Battlefield 3 multiplayer

[thelustyargoniandude]

I have BF3 for the Xbox because my PC can't run it. I was just wondering something. Why is it that the console version's multiplayer only goes up to 24 players? Is it because something is preventing 64-player multiplayer? Like is it just not possible? Or is it just more of an incentive to get it for PC? I figured that this would be a good way of getting the information I'm looking for. Thanks!

 

[hazabaza1]

I'm guessing it's just net-coding and more instable internet connections on consoles.

 

[Hazy992]

What hazabaza said. Plus the consoles probably can't handle that much information due to hardware limitations like RAM

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

I haven't touched my PS3 copy in months.

24 players on maps designed for 64.

Why did they even bother?

 

[hermes]

Mostly because of resources. Consoles don't have the memory to handle that many players and keep graphic fidelity and framerate to "acceptable" levels.

 

[Dectomax]

I've heard a few arguments for a variety of reasons, the general consensus is that it has something to do with how much bandwidth MS/Sony allow for their consoles- others say that on consoles it would be far too demanding ( Hell, have you seen a max ticket metro server? IMAGINE that with 32 a side! ).

The easiest answer would be technology - our consoles are dated, by a few years - and the hardware just isn't capable of running much more than 32 players ( Homefront tried and lagged to hell - that wasn't even that great looking either! )

Also, seeing as you're a fellow xbox user - feel free to PM me if you want to party up on BF3 at some point, it's always nice to have a squad running!

 

[HarryScull]

I haven't touched my PS3 copy in months.

24 players on maps designed for 64.

Why did they even bother?

especially when 12 of those 24 players are camping with sniper rifles...

 

[Waaghpowa]

I recall Dice saying it was because of the RAM limitations. Both consoles have only 512 mb of ram.

Mostly because of resources. Consoles don't have the memory to handle that many players and keep graphic fidelity and framerate to "acceptable" levels.

More of less this.

 

[k3v1n]

I recall Dice saying it was because of the RAM limitations. Both consoles have only 512 mb of ram.

Mostly because of resources. Consoles don't have the memory to handle that many players and keep graphic fidelity and framerate to "acceptable" levels.

More of less this.

but didn't M.A.G have something like, 64 players players on a same match??

 

[DazZ.]

but didn't M.A.G have something like, 64 players players on a same match??

Also a less demanding engine to let that many people in with smaller amount of memory.

 

[k3v1n]

but didn't M.A.G have something like, 64 players players on a same match??

Also a less demanding engine to let that many people in with smaller amount of memory.

Ah, well then, thanks for poninting that out!!

 

[thelustyargoniandude]

Thanks for all the responses, guys!

 

[Ninjamedic]

I haven't touched my PS3 copy in months.

24 players on maps designed for 64.

Why did they even bother?

Because I'm fed up games where it turns into a cluster-fruitcake of grenades/whatever spammable weapon. Why is there such an obsession with cramming players into a map on PC?

 

[Terminate421]

I would have preferred they focus more on CQC maps rather than makes us play on maps the size of forge world.

 

[TheSapphireKnight]

From what I understand the reason that it is 24 players is the limits that both XBox and PS3 have in terms of data. The Xbox and PS3 have the muscle to do 32 players but the limits Sony and Microsoft have placed on there consoles are the issues.

 

[Lordmarkus]

I would have preferred they focus more on CQC maps rather than makes us play on maps the size of forge world.

Quick question, did you play any real Battlefields, i.e. pre-Bad Company, before trying out Battlefield 3? And hell, if you haven't no loss since the next map-pack is specificly designed for the likes of you who rather play CQB than total war.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

I recall Dice saying it was because of the RAM limitations. Both consoles have only 512 mb of ram.

Mostly because of resources. Consoles don't have the memory to handle that many players and keep graphic fidelity and framerate to "acceptable" levels.

More of less this.

but didn't M.A.G have something like, 64 players players on a same match??

M.A.G could get 256 players in a game. But it had a much less demanding engine.

OT: I don't play Battlefield on my 360 anymore. I got a PC that runs it on ultra for the fact that I was sick of playing games of 24 players on the 360 on maps that were designed for 64 players. The console versions are best on Conquest since the map sizes are reduced but even on some of the bigger maps it can still be a chore to find someone.

I've heard the limitations on the consoles are due to RAM but I can't confirm that as I've never really bothered to find out the reason why. I don't want to sound like an elitist but there's no way to say what I'm about to say without sounding like one so I'll just say it: The easiest way to explain it is to just say that consoles are inferior to PC's.

 

[Terminate421]

I would have preferred they focus more on CQC maps rather than makes us play on maps the size of forge world.

Quick question, did you play any real Battlefields, i.e. pre-Bad Company, before trying out Battlefield 3? And hell, if you haven't no loss since the next map-pack is specificly designed for the likes of you who rather play CQB than total war.

Actually I have played every Battlefield made (Other than Battlefield Heros, but I don't count that since A it sucks massive dick and B its hardly much of a battlefield as much as it is a parody of Team Fortress)

The thing is about the Xbox version is the common complaints, why bother making huge maps if I am looking for like 12 enemies? It doesn't flow well unlike Bad Company 2 which worked well even with 12 people.

I should have been more specific:
Make smaller maps, not CQC maps only. If I wanted those I could play Call of Duty 4 (Since IW had the genius idea of making Mazes for maps in MW2 and MW3).

Larger maps work depending totally on the game and how it flows. A fast paced Halo game allows forgeworld to shine, even on 8 vs. 8
A game that depends on vehicles to get around larger areas, like Battlefield, does not work for larger maps, unless of course the player count works hand in hand.
I currently play the Xbox version because it flows better.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well there is the basic problem with XBL connection limitations, and then there is rendering.
64(actually you can get it up to 128 but EA will ban you) people doing shit on the map is a whole bunch of shit to keep up with and consoles are at their very limit just displaying the basic game, so keeping it low on players makes sure the framerate is better in check.