They would only have to put up servers for consoles as well to make it work or even better set up cross-platform servers. ;) Okay, I guess that will never happen.

" @ch13696 said:

" I doubt the PC version will have 64 players. I think everyones forgetting that Battlefield 2142 had 124 players on some maps.  "

I don't think that's accurate at all. I have over 400 hours in 2142 and the max is 32v32. "

I really don't quite get why people get this excited over the number of players that can play the game. I mean it's a multiplayer so the number of players can just amount to more crazy lone wolf snipers unless DICE manage to designate not only restrictions to the number of classes per match but also, and most importantly, design maps so that the action is always concentrated on one or at best two spots so that it doesn't become people wondering around a huge map and occasionally shooting each other ala Battlefield DC. Really, I think BC2 on the PC did terribly well in designating action to certain hot spots rather than allowing for wild, free-roaming action. This is on that m-com mode that is, haven't really played the other modes thus far. Reminds me of ET: Quake Wars, the king of aligning fights to certain areas and making sure people don't go wandering off. It's a difficult challenge to pull off larger player counts in a proper way with any other match type than DM or TDM, and I sure hope DICE can do it.

Can't say I ever really enjoyed anything more than 32 - 48 players in a single map in BF2, but this is good news.

Rad

"  I think BC2 on the PC did terribly well in designating action to certain hot spots rather than allowing for wild, free-roaming action. "

all i know is that im so happy i can fuck a tree right now

...lol, only 12v12 on console.  Wonderful.

" @Jayross said:

64 players seem appropriate for PC, and the disparity between the consoles shows that the PC version will be significantly better than the console version. Hopefully DICE will be putting in the proper amount of work to create a great game. 
 

That's fucking ridiculous. Number of players isn't proportional to quality. The PC version won't be 2.66667 times better than the console versions. I don't know how they're making the maps and everything, but there's a chance it could be better on consoles. It all depends on how they design the levels, whether they make them for a medium or large number of players. I know MAG boasts a shitload of players, and Resistance 2 had 80-player deathmatch. However, you don't hear about them often. "  

I haven't played a lot of shooters lately, so i haven't bought BC2. But I have played both 1943 and Heroes and the biggest problem with both those game is the low player limit. Playing a huge map like Wake island with less than 20 players, you just won't get a lot of action. For me the sweetspot in BF2 and 2142 was 40-50 players on a medium("32player") map or 32 players on a small("16 player") map. I like my battlefields to be a bit crowded. Was never a fan of the huge 64 player battles, but i know that many are. So with this it seems like everyone wins. Everyone that still plays shooters on PC at least ^^

@Jayross said:

" http://www.gameinformer.com/games/battlefield_3/b/xbox360/default.aspx  (check the "multiplayer" tab) 
 
While not 100% accurate, the GameInformer website lists BF3 as support 64 players on PC and 24 on consoles. Given that they have the exclusive, the number is probably accurate. ' 
 
64 players seem appropriate for PC, and the disparity between the consoles shows that the PC version will be significantly better than the console version. Hopefully DICE will be putting in the proper amount of work to create a great game. 
 
However, the GameInformer website also refers to a "single-player" mode... is this a tutorial? Bot matches? An actual singleplayer a la Bad Company? We won't know until tomorrow... 
 
So 24 players on consoles... seems very low, and is a clear indication that you will want to buy Battlefield 3 for PC when it comes out later this year. "

Most people can't play BF3 on their computers.

" I hope the console gets atleast 32 players, 24 from 64 is pretty gimped sounding...  "

" @MrKlorox said:

" @ch13696 said:

" I doubt the PC version will have 64 players. I think everyones forgetting that Battlefield 2142 had 124 players on some maps.  "

I don't think that's accurate at all. I have over 400 hours in 2142 and the max is 32v32. "

why would you do that "

I doubt that is right.  I bet PS3 and Xbox 360 will both have their player counts upped as well, probably around 30-40.

If they're actually separating them, then I'm glad the developers have finally realized that there's a difference between PC and console. 

The problem with upping the player count at least on the 360 is that MS have a limit on the bandwidth a customer's machine can go through, those numbers also take into consideration Live chat traffic if this bird whispered correctly into my ear, which puts an even harder pressure on developers. The original Unreal Tournament generated about 7kbps of traffic as an example, some of you remember the netcode in that. Some of you also remember the netcode in Blops PC on a dedicated server that you have 20-20 ms ping to.
 
And then Sony comes along and brings out MAG..

so according to this thread everybody who says anything against the pc, even if it is a legitimate point, is a troll

I'm still hopping that DICE will announce 32 players+ for PS3 at E3...

" Actually, according to the Sony E3 Conference, BF3 will have 64-players on the PS3 version. I also heard that the 360 will have 32. "

makes sense they limit the amount of players on the console, they don't have a ton of memory to work with so there is probably performance issues from having more players.

I don't need more than 24 people anyway its just chaos beyond that /sweetlemons

" @Jayross said:

64 players seem appropriate for PC, and the disparity between the consoles shows that the PC version will be significantly better than the console version. Hopefully DICE will be putting in the proper amount of work to create a great game. 
 

That's fucking ridiculous. Number of players isn't proportional to quality. The PC version won't be 2.66667 times better than the console versions. I don't know how they're making the maps and everything, but there's a chance it could be better on consoles. It all depends on how they design the levels, whether they make them for a medium or large number of players. I know MAG boasts a shitload of players, and Resistance 2 had 80-player deathmatch. However, you don't hear about them often. "

"http://www.gameinformer.com/games/battlefield_3/b/xbox360/default.aspx  (check the "multiplayer" tab) 
 
While not 100% accurate, the GameInformer website lists BF3 as support 64 players on PC and 24 on consoles. Given that they have the exclusive, the number is probably accurate. ' 
 
64 players seem appropriate for PC, and the disparity between the consoles shows that the PC version will be significantly better than the console version. Hopefully DICE will be putting in the proper amount of work to create a great game. 
 
However, the GameInformer website also refers to a "single-player" mode... is this a tutorial? Bot matches? An actual singleplayer a la Bad Company? We won't know until tomorrow... 
 
So 24 players on consoles... seems very low, and is a clear indication that you will want to buy Battlefield 3 for PC when it comes out later this year. "

" So why cant they do 64 players on consoles "

I do hope that they are able to keep the 64 player count, or get as close as possible, on the console versions. It just wouldn't be Battlefield without a large map with a large player count.

" @RE_Player92: Yeah, I don't get that. Isn't MAG supposed to be able to run 128+ players at a time?? Why can't Battlefield 3 make it happen? "

Ok, guys. So you are telling me the only reason consoles can not do a higher player count is that Microsoft has a bandwidth limit for games? This has nothing to do with processing power/memory? I mean PCs had 64 player games even at times when their specs were comparable to the current console generation. (Well game engines where not as complicated as Frostbite.)

Obviously DICE will not make 3 versions with a small version for the 360, an intermediate for the PS3 and a big one for the PC. So the PS3 apparently able to do 128 players will not help much.

I own BC2 for PS3 and PC (trying to learn keyboard+mouse: but not much fun really), and I can tell you that the maps even in that are somewhat different already. So do not worry. All versions will be a lot of fun, and thats really all I need. But I am still hoping that they can upgrade the PS3 version to near the PC level.

As long as PC version is 64 players , couldn't give a rat ass about console versions.

" yeah, but are they going to create 64 player maps or just create one map than everyone uses? because then 64 players is way too much for a smaller map "

Frankly, I don't think any of this is all that meaningful until we know more about this game.  Discussing player counts seems silly when we don't really know what the maps will even be like, or how accurate the weapons will be.
 
Also, for those asking about it, MAG had a 256 player limit.

There will probably be twice or THRICE the number of maps on console than PC, but totaling to the same amount of landmass between the two platforms. For all the work they put into making the large 64 player maps, it sure would sound silly for them to lock the consoles out of the majority the landmass. Therefore they'll probably chop up the 64 player maps into halves or thirds and make multiple console sized "maps" out of them. Hopefully the multiple smaller cordons make it to PC as well for folks who want smaller matches at times.

" @scarace360 said:

" So why cant they do 64 players on consoles "

Mostly bandwith though another big reason should be the whole destruction thing.      I raged a bit when the first post with the, (on PC), in it came out, but I'll reserve judgement until the reveal on March 1st.   My PC certainly can't handle the game and look good at the same time so I'm stuck with the console version (360). If they pull a Portal and make the PS3 the real console version I think I'll just get a Playstation and declare the death of the 360. "

i am totally fine with only 24/32 on the consoles(Maybe only xbox) 
 
with the lower fidelity of the aiming and controls on the xbox, i think its for the better.

" Ok, guys. So you are telling me the only reason consoles can not do a higher player count is that Microsoft has a bandwidth limit for games? "