Gaming Daily: Was 64-Players Right For BATTLEFIELD 4 On Next-gen?

By  | 

For a second lets forget the fact that EA Digital Illusions CE (DICE) royally screwed up launching Battlefield 4, not only on next-gen platforms Xbox One and PS4, but also on current-gen and PC! I get it. It’s tough for developers to adapt to new technology and innovate at the same time, but a finished product should be that, FINISHED.


OK, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, let me explain why 64 players wasn’t particularly the right choice for Battlefield 4, but I understand why they made it. This new generation of consoles are focused on maintaining the same level of graphical innovation as their PC-counterpart, something that wasn’t possible with the last generation. Now that the architecture of both consoles are similar to that of a PC, it would be easier for developers to make games and allow them to create more possibilities. That is where the 64 player servers come in.

The Xbox One and PS4 are capable of delivering that large server experience as the PC version of the game and that was a major selling point for buying the game on next-gen consoles, at least for me it was. I got Battlefield 3 on PC back in 2011, because it gave me a better experience. I didn’t want to run around looking for one person in a 24 player server. I wanted that all-out-warfare 64-player experience; but now with Battlefield 4, that disparity between map size and amount of players has been remedied. I find the 32-player Obliteration game types better than 64-player Conquest Large on next-gen consoles.

Here are a few short reasons why I prefer the smaller experience on console: FPS drops are too frequent; standard maps are too small and overcrowded; I’m playing with a controller after all, not a 3200dpi gaming mouse and keyboard; and finally, it’s a console, it’s not meant to mimic the experience of PC, but more adapt the innovation to fit the console audience. 64 players on Battlefield 4 feels more like a congested domination server in Call of Duty than a spread out, war game like the PC version.

Do you agree or disagree? I may have a missed a point or two, but I think I’d rather not prolong a frivolous debate.

**Reminder: Industry news coverage resumes on January 1st. Happy holidays!**
  • Exposed

    Battlefield is a casual FPS game. The competitive community is relatively weak due to this reason. Using BF3 as an example, many of the pros were discouraged at how quickly the competitive community dwindled. Its just the nature of the game. It tries to provide an arcadey war-like experience. Its not trying to be a competitive arena shooter. Dice has made this clear. Anything can be competitive…spitting, thumb wars, whatever…just like Battlefield CAN BE. But BF is not built on competitive principles like say CS/Quake/UT, etc. Now on to your trolling….

    BF should never have been released on consoles if it wasn’t 64 players? Its one game mode—Conquest Large. Is the author of this article serious or just trolling for attention? Does he realize that the majority of PC gamers (according to a Steam survey) are running on hardware that is weaker than the “next-gen” consoles? If the majority of PC gamers have the ability to join 64 player servers, then consoles should be able too as well since the hardware indicates so.

    Gaming mouse and keyboard? LOL. Battlefield is an iron-sights shooter, not a point and click like Quake/CS/UT. Its a game based on objectives with movement being a priority.

    “Console audience”? Beg your pardon? The COD competitive community has been on XBox. Halo used to be one of the strongest competitive communities in modern FPS games. And according to studies, the average console gamer actually plays games for longer periods of time in a sitting than PC gamers. So I don’t quite understand what you are saying. Besides Counter-Strike and RTS games, what exactly is the PC audience showing its devotion to? Battlefield 3’s competitive community died in a heartbeat. It was sad and unfortunate seeing all the “pros” say how the game was quickly dying.

    You fail.

    • BerryJesus

      This was amazing. Completely agree.

  • Michael Clanton

    dont agree, game is fine for 64 players, you do not have to play 64 players, but why take away or not have the option…another dumb article

  • godlike1

    no it should be less.. less players the more other parts can get more love..and its more stable…. lets hope the next game has less players… if people want huge servers they can simply buy the PC version

  • Bruno Espirito Santo

    This guy is hillarious! xD

  • luke

    Yuup! I hate the congested 64 player conquest experience. I hope they add good ole 24 player conquest soon