'm a broke full time student who proably put's more money into gaming than I should. I just deal with facts, and that fact is, is that consoles are running 5/6 year old hardware and just cannot compete with even mid-level PC hardware these days. Battlefield 3 is vista/win 7 only because EA/DICE know that most PC gamers have moved on from XP, just like most of them own appropriate hardware. It's hard not to be a PC gamer and not own hardware that eclipsis the consoles, because console equilvilant hardware is insanely cheap these days.

I highly doubt Uncharted 2 would be considered dated at this point, I am (like many others) satisfied with my console's performance. Besides, piracy not consoles caused the demise of PC gaming

inb4 PC Gamer whine fests.

XboximusPrime

[QUOTE="Birdy09"][QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

inb4 PC Gamer whine fests.

AncientDozer

I love PC gaming and all, but I can't stand the elitist attitude that people seem to brandish nonstop on these boards. I'm sure it really is a minority and most people don't care, but it's obnoxious when they feel compelled to beat it over everyone's head that they're the "chosen ones" while everyone else is "unwashed". Honestly, though? I game more on my console and I have a rig I dumped a lot of money into for a PC. I went the extra mile. Not because I hate PC gaming or love console gaming. I just don't care. Precision of mouse and keyboard? Don't care. Both do the job just fine, aim assist or not. Slightly better graphics? Couldn't care. Graphics don't make the game. They're only part of that equation. A small part (Limbo is amazing, by the way, and it hardly competes with Crysis). I just like playing on the console more. I like being on live. Price or no (I have money so I'm not going to sit here and argue that pathetic cost nonsense). I like talking to a friend and switching games with them. I just do. And no, PC gaming's not dying. I don't know why anyone would believe that. The market's just changing. MMOs are hugely popular and easier to do on computers. The one thing I will argue about is the more equals better thing. As in player count. I listen to these kids whine and fuss about 24 players as opposed to, I don't know, 64 or 256 or whatever. Whatever. I honestly can't give two hoots or hollers for that obnoxious number of players because, in my experience, most games are cluster fu--dumps. Unless you have a large clan/guild/whatever or luck out, you find yourself on one of two tidal waves that slam together with the winner being the person who screws up less. My experience with counter strike, for instance, typically boiled down to the two sides colliding with each other at the same spots until things whittled down to the "better" players who played cat and mouse until it was all over. While the rest of the people just watched. The thing I like, no, love about smaller player counts is that what you do, as an individual or even a small group, had more of an impact. If you were a good player, you could tip the scale even if the rest of your team was "eh". It is much easier to coordinate, too. On Bad company, for instance, we could rally two of the three squads in a party and could control the direction of a game. So to me? 24. . 32? Not a loss. So what? Don't care. As long as guns go bang and bombs go boom, I'm happy. As long as my knife finds a back, I'm good. So long as tank engines roar and jets zoom. Golden.AncientDozer

you're at System Wars, my friend. it's never going to stop here.

i wont be playing on those 64-player servers anyway, so i don't know why people make so big deal out of it. is BF3 going to better on PC? sure, but not like it would be nowhere near bad on consoles. it essentially the same game.

e: i enjoy BC2 equally much on PC and PS3, although i prefer KB+M myself.

[QUOTE="Khanbhai0"]

[QUOTE="FGMPR"]

I'm no "elite" my friend, I'm a broke full time student who proably put's more money into gaming than I should. I just deal with facts, and that fact is, is that consoles are running 5/6 year old hardware and just cannot compete with even mid-level PC hardware these days. Battlefield 3 is vista/win 7 only because EA/DICE know that most PC gamers have moved on from XP, just like most of them own appropriate hardware. It's hard not to be a PC gamer and not own hardware that eclipsis the consoles, because console equilvilant hardware is insanely cheap these days.

FGMPR

I highly doubt Uncharted 2 would be considered dated at this point, I am (like many others) satisfied with my console's performance. Besides, piracy not consoles caused the demise of PC gaming

PS3 has the most exclusive games, and the most high scoring exclusives. The PS3 2011 line-up embarasses the PC line-up. See? I can play that game too.

Face it, the reason why devs go for consoles is because they'll make more. PC fanboys feel like their entitled to everything, they believe they deserve free DLC when console users need to pay, and they rage when their games go to other systems. Some people have bad PC's, some good, some amazing, do you think Crysis 2 is going to sell like crazy? Even if people want to play it, they don't have the computer TO play it. Not everyone is willing to upgrade their computer for a game, and also most will probably even pirate the game. Don't tell me piracy is nothing when there was a game that you could buy for 1 cent and that was pirated a TON on PC. If piracy was no big deal then Gears would still be on PC.

You might not care but the devs do, and you go on about how PC shatters console limits, and how PC's can have amazing games generations better than consoles. So why don't they? Lots of games on PC are poorly optimized, heck if games on PC were as optimized as Uncharted 2 on PS3 then they'd be gens ahead. But are they? And can you ensure that most PC gamers will be able to play it? You believe that developers on PC have no restriction but they do. The restriction is the PC gamers themselves, I'm sorry if they aren't making games that only "hardcore, elite" PC gamers can play.

You're right, you can buy a PC with the same hardware as consoles for really cheap. Good luck playing Halo, Uncharted, Killzone, Red Dead Redemption, etc. on that. Heck, even multiplats have higher requirements on PC's than consoles. You really think you can play Bad Company 2 on PC with console hardware?

[QUOTE="FGMPR"][QUOTE="Khanbhai0"]

I highly doubt Uncharted 2 would be considered dated at this point, I am (like many others) satisfied with my console's performance. Besides, piracy not consoles caused the demise of PC gaming

XVision84

PS3 has the most exclusive games, and the most high scoring exclusives. The PS3 2011 line-up embarasses the PC line-up. See? I can play that game too.

See, the problem with your comeback is... what he said was actual FACT based on a Factual Spreadsheet of Gamespot review scores.... the embarass part maybe down to preference to some degree but again, as far as releases go PC has more high profile potential this year again.

Face it, the reason why devs go for consoles is because they'll make more. PC fanboys feel like their entitled to everything, they believe they deserve free DLC when console users need to pay, and they rage when their games go to other systems. Some people have bad PC's, some good, some amazing, do you think Crysis 2 is going to sell like crazy? Even if people want to play it, they don't have the computer TO play it. Not everyone is willing to upgrade their computer for a game, and also most will probably even pirate the game. Don't tell me piracy is nothing when there was a game that you could buy for 1 cent and that was pirated a TON on PC. If piracy was no big deal then Gears would still be on PC.

The only reason initially that your DLC wasnt free was because of Microsoft, now that you fools have bought so much into it we all have to pay for content updates that were giving free in the spirit of making thier game's communitys last much longer.... but Nooo... your way of thinking about it is better :lol: for the companies maybe, not the consumor, unless you have shares, I really dont see why you would think this way.

You might not care but the devs do, and you go on about how PC shatters console limits, and how PC's can have amazing games generations better than consoles. So why don't they? Lots of games on PC are poorly optimized, heck if games on PC were as optimized as Uncharted 2 on PS3 then they'd be gens ahead. But are they? And can you ensure that most PC gamers will be able to play it? You believe that developers on PC have no restriction but they do. The restriction is the PC gamers themselves, I'm sorry if they aren't making games that only "hardcore, elite" PC gamers can play.

Games like UIncharted and Killzone look THAT good because of funding and backup, the reason ALOT of PC games dont look that good comes down to the limits of the studio developing the game. I mean its easy for you to knitpick the worse looking games, but then fact remains ultimatly the best looking games are on PC, and those games that actually try look leagues ahead of thier console counterparts. the un-optmized multiplats still look better on PC. I wish Castlevania Lord of Shadows was on PC, maybe then its fantastic ar****and presentation would be done justice instead of the jaggy low framerate mess that the consoles make of it.

You're right, you can buy a PC with the same hardware as consoles for really cheap. Good luck playing Halo, Uncharted, Killzone, Red Dead Redemption, etc. on that. Heck, even multiplats have higher requirements on PC's than consoles. You really think you can play Bad Company 2 on PC with console hardware?

They barely make "console level hardware" anymore... its pretty much out of the maufacturing retail cycle.

XMNR: EA and DICE finally began pulling back the curtain on Battlefield 3 this week and even more details concerning the multiplayer on the PS3 and Xbox 360 have just come out.

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, painted the first dreary picture of a battle being waged in recent memory, with the White House itself being the nerve center of an enemy occupation. Upcoming games like Homefront, which depicts a Korean invasion Red Dawn ****are going there as well. Crysis 2, albeit a much more fictionalized alien invasion will feature a war torn New York City. It's not much of a stretch to figure that DICE would bring the fight to US as well

killzonexbox

you're at System Wars, my friend. it's never going to stop here.

groowagon

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

So? thats a custom map.ferret-gamer

[QUOTE="groowagon"]

you're at System Wars, my friend. it's never going to stop here.

lowe0

i know that, but try to tell it to everyone on these forums...

Why are they even releasing it on consoles if it's going to be half-assed? Consoles already have tons if shooters coming out and if it isn't 60 players it's just going to be like all the other shooters on consoles.Keiji993

I'm not buying it if its stuck at 24.... They can compromise on some things if they have to... If I buy a battlefield game... I want it to feel like a battlefield...not... run for 3 minutes then either get a kill or a death.

And I'm not paying 800 bucks to just get started on a PC so I can play it.

Infinite_Access

This is how Battlefield 1942 was with 64 players. There is a reason why even BF2 has smaller maps than BF1942.

The solution is easy:

Consoles need dedicated servers if they are to match the player limit in the PC version.

It remains to be seen if Sony or MS would allow something like that.

[QUOTE="The_Capitalist"]

The solution is easy:

Consoles need dedicated servers if they are to match the player limit in the PC version.

It remains to be seen if Sony or MS would allow something like that.

SPBoss

Bad Company 2 already uses dedicated servers. They could NEVER run the level of destruction over the network on a P2P connection. No way.

Why are they even releasing it on consoles if it's going to be half-assed? Consoles already have tons if shooters coming out and if it isn't 60 players it's just going to be like all the other shooters on consoles.Keiji993

I wonder if the people who listed MAG, Resistance 2 and Frontlines had ever played Bad Company 2...

Or seen maps like Heavy Metal.

I'm a PC gamer and even I know its a lie that they can't get 64 players on consoles. Battlefield 1942 came out 9 years ago and was able to run 64 player games on a Pentium 3 :lol:

I'm a PC gamer and even I know its a lie that they can't get 64 players on consoles. Battlefield 1942 came out 9 years ago and was able to run 64 player games on a Pentium 3 :lol:

MIYAMOTOnext007

It has nothing to do with that...Its a server issue more then anything else.

I mean, you PC gamers get better graphics, MMOs, Steam (which is arguably the best thing ever), the best way to play FPS's adn RTS's, free online play, Blizzard games, and HD resolutions that would make a console gamers head spin. So im sorry if I dont see why you guys have it so bad.

XboximusPrime

We were talking about raibow six, right?

I'm a PC gamer and even I know its a lie that they can't get 64 players on consoles. Battlefield 1942 came out 9 years ago and was able to run 64 player games on a Pentium 3 :lol:

MIYAMOTOnext007

And what cobrax55 said.

I'm a PC gamer and even I know its a lie that they can't get 64 players on consoles. Battlefield 1942 came out 9 years ago and was able to run 64 player games on a Pentium 3 :lol:

MIYAMOTOnext007

[QUOTE="mattuk69"][QUOTE="Funconsole"] This. Pretty sure consoles are more than capable of supporting 64 players even with destruction, the only reason it may not is for the PC fanboys to feel specialgroowagon

yeah. propably so that PC fanboys can feel special.

How could they feel special at all when the original BC was a console exclusive :?

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"][QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

I think its just PC gamers thinking there better then everyone else again.

XboximusPrime

sir! :evil:That is absolutely 100 percent correct :P, but It did end up being that now didnt it? This ended being about PC Gamer elitism adn that they are being treated less because the console version is trying to be just as good as their version, like it usualy is with these threads.

What you don't seem to understand is the level of frustration PC gamers have because of the current trend in the consolization of many long favored franchises. Imagine you have a favorite TV show or Movie series that's watered down to appeal to all ages. Imagine if Transformers 3 was a G rated movie? Can you imagine how many pissed off fanboys there would be? PC gamers tend to have a higher standards because it's what we are use to. Yes you can call it whining but it's really a demand for a better product. Another way to look at it would be to imagine the Wii as the lowest common demoninator and every game for PS3 and Xbox360 being made with motion controls in mind. Then imagine your favorite titles requiring some form of dance gameplay to be included with it? Then all of sudden it's not "whining" anymore.

[QUOTE="hellnojustno"]http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/frontlinesfuelofwar/index.html Frontlines: Fuel of War That game is 50 players online and released by fairly unknown developer. IM calling bs.Funconsole

Because Frontlines has the same graphics and what not as Battlefield3 huh? lol come on man frontliens looked terrible. Consoles tech are starting to show limitations.

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"] And yet you were the one that started this brief argument, heck you possibly didn't read the op and posted "inb4 PC Gamer whine fests." before anyone else posted. menes777

sir! :evil:That is absolutely 100 percent correct :P, but It did end up being that now didnt it? This ended being about PC Gamer elitism adn that they are being treated less because the console version is trying to be just as good as their version, like it usualy is with these threads.

What you don't seem to understand is the level of frustration PC gamers have because of the current trend in the consolization of many long favored franchises. Imagine you have a favorite TV show or Movie series that's watered down to appeal to all ages. Imagine if Transformers 3 was a G rated movie? Can you imagine how many pissed off fanboys there would be? PC gamers tend to have a higher standards because it's what we are use to. Yes you can call it whining but it's really a demand for a better product. Another way to look at it would be to imagine the Wii as the lowest common demoninator and every game for PS3 and Xbox360 being made with motion controls in mind. Then imagine your favorite titles requiring some form of dance gameplay to be included with it? Then all of sudden it's not "whining" anymore.

Very well said^ and its fact.

But in the end, all they can do is just criticize PC gamers and call us "elitists" because we show facts.

24 players just seems like an insult to console gamers. Honestly, with all the games that offer 32 or more players with destruction like in Frontlines or action like in MAG I can't understand why they can't at least keep it to 48 or even 32 players, but 24? Come on DICE, 32 players is nothing and its all I'm asking for, but NOOOOO, you have to give us 1/3 the players instead oe merely 1/2.

24 players just seems like an insult to console gamers. Honestly, with all the games that offer 32 or more players with destruction like in Frontlines or action like in MAG I can't understand why they can't at least keep it to 48 or even 32 players, but 24? Come on DICE, 32 players is nothing and its all I'm asking for, but NOOOOO, you have to give us 1/3 the players instead oe merely 1/2.

SPYDER0416

Mag and especailly Frontlines dont look nearly as good or have as much going on as the Battlefield games. Sure they have alot of people but the graphics/tech stuff is nowhere near the level of Battlefield.

24 players just seems like an insult to console gamers. Honestly, with all the games that offer 32 or more players with destruction like in Frontlines or action like in MAG I can't understand why they can't at least keep it to 48 or even 32 players, but 24? Come on DICE, 32 players is nothing and its all I'm asking for, but NOOOOO, you have to give us 1/3 the players instead oe merely 1/2.

SPYDER0416

24 players just seems like an insult to console gamers. Honestly, with all the games that offer 32 or more players with destruction like in Frontlines or action like in MAG I can't understand why they can't at least keep it to 48 or even 32 players, but 24? Come on DICE, 32 players is nothing and its all I'm asking for, but NOOOOO, you have to give us 1/3 the players instead oe merely 1/2.

SPYDER0416

If any of you people are mad that you are only getting 24 players on consoles, you could always buy the game on the computer. Yeah you might have to buy a new computer if yours is too old or doesn't meet the requirements or you could just live with the 24 player limit and be glad you are getting the game at all. I applaud DICE for actually trying to get this game to run on consoles, large maps, destruction, Jets, and 24 players is one hell a feat when the computer version will likely require 2 to 4 GB of RAM, a Quad-Core Processor, and a current video card with DX11 and the consoles use a 2005 video card with DX9, a Triple Core Processor from 2005, and 512 MB of RAM. It may not be the greatest playing with 24 players but considering you are getting the game at all you should be thankful. DICE could have easily said "Sorry it can't be done on consoles" and then your only other option would be to buy a new computer/upgrade if yours could not run the game at a level you want it too.

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

Thanks to adding onto my point.

FGMPR

look, if PC gamers would stop complaining about their game being downsized because of the mean ol consoles, then i wouldnt have reason to bring it up.

Battlefield 3 PC is good for gaming. PC gamers not willing to see our beloved series go down without a fight is good for gaming. Our attitude towards this has helped the likes of BF3 and Homefront, hell even Black Ops become significantly better games on PC than they would have otherwise.

I know it's a bit unusual, but I'm going to back to the point I made originally about why us PC gamers complain (of which Xboximusprime took issue with). Quoted in the latest Game Informer was this when asked about why 64 player on PC was exclusive:

"'The PC audience has been the one complaining"' Bach says "We haven't actually heard any complaints from the console audience" (in regards to previous 24 player counts with their games).

Now, I don't actually believe this as such, and believe if they could, then they would be making BF3 64 players on all platforms, but one thing is for certain. Us PC gamers complained and campaigned long and hard to make sure that BF3 was going to be a PC game first and foremost, and we have been rewarded for our efforts.

What I would like is for console gamers to start doing the same, so that come next generation, basic MP features that were standard for years before xbox Live came along will become standard again. Dedicated servers and server browsers as a bare minimum standard for everyone benifitseveryone.

LOL at all the consolites crying Frontlines and MAG. Those games looked terrible, Frontlines looked obsolete when it first came out same with MAG, MAG did not even have that many vehicles on the map. As for Resistence it looked okay but the maps and gfx were nothing like a BF game and it didnt have any vehicles. Also BC2 destruction 2.0 engine would be too much combined with 64 players. Its foolish to think that DICE limited consoles to 24 to make pc feel good. Just accept ur hardware is obsolete trash

Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 i will buy for my PC and Ps3...(for trophies). I'm trying to get console gamers who play MAG, Cod, Halo, BFBC2 all day buy Battlefield 3. I played the Battlefield 2 demo after watching my cousin play it so much with his friends. Console gamers need to create communities for Battlefield 3 from the start. I mean what console fps game online where you can do jet stunts? 8)

Their it is. I knew PC gamers would come in here complaining like always.

XboximusPrime

yikes, gladly i'll be getting the real version on PC.Jankarcop

I have never understood why people plays the 64 player matches. From what I've played, in every game that have allowed such a number of gamers, it sucks - it's not funny playing 32 vs 32, it's nothing, but a pure mindless frag-fest. 16 vs 16 is way better. With that said I'm stilling getting this game for PC. :)danish-death