The console version of BF3 can only support 24 players whereas the PC version can have up to 64. We all know well that the PS3 can handle AT LEAST 256 players, if not more, all in a single match. So why did DICE dumb down the amount of people that can play at a time for the consoles? Well, I'll tell you what I think: the Xbox360 is why. Don't get me wrong, I love the Xbox, but the reason PS3 doesn't have 64 players is because the Xbox couldn't handle it, and it'd seem unfair to only dumb down the Xbox version. What do you think?

That's not the reason. It's something extra for PC gamer's because DICE is primarily a PC developer.

They said consoles couldn't handle 64.

How in the bloody hell can the console with slightly better online functionality be the cause of a gimp in number of players on another? Why does everything have to be one console's fault? Blame EA.

Haha well technically speaking the Xbox CANNOT handle 64 players like the PC and PS3 can, so DICE just said "let's group the two consoles together and use only 24 players because of one's blight." Personally, I find it quite interesting.

It was in the Battlefield 3 edition of Game Informer where they said it's something special for PC gamer's, especially since it sounds like they might not release modding tools with it. Also, we don't know if the consoles can have 64 players in one game with this new engine. :shrug:

I fail to see why the 360 wouldn't be able to support a game like MAG. MAG's developers used servers separate from Sony's for the online play.

Couldn't the same thing be done with the 360?

Newsflash, MAG worked because of a specifically designed net code, not because the Playstation Network can handle ten times the amount of players in a server than the 360. The same game could have been made on the 360, and there is absolutely no reason why it couldn't "handle" it. The PC version, believe it or not, is also dependent on the game's ability to have large matches, not that the PC is some magical internet gaming platform.

So you're saying that the game is what the player amount depends on? I didn't know that

And so the PC gets a special little gift? That's cool. I guess.

Why couldn't the consoles get at least 32 players?

Obviously. All online games are designed with a specific number of players in mind. If EA wanted, they could have optimized their network for the consoles to contain as many players as the PC version, but they chose instead to just reduce the number (and had the gall to use the "consoles can't do it" excuse). Again, direct your disappointment at EA, not at either of the consoles.

So when DICE said that consoles couldn't handle 64 players, they meant that the consoles couldn't handle as many players with Frostbite 2.0 as the PC can?

I don't own a PS3 so I don't know but I'm calling BS on this. No way.

Look up MAG on the internet.

The Domination mode has 256 players, 128 vs 128, all killing eachother.

I own the game :/

Not BS, actually. A game on the PC platform called Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising could handle upwards of 250 players a server, and I witnessed it first-hand. As an added bonus, I never had a latency above 60ms. The same could be done on either of the consoles should the company know what its doing. EA apparently does not.

Yes, well thank you for your help. I would get BF3 for my PC if my PC didn't svck like hell and I would get a new one if I didn't just spend $1,200 on a new TV. So I guess I'll be getting it for either Xbox or PS3.

Besides, since all 3 versions are basically the same, I'm sure I won't notice the missing 40 players.

Well, I stand corrected. I didn't realize what MAG was in the OP's first post. I just looked at some screen shots and that's just insane. The most I ever had on a server was 56 during a BF2 game and the admins had to "tweak" some things on the server to get that to work properly (PC).

Of course, I haven't played nay online games since BF2.

Well, in actuality, I COULD get a new PC if I convince my parents to pay for some of it (since I'm a kid, they probably will) but then I'd have like no money left in the bank

Honestly though, BFBC2 is my most fond online experience, so if BF3 is anything like it, it will be no short of amazing. I also don't really like PC games for some reason- I just like to relax in front of a giant TV and I also really like the Xbox and PS3 community more than Steam. So I guess I won't be missing much except 40 more players at once.

Wouldn't have to settle for less if they would have just created separate, dedicated BF3 servers on both consoles, much like MAG did on the PS3. You'd easily see the 64 cap preserved on each system. But nooo, that would cost more money and everyone knows EA has major financial issues. :rolleyes:

Yeahz but whatever lol BF3 is BF3 is BF3 whether on PC, PS3, or XBOX, but like I said, no one will notice they got shafted on the consoles.

Frontlines: Fuel of War released in 2008 could handle 50 players and that is with old tech I am pretty sure they can handle 64. Then again why is having a ton of players make it better, sure you may argue realism but I think Battlefield 3 won't be realistic. Also , just because one developer said something you shouldn't believe it is true. I know how some console users are angry at time how they don't have modding tools and other things pcs have but it is their fault in a way. A good modern gaming pc costs more than consoles . You know why there is millions with consoles because a $200 consoles is in more reach to people and more manageable to more people. Personally I think DICE is wrong with their comment and might not of wanted to have all versions to have 64 players. They have never done that on a console so who knows but I still think your dead wrong about the 64 players thing though.

Objection! Steam's PC game deals are often so good, you'd get better deals getting new digital copies on that than used copies of six month old console games. PC hardware costs more, but the gaming costs way less.

What I can't wait to see is what DICE is gonna do with the extra parts of the map they cut out to for the console versions. Are they gonna use the extra parts as new maps for the consoles? Are they gonna just scrap them?

Oh yea forgot making the pc is the expensive part.
I don't use steam much.

Someone read my above post lol