Battlefield

[speedfreak19]

Hi guys

I think it is unfair that PS3 gamers have a player cap of 24 players per map compared to 64 on PC. Of course PC gamers deserve that many, but I think we should get at least 32, especially seeing as MAG offers up to 256 per map, and that BF3 will have to compete with MW3 for sales...

So... Please sign this petion if you want more players per map on consoles for Battlefield 3:

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/moreplayersforbf3

Please spread this to other console forums (like the offcial XBOX 360 forums if you also have a LIVE account) so that we can get as many signatures as possible to make DICE rethink their decision

Thanks

[eltonkev]

no offence but its a waste of time,i doubt very much that player numbers for consoles will be changed

[mystic_teacup]

24 seems pathetic, I got bored with that many on BFBC2 when I was just running through what felt like a wasteland most of the time after I died to get back to the action

[InfiniteStates]

It will be a memory restriction of the machine - you can thank destruction 2.0 for that. It chews memory.

A petition won't increase RAM.

[mont348]

The Ps3 is more than capable of large player servers trouble is MP has a shorter life on console games thanks to trophies/acheivements.

Games with large player servers always end up being too big with too few players on console games so after the trophy ho's have moved on i think 24 players will be fine.

[FightingFirst]

If you want 64 players buy a PC, thats what im doing. If not you will just have to stay with 6 yr old hardware. 

Also, you mention MAG, have you looked at the graphics and physics of the game. Destruction etc puts strain on a console meaning you have less rooms for other things.

As you can see below 5-6 year old hardware is not good enough. The ps3 is dated and old and in need of a new console.

Also look at this:

http://twitter.com/#!/Demize99/status/47578350973235201

and

http://twitter.com/#!/Demize99/status/47578350973235201

and

http://twitter.com/#!/locust9/status/47574346042056704

and

Originally Posted by Patrick Bach

“It’s more CPU, memory and bandwidth actually,” answered Bach when gamerzines asked him why console versions of Battlefield 3 were limited to 24 players, compared to the 64 available on PC.
“What would you like to cut based on that? We don’t want to cut any of the lighting, the animation system, the destruction or the vehicles, so we keep all that and then we stay where we were with Battlefield: Bad Company 2 with 24 players.
“Personally I think that worked fine,” he continued. “Maybe it would be better with more but that’s not always the case.”

---

[InfiniteStates]

IMO it's not a big deal - it just means you'll only have 10 snipers on your team instead of 14

[Occident]

I'd like it to have the full servers that the PC is getting but at the end of the day DICE aren't cutting back the console version just for the hell of it.

PS3 doesn't have the hardware capable of running the Frostbite engine and hosting huge servers at the same time, not without completely removing the destructable environments and downgrading the graphics.

So console owners get the stripped down version or nothing.

[nerdlegend]

Think the PS3 could take more players.....32
Real issue is cost for the servers

[tricky201]

If they could have 32 players they would.  Server cost doesn't come into it as they host them anyway.

PC's are just running with much newer tech.