DICE

[Fisher321]

Why does DICE always make the PC version of the game 10 times better? The computer versions always have way more players than the consoles do. I don't see why they can't let the console versions have atleast 32 players. The 360/PS3 can handle up to 64 players or more guarantee it.

DICE confirmed that Battlefield 3 on the PC will have 64 player games, but the console will only have 24. I don't understand. Consoles are just as powerful.

And I know you PC Elitists are already saying "cONsoLes sUcK anD arE gAy"

I have a gaming PC and I prefer consoles for almost all game platforms, except RTS games.

So why can't DICE make the console versions support more players?

EDIT: Yes Consoles don't compare to High-end pc's. But Don't you think Dice could try to put 32 players into consoles?

 

[Elijin]

Without doing any research at all, I'd say dedicated servers and the lack thereof.

64 players doing a p2p connection is.....not good.

 

[Fisher321]

Without doing any research at all, I'd say dedicated servers and the lack thereof.

64 players doing a p2p connection is.....not good.

Surely EA could give the consoles dedicated servers. They have enough money.

 

[Radeonx]

Consoles aren't as powerful as PC's, though.
And given your ignorance on that, I highly doubt that you have enough knowledge to give your guarantee any weight.

 

[Fisher321]

I don't understand. Consoles are just as powerful.

Nnnnnnnnnnno they're not.

The 360/PS3 can handle up to 64 players or more guarantee it.

Are you by chance a programming engineer/tester at DICE for your guarrantee to hold any weight whatsoever?

MAG could support 256 players. Why can't Battlefield 3?

 

[Fisher321]

Consoles aren't as powerful as PC's, though.
And given your ignorance on that, I highly doubt that you have enough knowledge to give your guarantee any weight.

Ignorance? What am I being Ignorant to?

 

[Fisher321]

I don't understand. Consoles are just as powerful.

Nnnnnnnnnnno they're not.

The 360/PS3 can handle up to 64 players or more guarantee it.

Are you by chance a programming engineer/tester at DICE for your guarrantee to hold any weight whatsoever?

MAG could support 256 players. Why can't Battlefield 3?

Because it's not MAG. Obviously.

There's a large difference between 256 and 64. Surely the 360 could support 64 players on Battlefield.

 

[Irridium]

I don't understand. Consoles are just as powerful.

Nnnnnnnnnnno they're not.

The 360/PS3 can handle up to 64 players or more guarantee it.

Are you by chance a programming engineer/tester at DICE for your guarrantee to hold any weight whatsoever?

MAG could support 256 players. Why can't Battlefield 3?

Different engine.

I'm guessing DICE tailored their engine(Frostbite) to suit their needs. Zipper Interactive tailored their engine to suit their needs.

There've been a few times where developers would say "we can't find an engine to do what we want to do, so we made our own so we can do what we want.

 

[Fisher321]

I don't understand. Consoles are just as powerful.

Nnnnnnnnnnno they're not.

The 360/PS3 can handle up to 64 players or more guarantee it.

Are you by chance a programming engineer/tester at DICE for your guarrantee to hold any weight whatsoever?

Don't you thing that EA could make Dedicated servers for the Consoles?

 

[Jonny49]

The 360/PS3 can handle up to 64 players or more guarantee it.

Are you by chance a programming engineer/tester at DICE for your guarrantee to hold any weight whatsoever?

I'm going to take an uneducated guess and say the PS3 probably could handle 64 players, since MAG has 256. The Xbox...I'm not so sure.

Dedicated servers would be a must, but I imagine that on both accounts they would have to tweak the engine a little bit so it could run smoothly.

EDIT: Ninja'd on the MAG thing. That was pretty quick.

 

[Manchubot]

Mainly because MAG did use dedicated servers.

 

[Radeonx]

Consoles aren't as powerful as PC's, though.
And given your ignorance on that, I highly doubt that you have enough knowledge to give your guarantee any weight.

Ignorance? What am I being Ignorant to?

You don't really know what you are talking about.
You're making statements without any facts, and your lack of knowledge on the power of consoles and why the game can't hold as many players could be considered ignorance.

 

[repeating integers]

I dunno why this is, but since the 360 version of BC2 was ridiculously awesome anyway I don't much care.

Medics ftw...

Now if only they could learn how to make a proper singleplayer campaign.

 

[PeePantz]

I don't understand. Consoles are just as powerful.

Nnnnnnnnnnno they're not.

The 360/PS3 can handle up to 64 players or more guarantee it.

Are you by chance a programming engineer/tester at DICE for your guarrantee to hold any weight whatsoever?

MAG could support 256 players. Why can't Battlefield 3?

When I read your original OP, I was thinking the same thing. However, after a bit of thought, I realize that MAG is constantly freezing up. Also, the graphics are sub par (I don't care, but DICE probably does), the hit detection is pretty awful, and lag is a huge issue. Also, there is only a couple of operational vehicles, compared to Battlefield which above all things, has jets. The environments in MAG are pretty generic, bland, and are not interactive. This is another aspect Battlefield prides itself in. DICE isn't about to sacrifice key elements of the game simply for more players. While it saddens me there isn't going to more players, I understand why.

With that said, I really enjoy MAG.

 

[Fisher321]

Consoles aren't as powerful as PC's, though.
And given your ignorance on that, I highly doubt that you have enough knowledge to give your guarantee any weight.

Ignorance? What am I being Ignorant to?

You don't really know what you are talking about.
You're making statements without any facts, and your lack of knowledge on the power of consoles and why the game can't hold as many players could be considered ignorance.

Consoles are stronger than what you think. Now compared to a $5000 dollar gaming PC, ofcourse not. Consoles are a cheap alternative to High-End PC gaming. If I had a super-expensive PC like an AlienWare Aurora then yes PC games would be awesome. But since most of my friends have 360's then I prefer the cheaper option.

 

[mrF00bar]

64 players doing a p2p connection is.....not good.

I cant imagine how laggy that would be.

 

[Paularius]

Alot of people often have there own servers on there computers instead of relying on offical ones. You couldnt really have your own server on consoles or atleast im not sure how it would work on consoles.
It basicly means there far mor servers for pc than there are for console. Yes they could make more servers but the numbers needed would be crazy. lower player base per match means more space on the server for other matches.

 

[Fenring]

I don't understand. Consoles are just as powerful.

Nnnnnnnnnnno they're not.

The 360/PS3 can handle up to 64 players or more guarantee it.

Are you by chance a programming engineer/tester at DICE for your guarrantee to hold any weight whatsoever?

MAG could support 256 players. Why can't Battlefield 3?

Because MAG was specifically built for that. Battlefield uses the resources that MAG has tied up for lots of people for cooler, more interesting things, like super destruction, and looking really nice.

 

[Radeonx]

Consoles aren't as powerful as PC's, though.
And given your ignorance on that, I highly doubt that you have enough knowledge to give your guarantee any weight.

Ignorance? What am I being Ignorant to?

You don't really know what you are talking about.
You're making statements without any facts, and your lack of knowledge on the power of consoles and why the game can't hold as many players could be considered ignorance.

Consoles are stronger than what you think. Now compared to a $5000 dollar gaming PC, ofcourse not. Consoles are a cheap alternative to High-End PC gaming. If I had a super-expensive PC like an AlienWare Aurora then yes PC games would be awesome. But since most of my friends have 360's then I prefer the cheaper option.

This has nothing to do with personal preference or why you have one over another.
It has to do with you saying that consoles are more powerful, which is false.
My $500 gaming PC can outperform my 360. It isn't that hard to put 2 and 2 together.

 

[Fisher321]

Consoles aren't as powerful as PC's, though.
And given your ignorance on that, I highly doubt that you have enough knowledge to give your guarantee any weight.

Ignorance? What am I being Ignorant to?

You don't really know what you are talking about.
You're making statements without any facts, and your lack of knowledge on the power of consoles and why the game can't hold as many players could be considered ignorance.

Consoles are stronger than what you think. Now compared to a $5000 dollar gaming PC, ofcourse not. Consoles are a cheap alternative to High-End PC gaming. If I had a super-expensive PC like an AlienWare Aurora then yes PC games would be awesome. But since most of my friends have 360's then I prefer the cheaper option.

This has nothing to do with personal preference or why you have one over another.
It has to do with you saying that consoles are more powerful, which is false.
My $500 gaming PC can outperform my 360. It isn't that hard to put 2 and 2 together.

How so? What games do you play on the PC that outperform the 360 in every way?