Battlefield 3 announced, is superior on PC.

[Losonti Tokash]

You know that Allegiance had 100 player games as early as 2000, right?

Was allegiance a game running on a 6 year old console that attempted to have graphics competing with all of the big boys at the time and render destructible environments? E.A. is trying to get the game to look as good as the Modern Warfare series (the main competitor to BC2, arguably), while providing destructibility, while running on the same hardware.

You can't argue in good faith that console hardware limitations aren't holding them back on this one. The only reason the PC version is getting the huge playercount is because it has so much more power to work with, as a platform, so it can have the graphics, destructibility and huge maps / high playercount all running simultaneously without a problem.

No, Allegiance was a game running on 12-13 year old technology that managed to have relatively lag-free matches of 50v50 in an era where most people still had dial-up (to the point where the game had a voice chat command that apologized for being dropped by your ISP). The gameplay concept was arguably even more complicated than BF2, since the game is pretty much an RTS where all your units are controlled by other players, as opposed to a half-organized deathmatch game.

Nevermind that currently the game that has the highest server populations outside of an MMO is ON CONSOLES, and arguably even the console that is least capable of doing so. And yet MAG has 128v128 matches, while the biggest I see on PC is, uh, 32v32.

At any rate, the whole point is that Shep is all "well you can't have high player counts with existing technology because blah blah blah" when it's been done bigger back when I was in middle school, for chrissake.

[MKSheppard]

No, Allegiance was a game running on 12-13 year old technology that managed to have relatively lag-free matches of 50v50 in an era where most people still had dial-up (to the point where the game had a voice chat command that apologized for being dropped by your ISP). The gameplay concept was arguably even more complicated than BF2, since the game is pretty much an RTS where all your units are controlled by other players, as opposed to a half-organized deathmatch game.

Is this the Space fighter sim/RTS by Microsoft I'm thinking of? Great example there, given that space is...vast expanses of nothing.

[Losonti Tokash]

Which is relevant to you saying that large game populations aren't achievable on 5 year old hardware...somehow? It's not like I just gave an example of something with almost twice as many people as anything out on PC right now, and the existence of MAG, which you apparently didn't see fit to acknowledge.

[Steel]

Memory will have absolutely no bearing on the number of players you can have in the game. Consider how little information it takes to characterise a player:

Position is x=blahblah.blayblah, y=blahblah.blayblah, z=blahblah.blayblah
Facing is number1 number2
velocity is velocityX, velocityY, velocityZ
Equipped with a pointed stick, seven backup sticks, a frag grenade
Yet more equipment...
...
...
...

Now if we take that TEXT (being generous and call it 1000 characters) then it is an almighty 1kb. We've completely characterised all the information about a player in literally the least efficient possible form in less than 1kb. Obviously if we were sending a packet of properly encoded binary data then we're going to have to deal with vastly less than that.

I don't think the fact that consoles can only store 256,000 players to the PCs 4,000,000 really has any bearing on the designers choice of player numbers.

That said, I don't own any consoles. Mouse forever, all hail the master race!

[Mr Bean]

Memory will have absolutely no bearing on the number of players you can have in the game. Consider how little information it takes to characterise a player:

Position is x=blahblah.blayblah, y=blahblah.blayblah, z=blahblah.blayblah
Facing is number1 number2
velocity is velocityX, velocityY, velocityZ
Equipped with a pointed stick, seven backup sticks, a frag grenade
Yet more equipment...
...
...
...

Now if we take that TEXT (being generous and call it 1000 characters) then it is an almighty 1kb. We've completely characterised all the information about a player in literally the least efficient possible form in less than 1kb. Obviously if we were sending a packet of properly encoded binary data then we're going to have to deal with vastly less than that.

I don't think the fact that consoles can only store 256,000 players to the PCs 4,000,000 really has any bearing on the designers choice of player numbers.

That said, I don't own any consoles. Mouse forever, all hail the master race!

I'm not going to touch most of it except to note that trying to game while updating only once a second can be done, in fact you can do it if you'd like in an old game like counterstrike via console commands and if you try it you'll find the game is un playable mess with your constantly telporting back and forth as your computer argues with the server about exactly where you are with your computer say I'm at X 50, Y 60 Z 95 and the server saying no your last update was X 40 Y 60 Z 100 as your computer displays what you want to do VS what the server knows you did. In a turn based game you can get away with much fewer updates per second. But in a twitch game the updates must come more than once a second. A shit ton of stuff can happen in one second.


Your not updating once a second your updating thirty times a second. So even under your assumption not 1kb but 30 kb a second. Except it's not 1kb because that's not all that's being communicated. You are not communicating your position but communicating YOUR ACTIONS. Why? Because if you just communicated your position then cheating would be easy as hell. Every update you must transmit what your doing (Which is movement + firing + view angle + exact location)

So not 1kb every update but much more than that times number of updates per second. The server takes what you are doing (In this case the server is another Xbox 360) plus what it is doing plus what all other 22 other players are doing and combines them taking all of the various packets and combines them together and caculates out who shot who where when and what your looking at, what you can hear and what animations it should be playing now.

And I'm not sure of your aware of this but that 512 megs of ram is not free just for networking it also has to be used by the Xbox 360 OS, by the game itself (Need to load local assets) as well as pre-fetching since it has to act as cache as well. The problem is that 512 is being thrashed pretty hard by most Xbox 360 games as it is and now your adding net code on top of that.
The PS3 is in a different but similar boat.

[adam_grif]

At any rate, the whole point is that Shep is all "well you can't have high player counts with existing technology because blah blah blah" when it's been done bigger back when I was in middle school, for chrissake.

This exact thing was already addressed in my post. We already know you can have a thousand million billion players if you accept sufficiently shitty graphics and have no other things that are memory intensive such as destructible environments.

We've already had a direct statement from the developers that console limitations are the reasons why there's no 64 players on their version. Nitpicking Shep's posts based on the literal interpretation of it ("high player counts are not possible") as opposed to what he actually meant ("high player counts are not possible without making sacrifices in other areas") isn't really helping your position here. I strongly doubt he was intending you to interept his post in the way that you are.

Memory will have absolutely no bearing on the number of players you can have in the game. Consider how little information it takes to characterise a player:

Small strings of text (with a few additional bits of overhead as Bean mentions) is all you need to transmit via the net to get the game to work, but that's not all that goes on in memory. I've already adressed the point that destructible environments and graphics eats memory for breakfast, but accommodating higher player counts means larger levels, which is more memory intensive if you're maintaining a given level of graphical fidelity, and every character in the environment does not only exist as a string of text, but as a modeled and textured character, with a series of animations and so forth. This is not cheap in memory terms. Your average shooter has trouble rendering 20 enemies on screen, if you cram 50 players into a tight space and force them to be drawn all simultaneously you'll run into huge issues with framerate slowdowns.

[xthetenth]

I wonder how the maps will be handled in the console version. I'd kind of expect the areas for the larger games to be cut out totally or replaced by a bland, cheaply computed area. That'd be interesting to see just how badly the console versions need memory, whether it's actually worth the work to cut bits out or whether just shedding destruction of those sections is enough.

[GuppyShark]

That they have the balls to develop a big FPS in the Battlefield tradition without letting themselves be held back by what are now very old consoles is a fantastic improvement to the state of the art.

So... I take it you didn't read anything that's been posted in this thread? Good job.

Funny, I thought the topic was being hashed out pretty extensively.

Gameplay Designer Alan Kertz has stated that it will be unlikely that there will be a server browser for console versions of the game, and that it was purely the technical limitations of the 360 and PS3 that cut the number of online players on console from 64 to 24.

I'm honestly not sure what you think I've missed. That seems pretty clear cut. They're making a Battlefield game with no apologies about the scale. If there was an X-Box 360-II or PS4 I'm sure they'd have 64 player maps on the consoles, but there isn't so they won't.

I'm a 360 owner and I still use it, but it desperately needs an upgrade.

[xthetenth]

Is there anything anyone can come up with that could be implemented well on the PC but really couldn't on consoles other than sheer scale or graphical prettiness options in a multiplayer setting? I think BF3 is going the right route to take advantage of the PC's capabilities and there aren't really many other decent things to do. Really advanced physics that affects gameplay seems a quick trip to a desynch or huge network needs. I frankly consider either of those a good reason to play on PC, but I'm wondering if there are any good gameplay things that could really make use of more power in a multiplayer context.

[Steel]

Small strings of text (with a few additional bits of overhead as Bean mentions) is all you need to transmit via the net to get the game to work, but that's not all that goes on in memory. I've already adressed the point that destructible environments and graphics eats memory for breakfast, but accommodating higher player counts means larger levels, which is more memory intensive if you're maintaining a given level of graphical fidelity, and every character in the environment does not only exist as a string of text, but as a modeled and textured character, with a series of animations and so forth. This is not cheap in memory terms. Your average shooter has trouble rendering 20 enemies on screen, if you cram 50 players into a tight space and force them to be drawn all simultaneously you'll run into huge issues with framerate slowdowns.

Luckily, once you have one player characters textures and model data etc in memory, you have the stuff in memory for all others, so the marginal cost for any number of players is zero.

The limiting factor here isnt really memory, its the fact the consoles arent capable of rendering more stuff. Its a gpu limitation, not a memory one.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I'm honestly not sure what you think I've missed.

The fact that a game where you have 256 players on a map has been made for consoles and it's been brought up numerous times in this thread, despite this you spouted some moronic bullshit about consoles holding PCs back.

That seems pretty clear cut. They're making a Battlefield game with no apologies about the scale. If there was an X-Box 360-II or PS4 I'm sure they'd have 64 player maps on the consoles, but there isn't so they won't.

You're right, there isn't one with sixty four player maps. It's two hundred fifty six, and it's on PS3.

That's all 128 players on one side getting together to celebrate after they had run the clock out and won

[adam_grif]

Schatts apparently didn't read the last page of this thread where the developers explicitly stated that technical limitations were the reason why the console versions have smaller player counts:

[quote]Senior gameplay designer Alan Kertz explained the decision to limit the number of players on console versions, saying, “Of course, we didn’t say ‘oh console players don’t want 64 players.’ Network performance and cpu/gpu power and memory.”/quote]

[Ritterin Sophia]

Schatts apparently didn't read the last page of this thread where the developers explicitly stated that technical limitations were the reason why the console versions have smaller player counts:

Senior gameplay designer Alan Kertz explained the decision to limit the number of players on console versions, saying, “Of course, we didn’t say ‘oh console players don’t want 64 players.’ Network performance and cpu/gpu power and memory.”/quote]

Apparently you're ignoring that there's ways around that, but the PC crowd are holding gaming back by refusing to use them like they do in other games.

BTW, where's the video of you eating those components?

[adam_grif]

Apparently you're ignoring that there's ways around that, but the PC crowd are holding gaming back by refusing to use them like they do in other games.

Are you accusing Electronic Arts of deliberately gimping the console versions of this game, on the grounds that they are PC Fanboys? We already know you can get high player counts on consoles if you are willing to make compromises in other aspects of the game. We've been saying that for pages now. What you are saying is that the consoles are not holding this game back, which is factually incorrect.

BTW, where's the video of you eating those components?

Any day now.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Are you accusing Electronic Arts of deliberately gimping the console versions of this game, on the grounds that they are PC Fanboys? We already know you can get high player counts on consoles if you are willing to make compromises in other aspects of the game. We've been saying that for pages now. What you are saying is that the consoles are not holding this game back, which is factually incorrect.

Yes, that is exactly what I am accusing you and that fucker of! Consoles are capable of 64, 128, 256 player counts. It's right fucking there for the god damn world to see and I keep challenging you to address it. You have yet to name a single handicap that MAG makes in order to get those player counts, but yet still here we are.

I keep hearing you morons go on about how 'consoles are holding gaming back' but when you actually take a look it's a console game that pushed the envelope. You sit here masturbating about how EA is pushing forward with 64 player counts despite the handicaps of consoles, but what you're too much of a bunch of hypocrites to see in your blind idiocy is that we've already surpassed that on the console.

Where in the flying fuck are the 256-player/map PC Shooters?

[Mr Bean]

Yes, that is exactly what I am accusing you and that fucker of! Consoles are capable of 64, 128, 256 player counts. It's right fucking there for the god damn world to see and I keep challenging you to address it. You have yet to name a single handicap that MAG makes in order to get those player counts, but yet still here we are.

Mag servers are not PS3 based but run off independent servers. The same servers that other MMO's use, IE PC based rack servers that run everything from APB and Everquest to Final Fantasy XI/XIV to World of Warcraft. You example is shit because the PS3 is not hosting MAG games. That's being done by independent servers because of... CONSOLE LIMITATIONS!

The Xbox 360 had 600 man servers if you count the fact that you can buy Final Fantasy XI and run around in the base cities with that many people populating the streets at peak hours. Except you can't because like MAG the game is not being hosted by your Console but by PC based servers. Surprise fucking surprise, the 24 man limit exists not because the people at MAG are geniuses and everyone else is idiots but because both the PS3 and Xbox 360 top out at being able to play the game AND host the game for that many people at the same time. The Xbox/PS 4 will likely will get pushed to 32 players if not 64 come the next hardware revision when it happens in three years or so.

Where in the flying fuck are the 256-player/map PC Shooters?

Planetside, APB, War Rock, Global Agenda and Fallen Earth with player counts from 80 per server all the way up to 512 depending on the game.
APB is technically a 600 player game due to NPC's which are handled mostly identically to PC's minus the ability to fight back so their cars and actions were handled the same as PC's which generated a based lag which is why beta APB had 200 per district (IE server) but as NPC's were added in they had to scale that back which is a shame because the districts were a lot more interesting with 200 players running around them.

[Losonti Tokash]

Wait, what the hell? It's fine for PC games to use dedicated servers for matches but the second a console does it it's because the technology is gimped?

[Mr Bean]

Wait, what the hell? It's fine for PC games to use dedicated servers for matches but the second a console does it it's because the technology is gimped?

Umm yes? Because if I so wish I could build such a server myself for under 500$? Or my own computer which can host and run at the same time a 64 player server easily? It's only when you push past 100 players you need to look into building a PC specifically for hosting duties. And not a super expensive PC either.

See it's not a PC limitation to expect to be able to host a 128 man game and play on the same computer at the same time if you want to shell out enough money. But if you want to host only it's quite possible to run 128 man servers as Project Reality on the BF2 engine has been proving for some time now and was proven way back at launch when vanilla BF2 had 128 man servers before the 1.1 Patch axed the ability to push past 64 players and it was engine hard coded.

But you can't push past 24 on consoles currently unless you cheat and have a PC do it for you.

That's the whole damn point on why Shatten's point was laughable, SEE SEE CONSOLES GOT 256 Player servers so there! Except... you know it's a PC playing hosting duties because the consoles can't.

[adam_grif]

I think the point he was making was actually that it doesn't matter if they're "cheating" to get the extra players with PCs because they are still there and the relative enjoyment of a game is not based on whether or not the servers are being run on the same system you are playing the game with.

[Losonti Tokash]

Bean, are you seriously suggesting that if a console uses something other than another console as the host server, that it is by definition inferior to a PC version doing the exact same thing? You've said some pretty amazingly stupid shit in this thread, but you continue to exceed my every expectation.

I mean, holy shit. Multiple people directly address the idiotic notion that consoles can't have 64 player game by pointing out MAG which has higher player counts than anything outside of MMOs (and is on the console less able to actually handle huge player counts, even), and Bean whines that they're cheating by using dedicated servers to host the matches, just like every other online FPS.

[xthetenth]

Bean, are you seriously suggesting that if a console uses something other than another console as the host server, that it is by definition inferior to a PC version doing the exact same thing? You've said some pretty amazingly stupid shit in this thread, but you continue to exceed my every expectation.

I think what he's getting at is that it cuts into the argument that consoles are crazy cheap if someone has to lay out the money for a server, instead of having a computer that can both host and play at the same time, and that requiring a standalone server is a relative weakness. It is nice not having to worry about having a specific server, and just being able to pick up and play instead of being chained to a limited list of servers.


Personally, I think the thing is that BC2 and BF3 use the console's resources differently than MAG. Sure, you can get a lot of players, but does MAG have the destroyable terrain and the like? Because the destruction in BC2 is as central as the player count in MAG, so it just seems like a different use of resources to make different key gameplay elements work. Sure, the consoles can only handle 24 players, but that's in the context of a battlefield game, where players bring a large overhead of bigger maps with destroyable elements and vehicles and so on.

[Losonti Tokash]

I think what he's getting at is that it cuts into the argument that consoles are crazy cheap if someone has to lay out the money for a server, instead of having a computer that can both host and play at the same time, and that requiring a standalone server is a relative weakness. It is nice not having to worry about having a specific server, and just being able to pick up and play instead of being chained to a limited list of servers.

You mean the same money that gets laid out for a dedicated server for PC players to use also? Which has precisely zero impact on the cost for the players?

And is that last comment a dig at playing on consoles as compared to PC? Where I literally hit two buttons and I'm in a game as opposed to digging through a huge fuck off list and trying to find one without shit lag and more than 2 players in a server?

[Mr Bean]

Bean, are you seriously suggesting that if a console uses something other than another console as the host server, that it is by definition inferior to a PC version doing the exact same thing? You've said some pretty amazingly stupid shit in this thread, but you continue to exceed my every expectation.

Console limitation full stop
The only people who have called the consoles inferior are you and Griff both, search the thread. The word I have used in every circumstance is Console limitation. As in they can't do it on their own, they have a limitation they can not get around on their own

When Shatten points to proof that MAG demonstrates the 24 player limit is NOT a console limitation I respond by pointing out the fact that in fact the MAG game producers got around that very limitation by using PC's to run their mulitplayer. There is no shame in that but you can't use it as an example of how Console games can run 256 player games. Because they can't, they are not what's doing the work that's the point. It does not make consoles worse it's just a non-point in Console's favor. Your not in a pure console environment anymore it's not a point in consoles favor that PC's are great at running 256 man matches.

This entire thread has been a long exercise in people saying in essence "OH YEAH?" or trying to justify the 24 player limit as a design decision instead of a hard physical limit of the existing console hardware. Where I have put down consoles have been in two contexts, in their inability to run the big maps with large player counts that the Battlefield series deserves, in their complete and total lack of mod or mapping support. Both of those are horrible in a Battlefield context.

A little background here, I played Battlefield 1942 for a full year after release it was that great a game, with mod support it was a game I played on a weekly basis in Desert Combat and Forgotten Hope for four and half years. Battlefield 2 I played for six full months before giving up on it for a year, Project Reality and Forgotten Hope 2 brought me back and I'm still playing the game at least once a week three years later. Bad Company 2 by contrast while a great multiplayer game lasted less than three months on my hard drive. Just long enough for me to unlock every weapon and get sick of the fact that new maps and mods were impossible because of EA/DICE's console focus on the original game and it's sequel.

I mean, holy shit. Multiple people directly address the idiotic notion that consoles can't have 64 player game by pointing out MAG which has higher player counts than anything outside of MMOs (and is on the console less able to actually handle huge player counts, even), and Bean whines that they're cheating by using dedicated servers to host the matches, just like every other online FPS.

Console's can't have 64 player games on their own Losonti. That's the bloody point I've been making since post 1. It's a console limitation they must work around, the 24 player limit. End of line.

[xthetenth]

I think what he's getting at is that it cuts into the argument that consoles are crazy cheap if someone has to lay out the money for a server, instead of having a computer that can both host and play at the same time, and that requiring a standalone server is a relative weakness. It is nice not having to worry about having a specific server, and just being able to pick up and play instead of being chained to a limited list of servers.

You mean the same money that gets laid out for a dedicated server for PC players to use also? Which has precisely zero impact on the cost for the players?

See it's not a PC limitation to expect to be able to host a 128 man game and play on the same computer at the same time if you want to shell out enough money. But if you want to host only it's quite possible to run 128 man servers as Project Reality on the BF2 engine has been proving for some time now and was proven way back at launch when vanilla BF2 had 128 man servers before the 1.1 Patch axed the ability to push past 64 players and it was engine hard coded.

Personally I think he overestimates the cost, for PR it seemed to play nice with just a core 2 quad on the host's box, and those start at not too expensive. Naturally a quick connection was needed, but it wasn't that bad at all.

And is that last comment a dig at playing on consoles as compared to PC? Where I literally hit two buttons and I'm in a game as opposed to digging through a huge fuck off list and trying to find one without shit lag and more than 2 players in a server?

It's a dig at playing a game on consoles that use a server to host as compared to PC, or more specifically hosting your own game. Considering that for MAG's network architecture, the first step for hosting a game of MAG is "Buy a server" or at least have a computer pretty damn close to being able to game on its own (if that even works, not familiar with their server provisions), as compared to, say, Project Reality where it's a matter of downloading a Host program, I'd say that the PC handles extreme player counts a lot better than consoles.

And is that last comment a dig at playing on PC as opposed to consoles? Where I have the same two button option on modern games, as well as the option to go through everything available with a fuck off list of filters to find the game I actually want? Shit, the last game I played without a find a game for me option or the ability to join friends' games quickly and easily with serious server counts, it was Red Orchestra.

[Sarevok]

Assuming that network conditions are the only thing that dictates the maximum number of players is a fallacy. I do not know much about the Frostbite engine but from this source it does seem like bloated. It could be a problem with the game engine itself.