Battlefiled 3: looks like PC users win

Ok so I read today that the PC version will have 64 players, while the console crowd will still be limited to 24 players. I'm not saying this is confirmed but i'm inclined to believe it, judging by history.

WTF? I just want to know why this is? We know the PS3 can handle huge numbers of players (MAG, Resistance 2) So why are we limited to such a small number for the majority of multi-plat games?

i just dont understand it - I've heard that Net code is harder for consoles but surely they could do it if they put their minds to it. It seems unfair that console gamers will pay more for an inferior edperience. I have a theory that that is competely hypothetical so don't pipe up, but is this the fault of the 360?

If the PC can do it and the PS3 can do it, what other edplaination is there? Infact I don't know of any games for the 360 that can support 50 + players?

Battlefiled maps are usually huge and I don't want to be playing in a ghost town!

i'm not a fanboy, I have both consoles and play both, and love bad company 2 for the 360 but can't help but think that it might be holding everyone back?

thoughts?

slinkysi

Ok so I read today that the PC version will have 64 players, while the console crowd will still be limited to 24 players. I'm not saying this is confirmed but i'm inclined to believe it, judging by history.

WTF? I just want to know why this is? We know the PS3 can handle huge numbers of players (MAG, Resistance 2) So why are we limited to such a small number for the majority of multi-plat games?

i just dont understand it - I've heard that Net code is harder for consoles but surely they could do it if they put their minds to it. It seems unfair that console gamers will pay more for an inferior edperience. I have a theory that that is competely hypothetical so don't pipe up, but is this the fault of the 360?

If the PC can do it and the PS3 can do it, what other edplaination is there? Infact I don't know of any games for the 360 that can support 50 + players?

Battlefiled maps are usually huge and I don't want to be playing in a ghost town!

i'm not a fanboy, I have both consoles and play both, and love bad company 2 for the 360 but can't help but think that it might be holding everyone back?

thoughts?

slinkysi

There only so much you can do with 512 RAM.

Have you ever played 64 player maps? It's so ridiculous that it's not even funny. I have never enjoyed a single 64 man battle in BF2. I usually played 32 player battles in Strike at Karkand and it was no problem, even though the map is rather huge.danish-death

What are you talking about? Are you saying 64 was unplayable? Are you saying that you played 32 players on 64 map? 64 was the best and most popular way to really experience BF2. Even without vehicles it was the best.

High player count is the reason why MAG and Resistence 2 cant come close to Bad Company 2 when it comes to graphics.

[QUOTE="slinkysi"]

Ok so I read today that the PC version will have 64 players, while the console crowd will still be limited to 24 players. I'm not saying this is confirmed but i'm inclined to believe it, judging by history.

WTF? I just want to know why this is? We know the PS3 can handle huge numbers of players (MAG, Resistance 2) So why are we limited to such a small number for the majority of multi-plat games?

i just dont understand it - I've heard that Net code is harder for consoles but surely they could do it if they put their minds to it. It seems unfair that console gamers will pay more for an inferior edperience. I have a theory that that is competely hypothetical so don't pipe up, but is this the fault of the 360?

If the PC can do it and the PS3 can do it, what other edplaination is there? Infact I don't know of any games for the 360 that can support 50 + players?

Battlefiled maps are usually huge and I don't want to be playing in a ghost town!

i'm not a fanboy, I have both consoles and play both, and love bad company 2 for the 360 but can't help but think that it might be holding everyone back?

thoughts?

danish-death

I think your pretty much alone on that.

The more players a game has does not make it better. Take COD2 on PC..Spawn,die,spawn die,2million grenades,die,spawn,die.2million grenades.8vs8 is fine with me. Even 10vs10...anything over that gets quite annoying.

VanDammFan

Yes, a game with huge maps and vehicles such as jets and choppers won't be better if it has more player support.

Hardware and bandwidth limitations.

Source 1
Source 2

Am I the only one who's happy with this as a console user? mrmusicman247

Everything Dice has stated so far some pics and game content ...

http://enterbf3.com/

[QUOTE="slinkysi"]

Ok so I read today that the PC version will have 64 players, while the console crowd will still be limited to 24 players. I'm not saying this is confirmed but i'm inclined to believe it, judging by history.

WTF? I just want to know why this is? We know the PS3 can handle huge numbers of players (MAG, Resistance 2) So why are we limited to such a small number for the majority of multi-plat games?

i just dont understand it - I've heard that Net code is harder for consoles but surely they could do it if they put their minds to it. It seems unfair that console gamers will pay more for an inferior edperience. I have a theory that that is competely hypothetical so don't pipe up, but is this the fault of the 360?

If the PC can do it and the PS3 can do it, what other edplaination is there? Infact I don't know of any games for the 360 that can support 50 + players?

Battlefiled maps are usually huge and I don't want to be playing in a ghost town!

i'm not a fanboy, I have both consoles and play both, and love bad company 2 for the 360 but can't help but think that it might be holding everyone back?

thoughts?

danish-death

Trust me, Bad Company 2 is intense enough with 24 people. The reason for it is probably different engine (Frostbite 2) which is for destruction on the map and I hear that its very complicated so thats most likely the reason.

There only so much you can do with 512 RAM.

tommyas

Console gamers will have to content getting half of the Battlefield 3 experience: half of the players, half of the graphics, half of the performance, half of the controls (well, less than half in this regard).

If MAG had everything BF3 is going to have in it and 256 players, the game would explode once you put it in your PS3. People need to stop thinking the PS3 is anything but a five year old machine.

PC users always win BTW.

Console gamers will have to content getting half of the Battlefield 3 experience: half of the players, half of the graphics, half of the performance, half of the controls (well, less than half in this regard).

RyuRanVII

:roll:

Console gamers will have to content getting half of the Battlefield 3 experience: half of the players, half of the graphics, half of the performance, half of the controls (well, less than half in this regard).

RyuRanVII

They get the privilege of paying 60 bucks for it though.

64 playerss = cluster ****

64 players != superior experience

Console gamers will have to content getting half of the Battlefield 3 experience: half of the players, half of the graphics, half of the performance, half of the controls (well, less than half in this regard).

RyuRanVII

Yea..guess those console gamers will just have to pop in disc, sit back on coutch and play the game on a system built for playing games and not running some bluescreen of death trap...silly consolers...really..

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"]I think they could pull off Battlefield 3 with 64 players on the PS3. glez13

This. You only get one 64 player area rendered at a time so basically, MAG is mostly a BF2 with better graphics and less vehicles. People just hear the 256 number and get to the conclusion that 256>64, but it is the exact same thing.

[QUOTE="RyuRanVII"]

Console gamers will have to content getting half of the Battlefield 3 experience: half of the players, half of the graphics, half of the performance, half of the controls (well, less than half in this regard).

VanDammFan

Yea..guess those console gamers will just have to pop in disc, sit back on coutch and play the game on a system built for playing games and not running some bluescreen of death trap...silly consolers...really..

Really thats the best you could do? 3/10 I can count how many times my comps has BSO"d on one hand during any given year. The BSOD's were all my fault too. My 360/PS3 have frozen atleast a dozen times. Both are minor, but just showing how the PC is more stable.

Idk why anybody would even want to play a BF game on consoles, even Bad Company 2, (where the first was on consoles only) the Second was just made for PC.

If MAG had everything BF3 is going to have in it and 256 players, the game would explode once you put it in your PS3. People need to stop thinking the PS3 is anything but a five year old machine.

PC users always win BTW.

Fizzman

Idk why anybody would even want to play a BF game on consoles, even Bad Company 2, (where the first was on consoles only) the Second was just made for PC.

MrJack3690

[QUOTE="VanDammFan"]

[QUOTE="RyuRanVII"]

Console gamers will have to content getting half of the Battlefield 3 experience: half of the players, half of the graphics, half of the performance, half of the controls (well, less than half in this regard).

Fizzman

Yea..guess those console gamers will just have to pop in disc, sit back on coutch and play the game on a system built for playing games and not running some bluescreen of death trap...silly consolers...really..

Really thats the best you could do? 3/10 I can count how many times my comps has BSO"d on one hand during any given year. The BSOD's were all my fault too. My 360/PS3 have frozen atleast a dozen times. Both are minor, but just showing how the PC is more stable.

YEP pretty much..:D

Amazing how butthurt console gamers get when they finally get a game the PC just absolutely trounces consoles in, in every way. Let's be realistic here, PC tech has advanced miles and miles ahead since these consoles released and DICE isn't gonna hold back their PC-originated series on PC just cause consoles can't pull it off.

If consoles could pull of 64 players online, DICE would implement it for them, why? Because it's a great selling point for a already great series. So stop whining about something you never had in the first place.

I think it will likely be at least 32 by the time its out, I just don't think DICE would keep it at 24 and expect console players to play in the same huge maps without getting bored quickly. They could also implement more personal Search and Destroy type modes for the more fast paced gamer in us.

Personally I'm more disappointed in the lack of grappling hooks and tracer darts.

64 playerss = cluster ****

64 players != superior experience

savagetwinkie

You'd be right if we were talking about a game with smaller maps (CoD comes to mind) but BF3 maps with be severals times larger. Some of BFBC2's larger maps like Heavy Metal feel empty with 32 players but I'm pretty sure that 64 would be much more lively.

It's really hard to say that this decision was based on "PC fanboyism." If some of you haven't heard or do not remember, the PC versions of BF:1943 and Onslaught were officially cancelled on PC while the consoles versions still have access to it.

The choice of player count could be based off a moral issue to make up for cancelling these projects. It could be a legitimate programming/coding issue, regardless of what other games have done. This engine does not equal the other game engines. Not everything can be fixed with super optimization.

Also, wasn't the player count also higher for the PC version of BFBC2 than the console versions? Why is this suddenly a big deal now?

Amazing how butthurt console gamers get when they finally get a game the PC just absolutely trounces consoles in, in every way. Let's be realistic here, PC tech has advanced miles and miles ahead since these consoles released and DICE isn't gonna hold back their PC-originated series on PC just cause consoles can't pull it off.

If consoles could pull of 64 players online, DICE would implement it for them, why? Because it's a great selling point for a already great series. So stop whining about something you never had in the first place.

Mystic-G

But MAG and Resistance already pulled 64 players on consoles.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

Amazing how butthurt console gamers get when they finally get a game the PC just absolutely trounces consoles in, in every way. Let's be realistic here, PC tech has advanced miles and miles ahead since these consoles released and DICE isn't gonna hold back their PC-originated series on PC just cause consoles can't pull it off.

If consoles could pull of 64 players online, DICE would implement it for them, why? Because it's a great selling point for a already great series. So stop whining about something you never had in the first place.

glez13

But MAG and Resistance already pulled 64 players on consoles.

Someone got pwned.

-You'll be fine with 24 players, that was the console-limit for BC2 wasn't it?

tagyhag

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

Amazing how butthurt console gamers get when they finally get a game the PC just absolutely trounces consoles in, in every way. Let's be realistic here, PC tech has advanced miles and miles ahead since these consoles released and DICE isn't gonna hold back their PC-originated series on PC just cause consoles can't pull it off.

If consoles could pull of 64 players online, DICE would implement it for them, why? Because it's a great selling point for a already great series. So stop whining about something you never had in the first place.

glez13

But MAG and Resistance already pulled 64 players on consoles.

[QUOTE="RyuRanVII"]

Console gamers will have to content getting half of the Battlefield 3 experience: half of the players, half of the graphics, half of the performance, half of the controls (well, less than half in this regard).

VanDammFan

Yea..guess those console gamers will just have to pop in disc, sit back on coutch and play the game on a system built for playing games and not running some bluescreen of death trap...silly consolers...really..

Just pop in the disc...You think that's quicker than just double clicking the icon? And why sit back on a couch when you have 1080p+ glory in your face with a creative surround sound system blasting up your arse and out ya mouth?

[QUOTE="glez13"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

Amazing how butthurt console gamers get when they finally get a game the PC just absolutely trounces consoles in, in every way. Let's be realistic here, PC tech has advanced miles and miles ahead since these consoles released and DICE isn't gonna hold back their PC-originated series on PC just cause consoles can't pull it off.

If consoles could pull of 64 players online, DICE would implement it for them, why? Because it's a great selling point for a already great series. So stop whining about something you never had in the first place.

SPYDER0416

But MAG and Resistance already pulled 64 players on consoles.

Someone got pwned.

[QUOTE="glez13"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

Amazing how butthurt console gamers get when they finally get a game the PC just absolutely trounces consoles in, in every way. Let's be realistic here, PC tech has advanced miles and miles ahead since these consoles released and DICE isn't gonna hold back their PC-originated series on PC just cause consoles can't pull it off.

If consoles could pull of 64 players online, DICE would implement it for them, why? Because it's a great selling point for a already great series. So stop whining about something you never had in the first place.

Ace6301

But MAG and Resistance already pulled 64 players on consoles.

Once you pop in the game and start playing and having fun, it won't matter. It's not a big deal at all, as long as they make the console maps smaller.

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"]I'm going to sign off this thread with this...no game but BF2 and BF2142 is doing large scale battles as well if not better than Zipper is with MAG. The rest of them can't do it and still be playable. As for map structure, MAG also has a 64 player mode called Interdiction which is essentially Battlefield conquest mode. 64 players, 16 APC, 2 mortar batteries, and NO LAG. It's total mayhem on a true Battlefield scale. Escalation Mode? 96 players on the same map, most of which migrate to point D in the middle making for total chaos. If there is anyone that could do BF3 with 64 players on consoles, it is Zipper.tagyhag

your slime avatar makes me lol..

but yeah your right :D

cant someone find the link to the 360 and ps3 bandwith limit by MS and SONY or something?

I don't know why devs even bother making console versions of historically PC exclusive series if they don't plan on making each version identical feature-wise. It's stupid.

I don't know why devs even bother making console versions of historically PC exclusive series if they don't plan on making each version identical feature-wise. It's stupid.

KH-mixerX

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

I don't know why devs even bother making console versions of historically PC exclusive series if they don't plan on making each version identical feature-wise. It's stupid.

vashkey

Yeah this. Consolites were perfectly happy with 24 players in Bad Company 2, why short-change them by not giving them the game at all?

[QUOTE="vashkey"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

I don't know why devs even bother making console versions of historically PC exclusive series if they don't plan on making each version identical feature-wise. It's stupid.

psn8214

Yeah this. Consolites were perfectly happy with 24 players in Bad Company 2, why short-change them by not giving them the game at all?

I'm not doubting that it'll still be enjoyable. But why even put out the game if you going to gimp the feature set? I highly doubt that the 24 player limit will be the only feature missing from the console versions.

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

[QUOTE="vashkey"] Just because one version is superior doesn't mean the other are completely unenjoyable.KH-mixerX

Yeah this. Consolites were perfectly happy with 24 players in Bad Company 2, why short-change them by not giving them the game at all?

I'm not doubting that it'll still be enjoyable. But why even put out the game if you going to gimp the feature set? I highly doubt that the 24 player limit will be the only deature missing from the console versions.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

Yeah this. Consolites were perfectly happy with 24 players in Bad Company 2, why short-change them by not giving them the game at all?

vashkey

I'm not doubting that it'll still be enjoyable. But why even put out the game if you going to gimp the feature set? I highly doubt that the 24 player limit will be the only deature missing from the console versions.

I know how they justify it. It's still lazy if you ask me though.

It is foolish to compare Battlefield 3 to Resistance or MAG because they are running on completely different engines! This game is suppose to be the true worthy successor to Battlefield 2 on the PC so I think people should be thankful that they're even considering releasing this game on consoles.

[QUOTE="coreybg"]

[QUOTE="slinkysi"]

It seems unfair that console gamers will pay more for an inferior edperience.

Locutus_Picard

:lol:

heh you sir are the one who is trying to justify his purchase of the ps3 which is really an xbox 360 with an added on blu ray player. Sorry to burst your bubble but both consoles sux compared to the PC.

[QUOTE="vashkey"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

I'm not doubting that it'll still be enjoyable. But why even put out the game if you going to gimp the feature set? I highly doubt that the 24 player limit will be the only deature missing from the console versions.

KH-mixerX

I know how they justify it. It's still lazy if you ask me though.

bf3 better have a good story or it will flop.